1986-03-13

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Twenty-Third Report of the Selection Committee. If the House gives its unanimous consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.


SELECTION-TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour of tabling the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Selection Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: I believe Hon. Members know that the rules require that the report be read. I am told that the report is quite long. Would it be reasonable to dispense with the reading of the entire report?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting but 1 want to make sure that the rules are well understood. If we are not going to read it, will it be printed in its entirety?


Mr. Speaker:: That is understood, of course. The only request was that we save time by not reading the report.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It may sometimes serve our purpose to go through that reading.


Mr. Speaker:: That is why it requires unanimous consent.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Before we proceed with petitions, I must once again remind Hon. Members that petitions must be certified as to form and content before they can be presented to the House.
Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) presented a three-page petition that had been certified and was in order. However, it was accompanied by two boxes of additional signatures which had not formed part of the petition which had been certified. This additional material was, therefore, out of order and has been returned to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of constituents from my riding of Grey-Simcoe, particularly from the City of Owen Sound, who are deeply concerned that the Harbord Street abortion clinic in Toronto still remains open in blatant disregard and defiance of the law and want to see this clinic and all such clinics which take human lives closed.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House on behalf of 39 residents of my riding of Oxford. My constituents 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. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Brooksby, Saskatchewan who ask Parliament to ask Canada Post not to close the Post Office because it would greatly affect this rural community.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When petitions were being presented yesterday, it occurred to me that if the Table were to keep a record of the petitions that it certified and provided you with a set list, you might be in a better position to determine whether they were certified as they were presented.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two problems. First, we may have a list of Members who have petitions that have been certified but we have no way of knowing whether it is that petition a Member is presenting when he rises.

March 13, 1986
Motions
Second, we now have quite a long list of Members who have certified petitions but we have no idea of what day on which that Member will rise.
The procedural difficulty we face is not knowing, on the spot, or in advance, whether a Member is presenting a certified petition. The Chair can only remind Members of the obligation to have petitions certified, and frankly hope that the message will get through by pointing out when petitions have not been certified. I thank the Hon. Member for his contribution.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-284, An Act respecting Defective Motor Vehicles and to enact the Canadian Lemon Law.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, in a way this is an historic occasion because the Bill 1 have presented to the House of Commons enacts Canada's first lemon law. A lemon law is an enactment that defines a lemon as a motor vehicle that, through continuous defects and malfunction, is useless for the purpose for which it was intended.
The object of the law is to provide the purchaser with a remedy, namely, the right to return to the motor vehicle for a refund of the purchase price.


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


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), that the Twenty-Third Report of the Selection Committee tabled in the House earlier today be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) to present this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

O)

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members are aware that the House has been operating in accordance with previous standing orders in relation to Private Members' Business until now.

The reason for this is that a special order of the House adopted on Friday, February 14, 1986 provided for the new Provisional Standing Orders to take effect on the day following the adoption of the report of the Striking Committee. [English]
Since the Striking Committee report has now been concurred in, notice for the Draw for an order of precedence will be sent to all Members who have items on the Order Paper. Once the Order of Precedence is established, the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business is required to select not more than six items which shall be designated as "votable items".

Until the Committee makes its report to the House, the business of Private Members is subject to the provision of Standing Order 37.

Accordingly, after today-I repeat, after today-there will be no Private Members' Business and the House shall continue with Government Orders until the report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business is deemed adopted by the House.



Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties. Accordingly, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, a disposition to allow the following motion to be received with unanimous consent and to be passed without debate:
That the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration be empowered to investigate possible means of streamlining immigration policies and procedures for reunifying families, and in particular.
March 13, 1986

1.	to examine the sources and historical patterns of family class immigration, by component;
2.	to identify and assess the procedures, by the various departments and agencies that are involved in family class processing, and examine the co-ordination of those functions;
3.	to recommend strategies for shortening family class processing durations by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the family class processing system; and
4.	to recommend, where desirable, changes in procedures in order to streamline the reunification of families;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the Committee, or members of the Committee, as the case may be; and That the Committee submit its final report to the House of Commons no later than May 30, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been further discussions, and I had a longer motion to present but I have reduced it slightly. I am sure you will find a disposition to receive this motion by unanimous consent and have it passed, not only without debate but with great elation:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. Monday, March 17, 1986.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be on the record that we are agreeing to this motion in order to enable our Progressive Conservative colleagues to attend their national convention which begins tomorrow. Our agreement is also on the understanding that a similar courtesy will be extended to the Liberal Party when we have our national convention next November.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: I had not intended to say a word. I thought my colleague might have indicated a similar courtesy to be extended to either or both Opposition Parties should such be requested. 1 just hope the Government can come up with a better policy at the convention than it has now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, for someone who has decided
to quit politics, I do not know whether I should take his advice,
but I wish him all the best in civilian life.
Order Paper Questions


Ian Deans: I'm not leaving today. Give me a break.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a serious note, Mr. Speaker. The point is well taken with respect to the House Leader of the Official Opposition and also the first part of the remarks of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. We are certainly prepared to accord a similar arrangement to the Opposition Parties. In fact, I point out that we adjourned on the last sitting day of June, 1985, in order to allow the New Democratic Party to attend its particular annual meeting, and look what it did for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 361 will be answered today.


Mr. Waddell: Between February 23 and March 8, 1985, did the Minister of Communications take a Jetstar flight from Ottawa at 6.35 p.m. and arrive in Vancouver at 9.55 p.m. and. if so (a) on what date (b) who accompanied him and what (i) was his/her name (ii) positions did or do they hold?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: 1. Yes. The Minister of Communications travelled by Government aircraft from Ottawa to Vancouver via Winnipeg
(a)	on February 6, 1985, departing Ottawa at 1835 hours, arriving in Vancouver at 055 hours Ottawa time.
(b)	The Minister was accompanied by:
Mme Masse
Mr. de Montigny Marchand	Deputy Minister, DOC
Mr. Charles McGee	Director
Federal/Provincial Relations Branch, DOC
Mr. Greg Wyrick
Writer, DGIS

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
Ms. Patricia Finlay	Policy Advisor
Cultural Affairs Minister's Office
Mr. James McDonald	Director
Education, Culture and Tourism Division,
Statistics Canada


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, 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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to resume my remarks which were so rudely interrupted by the five o'clock whistle a couple of days ago. We are talking about Bill C-99, introduced by the Government to request borrowing authority for some $22.6 billion so that it can carry on what it calls its "program".
I want to be very clear about our opposition to the Government's program because 1 do not believe that that program at all serves the interests of the country. We see that very clearly in the kind of Budget which was presented two weeks ago. It is a Budget which completely fails to deal with the staggering problem of unemployment. British Columbia has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed people anywhere in Canada. Victoria, British Columbia, which is represented by two Conservative Members of Parliament-one of whom is in the House-has the highest unemployment of any major metropolitan centre in Canada. This Budget completely fails to address that situation and I outlined some of those concerns when I last spoke.
In addition, the Budget loads unfair tax burdens on ordinary Canadians. That means it is taking money, not only out of their pockets but out of their communities, which will have a further depressing effect upon local economies.
When I previously spoke I referred to our goals for official development assistance. I pointed out that the Government had now reneged a third time on its goal for an Official Development Assistance Program. We will not now reach the goal of 0.7 per cent of our GNP for official development assistance until the twenty-first century. On February 28, after this was announced, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) called a meeting of the ambassadors of different nations to Canada and attempted to explain. He tried to put the situation into perspective by saying:
-our deficit in four or five days was comparable to the total yearly GNP of Lesotho. In a month, it was about equal to the combined GNPs of Liberia. Mauritania, and South Yemen. And in a year, using figures from the lastcst World Development Report, it amounted to the combined total GNPs of Chad. Ethiopia, Mali, Zaire, Malawi, Burkina Fasso, Burundi, Tanzania, Rwanda. Benin, Guinea, Togo and Sierra Leone.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs was attempting to justify Canada's cut-backs in its goals for ODA by saying that our deficit was as great as the yearly GNPs of all these nations combined. Somehow he seemed to feel that that justified these cut-backs. I would like to say that it is quite to the contrary.
The fact that these nations have such small GNPs should underline for all Canadians the desperate needs which they have for development assistance. For us to cut back in the face of that type of need is nothing short of criminal. It underlines the reason why our aid is needed and why we have to move as quickly as possible to the stated goal of 0.7 per cent of our GNP right away instead of postponing it to the 21st century. We do not want to see a repetition of the famine in vast parts of Africa which we saw in 1983, 1984 and 1985.
There were warnings with respect to that famine. Action could have been taken in time to have averted a great deal of the tragedy. But countries such as Canada were too slow to move. We have to move more quickly. By cutting back in our goal for ODA we are removing the capability of our development agency to move and prevent future crises such as this. These cuts prohibit further action. It seems we will have to wait until there is some future crisis. We will then step in and wonder why we did not take action earlier.
I wish to stress that development assistance is not a frill but a necessity to world security. The cut-backs which we have seen in our goals will ultimately perform a disservice, not only to the needy people of the world but to Canadians, since our security depends upon a world which is free from the hunger, want and underdevelopment which characterizes so much of it today.
I wish to say a few words about programs for Indian people because the Government is completely failing to meet their needs. Just a few days ago an article in The Globe and Mail pointed out that the Yukon Indian Development Corporation had been denied its application for funding under the Native Economic Development Program after 18 months of foot-dragging by the Government. It was clear that the reason they were denied the funding was a letter written by the Hon. Member
March 13, 1986

for Yukon, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), who wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) asking that the project be shelved. He said: "This matter should receive no further consideration at this time."
When we look at the Estimates for the coming year we see that there will be a cut of some $25 million to the Economic Development Fund in 1986-87. The Conservatives are as good as anyone else at deploring the terrible conditions which exist on Indian reserves. Yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development acknowledged that conditions on Indian reserves are deplorable. Yet the Government brings in Estimates which cut by some $25 million the Economic Development Fund, the very thing which Indian communities need in order to get out of the welfare dependency trap.
The Nielsen task force report deals with native programs. It is a report which breathes a very mean spirit. It is completely ignorant of the real situation facing Indians, the Inuit and the Metis people of Canada. It is a report which was obviously written from a Bay Street perspective. It breathes a bottomline mentality. It shows no awareness of the needs of Indian people. It talks about user pay for standards. It talks about minimal standards for small bands, in terms of housing and community infrastructure. It admits that in having these minimal standards less than minimal standards for health will result. What type of situation have we when this type of report can even be tabled in the House of Commons in the year 1986? How can we even begin to consider recommendations which talk about less than minimal standards for health for our native people? We are talking about the year 1986 and not the year 1786.
Just last week I heard tragic news concerning four young teen-agers who were burnt to death in a fire in the Kitimat Indian village. I have particular feelings with respect to this matter since I spent four years living in that village. I married the parents of some of those young people.
The fact is that what happened in Kitimat is not unique to Kitimat but is endemic among Indian villages all over Canada. The federal Fires Commissioner said last week that Indian homes are time bombs just waiting to explode. He said that every year, on average, some 12 Indian people lose their lives in Indian communities as a result of fire. Yet, we have a report tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister which talks about minimal standards for Indian housing and minimal standards for community infrastructure. How can we consider that when we see this type of tragic loss of life?
The Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish) when he was in opposition two or three years ago conducted a study of some of the needs of Indian communities in terms of fire protection. I remember him taking his study and passing pictures around showing some of the deplorable conditions in Indian communities and in Indian homes. The photos depicted some of the fire traps in which Indian people have to live. 1 urge Members opposite to consult their colleague and ask him to dig out this file in order to show them some of these pictures of Indian homes which are nothing more than fire traps. I would then ask them to go to the
Borrowing Authority Act
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and say: "We will not stand for these types of conditions on Indian reserves. We want to see things better".
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have given the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) an extra two minutes. The time allotted for questions and comments will be limited to eight minutes. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague. As he knows, I was a representative on the Government delegation which went to Nairobi last summer to the Decade of Women Conference. At that time I must say that I was proud that Canada put forward motions and provided leadership with respect to increasing development funds, particularly funds which are so urgently needed for women and children in Third World countries. We now see that the Government is going back on its own commitment. We signed resolutions to improve conditions for women. I hope that we would show some real leadership. I would like the Hon. Member to comment further in this respect.
It seems to me that this is a serious matter. Cutting these programs means that Canada is condemning women and children in Third World countries to die earlier, or to barely survive under appalling living conditions, much less have any opportunities for moving toward equality.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would elaborate somewhat further on the subject to which I know he has such a deep commitment. I hope Members of the House will listen. I refer to the question of what the Government is doing and not doing for native people in Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is quite right when she refers to the Canadian commitment to development assistance. Canada does not have such a bad record when one compares Canada with other nations. However, it is not that good. There are a number of other nations which are doing much better than is Canada in this regard. However, we are not that bad.
What I wish to emphasize is that we are not living up to the commitment which we made. I refer to the commitment we made to the needy people of the world. It is not just a Conservative promise to the people of Canada which the Government is breaking, but a commitment of Canada's people made through our representatives, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This is a commitment he made to the needy people of our world. We are going back on that commitment.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East referred to the situation of women and children throughout the world. We can look to the fact that in Africa, for example, some 90 per cent of the agricultural work is done by women. Yet we are cutting back on the support that is being given to Africa. We are cutting back on programs that could help provide safe, potable

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
water that will reduce disease. We are cutting back on health facilities and I am very concerned about that.
I am pleased to see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in the House this morning. I would like to answer the second question put by my colleague about my concern with the Government's policy with respect to Indian people. While on the one hand the Government talks about self-government, on the other it has made cut-backs to such things as economic development. There has been foot dragging and then a denial of the grant to the Yukon Native Indian Development Corporation, a corporation that was trying to get some money so it could help move its people out of this downward spiral of dependency upon welfare and grants and help them get some economic development.
I mentioned the fact that there has been a $25.5 million cut from economic development funds in the Estimates for 1986. We are not seeing anything happening there. Perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might want to comment on some of these things.
We have now seen the very mean-spirited task force report on native programs that talks about minimal standards. I do not see how a report can be tabled in the House that talks about minimal standards of housing and infrastructure, something which it acknowledges could lead to less than minimal standards of health. I do not understand how such an outrageous report could even be tabled in the House.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. As the Hon. Member knows, the task force report on Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated that the Government has created modern suburbs on Indian reserves and the Minister made somewhat of an appropriate response to that yesterday. I would like to ask my colleague what additional amounts of money he feels we should have in the borrowing authority in order to meet the requirements of Indian reserves for housing, economic development and other projects. What additional borrowings does he think would be needed each year beginning with this year in order to start doing a lot more on the Indian reserves in Canada?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. I think the Minister himself would acknowledge that there is a continuing backlog that goes back well before his time as Minister of some 10,000 houses that need to be built in Indian communities. We have been very slow at attacking that backlog. In addition to that, there is a backlog of houses that are urgently in need of repair. The Senate Committee report on youth that was just tabled talks about the fact that some 23 per cent of housing on Indian reserves is urgently in need of repair.
While I cannot give an exact figure to the Hon. Member, I would like to suggest the process that the Minister would agree, I am sure, is the process that should be followed, and that is for the Minister to meet with representatives of the Indian community to develop an appropriate budget for housing, housing repair and economic development. It should be a budget that will address the needs of the Indian people rather than the interests of a group that does not really understand what is happening to Canada's Indian people and does not understand the relationship that has existed and should exist between Canada and the Indian, Inuit and Metis people, but rather is only concerned with the bottom line. There should be a process by which the Minister would meet with Indian people to develop a proper formula that will address the needs of the Indian people, rather than the so-called needs of those with a bottom line mentality.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words with respect to Bill C-99, an Act to provide for borrowing authority. This Act provides that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), with the approval of the Governor in Council, may raise money under the Financial Administration Act by way of a loan to the extent of $22,600 million. That is an awful lot of money but, unfortunately, it is in line with the Government's requirements which came about as a result of the situation that was created through years and years of mismanagement and misspending.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have already approved in principle the Budget of February 26. This Bill is the first of a series of Bills necessary to implement the provisions of the Budget that has already been passed in principle. The principles that were set out in the 1986 Budget are the same principles as those followed in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in November 1984, and the Budget that the Minister of Finance brought down in May 1985. The Budget of 1986 and the borrowing Bill designed to implement the Budget of 1986 follow a consistent pattern of economic principles that have always been the policy and strategy of the Government since it took office in September 1984.
When the Government took office on September 4, 1984, it was faced with two gigantic and enormous conflicting problems. The first, of course, was unemployment. The unemployment rate had been in excess of 13 per cent and at that time it was 11.7 per cent, the highest unemployment rate we have had in Canada since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The unemployment rate had devastated the country and continues to be a problem. The second conflicting problem the Government faced at that time was an enormous spending deficit. Not only did it face an enormous national debt load, it faced an annual federal spending deficit which was reaching at that time $36 billion per year.
In the economic statement of November 1984, in the Budget of 1985 and again in the Budget of 1986, the Minister of Finance has adopted a delicate balance of policies which are designed to try to deal with those two conflicting problems. First, the policies have been aimed at encouraging the private sector to create jobs and to solve that enormous unemployment problem. The private sector has been utilized in this strategy as the engine of economic growth. No longer are we looking to the Government to spend money and try to create these jobs on its own, because that is virtually impossible with a spending deficit that was already in the vicinity of $36 billion. The
March 13, 1986

policies are aimed at creating a climate to encourage the private sector to create the jobs necessary to get Canada growing again.
The second prong in the consistent strategy which has been followed throughout by the Minister of Finance is of course to try to put a hold on the deficit, try to stop its growth, and try to start to cut into and reduce it. Just stopping its growth was a problem in itself. At the time the Government took office in September, 1984, we did not have a deficit that was finite and identifiable with a closed end. We had policies in place at that time which were causing the deficit to continue to grow. The Minister of Finance had to find a way to stop its growth and a way to start reducing the deficit itself. That is what all the policies since the election of 1984 have been aimed at.
Last year, in the Budget of May, 1985, the Minister of Finance spelled out policies which were designed to try to encourage the private sector to create jobs. First, he allocated S900 million for job training and for job creation. In addition, he introduced other provisions which allowed for venture capital financing of small business out of pension funds and Registered Retirement Savings Plans. Aside from that, he introduced a 100 per cent tax credit on the first $2 million of qualifying research and development activity in each year. All those measures were aimed at having the private sector expand, invest and create jobs.
At the same time in last year's Budget, the Minister introduced a series of policies which were aimed at reducing the deficit. In November, 1984 and again in May, 1985, he announced major spending cuts in each and every Department of the federal Government, spending cuts which amounted in total, up to the present time and apart from anything done this year, to $5.8 billion.
Part of that effort was the commencement of a program of reducing the numbers of people in the Public Service. For a number of years the Public Service had been on an upward cycle of growth, continuous growth without any check or balance. The Minister of Finance put in place, in last year's Budget, a policy aimed at reducing the Public Service by
15,000	people, not just by eliminating jobs and putting people out on the street, but by a policy of planned attrition.
In addition, there were measures in that Budget aimed at closing tax loopholes. That is a concern which has been raised in the House on many occasions. It was a concern raised by Government Members when we were in Opposition and by other Opposition Members in the present House.
Also in that 1985 Budget and Minister of Finance eliminated once and for all the scientific research tax credits. In the last few days there has been quite a bit of publicity about that in the press. On Tuesday, in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, we dealt with this problem and found that an enormous amount of money, about $2.8 billion, had disappeared from the government Treasury in order to fund scientific research credits. A lot of that money was siphoned off to private investors, some of it apparently fraudulently but some
Borrowing Authority Act
of it quite legally under the terms of the legislation. However, it was siphoned off in such a way that it did not provide any scientific research whatsoever. That loophole was closed in the last Budget.
Other loopholes were closed in that last Budget as well; the tax shelters for investments in hotels, yachts and recreational vehicles and the family income splitting between husbands, wives and children. They were brought to a halt. In addition, there were provisions to prevent trusts from distributing tax-free investment income. All those loopholes were closed in the May 1985 Budget.
At the same time that Budget increased taxes on corporations, on the banks and on alcohol and tobacco, and it introduced a minimum tax. All those policies were aimed at getting a handle on the deficit.
All those policies in the 1985 Budget were subjected to very, very substantial criticism on the part of the Opposition. The Right Hon. leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) stood in the House and told us that the impact of all the measures in the 1985 Budget would be a very substantial reduction in consumer spending, a reduction which would have a dreadful and terrifying impact upon employment. A few months ago the Leader of the Official Opposition stood in the House after the 1985 Budget and told us that the Budget would cost Canadians 50,000 jobs.
Not to be outdone by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party stood in his place at the same time and said that the Budget would cost Canadians
100,000	jobs. That was the sort of criticism which the Minister of Finance and his Budget received last year.
What happened during the past year, in the ensuing months since the May 1985 Budget? If we look at the facts, we find that we had an enormous increase in consumer spending. Interestingly enough, we probably had a record amount of consumer spending at Christmas-time last year. What did all that spending do? It did not reduce the number of jobs by 50,000. It did not reduce the number of jobs by 100,000. In fact, it increased the number of jobs by almost 600,000. The vast majority of those jobs were full-time jobs, not the parttime jobs which had been created in smaller numbers by the former Government in the months previous to the last election. The fact, almost 600,000 new jobs have been created since September 4, 1984.
In addition, unemployment for the very first time has fallen below the 10 per cent figure. It has not fallen enough, and everyone on the Government side of the House realizes that. However, for the first time since 1981 unemployment has fallen below that 10 per cent level.
As well, bankruptcies are down, the Gross National Product is up, manufacturing orders are up, building permits are up, and the Canadian economy has been moving along at a rate in excess of the American economy and at a rate equal to any other economy in the industrialized world with the possible exception of Japan. If Japan is in the same ballpark as the Canadian economy, it is almost in a dead heat.

March 1 3, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
In addition, the Budget of 1985 was not only effective in creating a climate for the private industry to create jobs, but it was also effective in respect of budgetary deficit reduction. What happened is that the deficit not only stopped growing, but in fact it has actually gone down by about $2 billion in this last year.
That is not satisfactory either, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is suggesting that we have the problem licked. Nobody is suggesting that everything has been solved by any manner or means, but we have gone a long way in starting the process of putting the country back to work and getting the deficit under control. The Government has done that, notwithstanding the criticisms of the Opposition. The Opposition raised enormous criticisms after the last Budget, but all the criticisms amounted to very little. We have had job growth and we have had deficit reduction.


Mr. Nunziata:: On the backs of the seniors.


Alan Redway: In this Budget, the Government is following exactly the same game plan that it followed in the last Budget. The Budget was aimed at encouraging private business to invest and create more jobs. It was also aimed at trying to get the deficit down and reduced further still. In this Budget there are things once again aimed at encouraging private business to invest and create more jobs.
First, the Minister of Finance has allocated an $800 million fund for job training and job creation on the part of the Government itself. He also provided a provision for eliminating the dividend distribution tax. It has reduced the corporate tax on small business by 3 per cent starting July 1. The Budget has extended the current tax rules to provide deductions for business investment losses and it has increased the lending ceiling on small business loans under the Small Business Loans Act by $1.5 billion to a total of $2.5 billion. All of those measures, Mr. Speaker, as you know, are aimed at encouraging the private sector to create more jobs.
The other aspect of the Budget is aimed at deficit reduction. Here we have more measures to reduce spending on the part of Government. The day after the Budget the spending estimates for this coming fiscal year were tabled. You will remember, Sir, that those spending estimates indicated that the non-statutory or the discretionary spending, spending that excludes social service programs and payments we have to make on our national debt, has been held to a less than 1 per cent increase. Last year's discretionary spending was held to 0.2 per cent, less than 1 per cent, and this coming year it will be held to 0.2 per cent again. This is the first time since the Korean War that we have had two consecutive years in which the increase in government discretionary spending has been held to less than 1 per cent. As well, there was a reduction announced of $500 million in spending estimates as part of the Budget itself. Once more, the Minister of Finance has tackled the whole question of Government spending and tackled it in a very forceful way, in a way that has not occurred since the 1950s.
At the same time, the Minister has moved to close more of the loopholes that none of us like, loopholes that allow individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes. This time loopholes have been closed on corporate inventory allowance, on the general investment tax credit, with respect to tax deductions for limited partnerships, dealing with deferred salary payments and marriage exemptions. As well there is a requirement to report treasury Bill income and treasury Bill interest, something that has not been done in the past. In addition to that there have been tax increases, tax increases on corporations, on alcohol and tobacco. There was a federal sales tax increase and there has been the 3 per cent surtax increase.
We have heard a lot from the Opposition that those increases impact unfairly on the middle class. There is no question that it is a tax on all of us. This means the more tax you pay the more surtax you pay. The people who do not pay a great deal of federal income tax do not pay surtax. In the last Budget we introduced a minimum tax. Those who earn more income and those who pay more taxes will pay more surtax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired. We now have questions and comments.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech made by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). It was a very good speech. However, he may have omitted telling Canadians something. Perhaps I could assist and remind him of it. He said that his Government had done a great deal to plug loopholes in a tax system, or something to that effect.
Could he comment on an article that appeared in last week's Financial Post, not a newspaper which many of my poor constituents subscribe to, but perhaps the Hon. Member will be familiar with this article. It states that if a person makes $40,000 a year comprised of $35,000 in salary, $4,000 in dividends and $1,000 in interest his tax goes from $9,145 in 1984 to $9,409 in 1986 and to $9,957 in 1987. That is a clear increase. At the same time, for an individual earning $150,000 a year, comprised of $100,000 in salary, $15,000 in interest and $5,000 in capital gains, his federal and provincial income tax combined for the province of Ontario, a province in which the Hon. Member and I live, dropped from $53,448 in 1984 to $48,000 in 1986 and to $47,978 in 1987. That is a decrease of $6,000 in income tax for a wealthy Canadian while the middle-class Canadian saw his or her income tax increase by $800 over the same period of time.
Does the Hon. Member think this constitutes plugging loopholes in the system so that ordinary Canadians now pay more and wealthy Canadians pay less? Does he think that is fair under this Budget?


Alan Redway: 
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Redway: We know where the Hon. Member sits in that category. When we talk about tax loopholes, we have to bear in mind that Hon. Members of this House point out almost on a daily basis a series of one loophole after another. We have to remember though how those loopholes got into the Income Tax Act. We have to remember that the Hon. Member is a supporter of a Party that governed this country for 20 consecutive years or so. During that period of time those loopholes crept into the Income Tax Act, and that is where they all came from.
Since the present Government took office, we have been quite busy plugging a vast number of those loopholes. It may be that we have not plugged them all yet, in fact I am sure we have not. In one case we found the little Egypt bump, or the Chicago bump, which took place a few months ago in connection with the purchase of one oil company by another. That situation was made possible by loopholes which were placed in the Income Tax Act by the Government of which the Hon. Member is a supporter. That loophole was plugged as soon after it became evident as possible.
As we all know, there are other loopholes. The Minister of Finance is addressing those in an orderly fashion and we are eliminating them as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a question or comment.


Alan Redway: I am not finished, Mr. Speaker. I was going to go on for quite a while. I still have remarks to make on this very important subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There are only four or five minutes left, and I would like to fit a couple more questions and comments in. I will recognize the Member for Comox-Powell River for a short question or comment and then I will recognize the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions the previous speaker mentioned the 1985 Budget and talked about unemployment and unemployment insurance. The Member knows that the Government has created an injustice against members of the Armed Forces and retired members of the Armed Forces. Their pension payments have been declared income and they cannot collect unemployment insurance after having paid into the fund for 20 or 30 years. They have no choice but to leave the Armed Forces after a specified period of time, often at a time when their family expenses are the highest. They often have to move and buy another house. Their children are going to university and eating them out of house and home and they must spend a lot of money to clothe them. The transitions are generally extremely difficult.
Borrowing Authority Act
The Government changed the ground rules. As well, the Government does not permit those retired members who find employment later on to be exempt from paying unemployment insurance premiums. This is completely unjust, because they will never be able to collect unemployment insurance. The Government also proposes to reduce the indexation on their pensions.
Would the Member explain why he and other Conservative Members are supporting that provision which has been put forward by the Government? Would he exlain why he thinks that is fair?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am again very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's question. As he is well aware, unemployment insurance has not been subject to any review for about 20 years. As a result, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has appointed the Forget inquiry to study the question of unemployment insurance. The task of that inquiry is to straighten out a great problem which has existed over the years. There have been allegations made by a great many people that some people who should not get unemployment insurance do receive it. There have been allegations that people decide not to work, but rather to claim unemployment insurance benefits rather than take an available job.
I am sure the Hon. Member agrees with me and with the Government that it is time to take a very serious look at the unemployment insurance system to ensure that it is operating efficiently and effectively, and doing the job which the Canadian people want it to do.
Hopefully the Forget Commission will help us to decide whether unemployment insurance is like a life insurance policy which we pay into and must get our money out of at some time, or like a fire insurance policy which we pay into and only claim from if we have a fire. That is one of the big issues which we must debate and solve. Part of the Hon. Member's comments relate to that issue. I do not for a moment suggest what the answer is. Perhaps unemployment insurance should be like life insurance in that we pay into it and when we die, retire, or whatever, we get all our money back. I think that would be great, because I have paid into it all of my life and have never received a cent from it. Hopefully I will not have to get money out of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is such a popular Member that I think I should allow another popular Member to ask another short question or make a short comment. I will recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: You are very kind, Mr. Speaker. I want to say how popular we think you are as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I have known the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for a number of years. He and I were municipal politicians in another life. I have always known him

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
to be a fair and reasonable individual. In fact, 1 always thought he was a Liberal until he ran for the Conservative Party in the last election. However, I have always known him to be fair.
Does the Member think that the cumulative effect of the tax increases on individual Canadians through the two Wilson Budgets is fair? Does he think it is fair that the cumulative tax increase for an individual earning $15,000 a year is 23 per cent while the total tax increase for someone earning $100,000 a year is only 1 per cent? Does the Member consider that result of these two Budgets, which he has spoken so highly of, to be fair? Does he consider it fair that the Conservative Government should try to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged in society: namely, the seniors, the unemployed, the young, and the disabled? What is fair about that?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member said, we have known each other for many, many years. I hope it was not in another life, but in this one. He may have thought I was a Liberal, but we all knew he was a member of the New Democratic Party, until very recently.


Mr. Parry:: Spare us.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Don't be so mean.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am just getting into it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has the floor on debate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we all followed with interest the carefully prepared speech of the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) in which he advanced a good defensive position on behalf of his Party and Government. I was struck by the selective memory he displayed this morning, and by the fact that he, albeit not deliberately 1 am sure, forgot to mention in his analysis of the reduction of the deficit the measure that was introduced in the Budget which allows those who can afford it to enjoy a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption which will have a profound impact on the revenue of the Government of Canada. That measure is certainly not consistent with the goals expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). In fact, it is in plain contradiction of the policies which the Government has been propounding over the last year and one half.
One must also observe that the Member for York East, again I am sure inadvertently, in analysing the tax bills and putting forward their positive features, forgot about three instances of deindexation. The deindexation of senior citizens' pensions was at last repealed by the Government. The deindexation of the personal income tax deduction will increase the income tax burden on every taxpayer in Canada in the future. Finally, the deindexation of family allowances is now before the Senate and is the source of a considerable number of complaints from the women of the country. I am sure the Hon.
Member for York East will understand that in the long term, when this measure comes into full effect a few years from now, it may also cause an increase in the burden of the social budgets of municipalities and the provinces.
One must also comment on the neglect of the environment as a result of its treatment by this borrowing Bill. The thesis 1 am putting forward today is that the Government is derelict, insensitive and penny wise but pound foolish in the way it is cutting back on the Department of the environment and its programs. Let me outline the areas in which these measures are unjustified.
First, the total budget of Environment Canada in the last two years has risen by 0.5 per cent while conservative estimates show that inflation has gone up by 8 per cent in two years. Therefore, the budget of Environment Canada has been eroded by 7.5 per cent. That is the net effect on the culpability of the Government in answering the growing concern that Canadians are expressing in a variety of ways over toxic chemicals, acid rain, wildlife management, water quality and other environmental issues. According to predictions that have been made, inflation will continue and therefore erode the base of that Department. If it continues to erode at the same rate of 4 per cent, the damage a year from now will be even greater than the 7.5 per cent damage which I mentioned earlier as a result of the Government's policy in the past two years.
Let us look at the specifics of the Department of the Environment estimates for this year. For instance, we see a decline between 1984 and 1986 of some $8 million in contributions to the provinces for sewage treatment construction programs. The figure was approximately $10 million in 1984 but has dropped to $1.9 million in the estimates this year.
Let us consider the inland waters programs which includes the implementation of federal-provincial programs and the implementation of international water policy agreements. We see a cut of some $5.9 million in the capacity of the people in charge of those programs-whose number has been reduced by 14, incidentally-to do their jobs in the inland and international waters on behalf of Canadians and to implement the international agreements that we have made.
If we examine environmental protection we see a cut of $12 million between 1984 and this year. There are 25 less people in charge of that particular function within Environment Canada and the House is aware that this environmental protection section also covers the federal role in the management of PCBs, toxic chemicals and issues related to lead in gasoline, pesticides, acid rain and dioxins.
Wildlife conservation in an important program in relation to the health of Canadians in the long term because the observations that we make about wildlife will also indicate the human effect of some of the substances that are passed on to wildlife through discharges from dumps and other industrial and domestic activities. These studies may tell us about the longterm effect on humans. However, in the past two years we have seen a loss of $4.7 million to the Canadian Wildlife
March 13, 1986

Service and a loss of some 168 people who were active in that particular service. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance in his Budget statement, promised a 2 per cent cut in non-statutory spending. The impact of that cut is not yet known to any Department, I understand, but when it is applied it will diminish the effectiveness of Environment Canada because I am sure that Department will not be spared the axe of that 2 per cent cut. It could even be a greater amount, depending on how it will be applied by Treasury Board.
In concluding this analysis on environmental cuts in the Estimates for this year, I must also draw to the attention of the House that the Department of the Environment, under the guidelines of the present Government, is also losing sight of priorities.
When one compares the priorities being adopted by the Department this year with the priorities of previous years, we see an astonishing declaration concerning acid rain. The priority of the Department this year is to implement agreements and programs that are aimed at reducing the effects of acid rain. At first sight, this may seem to be rather harmless, but reducing the effect of acid rain is totally different from the previously adopted policy priority to reduce the acid rain depositions. That priority is not in the latest Estimates.
There is a big difference between reducing acid rain depositions and reducing the effects of acid rain. Reducing the depositions means going to the source, controlling the emissions and setting specific targets and dates to ensure that they are reduced over the years. The new policy priority to reduce the effects means accepting the level of acid rain depositions or emissions in the environment and trying to cure the effects of these depositions. This means that these priorities are shifting attention from controlling the emissions at the source to treating the depositions and their effects on the environment. I submit that this is a very serious shift in policy and I cannot understand why all of the efforts that so far have been aimed and focused on prevention should suddenly be abandoned, by virtue of this priority as stated in the Estimates, and replaced by a policy to reduce the effects. I cannot express it any other way than to say that this shift in policy disturbs me profoundly and I cannot understand how or why it has happened.
In order to bring to your attention the fact that Environment Canada is losing sight of its priorities, let me raise another point. This year the water quality in the Great Lakes Basin, Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes is not listed as a priority. There is no reference to the St. Clair River or to the Niagara River. That is a serious omission if one considers that the concerns of Canadians who live along the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers are at an all-time high. Second, we must consider the fact that we have an international obligation to discharge, by virtue of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Here, again, for the life of me, I cannot understand the Government's position with the upsurge of public interest and concern and with the hundreds of questions which have been asked in this House during Question Period by Members of all Parties, including the Hon. Member for York East, who has been a tower of strength in this debate. It just defeats my
Borrowing Authority Act
ability to understand why these priorities do not emerge in the Estimates of Environment Canada in 1986-87.
What we are witnessing here is the Government losing sight of priorities as expressed in the Estimates. We have witnessed over the years 1984 to 1986 a number of cuts applied to Environment Canada. In addition to that, the purchasing power of that Department is losing ground rapidly in relation to inflation. That is not fair, it is not desirable, and it is not in the public interest.
In his Budget, the Minister of Finance included a measure whereby there would be a three-year tax write-off on wind energy equipment. That raised a lot of questions because one wonders why there would be just a measure to favour wind energy equipment. I am sure there is a very good reason for it, and that there are people who will, hopefully, take advantage of it. But there is nothing for other renewable sources of energy like solar energy biomass, and so on. This narrow approach to renewable sources of energy is a puzzle.
In analysing the measures which should have been introduced by the Minister of Finance, but which were not, in relation to environmental issues which are emerging with greater frequency and importance, one wonders why the Minister of Finance did not provide, in the light of what is happening on the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers, some measures for an accelerated tax write-off which would be applied on pollution abatement equipment and which would give the industries along the St. Clair and Niagara Rivers, an incentive to clean up, so to speak, their act. Evidently, these are old fashioned, outdated, operations. The equipment is getting old. The incidence of accidents and spills are becoming more and more frequent. There are measures available to the Minister of Finance to encourage and entice the industries which are engaged in these operations every day to do their part and to clean up their act. I was looking forward to finding some of those measures in the Budget, but they were not there.
Another initiative which the Minister of Finance will sooner or later have to take into account and apply in his Budget is a change in the tax structures on gasoline. You have heard me before, Mr. Speaker, express my view about the necessity of changing our design of the taxes as they apply to leaded and unleaded gasoline so that the price at the pump will be equal for both. The revenue to the Government would remain the same but the demand for unleaded would be greater than now and the demand for leaded would be less. In doing so, we in North America would be pioneering, although not globally, a measure which was introduced in Denmark and Austria. The public buys at the pump either leaded or unleaded gasoline at the same price. That would once and for all do away with the practice of misfueling. We would also reduce the amount of lead in the air and on the ground which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, harms the health of humans, particularly children. We can then do our part in facilitating the purchase and use of cars which run on unleaded gasoline, which have a catalytic converter installed to prevent the emission of certain gases

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
which contribute to acid rain. Therefore, we would be taking a considerable step in the right direction. We will try to do this with the new car models in 1987, but at the present time there is a disincentive to Canadians at the pump to go for unleaded gasoline because the spread in price is around three cents, and in some cases even more.
The application of the taxes on gasoline is reinforcing and widening this gap. That is something the Minister of Finance has to face. He has to bite the bullet in order to eliminate this differential in price at the pumps.
In the Budget there was no reference, unfortunately, to reinstating the Guelph Toxicology Centre. We in this House, from all Parties, who are engaged in matters which relate to water quality, know how important it is to maintain the momentum of our research on toxicology, and particularly on the impact of certain substances in water. Our standards are acceptable for certain substances and not yet acceptable for others. There is an enormous new territory which has to be explored in terms of toxicological research. Yet, a measure which was announced in 1983-84, to become a reality in 1984-85, has been wiped out. Despite the representation being made by the academic and scientific community and despite the representations made by environmental groups, and all of those who are concerned with human health, the Guelph Toxicology Centre is still a dead letter. It is only an idea on paper which does not seem to catch the imagination of the so-called Progressive Conservative Government.
I wonder sometimes about the Government because that is not the way to protect the public interests, by neglecting the basics which relate to public health. We should develop the instruments which will put to work the scientists we have and prevent them from leaving Canada to go abroad, enticed by other opportunities. This Government can provide them with opportunities at home in the field of research in which they are competent and for which there is a future and a necessity for the protection of the health of Canadians. I despair sometimes about this lack of sense of direction on the part of this Progressive Conservative Government.
I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in the Budget-and I do hope the Government will pay attention to this at the next opportunity-there is no attention being paid to the plight of municipalities to modernize sewers, to separate where necessary their sewer systems. As Hon. Members know, sewer systems have an impact on the quality of water downstream if they are incomplete or non-existent. This is a measure which the Government of Canada will have to re-examine in order to bring back some basic infrastructure program to help municipalities in their daily battle to maintain and protect water quality in their jurisdictions for the safety and sake of their own citizens.
1 see that Your Honour is indicating my time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) because I have a great deal of respect for him and for his interest in environmental matters. I understand his interests with regard to matters of the environment and I share in them. However, I know the Hon. Member is also aware that we have other substantial problems in the country as well. We must address these problems in the over-all context and not just in the narrow sense of one particular program or other.
I know he is aware that we have a very substantial unemployment problem. I know he is aware that we have a very substantial deficit problem. Both of these problems came about while he was a Minister in the former Government. I know the Hon. Member is aware as well that in the last year in which the Government of which he was a Minister was in office it had to borrow some $29.8 billion in order to pay for all of its expenditures. That was after the Government had collected all the revenue it could from all the sources it could and applied those revenues to its total expenditures. His Government had to borrow some $29.8 billion in order to pay the bills for those expenditures. Fortunately, in the Bill which is before us we do not have to borrow that amount of money; we have it down to $22.6 billion. At any rate it is still a great deal of money. It is hard for any Canadian to understand just exactly what billions of dollars are.
We know what happens when we have to go out to finance companies or banks to borrow money in order to pay for our groceries in any particular week. We know that cannot go on in our households day after day, month after month and year after year. We know that it will eventually catch up with us, and it will catch up with us sooner than it will catch up with us later. So I know the Hon. Member is aware of this great deficit problem.
In his opening remarks he mentioned some concerns he had with respect to my comments which related to the Bill and to the Budget in general. One of them had to do with the question of the capital gains tax exemption. He indicated that it was simply a tax loophole.


Mr. Caccia:: It is forgone revenue.


Alan Redway: The Hon. Member mentioned that this measure was put in place to try to encourage job creation in the country. I wonder if the Hon. Member is suggesting that we should do away with this measure. If he is not suggesting that, then what does he suggest we implement to create some jobs in the country?
I know the Hon. Member is aware of the scientific research tax credit measure put in place by his Government in January of 1984. He is aware that this measure cost the taxpayers of the country some $2.8 billion. This is money which could have gone to reduce the deficit. It could have gone to pay for environmental programs. Instead of going for scientific research the money was drained off by investors who did quick
March 13, 1986

flips, put the money in their pockets and walked away with what was essentially taxpayers' money, instead of using it to pay for the deficit and the programs which the Hon. Member would like to see. What does the Hon. Member suggest in place of those programs?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, first I have to thank the Hon. Member for his kind words. At the same time I draw to his attention that the capital gains tax is not a loophole but a forgone revenue. In addition, that particular measure is not focused on the creation of jobs at all. It is left wide open without any specific intent. It can involve capital gains incurred outside of the country through such measures as the buying of yachts or even a piece of property in Venezuela, for example. Therefore, its specific purpose is not job creation. If it were geared to job creation then the Hon. Member and I would be speaking the same language. Unfortunately, the measure is not so directed.
The distressing thing about the application of cuts is that some departments have escaped them while others are able to keep up with inflation in their budgets. There is not only that to consider but the fact that some departmental budgets have increased by more than the rate of inflation. Is that fair? Why is it possible for some departments to command such muscle within the system while others are left to slip and remain behind? This is why I raise the matter in those terms.
As Hon. Members are aware, the Department of the Environment deals with matters which in the end affect our economy in the long term. The Department deals with matters which, perhaps, affect our daily health. This is not just a romantic notion which is being nurtured. It disturbs me, as I am sure it disturbs the Hon. Member, who I know has an outstanding and distinguished municipal past, to see the Department of the Environment slipping badly behind, particularly in relation to provincial grants for sewer and similar infrastructures.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter with the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) which is of serious concern to many people. It deals with borrowing, budgets and the financial policy of the Government. I refer to the matter of Armed Forces pensions and the denial of this Government to permit members of the Armed Forces to collect unemployment insurance during a time of transition. This is also a serious matter for members of the Armed Forces who are retired and who are forced to pay unemployment insurance premiums for something which they will never collect. I also wish to deal with the Government's proposal in the 1985 Budget to partially deindex the pensions of members of the Armed Forces. As far as I can determine, and as far as others can determine, this is an incredible injustice perpetrated by the Government on present members of the Armed Forces and those members who are retired. I would appreciate a comment from the Hon. Member for Davenport in this regard.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) we are speaking the same language. There is nothing wrong with that. Several of us
Borrowing Authority Act
who have made appeals before the Forget Commission have expressed our profound concern with the Armed Forces pensions and the cut-off until payment is exhausted before one qualifies for unemployment insurance. I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has made interventions during Question Period in this regard, as has the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and others on our side. This is a matter of great concern to us. We see it as a convergence of measures on the part of a Government which calls itself Progressive Conservative but which does not even understand the basics of the meaning of the word "progressive", and which is actually regressive. This move has to stop. I do not think society can continue to impose these penalties on people who have accepted certain rules of behaviour on behalf of their Government, and who are all of a sudden told: "Sorry, you do not qualify for unemployment insurance because your employer is giving you a lump sum payment. Use up your lump sum payment first, or your pension, and you will then qualify for unemployment insurance". We say that is unfair.


Mr. Valcourt:: Mr. Speaker, it is really sad for a young Member of Parliament such as myself to have to listen to this type of speech by a Member of the House who has such experience here. I have listened with great attention to everything the Hon. Member has said. He was supposed to talk about the borrowing authority but he touched on issues of environment, a portfolio which I believe he occupied in a previous Government. Yet when looking at the record of the previous Government in environment, we are able to see what he did. Everything about which the Hon. Member complains is the legacy of that Government.
It is a matter of public record that the leader of the Hon. Member's Party, previous to the election, was telling Canadians how imperative it was that we reduce the deficit. Yet in the House, the Liberals oppose any tax increases and are opposed to every single cut to a program that has been contemplated by the Government. This leads us to think that Liberals simply want to continue to further increase the Government's debt.
Regarding Bill C-99, is it the position of the Hon. Member that we should further increase the national debt of Canada? Liberals oppose cuts and they oppose tax increases. What can we do?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that there are ways of reducing the debt of the Government and there are also times for reducing it, but we do not do it by cutting down services to the public; we do not do it by freezing the civil service; we do not do it by reducing the payments to the provinces and we do not do it the way the Government has done it in this primative, backward and almost barbaric manner.


Bernard Valcourt: How do you do it? Answer that.

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Charles L. Caccia: The way to do it is to make sure the economy expands and that revenue increases. It is done gradually through increased revenue, not through cutting down the Government. There is a role for the Government to play. That is the profound difference between the Tories and the Liberals in the way we approach this matter.


Mr. Mantha:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on his fine speech. What a difference a year makes.
In the North Bay Nugget, a fair paper, there is an editorial which says that there may be a lot wrong with the federal Budget but it is the first time in 15 years that somebody has done something to reduce the deficit. It goes on to say that the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) just wants to spend a lot of money, but if they had saved us some money we would have good times now. It also says that the Leader of the Opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Let us get to the
question.


Moe Mantha: I am sorry. When the Hon. Member was a Minister, it is a known fact that all Liberal Ministers of the previous Government had slush funds. How did he spend his slush fund money?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. There was no slush fund.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, last Friday you will recall, on the eve of International Women's Day, Conservative Members ignored the agreement to put up speakers which had been arranged with other Parties and therefore closed debate on the Budget. This was done before I was allowed to speak on the impact of the Budget on Canadian women. I do not recall hearing any Conservative speaker mentioning the impact of the Budget on Canadian women. That is one of the things on which I want to concentrate my remarks today. I might say that the Budget was a typical act of discrimination.
It is difficult to determine just what the Government intends to do with the $22.6 billion it wants authorization to borrow under Bill C-99. I personally would be much happier to support this Bill if I thought the money would go toward positive measures that would improve the lot of ordinary Canadians, particularly Canadian women, children and young people. Unfortunately, because of the Budget which we have been studying and about which we are very concerned, we know that the government measures are very negative measures. We know that these funds will be used largely for those same negative measures.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House, and particularly Conservative Members, the fact that over the last month there has been the greatest surge of short-term borrowing in the history of Canada. This was concurrent with the time the Budget was introduced and was becoming known to Canadians and the international community. Of course, this
happened largely because the Government had to put billions of dollars, I assume, into propping up the Canadian dollar. Along with that, we were paying and will continue to pay increased interest on the amount of money that was going to prop up the Canadian dollar.
This dramatic drop in the value of the dollar over the past month was directly related to the lack of confidence in the Government and its Budget. Not only does it cost us more in interest rates because of that lack of confidence, we calculated that each Canadian family would pay an average of $100 per year in increased food costs, something about which we do not always think. This borrowing Bill repeats the negative philosophy and negative use of borrowed funds which are costing us all much more in interest.
Of course, women share in the lack of confidence in the Government which was reflected by the drop in the dollar. There was no mention in the Budget of women at all, and certainly there was no reference to the very strong statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Halifax at the First Ministers' Conference. At that time he said that all Governments must give priority to economic equality for women. The Government makes no mention of this when it gets down to doing something in the way of a Budget. There was nothing in the Budget designed to deal with the inequities for women and other minority groups that must be redressed.
As I said, women were not mentioned at all in the Budget. On the other hand, when looking at the Budget closely, we realize that it adds another layer of financial burden on women. Women are already the poorest of our citizens and still earn just 63 cents on the dollar. Women carry double work-loads at home and in the workplace. As I mentioned yesterday, farm women often carry three heavy work-loads while there is no day care for their children. Women are the last hired and the first fired, particularly if they happen to work for the federal Government. Women are being pushed further into part-time, low-paid jobs that are not unionized and do not have benefits, or they are being forced to go on unemployment insurance. This is as a result of the policies of the Government, which is pushing for even more privatization and deregulation and for more government cut-backs in public services.
As I mentioned earlier when I spoke to one of my colleagues, we are very concerned about the Budget from an international point of view and how it will affect our pride in Canada's role in the world. The Budget cuts back on international aid, and this has a tremendous impact, particularly on women and children in developing countries. These women and children are indeed going to be condemned to die in many cases as a result of Budget cuts.
Before I return to the particular parts of this Budget about which I am concerned, and about which Canadian women are becoming increasingly concerned, I would like to mention a few other points. As we have said over and over again, the average family is grossly and unfairly taxed, to the tune of something over $1,300 in additional taxes over the last two years. On the other hand, wealthy families continue to benefit
March 13, 1986

from the capital gains tax exemptions and there is nothing at all in the Budget to indicate that there has been real tax reforms such as those we have advocated.
As a British Columbia, I would like to say that I am very concerned. The Conservative Budget is a disaster for British Columbia. We need more jobs, not just more cuts and taxes on top of what we already have in the way of British Columbia restraint programs. Direct federal spending on job creation will be cut by an additional $100 million this year.
In many parts of B.C. unemployment continues to be as high, if not higher than in the maritime provinces. For example, unemployment in Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia, is the highest in Canada. It is over 16 per cent. I should like to warn the Conservatives in the Government that the Government of British Columbia practised the restraint the present Conservative Government is imposing federally, and it has resulted in 16 per cent unemployment in Victoria. No special initiatives were taken in the Budget to create new jobs in British Columbia.
We have heard many suggestions from New Democrats respecting concrete job proposals; investment in community development, enhancement of the forest and fishery resources, and reform of taxes to help pay for many things. Recently I received a telegram from a group in British Columbia, the Mothers Action Committee, which indicated that hundreds of thousands of Canadian women are struggle daily under terrible conditions of poverty to survive and raise children, and that deliberate Government policies make the rich richer and oppress women. They want money for child care, pensions for homemakers, reindexing of the family allowance and fair pay for their work. Of course the Budget and Government policies will do just the opposite for women. The tremendous tax load of over $1,300, which I mentioned, will have a much greater or disproportionate impact upon women. In effect, it will push more women and their children into poverty; there is no question about it.
The cuts to Public Service jobs have already affected women disproportionately. 1 have been told that in the translation department, for example, 63 per cent of the lay-offs were women, yet only 52 per cent of the staff are women. In the fisheries Department, many more women were let go, yet there are very few women employed in that Department. Over-all cuts to certain Government Departments will also affect women's jobs and services to women. For example, the Budget shows that $4.82 billion, a lot of money, will be cut from the Department of National Health and Welfare over the next four years. From where will it be cut? We know where it will be cut. It will be cuts in family benefits and in programs such as Planned Parenthood, the National Clearing House on Family Violence and non-statutory services. The Minister mentioned that discretionary funding would be at risk. It will be cuts to women's organizations and community non-governmental organizations which are already under funded. We have also learned, from the point of view of the Nielsen task
Borrowing Authority Act
force, that a cut of $9 million is proposed from Secretary of State women's programs. That is unforgiveable and intolerable.
The Budget also cut employment training programs which will have a great impact upon women. In 1984 women only had about 14 per cent of the training spaces. I raised this matter, along with a number of issues, with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) last week. There will also be a cut of over $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy, at a time when we need more money for job strategy, particularly for women. Now the Nielsen task force is advocating more cuts.
The Government brags about helping those in need. I find that to be unforgiveable on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It is bad enough that he does these things, but he tries to fool people, particularly those who are hurting and have no power to fight back. It is quite unforgiveable. He says that he is designing programs to help those in greatest need, but let us look at the actual facts.
The National Council of Welfare figures prove that the impact of the Conservative Budget, without even looking at the impact of the sales taxes, will result in the lowering of the disposable income of a family which is at three-quarters of the poverty level-a very poor family-by $118, while an upper income earner who receives over $100,000 will gain $422. The poor family loses $118, plus the sales tax increases which will be imposed, while the high income earner gains $422 plus tax benefits. How can one possibly say that it helps those in greatest need?
Let us look at the so-called child tax credit and the family allowance which have both been deindexed. The value is being eroded. The terminology is being changed. We no longer talk about universality; we talk about universal access. We know that means an erosion of universal family programs. The refundable tax credit will not cover last year's sales tax increases, much less compensate families for the loss of indexation on family benefits. It also penalizes single mothers who do not receive the extra $ 100 for a spouse.
The Government has allocated $100 million per year to new employment initiatives for social assistance recipients. I caution the Government. It should make sure that it consults with community people, including those from low-income organizations, on how the money should be used. We could really get into a bind if we are not careful here. We do not want punitive work for welfare measures as the Nielsen task force recommends for native people. If women on welfare are to take advantage of job opportunities, they must have training and child care, and there is nothing in the Budget in that regard. I hope that some of the new funding will go toward funding self-help programs and toward community development in low-income communities, which will provide double benefits in terms of improving community support services as well as providing paycheques.
I am extremely disappointed, as are Canadian women and men, particularly those who are parents, that the Government completely ignored the very urgent need for federal funding to

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
begin to upgrade and expand many forms of child care. We need money now, according to the Cooke report which was tabled last week, to begin to upgrade existing services so that children are not placed at risk and many working parents at least begin to feel that there is some licensed care in communities.
The proposal of Katie Cooke was a very conservative one. It was far too conservative, from my point of view, but it made clear that the federal Government must put some good-faith federal grants into the system this year so that we can begin to build toward a much more comprehensive child care service in all communities in the future. Only 13 per cent of our families are so-called traditional families now. Eighty-seven per cent are families with two parents working, and in the case of 10 per cent of them they are families headed by women. We have a whole new society in Canada. The Conservative Government, especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), has to begin to accept reality. Fifty-two per cent of the mothers of infants are in the workforce and they do not have care for their children. Over the past eight years there has been a 60 per cent increase in the numbers of families that need child care. I could go on and on.
In 1984, there were almost two million children who needed care and we had only 171,000 licensed spaces for them. We have to begin to act on this. Even from an economic point of view, I hope Conservative Members realize that many mothers have to work. If they do not work there will be more poor families on welfare. The cost of investing in day care is not only essential to children, but it will also save both social costs and costs for women who would otherwise remain on welfare all their lives.
In conclusion, we are very disappointed, in fact very crushed by the federal Budget, particularly the lack of any recognition of the need for women to achieve equality and for low-income families to have the opportunities they deserve, which is their right in a rich country like Canada. We have to plan for economic equality. The Government is pushing people backward and is particularly penalizing women and children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before calling it one o'clock, I should like to indicate that the Hon. Member has four minutes remaining for debate, if she wants to continue, plus the 10-minute question and comment period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, today approximately 400 Canadians from Montreal have come to Parliament to protest the cut-backs in unemployment insurance for those taking early retirements pensions. These Canadians range in age from 49 to 63. Many of them still have family responsibilities. Many have paid unemployment insurance premiums for over 30 years and never collected. Now they are about to collect for the first time and they have been cut off. They feel betrayed by the Government and they are angry. They want the Government to withdraw this crual, retroactive policy. If that is not done, they will not forget.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of South Africa stands condemned once again when, on Tuesday last, police fired without provocation on more than 2,000 black children gathered to attend the trial of friends.
Across Canada, protests are mounting against the violence of apartheid.
Today, post office, airline, and communications workers will engage in a 24-hour job action in support of their repressed brothers and sisters in South Africa. Labour and community groups are gathered in protest in downtown Vancouver. The United Food and Commercial Workers are calling on all retail outlets, including those of the Department of National Defence, to refrain from the purchase and sale of South African goods.
The message to the Government is clear. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) must fulfil his promise at the United Nations to impose strong sanctions and end diplomatic relations with the Botha regime, if, at the end of the six months' deadline established by the Commonwealth, there has been no fundamental dismantling of apartheid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
March 13, 1986



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the few countries in the world that borders on three oceans and also has a very extensive network of navigable inland waters.
Our shipbuilding industry has developed over the years, and in this country we have state-of-the-art equipment and thousands of very experienced shipyard workers.
We must achieve a degree of self-sufficiency in the shipbuilding industry, while at the same time competing on world markets.
To maintain our work force and the kind of equipment we have in this industry and to further develop our skills, I think it is urgent, Mr. Speaker, that a national policy on Canadian shipyards be tabled here in the House.



TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the great Canadian tragedy is that once a Government program is in place it develops a constituency, which either continues to support it on principle or, worse, depends on it in practice. The dependency becomes addictive. The expenditures become entrenched.
The original purpose of the program is lost as the beneficiaries come to view the program not as a privilege but rather as a right. The tabling of the report of the Task Force on Program Review represents a giant step on the road to more efficient government. Yet already, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing howls of anguish from the interest groups vehemently denouncing any possible reduction or diminution of what they view as their particular entitlement.
I urge all Members carefully and objectively to consider the various recommendations put forward by this non-partisan public and private sector task force.
Canadians have a right to expect government that serves their needs at a reasonable cost.



PORNOGRAPHY


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 have received a number of telephone calls from furious parents who are demanding that the Government take immediate action to deal with the dial-a-porn epidemic.
One of the calls I received today was from Mrs. Angela Burgess of Russell, Ontario, whose nine and 11-year old daughters got the dial-a-porn number from a 10-year old girlfriend who, in turn, got it from her 12-year old sister, et cetera, et cetera.
Mrs. Burgess told me the dial-a-porn numbers are circulating like wildfire among children, and she is going to refuse to pay her phone bill until the problem is dealt with by Bell.
She said:
I am not going to support a company that supports pornography.
I would urge other parents who find themselves in a similar situation to do exactly the same thing, but I would also urge the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to introduce legislation as soon as possible to prevent this garbage from being transmitted through the telephone system. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) should also launch a criminal investigation to determine if charges should be laid against Ma Bell.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it is always sad when friends fall out. Today I read about Irene Porter of Nova Scotia, who is running for the presidency of the Young Conservative Party in Montreal this weekend. Miss Porter lambasted the infamous letter from the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and said: "I don't think any Government has a mandate to go out and recruit Party members".
Typical Tories that they are, two Ontario government Members are speaking up too. The Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks) says that Metro Toronto Tories "are not getting our fair share based on our size". The Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) says: "It doesn't come to mind that there has been anything".
Out in White Rock a B.C. pensioner, Jack Peake, said: "Mulroney promised all sorts of cuts ... but not one word about his own fat indexed pension. In fact, the first thing he wanted to do was cut our pensions. If it weren't for old folks these people who throw stones at us wouldn't have what we've got today".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.

March 13, 1986



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of this House the results of the Mercury awards held recently in Montreal. Organized by the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, this contest, which has how been held for the sixth time, is aimed at promoting and honouring the skills and excellence of our business people.
Seventeen Mercuries were awarded, as symbols of excellence and entrepreneurship in the business community.
Of all regions in Quebec, Beauce made a particularly good showing. In fact, three small businesses from our region won awards during this event. The businesses that received the Mercury awards were Cartem in Ste-Marie, Garaga in St-Georges and finally the famous Canam Manac group.
These achievements prove that when given a chance, the people of Beauce are capable of meeting the industrial challenge. We ought to be proud of regions that help themselves and do so very successfully.



EDUCATION


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as someone who has been a teacher for many years I fully appreciate the vital role which post-secondary educational institutions play in our society. Their function is even more significant in these times of high youth unemployment. That is why it is so essential that federal funding be passed on directly to our post-secondary institutions. Unfortunately, several provinces, including the Province of Manitoba, are failing to do that.
As the non-partisan Johnson Report documented, federal funding to post-secondary education in Manitoba rose by 101 per cent between 1977 and 1985. During that same period, however, Manitoba government support for post-secondary education rose by only 57 per cent. More recently, the federal contribution in 1985-86 rose by 6 per cent, yet my own Brandon University received only a 2.6 per cent increase in its operating grant. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that federal funding reaches the institutions and the students for whom it is intended.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words today about Canada's criminal justice system. This has been a concern of many of my constituents, including Mr. Tom MacMillan. Specifically they want to be assured that innocent people in society are protected, and that victims' rights are recognized. I have been proud to tell them about the progress made in the 33rd Parliament.
Tougher laws for impaired driving are better protection for innocent people. The street soliciting law has been welcomed in my riding and across the country. We have introduced legislation to stop the importation of hard core pornography, with more legislation planned. Changes to the National Parole Act will end the ridiculous situation in Canada whereby dangerous criminals are released on to the streets after serving two-thirds of their sentences. Changes in Canada's Young Offenders Act will end the obvious deficiencies in that law as well.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this Party and Government are committed to changes that emphasize the rights of innocent people and victims, something which the Liberals and socialists never understood.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland have become weary of the cruel and senseless cat and mouse game which is being played with the people of that province with respect to the future of the Newfoundland Railway. Over a period of some months the Government of Canada has been using every means at its disposal to pressure the people, the Government, and the Legislature of Newfoundland into agreeing to abandon the Newfoundland Railway.
As recently as yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), presumably speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada, said in this House that the Government of Canada will respect the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada. Those Terms of Union provide for the continuation of the Newfoundland Railway. At the same moment that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke those words in this House, his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) was putting the final touches on a proposal to be given to the Government of Newfoundland to abandon the Newfoundland Railway.
Mr. Speaker, we do not mind the Government making its choices, be they right or wrong. We do mind the Government trying to do both things at the same time, and misleading people in a cruel and senseless manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
March 13, 1986



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was preaching at the Francophone Summit for the preservation of French, DRIE has been using intimidating and ruthless schemes to destroy Mrs. Leila Tremblay, a young woman with four university degrees and a fine record of being published in the French media in Canada and overseas. She has a 12-year record of good work in the tourism branch.
Soon after arriving there, her DRIE supervisor, one Mr. Fyfe, sought her out, disciplined her over a trivial incident, suspended her for being at her own grievance hearing, and filed an unbelievably adverse appraisal of her. Then DRIE recommended that she be dismissed. She appealed. The Appeal Board and DRIE ignored six doctors' certificates and began the hearing without her being present.
O)
Mrs. Tremblay presented four unchallengable outside witnesses who were beyond the Department's sphere of intimidation. These witnesses established her competence and cast doubt on the competence of her critics.
Now DRIE's representative, Mr. Kroger, has issued threats demanding that she withdraw submissions and documents, and that her priest's letter of February 17-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



&quot;LES CHANTIERS QUEBECOIS DE BENEVOLES&quot;

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we have our own Katimavik program, and I am referring to "Les chantiers quebecois de benevoles". It is a formula for sociocultural activities that has been very popular in Quebec, in Canada and also in Europe in the last five years. The program, which is similar to Katimavik, works according to a team formula that responds to a very real desire for self-expression and community achievement among young Quebecers. The "chantiers quebecois de benevoles" are a way for young people to become acquainted with a variety of social environments in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the House should be made aware of the Conference
Board of Canada's 1985 fourth quarter survey of business attitudes and investment intentions. In this survey optimism abounds in the Canadian business community. Fourty-nine point seven per cent of senior business executives believe that now is a good time to undertake capital expenditures. This is an increase from an already strong third quarter in 1985. This represents the highest response of optimism in the past seven years. Moreover, it is a complete turnaround from mid-1984 when a full 46 per cent of businesses believed that it was a bad time to invest.
Also in the survey the highest ever number of respondents believed that the unemployment rate will continue to decline in the coming months.
According to a research associate with the Conference Board "Business members were also more positive with respect to general economic conditions". The results of this survey show a positive, upbeat mood on the part of the business community, and it is an expression of confidence in the performance of our Government as we enter 1986.



TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, recent railway accidents have emphasized the threat posed to human health and safety by the transportation of hazardous goods through populated areas. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has a special role to play in protecting the urban populations at risk.
There have been repeated calls for trains hauling hazardous goods to travel at slower speeds through built-up areas. When the 10-mile per hour limit was imposed in Vancouver it was taken as a good sign. However, it turns out that this limit only applies to a one-mile stretch of track along the Harbour Front because of Expo 86. I urge the Minister to enforce speed limits within municipal boundaries of all communities in Canada so as to minimize the risk to as large a number of people as possible.
The Government, in upgrading the safety of rail operations in Canada, must approve funds for the 36 safety inspectors requested by the Ministry of Transport instead of just the eight safety inspectors recently appointed. The Government must act to protect the health and safety of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



INCOME TAX


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Government talks of tax fairness. Yet according to the March

March 13, 1986
Oral Questions
8 Financial Post we find out that a family with a gross income of $40,000 will pay, by 1987, $812 more than they would have paid when the Government took office in 1984 by way of income tax. At the same time a family with a $60,000 gross income will pay $1,200 less, and a family earning $150,000 in gross income will pay $5,470 less by way of tax since the Government took office in 1984. This does not strike me as an indication of fairness toward the lower-income taxpayers of Canada.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, over 6,000 people signed a petition presented to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in support of the "Joie de vivre" project, whose existence is threatened as a result of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The 6,666 petitioners, backed by 21 agencies, stated that no society with any self-respect can afford to ignore the basic needs of those who are ill. That is why we think it is so important that a project like "Joie de vivre" should continue to help our less fortunate fellow citizens.
The Conservative Government always attacks the least fortunate in our society, Mr. Speaker. This Government has no social conscience.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
background papers issued last evening, there is not one word on the farm problem.
Why is this issue not a top priority for the Government and the Prime Minister in his meeting next week with the President of the United States?
['Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hypothetical question, and if the Hon. Member is still a Member of the House at that time I will let him have the answer.']
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House earlier this week, I have raised the question of the U.S. farm legislation in my meetings with Secretary Shultz, and the Prime Minister will be raising it in his meetings with the President next week.
I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that in the conversations between the Prime Minister and the President, this is a matter in which there is indeed the beginning of a common position because the President has already expressed his concerns and reservations about that Farm Bill. We intend, in the Prime Minister's meeting next week, to urge the President to continue in that course.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, there is not a single item on the agenda that reflects what the Minister has said, even though it means a potential 20 per cent loss of income as against 1984 prices for the Canadian farmer.



John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows: Yesterday, the Government caved in to U.S. pressure in the matter of the Canadian publishing industry. Today, apparently, the Government has already caved in to the Americans on the price of drugs for Canadian consumers. Why did the Canadian Government cave in, right before the Canada-U.S. Summit, and so lose its bargaining position? Why give up our whole position before the meeting?


EFFECT OF PROPOSED UNITED STATES FARM BILL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Is it your birthday, John?


John Napier Turner: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He does not need the coaching of the Minister of Justice and, if he is wise, he will reject it.
The United States Farm Bill proposes the greatest threat in living memory to Canadian and, indeed, Australian farmers. The Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke, has sought a special meeting with President Reagan. Yet, looking at the


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is misinformed. There have been Canadian governments that lacked the courage to defend Canadian interests vis-a-vis the Americans, for instance in the matter Canadian sovereignty in the Far North. This Government has shown on many occasions that it is determined and has the capacity to defend Canadian interests. We are going to continue Canada's new approach that was introduced with the election of a proud and strong Conservative Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Both questions and answers were a little long.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, how brave that Government was last summer when
March 13, 1986

the Polar Sea went through. It was only after it had gone through that the Minister got up and made his famous declaration.
Why yield so many key issues before going to Washington, when the major issue being raised by the Congress of the United States concerns softwood lumber, an issue that is fortunately on the agenda. Why throw away our cards when we have not really come to one of the prime issues affecting the whole softwood lumber industry in western Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the problem with regard to the Polar Sea was not a lack of courage. The problem was a lack of preparation for some 16 years by a Liberal Government that had left the Government of Canada with practically no way to defend or assert our sovereignty. We have changed that in the interest of a strong Canada that stands up for Canadian interests. We will do that on the forest question; we will do that on the farm question. We will continue to make progress to develop and protect the interests of Canada in our relations with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Government was on the Prentice-Hall decision.
I would also like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Minister will know, there are many Canadian church organizations, NGOs, and individual Canadians who are deeply concerned about the U.S. administration's proposed supplying of military goods and equipment to the Contras in Nicaragua. Yet we see nothing on the agenda.
Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us if the Prime Minister intends in his meetings with the President to register the very strong opposition of Canada toward proposed military aid? Will he also encourage the President to follow peaceful means of negotiation to solve the problems there, not the use of military force?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were more interested in having a positive effect upon the achievement of peace and progress-


Mr.   de Corneille@: Answer the question.


Ms. Copps:: What about the Contras?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: -in Central America, he would know that Canada can advance that progress best by pursuing and strengthening the Contadora process, as we have been doing, and by resisting the temptation to reduce our influence in the United States and elsewhere by offering gratuitous advice which we can neither defend nor enforce.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear a more gratuitous comment from a Secretary of State than the one we have just heard. There is nothing wrong in this country exercising its independent right to express its opinion when a country is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question, please.


NORAD AGREEMENT-ABT TREATY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there has again been substantial confusion about what the position will be on NORAD.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question, right now, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: My supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Prime Minister intend to ask the President of the United States for a joint declaration at the end of the meeting concerning their joint adherence to the strict confines, regulations, and guidelines of the ABM Treaty as it relates to the NORAD agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is the country's expert on confusion, and no one would challenge his title.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Leader of the Opposition would.


John Napier Turner: Don't take any advice from that guy. Don't hire him as your lawyer. I want to tell you, you would be in real trouble.


Charles Joseph Clark: The position of the Government of Canada with regard to the integrity of the ABM Treaty and regime was outlined clearly in my statement in the House of Commons. The Hon. Member's predecessor as External Affairs critic for the Official Opposition responded at that time to that statement.

March 13, 1986
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


DEATHS OF FOUR INDIANS ON ALBERTA RESERVE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At a time when one out of five young Canadians is unemployed, it is hardly an optimistic time for young Canadians to be growing up. But those who suffer most, without question, are young Canadians on our reserves. My question pertains to the tragic death of four young native Canadians on a reserve in Alberta the night before last with, I understand, the possibility of other deaths, perhaps one actually occurring today.
Given the federal involvement in programs for young native Canadians, and its commitment-and, indeed, I know of the Minister's commitment to these programs-will he undertake to make an investigation into these sad deaths and have a report made back to the House?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put by my hon. friend, I think he should know that the Province of Alberta and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have taken steps to carry out such an investigation which, I believe, would yield the answers to at least some of the questions the Hon. Member is asking.


CONDITIONS ON RESERVES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering our housing standards, health standards, and educational standards, the experiences of people growing up on the reserves are, without question, the worst in Canada, I would ask either the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government has to improve circumstances for native Canadians growing up on these reserves in all areas?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the second question of the Hon. Member, as he knows, is obviously a very complicated one, as it involved the tragic circumstances of the other day. As he well knows, in other reserves and in other Indian communities we also find the same type of circumstances which gave rise to the events of the other day.
With respect to the fixing-up, it took years to get where we are today in terms of reaching the level of inability to cope properly with a new generation of Indian people. It will take all the energy we can muster, both on the government side and on the Hon. Member's side of the House, and in all other institutions, to ensure that Indian people are able to join the rest of Canadian society so that they have some hope for the future, which those young people in that community demonstrated was not there for them in this generation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING OF PROGRAMS FOR NATIVE PEOPLES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, certainly on this side of the House we strongly favour doing whatever is necessary to improve the circumstances for native Canadians.
I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering the living experience of native Canadians on reserves, will he assure us that whatever else the Government may be doing with respect to the series of task force representations, these Canadians who have been so badly treated historically will not be badly treated in the future and that the Government will not cut back on the funding of any programs for native Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond to the Hon. Member's question. My hon. friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, may recall that last April 18, if my memory serves me correctly, the Prime Minister quite clearly indicated that, first, in all our negotiations and discussions with Indian people we will ensure that the relationship between the Government and the Indian people will be strengthened. Second, he indicated that he would not in any way cut program costs, in order that Indian people would be able to keep, at the minimum, what they have, and that in particular fields such as education we would see if we can find the resources to increase their opportunities.
I might also say that the Prime Minister made it quite clear that, in all of these matters, we would make sure that the discussions would be open to the public. That is one of the reasons why the reports of the Deputy Prime Minister's task force were referred to the standing committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RAILWAYS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows that the Government is sending conflicting signals to Newfoundlanders with respect to the future of the Newfoundland Railway, with both the task force report and the Minister of Transport demanding it be shut down. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Terms of Union will be respected. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure Newfoundlanders and this House today that the request of the Government and people of Newfoundland to maintain and upgrade the railway will be respected by the Government?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. The Hon. gentleman is referring to an analysis and an option described by a study team which was engaged in the
March 13, 1986

work of program review. I pointed out yesterday that the Newfoundland Railway is the subject of one of the Terms of Union between the Province of Newfoundland and Canada. There is no way that the Government of Canada will dishonour those Terms of Union.


CANADA-NEWFOUNDLAND TERMS OF UNION-MINISTER'S PROPOSAL
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that the Government of Newfoundland and the people of Newfoundland want to honour the Terms of Union, will the Minister assure the House that the proposal of the Minister of Transport to the Government of Newfoundland, which is now in the final stages of preparation and which recommends the phase-down of that railway, will be withdrawn by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Government of Canada? Will he give the House that assurance?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the assurance which I can give to the hon. gentleman, those who asked the question yesterday, and all Members of this House is that the Government of Canada has no intention whatsoever of dishonouring any of the Terms of Union.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is not the question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday, and again today, the Minister suggested that the Nielsen report on native programs should be referred to the standing committee. Considering that the Standing Committee already has a full agenda and that the Assembly of First Nations has totally rejected the report, would the Minister, who has chaired a cabinet committee designed to look at this review, not submit to the Standing Committee a list of suggestions from the report that he considers worth-while so that the Standing Committee will not have to sort through all the garbage about modern suburbs in the bush and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is quite long.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Hon. Members continue to put questions in the House that raise questions about actions that have been taken by the House. Last Tuesday, with the agreement of all Parties, a
Oral Questions
motion was passed referring all of the study team reports to the respective Standing Committees. That is an action that has been taken collectively by the House. Surely, according to our Standing Orders, we cannot entertain the opening up of something the House has already decided.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to submit the question again. Will the Minister submit to the Standing Committee a list of the reports' suggestions that he, in consultation with native leaders, thinks might be worth-while so that we do not need to sort through all the garbage about user fees, needs tests, and everything else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Douglas Manly: Let's have his suggestions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Minister wishes to answer.


David Edward Crombie: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated the other day in answer to another question, now that the report is before the Standing Committee, as are all other reports of the task force-


James Douglas Manly: But you've looked at it for a year.


David Edward Crombie: Now that the task force report is before the committee, I have already indicated to the chairman of the committee that when it considers what it wants to do with respect to that report, I am available, and 1 can make no other better offer than to meet with the committee if that is the committee's decision.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Solicitor General about the return of capital punishment to the Millhaven Penitentiary last month when inmate Niki Rivard was transferred to Millhaven and murdered by the inmate jungle justice system within six hours. The Minister knows that officials knew and predicted in the media that this would happen, yet none of the available precautions were taken for that inmate. I would like to ask the Minister why no precautions were taken, and whether or not the Solicitor General is taking the responsibility for this execution.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know as a former Solicitor General, inmates are put into protective custody with their consent for the most part. This was discussed with the
11510

March 13, 1986
Oral Questions
inmate in question who rejected that possibility and preferred to be put in with the general population.


REQUEST THAT INQUIRY BE CONDUCTED
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the inmates are the ones who decide on their level of security? Will he conduct an inquiry to find out who was responsible for not providing security for an inmate whose death was predicted with such certainty?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know as a former Solicitor General, in any case such as this an inquiry is indeed conducted, both by CSC and, in a case like this, by the police as well. Again, as a former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member should know that in the case of protective custody institutions-


John Napier Turner: Just tell us what you're doing.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition has a question. If that is so, I will sit down and let him ask it. However, if he wants a response to his colleague's question, I will give it. As the former Solicitor General should know, in the case of protective custody this is generally done at the request of the inmate himself. This was discussed with the inmate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Not all the time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member asks a question and then tries to shout down the response. Does he want a response? I would like to give it. This was discussed with the inmate in question who rejected it. As would be done in a case like this, an internal inquiry is under way in addition to a police inquiry.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the Minister confirm that the Government is proposing to extend the patent protection law for drugs to 10 years, given that the present law saved Canadian consumers over S200 million in 1983, according to Professor Eastman? Will the Minister explain to low-income earners and elderly Canadians why he is caving in to pressure from the multinational drug companies?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the Hon. Member that there has been no caving in. Second, I want to tell him-excuse me, Mr. Speaker-that-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Speak up.


David Orlikow: You need some drugs.


David Edward Crombie: The Minister of Health is not very well today.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, now you know why I am interested in the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would say to the Hon. member that if and when a decision is made, he, as a Member of the House, will be informed along with the others.


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm that the question of generic drugs will be on the agenda when the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States and tell us if this Bill, which we know is forthcoming, is being brought forward to appease the United States Government at the expense of ordinary Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, for the Nielsen task force report on agriculture, only one individual full-time farmer, representing four farm organizations, was consulted. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can rise to say that the imposition of a new accounting system, which will cost farmers $1 billion on back taxes, is really in the best interests of the farmers.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, again, for as many times and as many days, I have to remind my hon. colleague that, when he refers to the task force, what we have been answering since the release of the documents is that they are not representations of Government policy but rather options. The sooner the Hon. Member accepts the reality of the situation, the better off we will all be, and perhaps we can dedicate our time, not only here in the House of Commons but perhaps elsewhere, to more productive questions.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REJECT PROPOSAL
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, with all the uncertainty that exists in farming today, does the Minister think it is really in the best interests of farmers to leave this option up in the air and add more uncertainty? Why does he not just come clean and say that this policy will not fly and he rejects it out of hand?
March 13, 1986


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I identified a couple of options that were placed before us by the task force and when it came time to make a decision and to form government policy, both of those options were rejected.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Reject this one.


John Wise: There are a number of good recommendations. I think it is inappropriate for me to reject them, simply because all of these matters have been referred to the appropriate Standing Committees. I think that is a proper, decent, and democratic process, one which I respect and I would hope the Hon. Member would respect it as well.


IMPACT OF PROPOSED UNITED STATES FARM BILL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State is fully aware of falling grain prices that are having a devastating effect on Canadian farmers. Can the Secretary of State say whether or not the Prime Minister will be discussing the specifics of the important U.S. Farm Bill with President Reagan next week, so that the President will be fully briefed on the disastrous effects of this Farm Bill on Canadian farmers since it includes a more than $50-billion export subsidy for U.S. grains?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it will be a clause-by-clause study, but I assure the Hon. Member that the question of the Farm Bill and its implications for Canada will be raised by the Prime Minister when he meets with the President.


NEED FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in order to guarantee the farmers of this country a fair price, will the Prime Minister also raise with President Reagan the important need for a new and effective international grains agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that initiatives have been taken by Canada's Minister of State for the Wheat Board in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture of the United States, and with various others.
I will convey to the Prime Minister the representation that it would be useful at the summit for him to underline the leadership which is already being shown by one of his Canadian Ministers in this regard.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Following today's one per cent drop in the Bank of Canada rate, could the Minister of Finance inform the House what impact this will have on mortgage loans and loans for small and medium-sized businesses?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have had a drop in the bank rate today of slightly over 1 per cent-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: What about the Gallup Poll?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I can see that that news is not greeted with favour by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Yes, I expect that there will be some response in the market-place to the bank prime rate as well as to mortgage rates. I am sure the Hon. Member noticed that mortgage rates dropped earlier today. It is all very encouraging and a pretty good indication that our economic program is working.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Today we have outside, in the snow and the cold, several hundred Montrealers who lost their unemployment insurance benefits because they had early retirement pensions. Why does the Government continue to justify this cruel and retroactive policy simply on the grounds that it was announced a year ago, when not one of those persons outside knew about the policy when they agreed to early retirement pensions?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a question which should be posed to the company for which the individuals worked.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The federal Government, Canada Post.


Mr. Cassidy:: It is your business, not that of the company. How callous can you get?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I don't know. You are the expert.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the question, if I may. The Hon. Member knows full well, because I think he has put the question in the House

March 13, 1986
Oral Questions
a half dozen times, that this matter has been referred to the Forget Commission. As I have said to him, again on a number of occasions, a wide variety of issues is before the Forget Commission now. If we start to pick and choose those issues or those particular problems which we feel should be changed, without awaiting the full report of the Forget Commission, I think we would be foreclosing on some of the options the Forget Commission might wish to put forth.


ADVICE GIVEN BY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION OFFICIALS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. The Minister has implemented the measure while referring it to the Forget Commission. These people have already lost their unemployment insurance and have been cut back while it is being studied.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Warren Allmand: Does the Minister realize that when officials in the Unemployment Insurance Commission were questioned on this matter, they indicated that they were not informed early in the year about it and could not give proper advice to these people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right off base with that statement, and he knows it.


Mr. Berger:: You were told that by the people in the corridor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member from Montreal is also way off base with his interjection. He does not know what he is talking about, either.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is the country off base? Is Wilson the only one who is right?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The fact of the matter is that this measure was introduced in November, 1984.1 believe the implementation of the measure was deferred from April 1, 1985, to January 1, 1986. During that time the Department was well aware of the measure itself, as well as the deferral and the means for deferral.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Go outside and tell them that.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As I am sure he is aware, up to 1,400 Ipsco steelworkers are being laid off across western Canada. Part of the problem is the importation of
cheap South Korean steel. Could the Minister explain why we are the only country in the world which gives South Korean steel a preferential tariff when it has the most modern steel industry in the world and Canadian steelworkers are being laid off in droves?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows the reasons for preferential tariffs. Preferential tariffs are available to certain less developed countries of the world, and South Korea is one of them. Also I think the Hon. Member is aware that it is the option of the company to refer something to, I believe it is, the import tribunal, at which time a decision can be taken.


REQUEST FOR POLITICAL ACTION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. How can he, in all good conscience, suggest that Canadian steelworkers should be content to go through a very lengthy bureaucratic maze while their industry in western Canada is being devastated? Does the Minister not agree that immediate political action is needed?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is leaving a wrong impression, if I can be nice with him here. One of the reasons for the lay-offs of workers at Ipsco is the fact that there is a market slowdown in the oil and gas industry which is having quite an effect on the business of Ipsco. That is a matter which is outside our control, and he knows it. It is the drop in oil prices.


John Napier Turner: What about the
recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition talks about a recession-


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: Things are out of control when you want them to be out of control-[DOT]


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Things are going faster in Canada than in any other country with the exception of Japan.


John Napier Turner: When you don't want to take the responsibility, you don't-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I invite Hon, Members to continue this conversation somewhere else?
March 13, 1986


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary. On December 4, 1985, the Minister of Transport advised the House that he would establish a task force on the transportation of dangerous goods through the greater Toronto area. Four months have now passed. Will that task force be established and, if so, when?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the Hon. Member for York East. Largely because of persistent efforts by himself and by other Members from the greater Toronto area, tomorrow the Minister of Transport will announce the formation of a task force. It will be headed by Mr. Harold Gilbert, the very highly respected former Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications in Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Tomorrow!


J. Michael Forrestall: It will be a two-year study and it will involve all sectors-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE BUDGET
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the Budget which Canadians have not seen, the special good news Budget which has been peddled from Canadian Embassies abroad. If indeed the Canadian economy is now as good as the Government would like to have foreigners believe, why is the Minister still playing the heavy with middle-income Canadian taxpayers?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the Hon. Member that one of the reasons the Canadian economy had the best economic rate of growth last year, equalled only by Japan, is that we have been attacking our basic fiscal problem, the deficit. This is why interest rates were down last year. This is why economic activity was strong. This is why housing starts were up by something like 30 per cent. This is why investment activity was up by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!


ECONOMIC FORECASTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that of his two economic forecasts-the sunny one
Oral Questions
for foreigners and the grim one for Canadians-he is today asking us to accept the sunny one?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the statement which was issued in the United States and the statement which was issued in Canada, both in relation to the Budget, utilized exactly the same economic forecast, exactly the same fiscal forecast, and exactly the same approach to the economic problems of the country. She knows it, and she is trying to mislead the House with that statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Michael, you are in trouble.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Minister of Finance wants to withdraw the last part of that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to leave the implication that she was intentionally misleading the House. 1 just felt that she was misleading the House in the way she was putting the preamble to the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: A withdrawal with regard to her purposes is what I was seeking.


VIDEO TAPES OF HOCKEY FIGHTS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. I wrote to the Minister several days ago concerning video tapes of hockey fights which had been edited from NHL telecasts and are being offered for sale across the country.
Does the Minister not agree that such video tapes are detrimental to efforts being made to clean up the violence in hockey, particularly at the junior level? Will he tell us what measures he has taken to get this pornography off the shelves?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, the NHL does not fall within my jurisdiction as Minister responsible for amateur sport.


David Berger: Pass the buck again.


Otto John Jelinek: However, because of the large youth following which NHL hockey has, I took the initiative and approached the president of the National Hockey League some months

March 13, 1986
Oral Questions
ago on this matter. 1 am continuing discussions with people in the NHL to try to remove violence from the sport as a whole.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO REMOVE VIDEO TAPES FROM STORE SHELVES
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. As well as talking to people in the NHL, has the Minister spoken to his cabinet colleagues who have jurisdiction over copyright and justice to encourage them to act quickly to get this stuff off the shelves?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know also, the jurisdiction over video tapes rests with the provinces. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Hon. Member to talk to representatives of the provinces.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Residents along the Lake Erie shore have experienced considerable flooding and property damage due to the high water levels of Lake Erie. This situation is even more threatening now because of the expected heavy runoff. Can this threat of flooding be reduced and the Lake Erie water level lowered by allowing more water to flow through the Welland Canal and the Niagara River?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, 30 different international studies over the years have documented in worrisome detail the extent to which the body of water in question cannot be regulated easily.
There are, however, many steps that could be taken to deal with the problem in general. For that purpose I will be announcing soon the establishment of the Canadian Flood Control Centre, which will mobilize all the resources of the Government of Canada in one centre, probably in Burlington, stressing the dissemination of information and the provision of technical advice. The problem is serious, and the Government of Canada treats it with the utmost urgency.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Small Business. Is he aware that Mr. David Star, a community development worker at Peerless Lake in northern Alberta where the recent terrible
tragedy took place, said the problem at Peerless Lake is that young people have no hope and no economic future? Why then did the Minister is this current fiscal year expend less than 20 per cent of the Native Economic Development Fund which had been approved by Parliament?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, in the past twelve months, I received nearly 800 applications for the Native Economic Development Program, and 72 per cent have been processed. Over $40 million has been spent to help native peoples in all regions. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work done by my departmental officials in this respect, and we shall keep up the good work.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN ESTIMATES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Small Business. Will he assure the House and the native people of Canada that he will fight with all the vigour he can muster to get his full allocation in the next fiscal year, and not just 47 per cent as we have in the Estimates?
[ Translation]


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, like all other Ministers and Departments in this Government, we are working very hard to give all Canadians, including native peoples, what they have a right to expect, and we shall continue to do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, in a joint communique with the Foreign Minister of Mexico issued earlier this week, urged everyone to "refrain from committing acts that aggravate the present situation in Central America".
Since the provision of lethal aid to the Contras in such an act, will the Prime Minister be drawing this communique to the attention of the President next week in the course of urging him not to give lethal aid to the Contras?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly ensure that the communique is drawn to the attention of American authorities.
March 13, 1986


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Secretary of State recognized that war and peace in Central America are our business. Will he, in the course of making sure that the communique is provided to the President by the Prime Minister, also assure that the Prime Minister speaks quite strongly on this matter of lethal aid to the Contras?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we believe that actions speak louder than words in Central America as elsewhere. Our Government has tripled its development assistance in Central America because we believe the problem there is an economic problem and not a military problem to be solved by military means.


Pauline Jewett: Answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have contributed constructively to the Contadora process. We have discussed the possibility of contributing constructively to the resolution of border disputes. We intend to take an active role-


Pauline Jewett: What about the communique?


Charles Joseph Clark: -in working to bring peace and stability and development to Central America.

[ Translation]


PARKS CANADA
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Parks Canada. I have here a letter from the office of the Hon. Member for Gaspe, addressed to the Parks Canada Director for the Gaspe, and it says: "We are enclosing a list of people who are interested in becoming part of your staff. We want these people to be considered for future jobs." How can the Government tolerate a situation where the staffing at Parc Forillon in Quebec will be changed to suit the needs of Conservative Members?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the question correctly. The Hon. Member is suggesting that because somebody wrote to me recommending that I should consider a list of names for recruitment as employees in my Department, therefore I am responsible for distributing such largesse. This is without having received the letter and much less having made the decision.
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is not what 1 said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is the fifth patronage issue that has occurred and been brought to the attention of the House in the last eight days, when is the Deputy Prime Minister going to get involved to ensure that this does not happen again? When is he going to tell his Tory members to take their hands out of the taxpayers' cookie jar?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question and the previous one are manufactured out of the usual raw material utilized by the Hon. Member in his questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: It is your material.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's your material, the raw material.


John Napier Turner: It is raw.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, it has to do with the recent changes in unemployment insurance.
In light of the fact that his colleagues rejected and condemned retroactivity as it applied to the recent Prentice-Hall sale, why is it that when it comes to pensioners receiving their UI benefits, retroactivity is quite in order, but when it comes to corporations retroactivity is a no-no?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has got it wrong. It was not retroactive. In fact we delayed the implementation of the whole matter for eight or nine months.
[ Translation]


IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATION CHANGE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: I have a supplementary for the same Minister. Could he give the House the assurance that he is going to reverse this change in the

March 13, 1986
Oral Questions
Unemployment Insurance system, now that the Forget Commission will not submit its report until this fall?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, there are a wide range of matters which are under review by the Forget Commission. If we took decisions on these matters individually, we would be undermining the role of the commission. In fact, we might even be in contempt of that commission. We have said on many occasions that we are awaiting the results of the commission's report, after which we will take decisions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could the Government House Leader give us an outline of the business he intends to call next week and until the Easter adjournment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. House Leader for the question. There will be no business tomorrow as, by virtue of an Order of the House of earlier today, we agreed to adjourn the House at the conclusion of today's sitting until Monday. On Monday we will proceed with the sequence in which we are now engaged, that is, the Bill with respect to the borrowing authority. Hopefully we can make progress on that. It is then my intention to call Bill C-91, an Act with respect to the establishment of competition tribunals. I now designate next Tuesday and Wednesday as allotted days for the Opposition. We will continue to consult and see what progress we make in order that we can call the rest of the business.
In summary, since the Hon. Opposition House Leader has asked me to list the business until the Easter recess, I would like to dispose of all the Bills on the Order Paper.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, do I interpret that last comment to mean that, if that were to occur, the Government is prepared to prorogue?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hypothetical question, and if the Hon. Member is still a Member of the House at that time I will let him have the answer.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall, that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are four minutes left in the allotted time of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), if she wishes to use them.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have completed my remarks and would be glad to respond to questions, if there are any. If not, we can proceed with the next speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on questions or comments.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and determine whether she agrees with my observations on the Conservative Government's current policy for members of the Armed Forces. The Government has eliminated the possibility for retiring members of the Canadian Armed Forces to obtain unemployment insurance. This is essentially changing the game plan in the middle of the game for these people who have served their country for many years. They have contributed to the unemployment insurance program for from 20 to 30 years. That insurance has been calculated as part of their pension to assist them in making the transition from their jobs to a much diminished income. They have actually been put out of the Armed Forces, because they do not have any choice whether or not they will leave.
This hits them at a time in life when their family expenses are extremely high. Their children are in their late teens and require support for post-secondary education. Children need much financial assistance just before they become adults. This is one of the most devious and under-handed things that has been done to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
In addition, there are two other small things which the Government has done in the same vein. It has attempted to partially deindex pensions of retired members of the Armed Forces. The Government insists that those members who find jobs to help themselves over this very difficult transition pay unemployment insurance premiums, but that they can never collect unemployment insurance.
I would like to hear the comments of the Member for Vancouver East on this. Does she agree with me that the Conservative Government has been extremely hard-handed with members of the Armed Forces in this matter?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. There are a few conversations taking place in the Chamber. If Members have
March 13, 1986

anything to say, they can go behind the curtain. I would like to listen to the Hon. Member.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 am very pleased to respond to the points my hon. colleague raised.
I agreed with him very strongly when he raised them this morning.
While on a U.N. conference recently 1 had occasion to talk at some length with wives of members of the Armed Forces at the Lahr station in Germany. They indicated how unfair it was that after their husbands had paid unemployment insurance premiums all their lives they were no longer entitled to the benefits of that system. I completely agree with what the Member is saying and I hope the Government will take steps to improve that situation.
The Member did not bring up the point that services which should exist in every community do not exist on military bases.
I think particularly of child care services. The wives of members of the Armed Forces have the right to have their own occupations and careers. They do not have that opportunity since they do not have adequate child care. The Cooke Task Force on Child Care recommended that there be some immediate action in this area of federal jurisdiction.
I am also reminded of the discrimination against wives of members of the military with regard to participation in events and organizations on the bases and of other discriminations which still exist in many areas of the Armed Forces.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, does the Member for Vancouver East agree with my perception, and that of many other people in the New Democratic Party, that the Conservative Party's continuous reference to the Forget Commission having any influence on the restoration of these rights to members of the Armed Forces is a complete farce? That benefit was chopped at the beginning of this year and the people retiring now are retiring without the benefit of unemployment insurance. The chance of that benefit ever being restored is about the same as that of a snowball in hell. Continued reference to that particular item with regard to the Forget Commission is nothing but hypocrisy and fails to take an adequate position on the question. Does the Member agree with my balanced perception of this problem?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Member has made his own point in this regard. I wonder to what degree Armed Forces personnel and their spouses are involved in consultation on these issues. It is a most urgent matter and should be given top priority. The Nielsen task force involved so many business people, almost all of whom were males. Perhaps it should have involved a cross section of people who are directly affected by these policies, including those in the Armed Forces.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member and her sincerity. I was disturbed by her comments when she said in her remarks that she was disappointed, crushed and felt that some of the actions of the
Borrowing Authority Act
Government were unforgivable. I tended to feel the same way with respect to her remarks, particularly when she talked on one hand of the problems there were in society, and on the other hand about our large costs of borrowing. She talked about how there was a lack of confidence in the international money markets and our fallen dollar. 1 know that the Hon. Member realizes the reason for this is the lack of confidence because of our financial imbalance, our deficit and our enormous national debt. 1 know she is aware of that because she has spoken and asked questions about it in the House. 1 have heard about the NDP task force on the subject of how to deal with the deficit. I know that they have talked about increasing taxes to corporations and, of course, that is what the Budget does. 1 know they talked about closing tax loopholes and, of course, that is what the last Budget did and that is what this Budget is doing. I am just wondering if the Hon. Member has any other suggestions as to how to restore confidence in our dollar and cut down on our borrowing costs.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure in the time that is left it is very difficult to comment on all the policies that the New Democratic Party has advocated. I would be glad to send the Member a copy of the task forces that we have had. There are quite a number of ways that we would approach the deficit question very differently.
I must say I do not agree with him that the tax reforms he refers to are real reforms at all. There are many very major tax reforms that we had advocated. One is to go back to the pre-1982 marginal tax rates, a very simple one that would bring in well over a billion dollars, if my memory serves me right. What I am saying is that what the Conservative Party is tending to do is to follow the Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Bill Bennett form of economics. If you look at British Columbia alone, where we have 14 per cent unemployment in Victoria, you will understand why that kind of economics of restraint does not work.
If we can get more people working through a positive program and through support such as day care and so on, then some of our social costs will be reduced. We do not object to taking a look at some ways of cutting costs that are legitimate, but from our point of view we do not think the way this Government is going will benefit Canada as a whole.


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: Yes. The Hon. Member spoke about the impact of the Budget on women, and of the Government's spending plans and so on. Is she aware that the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) in his response last week in the House indicated that the Government has no plans to ensure that the cuts in Public Service jobs that are to take place over the next three or four years will not impact extremely unfairly on women? I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that women by far make up the majority of public employees in the federal Government earning less than $20,000 per annum, but there are only 7 or 10 per cent of employees earning more than $60,000 per annum.

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
When we asked about whether the Government had a plan to make sure that the cuts were not concentrated on low-paid federal employees, and therefore women, the Minister waffled, he looked embarrassed, he hid his face and he said, "Well, that is a problem that we ought to take very seriously. That is why we have Affirmative Action Programs in order to get women up into the top jobs".
Is the Hon. Member aware of the fact that there is not time to get women who are low-paid now up into the top jobs before they get their pink slips.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, I did refer to this in my remarks this morning, and I agree completely, having sat in on the Estimates with the Member when we asked this question specifically, that there is no positive affirmative action to protect women in their present jobs within the Public Service, much less a mandatory employment equity program that will allow them to move into better-paid jobs at an equal rate with men.
What constantly astounds me is that it was possible to have the mandatory affirmative action which benefited so much the Francophones in our society who were at a considerable disadvantage a number of years ago. We do not seem to be able to apply this to other groups. We have proven it can work. We have had private companies in the United States telling us that they even like it. Yet we cannot really get an employment equity program with teeth, either with companies associated with the Government or within our own government service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate?


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, this is at least the fifteenth time I have spoken on borrowing authority Bills since I was elected in 1979, and returned to the House as the Member for Mississauga South. This is the first time I stand with pleasure to speak on the borrowing authority Bill, because in this Bill for the first time we have turned the corner, we have reduced the borrowing requirement of this country from $28.8 billion last year to $22.6 billion this year, a reduction of $6.2 billion. This is a truly massive reduction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The fiscal plan produced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) only takes into account the history back to the 1977-78 year with respect to national accounts, financial requirements and the budgetary deficit. Looking that over, you can note the continual increase for every year, until the 1984-85, of the percentage of Gross National Product committed to paying the cost of borrowing. For the first time we are able to reduce the amount required to be borrowed from 6.3 per cent of the Gross National Product to 4.6 per cent of the Gross National Product. That truly is a remarkable change.
It is that kind of activity, as we take hold of this country and turn it around, that again will give this country hope for the future, for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren. The last two decades have been plagued with Governments going to the well to pay current bills, using a Chargex
card to run the country, to buy the groceries. We have not been paying our way. We have been borrowing on the future of the country without any sense of responsibility. This has changed.
If you take a look at the projections in the Budget Papers you will see that the requirement to borrow goes down next year to $17.6 billion, and eventually, even on the most pessimistic basis, to no more than $11 billion.
I call Mr. Wilson the pessimistic Minister of Finance because his projections are all pessimistic. While last year he felt we would need the deficit we had, indeed, we will probably wind up spending far less than projected, despite the problems we had with banks in western Canada.
What is happening is that our Minister of Finance has taken a look at the country and has said: "Well, we can at least do this, and that is our Budget". I tell you that this Budget, in terms of deficits, in terms of projections, in terms of costs, is pessimistic. We are going to do better than we are forecasting. More of that later.
Let us get to some figures. The Minister of Finance says that growth will only be 2.7 per cent in the next five years until 1990-91. He also says that growth last year was only 4.5 per cent. In fact it was 4.9 per cent. Nobody has forecast growth over the next five years to be as little as 2.7 per cent. Indeed, if you ask the Royal Bank of Canada, they say we are pessimistic. If you ask Data Resources, we are pessimistic. If you ask Informetrica we are pessimistic. The growth projections in the Budget are pessimistic.
Let us consider the oil prices. The Opposition said that the price of oil stated by the Minister of Finance in his Budget was wrong and that his deficit projections would be far off the mark. The fact is that the Economic Council of Canada has said that the Gross National Product will increase, employment will increase and inflation will decrease if oil prices fall. That is all good news. The Minister of Finance projects the price of oil to be $22.50 a barrel. At $15 a barrel our year will be even better than predicted.
The Minister pointed out that we had a small flip in interest rates which pushed them up for a short term in order to protect our currency. However, interests rates are falling dramatically and will fall even further with the decline in the price of oil. Members of the House will note that on Monday the Government of the United States was able to borrow its treasury bill money at 6.5 per cent. Members will also know that on a 90-day basis the Eurodollar rate is less than 7.5 per cent, the LIBOR rate is less than 7.5 per cent and that our interest rates dropped 105 bases points today. I suggest that the projection of 9.5 per cent for interest rates in the fiscal year commencing April 1 is pessimistic because, with any performance at all that follows the United States, Germany or Japan, our interest rates will be dramatically lower than those forecast by the Minister of Finance. Therefore, it may not be necessary to call upon the borrowing authority required here.
March 13, 1986

The budgeted borrowing authority is $22.6 billion. I suspect that we will not borrow the total amount which we authorized last year, nor borrow all the money that is authorized in this Bill. I am optimistic. It is the first time I have been able to come to the House, since 1979, and say that we are doing a good job in coming to grips with the problems of the country.
It distresses me to see the Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) suggest we are only optimistic when we talk to foreign Governments. Let me tell her that we are optimistic when we talk to Canadians and she should be as optimistic because she should be promoting Canada instead of being negative. We could make Canada grow while solving our problems. That is the attitude that should be taken by Members opposite. That is the kind of attitude Canadians expect and that is the kind of attitude we should have. I am proud that our Government and our foreign offices throughout the world are displaying that attitude.
In his speech last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asked investors to look at Canada closely for business opportunities. It is that kind of speech which we ought to be giving in selling our nation and promoting the possibilities that exist in our great land.
We have heard numerous comments about exchange rates. Let me expand on that for a moment. I do not agree with the use of interest rates to influence the exchange policy of the country. Frankly, I do not always agree with the Minister of Finance, and I profoundly disagree with this particular policy produced by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. In my view, exchange rates are determined by an active and aggressive market, buying and selling currency.
Our trading activity in the market-place with the United States is truly amazing. Indeed, we do well over $100 billion worth of trade with that country, which means the buying, selling and dealing in American exchange is truly phenomenal.
While speculation takes place, we should question why we have an exchange rate for our currency that perhaps is less than what it should actually indicate when we consider the price of goods and services as offered in the market-place. Members will know that the Economic Council of Canada, in making comparisons between goods for sale in New York State and Ontario, has indicated that the Canadian dollar should perhaps be worth 80 cents, on a market price for goods basis, in comparison to the American dollar. I believe that the Economic Council is right.
Some may ask why our exchange rate may drop below 70 cents, certainly not a strong and active rate. The reason is a phenomenon that has not existed in this country until now, and which some people policing our exchange rate have not recognized. That phenomenon is prosperity. There is an economic boom in this country, primarily in Ontario and Quebec. Unfortunately, that boom has not spread throughout the country because such a boom throughout the country would have been better for everyone. Huge regional disparities are detrimental to our economic plan, because we have to maintain certain programs in some parts of the country, yet they may not be
Borrowing Authority Act
necessary in other areas and could become anti-productive. Currently there is a strong boom in southern Ontario and certainly in Quebec. For the first time there are areas in this country where there is, in fact, over-employment. Businessmen are calling constituency offices asking why the Government does not bring in immigrants. They want to know why they cannot yet help when the Government is paying out unemployment insurance. These businessmen are prepared to offer from $8 to $12 an hour.
What effect does this have on the exchange rate front? For example, when Canadians are prosperous they go south in the winter. That affects our exchange because those Canadians convert Canadian dollars into American dollars. Canadians also import more goods when they are prosperous. While we still have a massive trade surplus, our imports are rising as a proportion of trade activity and this increase in imported goods effects our exchange rates.
Finally, as Canadian companies become more prosperous and increase their trade with the United States they have a dramatic increase in inventory in the United States. These companies are increasing their export financing and becoming more active in other countries. Last weekend, three of my constituents told me that their companies were becoming more involved in the United States. One is a computer organized company that was developed in Toronto and carries on research and development. It has had to open branch offices in New York and Los Angeles in order to get business. In order to open those offices and develop its programming it must remove money from Canada. However, it returns profits to Canada which benefits our country.
Another constituent is involved in a foreign exchange banking operation. That operation bought out the American company and is moving the head office from New York to Toronto. What does that do? It means that Canadian dollars have gone out to buy up that company, and that is good for Canada, but, unfortunately, that affects our foreign exchange. I have another situation in a manufacturing operation partly because of the problems we have with liability insurance. The Canadian manufacturer has had to open an American plant so there can be partial manufacturing done down there. In that way it will solve some of the tariff problems, the buy-Ameri-can problems, the trade problems we still have with the United States and, in fact, the insurance problem. Again, that is an outflow of cash and investment but it is a profitable investment for Canada. It is good for Canada and for Canadian employment.
All of this prosperity affects the trade value for our dollar and we should not be upset with it. The market-place operates the way the market-place ought to operate. It is the discipline of the market-place and we cannot change it by jigabooing around with interest rates.


Don Boudria: Jigabooing?


John V. Nunziata: Is "jigabooing" parliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Ellis:: Absolutely. It's a good Edmontonian word.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There will be a period of questions and comments for Hon. Members. I know the Hon. Member is a very popular Member, and you are very popular Hon. Members, so you will have your questions ready for him. If you would just let him finish, I would appreciate it very much.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A lot of times we hear that foreigners are going to bring money into our country to develop business. That is not what we are looking for in Toronto. We are not looking for debt money. We are looking for equity money and new ideas. Businessmen do not just invest money, they invest ideas. When one has an idea or a capacity as a developer, or whatever, and one goes to a foreign country, one takes one's ideas and some money, but mostly the money is borrowed in that foreign country. That is how our developers who have built the office buildings in Houston, Los Angeles and New York and who have developed the subdivisions in Florida, have operated. That is how they have done it. That is our export of services. What we in Toronto are trying to do is to attract people who have the ideas and some of the up-front capital and they can borrow more money in Canada if they wish because Canada has lots of capital. Canada does not need just money, it needs ideas, entrepreneurship and new growth, and we will get that in a trade operation such as is in Toronto right now.
If our people are out doing things, that is good for Canada and if we attract new business into Canada which will make use of Canada's capital, that is all right. We need the new business and the growth. We need the new entrepreneurship. That's how it works.
I would like to speak for a moment about the amount of our debt and the way the debt is held. At the present time, a great deal of our debt is held in what I call "current account" debt, that is, in Canada savings bonds and in Treasury bills. Indeed, about 65 per cent to 70 per cent of our debt is held in that fashion. One of the problems of holding debt in that fashion is the kind of problem the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) faced two, three or four weeks ago when in order to prevent people from cashing Canada savings bonds, he was forced to increase the interest rates on them for a short-term period.
Something we have to do in the management of the national debt is to convert more of that debt into more long-term debt. We must, therefore, as this year goes by, rely less and less upon Canada savings bonds for our debt pattern and more and more on long-term debt instruments. Second, we have to take a look at the whole question of T-bills and stop borrowing as much as we are on T-bills. Some of those people with those high interest T-bill accounts in Canada Trust had better understand that they should load up in a hurry because interest rates are going to drop as we make this economy grow. The Budget is pessimistic in terms of our debt requirement. The Nielsen task force report with its ideas, the Forget Commission which will probably revamp and cut down on the cost of the unemployment insurance scheme, and other things which are going on, will make Canada grow again and grow
well. I am happy to speak on this borrowing Bill because for the first time we have turned the economy around.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will agree that the bottom line in any Budget is fairness and equity. We as legislators and as parliamentarians ultimately will not be governed by whether or not books balance but we, as a nation, will ultimately be governed by how we treat the disadvantaged in society and how fair we are to the various sectors. The Hon. Member is chuckling but what we on the Liberal side speak of when we speak of fairness, is economic justice. If one is concerned about reducing the deficit, we believe one must do so in a fair fashion. One should not do so on the backs of the disadvantaged in society.
The Hon. Member referred to some "jigabooing". Perhaps he was referring to the Conservative Party. Perhaps he can advise the House whether the Conservative Party was jigabooing during the last election campaign when it spoke of fairness and equity, when it made so many promises in its thirst for power. Does it mean that the Conservative Party is permitted to make promises during an election campaign-for example, a so-called "sacred trust", the protection of the pensions of senior citizens-and then after the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) came to power, try to deindex the pensions of senior citizens to reduce the deficit? That was one broken promise.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he could tell us what is fair, what is just and what is equitable about a Government trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged, the senior citizens, the disabled, the unemployed and the young and then almost in the same breath-in the same Budget-give a lifetime cash bonanza to the wealthy to the tune of $500,000 in capital gains exemptions? The Hon. Member claims to be a fair and reasonable individual. Would he tell the House what is fair about a Budget or two Budgets which result in a massive tax increase of 23 per cent for someone earning $15,000 a year compared to a tax increase of 1 per cent for someone earning anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 a year? Has the definition of "fairness" changed or are we now referring to "jigabooing"?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the Hon. Member can be so confused. I am surprised that he, as a Member of Parliament, could come into this House and be so confused in his presentation over a five-minute period in discussing my speech.
First, when we have an increase in employment-at least
580,000	jobs-when we promise "jobs, jobs, jobs" and we deliver them at a rate far in excess of the job creation in all of Europe, it is surprising to be asked questions about fairness. The Hon. Member knows that the programs in terms of social transfers are in place. They have not been injured or harmed. Indeed, they are more fair. For example, I refer to the program with respect to children. We have taken the tax relief away from the well-off and given increased child tax credits to the relatively poor. Not only that, we have made these child tax credits available in November instead of making them
March 13, 1986

available to some tax discounter after income tax returns have been filed.
I do not know what the problem of the Hon. Member is. He talked about the problem with the capital gains tax, on which there was a provision in the last Budget. It has already shown how it can improve the investment growth of the country. The cost of that capital gains tax relief was minimal. One can see just how minimal it was in terms of the tax collections which were made this year and by the way the Government has been able to perform and come right on track with its Budget. One would think that the Hon. Member would stand up and say: "You've done a tremendous job. You've turned the country around. No longer will we borrow against the wealth of our children because that is not fair". However, the Hon. member seems to have some idea that it is fair. The whole question of Liberal policy has not been concerned with fairness. It has been to borrow, steal, print or do whatever one can to spend money which one does not have. Members of the Liberal Party treat that as some kind of fairness. If that is fairness then I just do not understand members of the Liberal Party. Perhaps the Hon. Member's concept of fairness is to go out and spend money which we do not have and which we have not earned.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with respect to taxation. It reads:
Dear Michael
As you are aware I sat in on most of the hearings in connection with Bill C-80 and have been the recipient of most of the representations made by industrial groups and others in connection with this Bill-
The allegations made by the steel people and by the concrete people are correct and accurate. The observations made by your staff-the same staff that provide scientific and research tax credits and other horror shows conceived in an ivory tower by persons without business experience is no place to receive advice.
1 think it is essential that there be a rethink of all of these taxes in your Budget of February. I think that you ought to treat all of the representations made by organizations like the Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute as a representation with respect to the February Budget.
My question is this: What does the Hon. Member think of the 8 per cent federal sales tax which has been imposed on the construction industry over the last eight months?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my friend has brought up that piece of correspondence. I do not know how he got hold of my correspondence. However, I suppose he has his
ways.


John V. Nunziata: Wouldn't you like to know!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Having said that, I think he will know that that is exactly the type of representation that I as a Member of the House made to the Minister of Finance. He will know that it is a hard-nosed representation. He ought to make the same type of hard-nosed representation. Let me give him the answer to his question. It will be found in the new business transfer tax which will replace what I call the most inequitable kind of
Borrowing Authority Act
tax. I refer to the manufacturer's sales tax which passes on a tax and which carries with it gross margins on top of tax which reach the consumer in many cases. The rate of that tax is not 12 per cent but more in the order of 16 per cent and sometimes 17 per cent.
The Minister has answered the question. He answered it in the Budget. The representations were heard. I am surprised that the Hon. Member cannot make representations about the indecency of measures such as the scientific research tax credits which were put into place by the former Liberal Minister of Finance, the Hon. Marc Lalonde.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member on setting the facts straight and for making sure that the Canadian public know what the real facts are. The Hon. Member knows that after the Economic Statement of 1984 and the Budget of 1985 the Opposition was highly critical. It was critical when it said that that Economic Statement and that Budget would destroy the country. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said it would put another 50,000 people out of work. The Leader of the New Democratic Party said it would put another 100,000 people out of work. In fact, as the Hon. Member knows, the result of the Economic Statement and the Budget is that we have almost 600,000 more people employed, all of the economic indicators have gone up and the deficit has dropped by about $2 billion. Now that members of the Opposition find that their approach will not work in convincing Canadians-since it is difficult to argue with success, and the last Budget was successful-they are now shifting their ground. They are now trying to say that the present Budget is unfair. They have been citing examples which have been reported in The Financial Post. 1 know that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is an avid reader of The Financial Post. I know he would also like to put the record straight with respect to this subject. I would like to give him the opportunity to do that right now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker-


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) used the word "jigaboo" in the House. In a question to the Hon. Member, I used-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member used the word "jigabooing" which means dancing, fooling around or an end-around type of thing. I heard the statement. I do not think it had anything to do with any word which I really know. I did not think it was a racist remark, which is what I think the Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton (Mr. Nunziata) is trying to say. It is a colloquialism. It was used in the 1930s and the 1940s when they were doing a little bit of jive.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I may finish, I used the same word. To avoid any possibility of there being any suggestion whatsoever of anyone misinterpreting the use of that particular word, at this point I would like to withdraw unequivocally the

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
word which I used on a number of occasions during my question to the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is perfectly fine. Would the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) like to say the same thing?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, of course not, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not know what kind-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is ridiculous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate.


Alan Redway: What about the question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid that too much time has been taken up now. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) now has the floor on debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. For the information of Hon. Members 1 call to their attention that Bill C-99 is a very thin Bill. It is a bit like the policy of the present Government in that it has only one page. The Bill asks this House to give to the Tories across the way $22.6 billion as may be required for public works and general purposes.
The first thing I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is: Would you give $22.6 billion to a bunch of Tories? The answer is obviously quite clear. The public has already decided that the majority Government no longer has its confidence. In testimony of what I am telling Hon. Members I would like to cite the results of public opinion polls which were released this morning. I am sure Hon. Members will agree that they are indeed wonderful and accurate. The public opinion polls found that only 36 per cent of the Canadian people want to have this Government in charge of the country. Only one out of every three Canadians think that the Tories know what they are doing. This is only a little over a year and a half after the Tories were elected with the largest majority on record.
As a matter of fact, since April, the popularity of the Tories has decreased from 54 per cent to 36 per cent and the popularity of the Liberal Party has practically doubled in that same period of time. What should that tell us? That should tell us that the people no longer believe that the Government should be governing the affairs of our country. Why have they come to that conclusion? I think we have clearly established that right now, it is the popular opinion that the Tories should not be in charge. Why has this happened?
First, during the election campaign the Conservative Party made several promises to the Canadian people. As a matter of fact, I just happen to have a copy here of a little booklet entitled 338 Tory Promises. If you want a copy of this booklet,
Mr. Speaker, or if anyone who is listening to this wants a copy of 338 Tory Promises, I would gladly send one. All one has to do is write to me here on Parliament Hill. No postage stamp is required and there is no charge. 1 will gladly send a copy of 338 Tory Promises, most of them promises which have been broken.
I see that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is here. He is obviously making giant strides in revamping the Public Service and Parks Canada along with his colleagues.
Let us see what the Tories promised for the young people of Canada. I am turning now to the page on youth unemployment in the booklet entitled 338 Tory Promises. The Tories promised to supplement the Ministry of State for Youth with a Canada Youth Advisory Council. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The Ministry of State for Youth has disappeared. The only thing left is the Minister and her chauffeur.
The other day, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) asked the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), very eloquently, of course, what she could do for the young people of Canada with only a chauffeur and a limousine. I responded to that by saying that the only thing she could do is to hire a young chauffeur. There is only one job that she can offer to the young people of Canada. In fact, that chauffeur would probably end up being a young Tory chauffeur. We have heard of the policy the Minister is trying to advocate for the rest of Cabinet, the policy of promoting young Tories with hard earned taxpayers' dollars. She wanted the Government to dip its hand deep into the taxpayers' cookie jar to dispense funds by giving employment to young Tories over others. That is shameful. That is one of the reasons why the people have lost confidence in the Government.
Let me share another reason with you, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you are very interested in this. In my view, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself does not have faith in the workers of Canada. Why do I say this? I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Fortune magazine of March 4, 1985, in which there is an interview with the Prime Minister of Canada. Let me read an excerpt from this interview. It reads as follows:
On the charge by political opponents that Mulroney "has put Canada up for sale": Who wants to buy it? What is there so compellingly attractive about Canada that causes us to think that anybody is going to rush in simply because someone says, "I'd like to do business with you." We do not have a very good track record. Our products have not been of the highest quality. Our deliveries have been lacking in reliability. Our expertise has been in large measure borrowed. Our technology has been purchased. What the hell makes us so special?


John V. Nunziata: Who was that?


Don Boudria: That was the Prime Minister of Canada. He was saying that about the workers of this country.


John V. Nunziata: That's disgraceful.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has said that that is disgraceful. It is shameful that the Prime Minister of Canada would have that to say about the workers. Is it any wonder that the workers of
March 13, 1986

Canada do not want to have anything to do with this Government any longer? Is it any wonder that two-thirds of them would turf these Tories out if they had a chance right now? Believe me, they will have a chance in the future and that is exactly what they will do. The people of Canada no longer have confidence in this Government.
The Prime Minister of Canada said to the people that our package of social programs was a sacred trust. Then he turned arond along with the same Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who brought down this Budget and tried to deindex the pensions of our senior citizens, it was the senior citizens together with opposition Members who rallied and fought for this issue. It was Mrs. Solange Denis who came to the steps of Parliament Hill, as she came this week to support our colleague from the other House, and said very clearly to the Prime Minister: "You have lied to us, Prime Minister".


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian and I think he knows that when one refers to statements with that wording, whether they are made by someone else or are verbatim quotes, it is unparliamentary. I am sure the Hon. Member, being an experienced parliamentarian, would like to reconsider his words.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, if I may. I have reviewed the jurisprudence on this particular matter and I beg to differ. The Minister laughs. It would be my submission that it is quite appropriate to say that Mr. Average Canadian is a hypocrite but it is inappropriate to call a Member of the House of Commons a hypocrite. I think it is quite appropriate for the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) to quote someone who has referred to the Prime Minister as a liar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I am going to take a look at the "blues" before I make a decision on this particular issue, but I really feel that when the Hon. Member uses a quotation like that, he is almost using it as his own quotation. I would appreciate it if he would withdraw it and carry on with debate.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will gladly withdraw that reference. When that senior citizen was here, she told the Prime Minister what she thought of him, and every Canadian remembers when she said to him: "Goodbye, Charlie Brown," because he had not lived up to those promises he had made to her and every other citizen of this country. Whether we quote from her directly or indirectly, all Canadians know what it means and they will all remember it the next time around.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to set the record straight, I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to confirm the fact that the person he quoted was not in fact a senior citizen.


Don Boudria: That's not a point of order.
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not really a point of order.


Don Boudria: Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was just about to say-and by the way, thank you for recognizing that that was not a point of order. I am sure you wuld agree with me that it was not even a good point, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to tell the House about the budgetary policies of the Government and why the Tories should not receive $22.5 billion. If some Hon. Members believe that I am not being 100 per cent objective today, although I am trying to be, let me tell them what others have to say about this Budget. On February 27, The Toronto Sun said: "Wilson mugs middle class". Shirley Carr of the Canadian Labour Council said: "The average Canadian has been hit between the eyes". That is plain enough. Marlene Carr, a working mother quoted in The Gazette of Montreal on February 27, said the following:
We work hard to feed our kids and pay back the mortgage. Wc make an honest buck. Why don't they get after the people who earn over $100,000 who have big expense accounts?
I should like to refer to what others had to say about the Budget, because I know that you are interested in this topic, Mr. Speaker. Bill Nevis of the Canadian Construction Association said that the 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax, effective April 1, presented a severe problem for the construction industry. The Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) referred to that earlier today. Of course he was quite right, as is usual. Let me quote further.

Here is another reaction to the Budget, Mr. Speaker. I quote Mr. Fernand Daoust of the Quebec Federation of Labour:
Middle income earners are the hardest hit. Ottawa's contribution to job creation is minimal. The Budget is a disappointment.
That is what he had to say.
Let me quote some more just in case you are not quite convinced that I am taking a non-partisan approach. 1 will have you believe me in two minutes, Mr. Speaker. Here is something from La Presse of February 27, and I quote:
In the end Michael Wilson decided to clobber Canadians with taxes and surtaxes to solve the Government's financial problems.
That is what those taxpayers had to say.

Do you want to know, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance said about the Budget in May, 1985 just prior to it being brought down? It really proves that we should never believe what a Tory tells us. He said:
I don't want to increase taxes ... A tax increase, certainly a general tax increase, puts a dampening effect on the economy and I don't want to sec us do that.
The 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax which we will all have to pay, is it not a general tax increase? Is that not exactly what the Minister of Finance said he would not do on

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
CTV's Question Period in May, 1985? If we cannot believe the Minister of Finance, who can we believe? Let me read further.

One thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, Canadians will have to pay more and more as a result of the expenditures of this Government and the approach of the Conservatives. For example, youth unemployment-I talked about youth earlier today- stands at 16.5 per cent, yet the Conservative Government has just reduced its Jobs Strategy budget by $100 million. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker: 16.5 per cent of young people are idle and the Government slashes budgets right and left. Worse still, the Government intends to reduce education transfer payments to the provinces. And then, as you know, Katimavik has been axed yet this program opened all kinds of opportunities for young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, what is the impact of this Budget on middle income Canadians. I will tell you. An individual who earns $35,000 a year and who has three dependents stands to lose $835 over the next two years as a result of this Budget. Here is how it works out: $637 less this year, $198 less next year, a total loss of $835 for a family of four trying to make ends meet on an annual income of $35,000. In other words, a middle income family.
Now let us talk about low income earners. A family of four with $10,000 a year. Yes, $10,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, for a family of four, if you can imagine that. How can they manage!
You know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of my constituents earn that kind of money. Well, that family will lose $83. Do you think that a person who is trying to support a family of four on $10,000 a year can afford to lose anything? That person simply cannot do with any less.
Mr. Speaker, a similar family of four earning $15,000 a year will lose $392. Try to imagine a Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell constituent earning $15,000 a year and barely able to support a family of four, yet the Conservative Government wants $392 more from them. That is altogether intolerable, Mr. Speaker!

I want to talk about the fairness of the whole system. Of course that should not take long because there is no fairness in the Budget. I will concentrate, therefore, on the unfairness of the present Budget. That should take much longer because there is much more unfairness than anything else in that Budget. I should like to refer to The Financial Post of last week. Of course it is not a newspaper which is widely read by my constituents because most of them cannot use the advice given in that newspaper as they are not in those tax brackets. Nevertheless, I think it is an interesting contribution to the process. The article which I have before me is from The Financial Post. It is not Liberal material; it is not partisan in any way. It is an article by people whom the Tories, the Minister of Finance and his friends like very much. The article
refers to a family earning $40,000 per year. The earnings are comprised of $35,000 in salary, $4,000 in dividends and $ 1,000 in interest income. In 1984, such a family paid $9,145 in taxes. In 1986, the same family will pay $9,400, and in 1987 it will pay $9,900. That average Canadian family is being zapped by the Tories. Also the article describes another family struggling to get by on $150,000 per year! That income is comprised of $100,000 in salary, $15,000 in dividends, $5,000 in interest and $30,000 in capital gains. One would expect that these folk could manage to pay their taxes; they would be doing all right in my books. In 1984, that family had to pay $53,448 in taxes. Guess who will receive a tax break this year, Mr. Speaker? Will it be the poor people? No, you have guessed wrong, if that is what you guessed. It will be the rich people who paid $53,000 in taxes in 1984. They will be paying $48,000 in 1986 and $47,000 in 1987. They are receiving a tax break. We have a Government of Robin Hood in reverse-take from the poor and give to the rich; take from the middle-class and give to the rich. Why is the Government zapping everyone in favour of the rich? Is that what the Tories promised to Canadians last year in their book of 338 promises? No, the Tories never said: "Vote for us and we will zap you and give it to the rich".
I have come to the conclusion that happiness is never having to say you are Tory. I have come to the conclusion that Disraeli was right when he said that a Tory Government is an organized hypocrisy; that is what Disraeli had to say about the Tory Government. Obviously he was right. He knew best. He knew that such a Government would be unfair. It was unfair then and it is unfair now. Tories have a policy of taking from average Canadians and giving to those who have the most. It is unfair, and the Government should be booted out of office.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about fairness and unfairness in terms of the Budget. It devastates me to hear the Hon. Member talk in those terms. The Party of which he is a supporter, the former Government of which he was a supporter, introduced a tax system which was loaded with one tax loophole after another. It was because of those tax loopholes that we did not have a fair taxation system. It was because of those tax loopholes that the people of Canada decided on September 4 to toss out the rascals and bring in a new Government. It was because of all of those tax loopholes that we did not have a fair system.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) set out in the last year and a half to create a fair tax system. Let us take a look at this, Mr. Speaker. First, we had scientific research tax credits in the former tax system. The people of Canada knew that that was unfair. We have done away with them. We had tax shelters on yachts, recreational vehicles, hotels and the like. Those were put in place by the former Government of which the Hon. Member was a supporter. Those were unfair and we have done away with them.


Don Boudria: No, you have not.
March 13, 1986


Alan Redway: There was income splitting through interest free loans put in by the former Government. We have done away with that. That was unfair. There are the carve out provisions for transactions in the oil and gas sector. They were unfair, and were put in place by the former Government, but we have done away with them. There was the use of trust to distribute investment income. That was unfair. We have done away with that.
Supporters of the former Government now tell us that they want to see the deficit reduced. Every time we suggest a method of doing that by cutting some sort of expenditure, they say: "Don't do that. That is wrong". Every time we suggest a tax change, they say: "Don't do that. That is wrong".
Could the Hon. Member tell me specifically today exactly what the Liberal Party policy is at this moment about reducing the deficit?


An Hon. Member:: The Liberals haven't got one.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer a question raised by the Hon. Member to my right-[DOT]


John V. Nunziata: Who criticized his own Government for the deindexation issue.


Don Boudria: *-to my extreme right, I may say.
The Hon. Member talks about loopholes that are unfair. That is a very nice thing to hear from a Tory. The Government in its last Budget tried to remove benefits from seniors and to give a tax break, would you believe it, to those selling off capital gains. In other words, the Member said two loopholes are wrong so let us have more of them. That is the Tory policy.
What he is telling all of us is that under a previous administration buying a yacht was not taxed properly. But do you know what the Tories have done, Mr. Speaker? They are not going to tax them at all. You can sell your yacht, your condo in the south, your castle in Spain, your horse in Kentucky, and there will be no tax at all, no tax at all for the rich people who have those kinds of investments. You can sell off expensive paintings and so on, make oodles of money doing it, and there is no tax at all. That is the Tory policy of fairness. We have just heard it. The Member to my extreme right told us earlier today that he considers loopholes to be unfair and, therefore, to avoid loopholes the Tory policy is to remove all taxes from the rich.


Mr. Horner:: What is your policy?


Don Boudria: Let me come back to the second part of the Member's question very briefly. He said the Government is trying to tax the rich people, by plugging the loopholes so that they will pay their faire share. Why is it that the rich person making $150,000 a year will be paying $5,000 less in taxes while the average Canadian will be paying thousands of dollars more? Those are the questions which the Member should be asking his own Minister of Finance.
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and then the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). 1 ask Members to govern themselves accordingly.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) did not answer the question put by my colleague as to what the Liberal policy is and where the Liberals would reduce the deficit. I am sure the Member will address that when he has the opportunity, much the same as his Leader has. To paraphrase another Liberal Leader, one revered by most Canadians, deficit reduction if necessary but not necessarily deficit reduction.
The Member continues to talk about patronage. I know that the Hon. Member had the opportunity and availed himself of that opportunity to put forward a contact person in his riding regarding the 1986 census. I know that person was put forward and has been selected as a census commissioner. This is the Member who talks about Tory patronage.
This is hypothetical, Mr. Speaker, but if someone who worked in the 1981 census and the 1976 census did not pass the written part of the test, but passed the verbal part and was selected as a census commissioner, does the Hon. Member feel that that is unfair or that that is patronage?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question and I will answer it very quickly to make sure the Hon. Minister understands.


John V. Nunziata: Write it down for him.


Don Boudria: And I will write it down if the Minister wants me to.
The Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), when I complained to this House that unqualified people were being appointed, responded by saying that they had appointed an unqualified person in my riding and that that made it right. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this only proves that the problem is worse.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I wish you would-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am willing to give the Hon. Member an opportunity to ask a question and make a comment.


Lise Bourgault: On the Budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are on Bill C-99, the borrowing authority. If the Hon. Member has a question, she may now put the question. First, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Hon. Member's comments are entirely beside the point. The Member was answering a question put to him by his colleague. I don't know whether she realizes or understands this, but what my colleague, the Member, was saying was relevant to the debate, although she seemed to think otherwise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member now realizes what the process is here. 1 would like the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau to ask a short question so that I can recognize two other people in this Chamber.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) spoke earlier about the Budget. He said that this Government's Budget was not fair, and so on and so forth.
I would like him to answer a question, with a simple yes or no. I know his riding very well. I know that since September 1984, a number of industries have opened their doors in that riding, I am thinking of Hawkesbury-and created many new jobs.
Could the Minister inform the House today, with a simple yes or no, whether the projections he and his party were making at the time of the November economic message and the May Budget of 1985, that 100,000 jobs would be lost in Quebec and Canada, and even more, have come true now that
600,000	jobs have been created?
Could he inform the House that he made a mistake when he made his prediction when the economic message was tabled? Could he say whether or not he made a mistake?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for bringing up the subject of unemployment in Hawkesbury. I was going to refer to it later on. I am really glad she brought it up. In fact, it was the Conservative Government, in last year's Budget, that abolished the CIRB, the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board Program, that was helping the town of Hawkesbury in my riding and made it possible to create a number of new jobs. Now we will not be able to continue. The program was set up by the Liberal Government, and I want to thank the Hon. Member for bringing this to my attention. I hope she will help me persuade her Government and her Minister to re-instate a program that has been so beneficial to her region and mine.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, does the previous speaker agree with my observation about the Conservative Government's treatment of members of the Armed Forces with regard to the unemployment insurance issue? Has the Member received any explanation from the Government on this issue? The Forget
Commission is not studying the issue of members of the Armed Forces losing their unemployment insurance and having to pay premiums. That benefit has already been lost. The Government is involved in hypocrisy here.
Through the Armed Forces the Government has issued an order to its members that they cannot sign petitions on this matter. This matter is essentially politically neutral. It simply involves family income which has been taken away from members of the Armed Forces and retired members. This kind of hypocrisy must end. Members of the Armed Forces have the right to sign petitions and make representations on politically neutral issues.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would have some difficulty explaining Tory behaviours. I am not too familiar with the way in which they determine things. Their methods are not always consistent or logical. However, 1 do think that those actions of the Government are most unfair. A citizen of this country should have the right to petition Parliament regardless of what he or she does for a living. On the forms for petitions which we use in the House there is reference to the ancient and unalienable right of all citizens of Canada to petition Parliament. Why is the Government trying to take that right away from some citizens? That is unfair and should not be happening. I would love to elaborate further, Mr. Speaker, but I think you are indicating that my time has expired.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the Member from the Liberal Party understand that the same hypocrisy existed within the Liberal Party which absolutely refused to allow members of the Armed Forces to do the same thing?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) may ask a very short question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has mastered the art of hypocrisy. I would like to congratulate my good friend, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), on one of the finest speeches I have ever heard in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I see Hon. Members opposite applauding as well. I know that in their heart of hearts they agree with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Does my colleague agree that the Government has frittered away the mandate which was given to it on September 4, 1984? Today, 18 months later, the Conservative Government is appreciated by only one in three Canadians. Does that dramatic decrease in support for the Conservative Government have anything to do with its policies? The Government has been in office for 18 months and has the audacity to speak of the Liberal record. It has a record of its own now, and that record consists of bank failures, tuna scandals, ministerial resignations, and an attempt to deindex senior citizens' pensions. Does the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
March 13, 1986

agree with me that the Conservative Government has lost the support and respect of the people of Canada?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the Conservative Party has lost the favour of the large majority of Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member's time has expired. The period for questions and comments has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture- Impact on Canadian farmers of proposed United States legislation. (b) Request that Prime Minister make representations to United States President; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Refugees-Draft legislation inquiry. (b) Content of alleged draft; the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer)-Unemployment insurance-Collection of benefits by bricklayers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At this time, pursuant to Standing Order 55(2) speeches will be a maximum of 10 minutes with no time allotted for questions or comments.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, through this Bill the Government is requesting authority to borrow about $22 billion. I, along with the other members of the New Democratic Party, are opposing this Bill because the Government policy of taxation and spending is so unfair to the people of Canada.
I recently received a letter from the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization in Winnipeg. This letter is with regard to the
Borrowing Authority Act
Budget of the Government, for which the Government is now seeking authority to borrow money. The letter reads as follows:
The Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization is greatly alarmed at the steady increase of federal taxation. We are also concerned with the carefully hidden chipping away of social programs and dollar value for the poor.
That sums up not only the Budget, but the programs which the Government is engaged in. The letter continues:
In using a cut-off level of $15,000 income for tax benefits, the federal Government has shown a complete disregard for the 1985 poverty lines estimated by the National Council of Welfare (March, 1985). These figures show that a family of four with an annual income of $20,000 is living on the poverty line. These families are today's working poor, not middle-income earners.
The point is that the people living below that poverty line ought not to be taxed. This point was made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) last week when he pointed out that Members on all sides of the House know that, if we were to be fair, no person living in poverty would be pushed further into poverty by being made to pay taxes when there are people in the country who pay no taxes at all because they are rich enough to hire lawyers and accountants to fiddle their reports.
Countries such as Scandinavia have ensured that people who live in poverty pay no taxes. If they can do it, we can do it here. Three decades ago individuals and corporations each paid about half of the income taxes which were collected. After the new Budget individuals will pay 80 per cent and corporations will pay only 20 per cent. That is grossly unfair. In fact, the new Budget has imposed upon working people rates of taxation 10 times higher than those imposed upon corporations. The 3 per cent surtax, the 1 per cent sales increase and the other sales taxes that the Government has imposed will take about $350 per year extra over and beyond the Government's previous $1,000 bite, $350 per year extra for every working family, whereas for the corporations there is a continuation of $500,000 capital gains tax-and for a married couple that is a $1 million. There is no return to the 1981 marginal rates, which charge the rich a higher rate of their income than they charge the poor, and there is no bringing in of a tax expenditure account so that the public can see how much goes to rich individuals and to corporations through the Government's tax expenditures, that is to say through the taxes they owe that the Government remits to them for reasons that are never fully examined in the actual practice.
There are cuts in badly-needed services to the people of Canada. Regional, industrial expansion will be cut by $2 billion. The service to unemployed people, including services for which they have paid by their contributions will be cut by $1.75 billion. Assistance to farmers who are going broke and out of business at a record rate not equalled since the Depression days will be cut by half a billion. Health and Welfare will be cut by $4 billion. Transport, particularly rail and road transport, the sort used by the majority of this country, the poor people, the low-income and low middle-income people in this country, that will be cut by over $3.5 billion.

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
It is the services to the ordinary people of this country that this Government is cutting, and yet it wants those ordinary people to pay extra taxes to pay for the Government's borrowing.
The Government keeps preaching about the deficit, yet it will do nothing to take the most direct route towards increasing the economic health of this country by increasing employment. There are tens of thousands of jobs that should be created in the reforestation of this country before our wonderful forests have become totally denuded.
There are thousands of jobs also to be created in restoring health to the fisheries of this country. There are farm mortgages for farmers who have not yet gone broke and out of business, farm mortgages which need to be assisted. The Government is not addressing those questions, and yet when the farmers go broke the Government will wonder where the taxes are because the corporations that buy the land will not be paying the taxes at the rate the farmers are, not with the tax system the Government has put in place.
Housing is in a state of crisis. I asked the Government a few months ago to consider a five point housing program. For example, what we need is that all Canadians should be assured of decent, affordable housing. We also need to be assured that publicly-owned and privately-owned rental housing will be rent controlled so that the poorest people and the low middle-income people who have to rent it are not forced to subsidize the rich.
The third principle is that Canada should create a national home-building program to create 50,000 social housing units per year because the Minister of Labour's (Mr. McKnight) housing program is not going to come near to meeting the need of the neediest.
The fourth principle is that there should be renovation of substandard housing, including tens of thousands of apartment units in cities like Toronto and Montreal which have been downgraded by the greed of their owners who did not do the maintenance and whose apartments now stands in need of renovation or destruction. The Government must step in there to prevent the loss of tens of thousands of housing units or else the landlords will jack up their rent from the average of 25 per cent to 30 or 35 or 40 per cent in order to pay for the further enrichment of the owners.
These are some examples of what ought to have been done by this Government to put money into the hands of Canadians who will keep it in Canada instead of what they are doing, which is to transfer money to the banks, to the insurance companies, to the large industrial corporations of this country which are more and more transferring their wealth out of Canada where it makes no jobs for Canadians. That is the essential unfairness and the essential economic folly.
When I visited Chile last year I found what happens when a country pursues the policy of cutting wages, cutting benefits to the poor. The people in Chile are suffering physically. Nearly half the children under the age of six are malnourished. That country is a long way farther down that road than Canada is,
but the rate of poverty in Canada is rising, according to the Government's own statistics, and will continue to rise if this Government continues the same policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Debate?
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on a Government request to borrow money, most of which has already been used to repay wealthy people-people who had $60,000 or more in western Canadian bank accounts-and to enable this Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) to make Canadians carry a heavier tax load.
We must keep in mind that in its previous Budget the Government went after the elderly, the sick and the children, but this time the Progressive Conservative Government's targets are families and workers. The Government has devised it would penalize all Canadian men and women who keep our economy going, be it in plants or in offices. All workers, men and women alike, are penalized by a 3 per cent surtax. All those men and women are penalized by a 1 per cent sales tax hike.
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of sales tax, you will recall that last year, the same Government, the same Prime Minister, the same Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided-it is all in the papers prepared by Mr. Nielsen's task force-to levy a 10 per cent tax, now 11 per cent, on drugs. This amounts to taking advantage of the state of health of Canadian citizens to reduce the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, this very Government decided to spare its friends, the corporations, the multinationals. If the Prime Minister, and today's poll is eloquent.. . and in Quebec the Conservatives have been completely wiped out for several months. They have lost all their credibility. The people don't trust this Prime Minister anymore. They don't trust his word. Today, we have a poll that shows that across the country, even in Western Canada, people are starting to see the true face of this Progressive Conservative Party, this Party which, when it was in the Opposition, Members from that part of the country could tell the people all kinds of stories. But now, the people know the truth. Now, people are starting to draw comparisons between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and they realize that the Leader of the Official Opposition has a strong point: intellectual honesty. He is always truthful, and he repeats the truth day after day, never contradicting himself.
Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members are probably going to say: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is making a partisan speech.
As an example of what is being said about the Budget, by reporters and by various people in our society, I have here ...
March 13, 1986

the Quebec Minister of Finance who says: "A timid attempt at controlling the deficit at the expense of the provinces. I am not impressed."
Mr. Bob Erb, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Automobile Association: "We are very disappointed that the Government failed to remove the excise tax on gas".
Mrs. Sandy Hall, President of the Consumers' Association of Canada: "The Government is doing the exact opposite of what it should have done to promote consumer spending."
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Government is firmly resolved to pick the pockets of all Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has decided to take your dollar, and it says: There, another 3 per cent. That is what the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government have done.
Mr. Speaker, what the Government has done is appalling, and I understand why Conservative members are upset. 1 understand why the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is indignant. But it is true. And I realize that when we tell the truth, it tends to shock the people in power. They would rather keep the truth from this House and from the Canadian people. But it won't work. The people do not go along with that kind of attitude.
Every week, every two weeks, every month, 3 per cent will be taken off our pay cheques to pay for the unbridled spending of this Conservative Government and encourage its friends.
Mr. Speaker, I have here Mr. Gerard Docquier, Canadian director of the American acid workers: The Minister of Finance is blinded-


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that literally thousands of Canadians will be witnessing this debate on television and in view of the fact that it is a crime to destroy the currency of the Crown, perhaps the Hon. Member would want to assure everyone that what he ripped up was not in fact real currency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe that is a point of order. However, let me say that we are not to use props in the House. Therefore, whether or not it is real money, I hope the Hon. Member will not use props in the Chamber.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr Speaker, it is appalling and insulting indeed to see the Minister of Environment (Mr. McMillan) show such concern about the kind of paper being torn, yet he wants us to vote in favour of a measure to siphon off 3 per cent of the money of his constituents every week.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his Conservative colleagues rise to ask whether I tore up a phoney bill or just a piece of paper, yet they have decided to steal 3 per cent and add 1 per cent to the tax on goods bought by most consumers.
Borrowing Authority Act
That is where we find out whether those people have any guts. Who are the defenders-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will take his seat, I might recognize him.


Bernard Valcourt: 1 am in my seat, Mr. Speaker. Is it permissible in the House to accuse Conservative Members of stealing money from Canadians? Is that parliamentary?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe that that was a specific allegation. That is not a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: To go on with the debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to show that the Conservative Government has acted deliberately, unless the Hon. Member who has just spoken has decided to vote against the Budget of his Government. All Conservative Members are accomplices and guilty of deciding to exploit the Canadian people and take off 3 per cent of their income every week.
Mr. Speaker, 1 will quote Alain Dubuc, an economist and a man whose reputation and credibility in Quebec are second to none. He wrote in La Presse: "Wilson has failed. All observers stated that the second Budget would be a major test for the Conservative Government. Perhaps the most important Budget of the last twenty years. What a disappointment! After such expectations, the Minister of Finance has almost pulled a tour de force by tabling a stupid and unimaginative Budget."
Mr. Speaker, the man 1 just quoted is Alain Dubuc and his article was published in La Presse of February 27, 1986. He is not a Liberal, a Conservative or a New Democrat. Quebecers know him well.
Mr. Speaker, 1 will produce figures so as not to be accused of partisanship and so that the people who are listening to us will realize that week after week and month after month every Canadian worker will lose 3 per cent of his or her purchasing power. In addition, Canadian mothers have lost the indexation of family allowances. These people have been penalized.
Mr. Speaker, Alain Dubuc, still in the newspaper La Presse, on March 4, had an article entitled "Wilson Budget-Taxes at least $500 higher per family". A worker who received a pay increase of 4 per cent this year should have had enough to protect his purchasing power. However, the income tax, and especially the increases imposed by Mr. Michael Wilson, will take away three-quarters of it. He will therefore be 3 per cent poorer in 1986.
Mr. Speaker, this was not said by a Liberal. If you ask the Quebec Members, they will tell you that Alain Dubuc is a man who has some credibility at La Presse. I understand why the Minister of the Environment is angry when we tell the truth in

March 13, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
this place. What can I say? We are Liberals. We tell the truth; we are not Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, always according to Alain Dubuc, a family with an average income somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 will have to pay $500 or $650 more in taxes in 1986. Mr. Speaker, I have also these words from the Quebec Premiers: The financial situation of Quebec is still of concern and the federal Budget brought down Wednesday did nothing to improve matters. I see the Minister in charge of housing. It is obvious that the poor will suffer. Unfortunately, his only duty as Minister is to cut the ribbons because the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has already made all the decisions as concerns housing. What will happen?
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that, even though it is increasing taxes for middle-income Canadians, the Government will try to seem a bit more social conscious by providing a $300 prepayment so that people will not have to go to the tax discounters and the loan sharks. Even in this case, Mr. Speaker, the Government was unable to be fair and decided to grant this privilege only to those with incomes under $15,000, thus penalizing 358,000 families.
Mr. Speaker, I would have had a lot more to say, but unfortunately, my time has expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) is in the House. I hope he will relay my remarks to some of his colleagues.
With respect to this borrowing authority, I urge the Government to amend the Bill next Monday to increase its borrowing by at least $1 billion. Let me explain why. The Government is deluding itself if it believes it can rely on the private sector to provide essential public and social needs at minimum or no profit. It never has happened and never will.
That is why Governments at all levels must intervene to provide those essential public services and facilities at cost.
Let me say at the outset that I and my Party are fully in favour of efficiency in the administration of Government programs and obtaining full value for every tax dollar spent. However, most of what the Government borrows is used to pay interest charges to banks, investors and foreign lenders. I want us to return to borrowing for those things that are self-liquidating, constructive debts that fulfil the needs of the nation.
Perhaps Hon. Members watched the television news in the past two days and The Journal last night on the CBC. If so, they saw concrete evidence of what is happening. In every city of this country there is a waiting list as long as your arm for senior citizen housing, co-op housing, municipal housing, homes for the aged sponsored by church and volunteer agencies, chronic care beds and hospital beds. I had an experience today in the emergency wing of a hospital in this city. There are not enough beds. There are people filling chronic care beds in hospitals. We need a massive investment in this area by
federal, provincial and municipal Governments. Even if it requires borrowing for construction of those facilities, and to purchase the equipment needed, it will put tens of thousands to work and the debt will be self-liquidating. The amount of money which could be collected from income taxes, sales taxes and other kinds of revenues available to the three levels of Government could retire those borrowings in one or two years. That is a positive and constructive kind of deficit.
This nation needs the modernization and expansion of those areas. The construction industry alone affects the entire economy. The forest industry, the steel industry, those who manufacture appliances, carpets and drapes, those who install wiring and plumbing as well as those who do the construction of the buildings, are all put to work and all pay taxes. I would like to urge the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing to ask his colleagues for an additional $1 billion of borrowing in the coming year, in a joint effort with other levels of Government and with church and volunteer organizations, to give us what we are sadly lacking. There is no excuse for allowing people to sit in a wheelchair in an emergency wing for an entire day and then lie in a bed in an emergency room for three days waiting for a hospital bed. There are people who are chronically ill, who do not require full-time hospital attention, but do require a chronic care bed. There is a chain of terrible treatment and behaviour, and I believe every Hon. Member of this House of every political Party could justify borrowing for that kind of investment if this nation is going to be a little more decent, civilized and humane.
We have to use sound business sense in what we borrow money for. We should have borrowings which are self-liquidating rather than just dead weight in a vicious circle of interest upon interest paid to those who have not contributed anything. That is what is needed. I hope that the Government will amend its own Bill because I cannot do so, nor can my Party.
If there are any borrowings unused from the previous year in excess of $2 billion, the Government should use it for the kinds of things I have just mentioned. We had a debate on Wednesday, an Opposition Day, about youth and youth employment. With another $1 billion worth of borrowing over a five-year period we could put a quarter of a million people, most of them young, to work doing nothing more than cleaning up our air and water. That is an investment. Anyone who sits in this place and thinks for one moment that the private sector will do that on its own, by reducing its profits, is dreaming in technicolour. It cannot and will not do it because of the bottom line syndrome: maximize profit, and the benefits to the shareholders take priority over the welfare and good order of this nation. That is why Governments must intervene. Of course, we can try to persuade the private sector to join in and make their fair share of contribution even if it means some shareholders will have to take 25 cents or a dollar less in dividends on their shares for a year or two. We could pay off our deficit in a much shorter period of time and the private sector should be challenged to do that.
March 13, 1986

I would like to speak about some of the things I watched on television in the last two days. It costs $5,000 to fly a heart from London, Ontario, to Ottawa for a transplant. I am not sure how much of that is picked up under our present medicare plan. I would be very surprised if it is all picked up. But all of that cost should be picked up. The price one has to pay to hire a private jet to save a life, surely, is perfectly legitimate and must be a cost which is shared by the entire nation. All of us, through our tax system and all levels of Government, have to share. Surely that is what co-operative federalism is all about. Surely, Confederation means that we treat one another fairly and equitably no matter where we live in this nation or what our standing is in the community. That is what this borrowing should be about.
In addition to paying off the interest on the interest on the interest, we should make some constructive borrowings like we did in wartime. If we could do in peacetime what we did in wartime, we could borrow and have deficits for life and for construction instead of for death and for destruction. We can put our people to work and pay off our deficits in two or three years with the returns on those borrowings. That is sound business sense.
I want to say to my colleagues in the Conservative Party that I made the same kind of argument to Ministers of Finance in previous Liberal Governments.
I want to appeal to the Minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing. If he has any weight and muscle in his Cabinet, he will bring in an amendment to the borrowing authority Bill next Monday for an additional $1 billion to put into place the items I have just mentioned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. Member's time has expired. May I say that there is a Private Members' Hour to come. We are just going to go on until five o'clock so the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) can use his own discretion. We have about one minute or so left, so perhaps he would like to call it five o'clock.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you for your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the House would agree to call it five o'clock so we can go into Private Members' Hour and I would be able to give my speech on this important Bill without interruption on Monday?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Windsor West has used no time, and he will be the first one to be recognized on Monday, or whenever Bill C-99 comes up again for debate as far as the Orders of the Day are concerned. [Translation]
Order, please. It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
Entertainment Industry


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF STANDARDS FOR RATING AND LABELLING
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to study the question of consumer standards for rating and labelling in the entertainment industry, particularly with respect to videos, records, cassette tapes and compact discs, and that in undertaking this study, the committee focus on the question of sexually explicit lyrics and the negative moral effect this may be having on the youth of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 3 of last year I had the occasion to make a statement in the House decrying the violent and sexually explicit lyrics in certain types of today's music, music which is directed not so much at the population at large but rather at the most impressionable and vulnerable of our population-the teens and preteens. As I mentioned in my statement, this had been brought to my attention by the New Brunswick Federation of Home and School Associations.
Frankly, as I had to admit at that time, I had not been paying attention to the music and was, therefore, ignoring the words, the words with their almost subliminal message of torture, degradation, rape, rebellion and even suicide. Thankfully, others had been listening, people from coast to coast, parents, teachers, church groups and students who have written to me and who have said quite simply to the recording and video industry and to the provincial and federal representatives: "Enough is enough".
This is not a new issue in North America. 1 am not crusading for a new cause, a new platform to introduce censorship of any kind. I recognize not just the difficulty but the futility in that, an attempt by anyone to deny anyone what they perceive to be their legitimate rights and freedoms. This issue has been raised before by a number of organizations. Most noticeably and most recently it has been raised by a group of Washington wives of U.S. Congressmen and Senators who have organized themselves into the Parents Music Resource Centre.
What is it that they want? What is it that the New Brunswick federation wants? It wants the recording industry to start policing itself with the same standards along the lines of the film industry's rating system. An industry which will not police itself will be policed. It will be regulated to some degree if it flauts the mores of a society or of a country.
A disc jockey called me in December and told me he had made a point of listening to the words, to the message, of some of the recordings he had been playing for months and months, artists to which I had objected. He admitted quite frankly that he was absolutely shocked at what he had been playing and would therefore refuse to ever play them again. This was not a

March 13, 1986
Entertainment Industry
radio station in a small rural area but, indeed, a radio station in a rather large urban centre.
Whether by coincidence or by design, on December 3, 1985, the same day I brought this matter up in the House originally, the Canadian Recording Industry Association announced new guidelines for its members on the subject of explicit lyrics in sound recordings. The President of the Association, Mr. Brian Robertson, said that the guidelines which had been accepted by all its members will recommend that future recordings, where contractually admissible and that in the opinion of the record company contain explicit language or lyrics, will carry the inscription: "Explicit Lyrics-Parental Guidance Advisory"
This is a responsible step. 1 applaud the association for taking it. However, there are still questions which must be asked, questions which must be answered. In the association's press release it was stated that its research had shown that the number of records that might fall under the category requiring a warning label was less than 1 per cent of the recordings released. One would ask: What number of that 1 per cent would be covered by the caveat "contractually permissible"?
Of course, it is not just the recording industry itself which must be brought into perspective here. What of the radio stations which will continue to play these records with the objectionable lyrics warning or not? Indeed, one could well ask: What is the air time of these records which make up less than I per cent of the recording industry? Also, and unfortunately so, many of the recording artists who have record sales of several million and fall into this category of sexually explicit music record for companies which do not belong to the Canadian Recording Association.
When we speak of the right of self-expression, the right to express oneself is not always absolute. It is generally acknowledged that some forms of regulation are appropriate and necessary in a democratic society. Other people have a correlative right not to be exposed to certain types of expression if they do not wish to be so exposed. Certain vulnerable members of society, such as children, should be shielded from some types of expression. These limitations on expression are particularly important with respect to certain recorded forms of entertainment such as video cassettes, discs and records. They can be purchased without a full knowledge of their contents. The implication of the potentially wide distribution of such materials was recently reviewed by the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, the Fraser Committee. The report of that committee described the concerns that had been expressed to it on video recordings thus:
There was strong support at the public hearings for review and classification schemes applicable to video recording sold or rented for private use. The major concern of advocates of this proposal was for the young people. Worried about the kinds of violence, degradation and explicit sex which children might be seeing on videotapes parents and others were concerned that they now have almost no effective way of monitoring children's viewing.
We were told that the covers and advertising of videotapes often do not give accurate clues about the nature of the film. The merchants who rent tapes may not be as vigilant as many would hope in ensuring that young people avoid the worst material. Even where the retailer is watchful, young people may be getting
videotapes in the same way that they traditionally got liquor or cigarettes: having an older youth obtain supplies for younger peers.
The ease with which videotapes can be duplicated means that they will be widely and readily accessible. Outlets have proliferated, with videotapes being available anywhere from the largest department store to the corner gas station to the specialized video outlet, be it an adult video club or a neighbourhood family store. Video recorders are now reasonably widely available in private homes across Canada and home viewing means a consumption of the materials can take place in private. For many young people this means away from parental supervision.
The committee found real merit in having a regulatory scheme for sold or rented video recordings. The scheme would include only classification of tapes and their clear designation but not prohibition of sale or deletions. Such prohibition would be reserved for only the most seriously offensive films under the criminal obscenity standard. Accordingly, the Fraser Committee recommended that each province should establish a system of review and classification for video recordings.
The rationale for classification of video recordings would be equally applicable to audio recording. First, there is the concern that people may be offended by the contents of certain recordings of which they have no warning. Further, there is the perception that young people may be harmed by some types of video or audio entertainment. There is the general harmful effect that the depiction of explicit violence or sex is said to have in the development of those who are not sufficiently mature to deal with such forms of stimulus. Unregulated access to materials by children could seriously impair proper socialization and a growth of responsible attitudes and behaviour. Moreover, there is the more disturbing contention that some recordings have the potential to cause direct harm and that already some youth have reacted in a violent fashion to the images and ideas to which they have been exposed as a result of the indiscriminate distribution of such materials.
If these concerns have substance, it is surely arguable that review, classification and labelling of recorded materials is not an over-reaction. This would seem to be one area in which a careful review by the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of the effect of the broad distribution of video and audio recording could indeed be of use. Such a study could focus the attention of the public and legislators on the specific issue of recorded entertainment and serve to investigage and analyse the supposed harms that flow from its distribution, particularly among youth.
Classification of film is not something that is new in Canada. Eight provinces already have film classification boards which rate films and which, in some cases, have the power to order deletion or forbid the exhibition of films. The two remaining provinces rely on the findings of the boards of other provinces. The power of these boards, however, extends only to films being shown publicly in theatres. Constitutionally, the regulation of such exhibition is considered to be within
March 13, 1986

provincial competence over matters of a local or private nature in the province and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the exercise of that power.
It seems clear that the extension of a classification system to the distribution of recorded material for private use would similarly be within provincial competence. This is not to say, however, that it is not possible for the federal Government to become involved in the matter, principally through the use of the criminal law power.
The classification of privately used video and audio material is becoming a significant issue in other jurisdictions as well as in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, in the United States this issue has also been raised by a number of groups and organizations. A subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee recently held hearings into a proposal to require the labelling of phonograph recordings with warnings as to explicit lyrics or certain types of subject matter dealt with in the recording. Witnesses who had supported the proposal acknowledged that popular music has always been disapproved of by other generations but submitted that recently such music has undergone a serious shift in emphasis into so-called porn rock, the glorification of such things as sado-masochism, incest, bondage, indiscriminate killing and, as I have already mentioned, suicide.
Similar concerns have been expressed with respect to video presentations of popular music. Some witnesses urged legislation on that matter while others submit that self-regulation may be possible and that the recording industry should start policing itself along the lines of the film industry's rating system. For example, it could establish a voluntary rating system such as the Motion Picture Association of America has with respect to film.
Two Canadian provinces have taken steps to classify video recordings. In Nova Scotia, the province's Amusements Authority Board has been empowered, pursuant to the Theatres and Amusements Act, to regulate film exhanges, retail outlets which sell, lease, lend, exchange or distribute films to the public. Such exchanges must be licensed before they are permitted to operate. In addition, every video film including video cassettes, video discs and video tapes must be marked with a classification assigned to it by the board both on the container in which it is kept and on any container used for display purposes. That classification can be "general", "adult" or "restricted". The regulation contemplates that some video films may be distributed without having been classified and requires such video films to be marked "unclassified".
Theoretically, through the use of the criminal law power, the federal Government could impose a national system of review and classification of recorded material. However, this would involve significant costs and could serve to alienate the provinces. The federal Government is not limited to a direct role in this area.
An airing of these issues at the national level could serve to encourage the development of review and classification systems across the country. It could also lead to the development of minimum standards of acceptability and uniformity of
Entertainment Industry
procedures. In addition, the federal Government has a clear role to play in dealing with the importation of recorded material by virtue of its jurisdiction over customs.
Possibly the most significant federal interest in this matter is to ensure that if a system of review, classification and labelling of recorded material is necessary, it applies in one way or another throughout Canada and in accordance with the Charter. Although the direct participation of the federal Government in the administration of such a system may not be practicable, it is possible for Ottawa to establish a structure whereby the provinces eventually become obligated to act in this area subject to minimum standards.
It is with these thoughts in mind that I bring this matter before the House and ask that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to study the question of consumer standards for rating and labelling in the entertainment industry, particularly with respect to videos, records, cassette tapes and compact discs, and that in undertaking this study the committee focus on the question of sexually explicit lyrics and the negative moral effect this may be having on the youth of Canada.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of remarks to make on this motion. It is too bad that I cannot ask the Hon. Member questions about his speech so I will pose some of my remarks in terms of questions that I would ask. I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am speaking as an ordinary Member of the House, but I do have some questions.
I should first declare my biases, and I am speaking personally here. I believe in free speech and I do not like censorship. Justice William O. Douglas, the great judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, once gave a judgment when he was defining, as the American Supreme Court had often to do, the notion of free speech. He said that free speech means free speech, period. That was the entire decision. He struck down the law that went against free expression.
The Hon. Member is correct when he says that we do have limits on self-expression in Canada. There are the laws of libel and there are even limits to free speech in this House where libel laws do not apply. However, Canadian libel laws are very restricted, as the Hon. Member knows. For example, one may make comments about a group of people unless it goes against the Criminal Code hate literature sections.
At common law, libel and defamation was very restricted to actually affecting an individual person, his reputation and his standing in the community. Our laws were very restrictive because in a democracy, we want to have as much freedom of expression as possible. That is what a democracy is all about and that is what we believe brings human happiness and progress.
When I looked at this motion, I asked myself what were sexually explicit lyrics. 1 am a little out of date in my music as I am getting older, but I remember some John Lennon tunes and I have one particular song in mind. I will not sing it but other Hon. Members may. It is the song entitled Imagine. I

March 13, 1986
Entertainment Industry
recall some of the lyrics of that song-"a working class hero is something to be; you are all f-blank peasants as far as 1 can see". Then the lyrics went on to say: "If you want to be a hero, just follow me". At least the lyrics were to that effect. Is that sexually explicit? It sounds like it. Would that be in fact censored by the Hon. Member? Would some kind of Big Brother federal committee go in and grab the records and discs of kids and say that they could not have that kind of music? I do not like that, and I think it leads to a great deal of abuse. In the long run it is worse than the problem which the Hon. Member is trying to attack.
I agree with some of the comments of the Hon. Member. Obviously parents must have some direction and control over their children. There cannot be pornographic materials, what I prefer to call pornographic materials. That has to be tightly defined, and there is no definition of that in the motion. It would have been better to talk about pornographic material rather than sexually explicit material. Quite frankly, I am not bothered by sexually explicit things. Sex is a part of life. Sometimes I wonder whether in our puritanical traditions in western Canadian society we are a little afraid or Victorian in many ways. I speak as a Scot, and a Scot should know. Scots are pretty Victorian. I know that some people in the other cultures of Canada are less Victorian than we Scots who can be a bit dour and Victorian. Sometimes I think it is a fault. Some of my forefathers, such as John Knox and so on, would have defined everything as sexually explicit, and we would not have been able to make the least reference to things which concerned sex. In any event, it is not a good expression. Pornographic is a better expression but it has to be defined as talking about the exploitation of a person or a group, for example women, by others, usually to make money, to degrade or to exploit. That is worth classifying and worth censoring, if we have to censor, and I have already told the Hon. Member that I do not like the notion of censorship.
The committee already has before it the Fraser Report and I believe the Badgley Report. There is some good material on pornography in the Badgley Report. That is what the committee should be looking at. Also the motion indicates the negative moral effect this may have on the youth of Canada. That sounds like Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority, speaking about negative moral effect on American youth. Of course he would exclude anything left of Attila the Hun. He would say that any political expression has negative moral effects on the people. I have been told that at one point the White House wanted to bar the music of the Beach Boys, until Nancy Reagan intervened because she liked and knew the Beach Boys. Would this motion ask the committee to make legislation to ban records such as those of the Beach Boys? The Sex Pistols were banned; their song "God Save the Queen-It's a Fascist Regime" was banned in the United Kingdom. How far do we want to go? Do we really want to ban things because they make commentary on our political institutions or our leaders? It seems to me that that should not be done in a democracy.
In Canada we have the notion that the provinces look after this matter. I know the Hon. Member dealt with it somewhat in his speech, but traditionally the provinces have looked after classification and censorship. I acknowledge that there is a Customs problem in the federal Government, that the Criminal Code exists and that it is a federal statute. However, do we really want a federal censorship board to guard over our young people? I look at some of the younger people who assist us in the House and I wonder whether they really want a country where mainly a bunch of old men and a couple of women decide what the youth will see. No, I do not accept that, and I do not think the young people of Canada would accept it either.
When I think of the negative moral effect on Canadian youth, I think of the 24 per cent who are unemployed and about the tragedy of young people who are unable to obtain jobs in the Province of British Columbia. I think of the tragedy of a lost generation out there, for some people; I think they are the really bad moral things. I do not really care what young people over a certain age are seeing or hearing in the privacy of their own apartments or homes. Are we to have a Big Brother who will go in and look at their record collections and take away some of them? What kind of warning will there be on these discs? Will someone have to listen to them? Will there be different kinds of warnings? At some point will they be taken off the shelves and so on? I believe in free speech, but I think it is dangerous to use expressions like "sexually explicit lyrics" and "negative moral effect". Those are the words which were used in the motion. 1 do not impute bad intentions to the Hon. Member. I suspect he is responding to some of the trash and pornography which society seems to throw up. However, we must be careful. It is easy to step over the fine line to censorship, which I think is backward.
Let me conclude by saying for myself that it is good the committee is considering the problems of various forms of pornography-violent pornography, pornography against women, exploitive pornography, sado-masochism and exploitation of children. Yes, the committee should consider those matters. It has the benefit of material from the Badgley and the Fraser reports, but I do not think we have to send a motion such as this one to the committee. The motion talks in broad terms which in the past could have resulted in the censorship of some of the most interesting music that has come to be accepted in our society.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Motion No. 251 in the name of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine). When I first toyed with the idea of speaking on the topic, I was of a mixed mind. Instinctively 1 have a natural aversion to government intervention, to excessive Government regulation and to very hard censorship. However, 1 began to study the issue and realized the sincerity with which the Hon. Member is approaching the particular topic. I viewed a few of the videos currently on television and thought back to the days when I was a school teacher and realized how impressionable are our young people. As a result of that process, I decided to
March 13, 1986

speak in favour of the Private Member's Motion of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi.
Obviously it is not a new thing for parents, home and school associations, educators, church groups or others, to express concerns over the lyrics of songs which are popular with young people. In the 1930s, the lyrics of Cole Porter's song Love for Sale caused a bit of a furor. I cannot remember that, Mr. Speaker; perhaps your fond memories will go back that far. It was not vastly unlike what is happening today and when people expressed concern with regard to a visual presentation which 1 can remember when Elvis Presley first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. There was a concern that his physical motion was not suitable for a mixed audience. We had a limited form of censorship which was imposed by the cameramen themselves.
Today there is a new development to which we must direct our attention. Over the last few years our Canadian youth have been increasingly exposed to a new form of musical entertainment, the music video. Indeed, there is now a pay TV station that presents these rock videos on a 24-hour a day basis. These videos can be imaginative, colourful and may involve highly technical special effects, in some cases, incorporating computer technology. Many are excellent visual presentations that compliment positive lyrics that convey a certain idea of the entertainer. However, there is increasing concern over the sexual content, and particularly over the elements of violence so graphically displayed in rock videos of today.
It is time to ask ourselves what the effect of these rock music videos is on Canadian youth. Only this week, a national newspaper featured a story on the front page questioning whether teenagers are the top consumers of pornography. It reported that a survey conducted by a Canadian researcher found that young people between the ages of 12 and 17 are the primary consumers of pornography in Canada, and that 37 per cent of them watch sexually explicit videos at least once a month.
There is not only considerable sexual content in these videos, but also elements of violence which may or may not involve a sexual component. We must ask ourselves whether we are monitoring the content of these videos closely enough, and do we know enough about their impact on our children.
Complaints have been brought to my attention about videos that, for example, portray women as animals in cages, fed, kept and led around on leashes by men. Recently I had the misfortune to view one of these videos, one by a group called "The Twisted Sister" that shows a young boy being harangued by his father with clenched teeth. Eventually the boy throws his father out of the bedroom window. Is this the kind of content we want our young children to see, our young children who are relatively impressionable, who enjoy music? Is this the kind of message we want them to get in our society?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the existing obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code require the undue exploitation of sex or sex and violence, or sex and cruelty, in order for a matter to be
Entertainment Industry
obscene. Depictions outside of a sexual context do not fall within the controls of the obscenity provisions. Many of the videos, while they do not contain sexual content, definitely are violent in nature.
In 1978, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Legal Affairs in its report on pornography concluded:
A society which holds that egalitarianism, non-violence, conscnsualism and mutuality are basic to any human interaction, whether sexual or other is clearly justified in controlling and prohibiting any medium or depiction, description or advocacy which violates these principles.
The Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, the Fraser Committee, was appointed by the former Government to study the problems of pornography in our society. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) tabled the report of the Fraser Committee in the House of Commons on April 23, 1985. Officials in the Department of Justice are reviewing the recommendations of this committee, and the Minister of Justice has indicated recently that he intends to announce the Government's response to these recommendations this spring in the House of Commons.
The Fraser Committee recommended repealing the present obscenity provisions in the Criminal Code and replacing them with a three-tier classification of pornography. As I have said, these proposals have been the subject of extensive review by officials in the Department of Justice, who have consulted widely with non-governmental organizations across Canada and with the provinces. The Fraser Committee also recommended that any amendments proposed to the Criminal Code with respect to proscribed pornographic material should be incorporated by reference into regulations passed, or to be passed, by the CRTC pursuant to the Broadcasting Act with respect to all broadcast media. I understand that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), who has the responsibility for the Broadcasting Act, is considering this issue.
There is another recommendation made by the Fraser Committee, which I believe merits our attention. The Fraser Committee was not given a mandate to study the issue of the control of depictions of violence outside of a sexual context. The Fraser Committee did recommend that the federal Government should give immediate consideration to studying this problem of representations of violence in films and through the broadcast media.
The problem of violence in the media has been an issue which parliamentarians over the years have recognized warrants attention. The Royal Commission on Violence in the communications industry, headed by the Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh was established by Order in Council in May, 1975, and published a report in January, 1976. That report took about seven months, a short time frame when you look at the time frame it normally takes task forces or royal commissions to present reports. Obviously the commission felt it was a crucial matter. It is now 10 years later. The past Government took very little action with regard to that report.
The present Government, our Government of today, has announced it is taking action to deal with the long-standing

March 13, 1986
Entertainment Industry
problems associated with pornography, including pornographic depictions through the broadcast media.
Many Canadians have expressed their concerns, both to the Fraser Committee and through their Members of Parliament, about the increasingly violent content of television shows, rock music videos and phonograph records. This issue should no longer and must no longer be overlooked.
I realize that censorship in the media is a complex sensitive issue involving constitutional questions of division of powers between the federal and provincial Governments and determinations of what constitutes reasonable limits on the freedom of expression guaranteed by Section 2 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We are at present seeing co-operation between all levels of Government and among all federal Departments to combat the adverse effects of the pervasive burgeoning pornographic influence in our society.
We must also channel this co-operation into looking at the equally pervasive burgeoning depictions of violence in our society, the effects of which on our youth have not been adequately assessed to date.
1 urge this House to give the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the mandate to study the effects of pornographic or simply violent depictions and descriptions in videos, records, cassette tapes and compact disks, available for sale or rent or through the broadcast media.
By suggesting that I support this, I do not criticize nor condemn the industry that has built up in Canada with regard to rock music videos. It is an important industry and, in many cases, gives Canadian entertainers a vehicle to express their talents and to show their abilities. Certainly in no way would I want my support of this recommendation to be construed as an effort to detract from that viable industry, but instead to add to the credibility of that industry and its product by making sure that we can attempt to monitor excactly what the young people of this country are going to see as a result of watching our entertainers and entertainers from other countries in the presentation of their talents.
This study by the committee should include the question that has been introduced by the Hon. Member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi concerning consumer standards for rating and labelling in the entertainment industry. The recent increase in the numbers and popularity of the rock music videos viewed by so many of our Canadian youth warrants the attention of the Members of Parliament. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi for bringing the matter to our attention and introducing his Private Members' Motion so that we as Members of Parliament may address it. I hope that Members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be able to give this very serious issue the attention it warrants.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, this motion was moved by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) who, while representing the Northumberland-Miramichi riding, knows the Chambly riding very well, having lived there for several years. As the elected representative of the Chambly riding, I am pleased to tell the House what I think of this motion on a basic issue which affects Canadian people generally and, of course, my Chambly constituents. However, I would not waste the time of the House by discussing the substance of the motion which seeks to authorize the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to study various aspects of the pornography problem.
It's a fact that the pornography problem today is extremely serious and affects all Canadians, including my Chambly constituents.
We are all aware that this question is important and arouses much interest. I am convinced that my colleague's initiative stems from his conviction that a study of this aspect of pornography is necessary for the well-being of the Canadian public. Concerning the well-being of the Canadian public and, especially, that of my Chambly constituents, it is clear that through the Budget it has just tabled, our Government is trying to improve the well-being of this and future generations, since by reducing the deficit, it is automatically easing the burden our young people will have to bear tomorrow. It is therefore evident that the purpose of our Budget and this motion is to improve the well-being of our society, our population.
I do not intend to discuss the validity of this conviction, not because I lack strong feelings about it. Quite the contrary! Just like my fellow Canadians, recent events such as the publication of the Badgley report on child abuse, as well as the Fraser report on pornography and prostitution in Canada have caused me to reflect on the pornography issue.
During the next few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal generally with the pornography problem which, as I said earlier, is very serious. In fact, the Criminal Code of Canada makes it an offense to write, publish, distribute or posses obscene material. Of course, contrary to my friend the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I lack the necessary training and experience to address the House with ease and eloquence. But surely, Mr. Speaker, my comments now are quite relevant.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, a publication is deemed to be obscene if its main feature is the undue exploitation of sexual aspects of one or more subjects such as crime, horror, cruelty or violence. The Canadian courts have been using a test that reflects common moral standards to determine what must be viewed as "undue exploitation", based on what the Canadian public as a whole is willing to tolerate.
March 13, 1986

The decisions rendered by Canadian courts have proved that current Code provisions concerning obscenity are difficult to enforce. The result is generall public confusion and disarray.
Retailers, distributors as well as police officers, sollicitors, defense counsels and judges, consistently find it difficult to enforce a statute directly.
The current uncertainty concerning the interpretation of the law has helped change the current nature of pornography and widen its market. It can therefore be observed that in recent years we have seen an alarming growth in the availability of violent, degrading and increasingly explicit pornographic material. The means by which that material is made available also are much more varied. Video cassettes, films and satellite broadcasting have come to supplement traditional media like books and magazines. I would not want to overlook Mr. Speaker, the records and audio cassettes we hear today. As we know, Mr. Speaker, in the Montreal area, we had a teenager who unfortunately took his own life after listening to a cassette recording, and if you will forgive me, its title is Heavy Metal. After listening to a cassette of that kind of music, that young man committed suicide. I think this also could be considered as a kind of pornography available to our Canadian youth.
All that is now available in an ever increasing number of shops and stores. The public expressed their concern about the use of children in new forms of pornography and the availability of that kind of material to the young.
Mr. Speaker, the example 1 just gave of that teenager who could very easily obtain a cassette from a Heavy Metal record, shows how easy it is for these young people to lay their hands on that kind of material.
Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I would like incidentally to emphasize the exceptional community work done by organizations in my constituency of Chambly to protect our young people against all kinds of pornography, and especially all kinds of kidnapping.
Indeed, with the support of the Lions' Clubs in my constituency, some of the municipalities, in co-operation with the police forces in the constituency, have set up program, a voluntary one of course, for the identification of our young people, by means of an index card system that is kept by the parents, with the fingerprints of their own children. And so, if a child does disappear, which is something families cannot easily deal with at the best of times, with the fingerprints, finding these children will be easier and quicker, and as a result, we may be able to keep these children from getting caught up in the child pornography network.


An Hon. Member:: Excellent proposal, Chambly!


Richard Grisé: While considering the problem of pornography, the Committee decided to make a distinction between two broad categories of pornography that have aroused public
Entertainment Industry
concern: sexually explicit productions, characterized both by sexual content and by the stated or apparent intention to bring about sexual stimulation of the customer; and productions characterized by sexual content, combined with violence, degradation or exploitation in such a way as to give these aspects legitimacy.
Mr. Speaker, when we consider what I just mentioned, and a study was published this week, it is this kind of pornography that is aimed most often at young people between the ages of 12 and 17. Mr. Speaker, it is our teenagers who are most interested in this kind of pornography. It is incredible and unacceptable in a modern society such as ours today.
As for the impact of pornography, the Committee noted that most of the intervenors at the hearings shared the following concerns: pornography degrades women, deprives them of their dignity as human beings and equal partners within a human relationship, and treats them as instruments of pleasure for men. The violence of men towards women is judged socially acceptable, and the spectator becomes insensitive to the sufferings of others.
Mr. Speaker, to deal with the unfortunate situations that result, in my riding, the riding of Chambly, thanks to our Government's job development programs, we have been able to set up two shelters for battered women, and I can assure you that when I met with the directors of these agencies and when I visited their premises and met with these women and heard them talk about their experiences ... It was incredible, Mr. Speaker. I felt I was not in the twentieth or twenty-first century. I felt I had gone back to the Stone Age. And again, thanks to our Government's action, we will be able to .. . That problem has not been solved but at least we offer shelter to those people, mostly women who have been beaten up, have walked out of their home and have lived in squalor until they are left with only one possible source of income, Mr. Speaker, prostitution of course, the oldest trade in the world. Once in the prostitution racket, the next easy step leads to pornography.
Again I say that is the kind of programs we can set up to help women who find themselves in such dire straits.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, such serious problems as violence at home and battered women have a very harmful and very negative impact on the children and the family, and then the principle of family life does not last very long.
An in-depth study of the problem was deemed desirable. A special committee was established by the Department of Justice under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Fraser who was asked to report on matters related to pornography, among others. The committee released its report in April last year. The Fraser Committee recommended a full review of provisions on pornography and their replacement by a classification based on the type of acts depicted. Three levels have been set, each with its own penal provisions and a control mechanism.

March 13, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The most severe penal sanctions would apply to first level productions which include visual representation of an individual under age 18 taking part in explicit sexual activities.
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that if we want to solve those problems we should not begin by directing our efforts towards the adult population. The way to proceed is to strike at the root, and by that I mean the young people of today who are directly involved in pornography. The first level would also include productions which promote, endorse or depict as being normal any sexual attack against children, as well as others that could not have been produced without inflicting severe physical lesions on the individuals portrayed.
Mr. Speaker, these words do not need to be explained further. It is clear that these young people will have recorded in their subconscious these acts of extreme physical violence and they will develop them into some sort of automatic response, a means of defence, release and expression, something unbelievable for those who will have to administer our society of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the productions of the second level should be subject to less severe penalties. The second level would comprise material or shows which describe or represent violent sexual behaviour, bestiality, incest or necrophilia. When I say less severe penalties, I do not mean full absolution, for is there any human act which is more bestial and degrading than incest? It is aberrant and inexplicable. Mr. Speaker, as the happy father of a son and daughter, I just cannot accept that parents could be involved in an incestuous relationship with their children.
Mr. Speaker, the productions of the third level would be subject to penalties, because they are exposed in public, without warning, or sold or made available to people under 18 years of age. This third level would comprise visual pornographic presentations or shows not involving people under 18 years of age.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) concerning the situation which exists in the Canadian farm community with regard to the United States farm legislation bill that was passed a few weeks ago.
A recent study by Chase Econometrics indicates that it will cause a net reduction of 20 per cent for farm incomes across the country due to the lower prices of grain, corn and other commodities. I asked what action the Minister would take in light of this American farm bill. Of course, the impact of the Bill is not only the reduction in the commodity prices. It will also have a negative impact because the legislation has a massive system of bonuses for export sales.
The response I received from the Parliamentary Secretary was very inadequate. He never indicated what action would be taken to assist the farmers in this country as a result of the very adverse and negative impact of this U.S. farm bill. He did not seem to realize that it would reduce farm incomes 20 per cent below the 1984 level.
In my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I asked if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would personally intervene with President Reagan this weekend at the Washington Summit to ask that some consideration be given to Canada in the way the U.S. Farm Bill is applied. I received essentially no response or commitment from the Minister that the Prime Minister would personally intervene to ask that the American $1.5 billion bonus program for export sales would not be used in markets into which Canada has traditionally sold grain. The Secretary of State simply said that the Prime Minister will speak for all interests of Canada at the Summit with the President.
Last evening, I received this background paper entitled "The Washington Summit March 18-19". The very disconcerting result I expected took place because there is nary a word on the agenda of issues to be discussed by the Prime Minister and the President this weekend about this U.S. Farm Bill which will have the greatest and most severe impact on Canadian agriculture of any initiative taken in the United States. The agenda includes other important issues such as softwood lumber; the fish countervailing duty investigation; sugar-containing products; steel; asbestos and others under Section 201. However, the whole question about the negative impact of the U.S. Farm Bill is not even included on the agenda. Therefore, we are continuing to seek assurances.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, in responding this evening, will be able to give an ironclad commitment that the Prime Minister will raise this matter, and that he will push it as forcefully as possible with the President this weekend to ensure that the negative impact of the United States Farm Bill, with its commodity prices, will be lessened, and that the
March 13, 1986

United States will not use a subsidy bonus program for sales of wheat and grain into Canada's traditional markets.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to reply to my hon. colleague on behalf of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, who would have liked to reply himself, but who is unfortunately unable to be here. He is on his way back from Japan, where he discussed this important matter with his foreign counterparts. This, by itself, is a very good indication of the will of this Government to remain competitive on the market and to ensure the best possible share of the international market for our grain.
The Minister wants our market to remain competitive and to continue to develop. He is quite familiar with the U.S. Farm Bill and intends to discuss it with his counterparts. This is the way that our Minister has decided to handle the issue.

For instance, we know the loan rate to American grain producers has been lowered 27 per cent, from S3.30 U.S. to $2.40 U.S. per bushel. This will result in downward pressure on the world price of wheat, which is essentially set by the United States, the world's largest grain trader.
We also know that American grain growers will be protected from falling prices. Subsidies will cushion the blow. Some predict that farm subsidies, overall, will cost the U.S. Treasury as much as $70 billion over the next three years. A large part of this amount is earmarked for export programs. The United States intends to recapture its market share and reduce its burdensome stocks.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that, each year, the European Economic Community countries spend $18 billion, or 70 per cent of their budget, to support their grain industry as well as stocks which are becoming increasingly large.
In the short term, Mr. Speaker, neither the American legislation nor the action taken by the European Economic Community are useful in the present situation.
However, our Minister has decided to sit down with representatives from Australia, Argentina, the United States and the European Economic Community with a common purpose to find an equitable solution. I can assure you that this matter will be raised during the coming week when our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meets with the American President.


REFUGEES-DRAFT LEGISLATION INQUIRY. (B) CONTENT OF ALLEGED DRAFT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 during Question Period, I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) whether she would confirm that she recently approved a draft authorizing immigra-
Adjournment Debate
tion officials to expel within 72 hours most refugee claimants who, in fleeing their country, passed through another country. She evaded the question. She would not confirm nor deny that there was such a document authorized by her. She said I was wrong, which was an evasion of a direct answer. Yet, I have it on the best authority that such a draft was circulated with ministerial support.
That draft would exclude from Canada most refugees who might arrive once the draft was adopted. There is a known crisis in the matter of refugee claimants within Canada. The crisis has been created by the misconduct of the immigration bureaucracy and the neglect of a succession of Ministers.
In addition to people who came here claiming refugee status, there were others who claimed other types of hardship under the humanitartian and compassionate sections of our immigration law. They were quite improperly put into the refugee stream, and thus they bloated the refugee stream.
There were other delays caused by the staff simply not providing typists to type the transcripts after the interviews. The length of time between each stage of the refugee process lengthened. What once took a year took two years, and it now takes five or six years.
The Immigration Appeal Board was slow and often incompetent. It was the cause of many appeals. It was finally the cause of the grand appeal to the Supreme Court one year ago next month, which finally made clear that a person is entitled to an oral hearing before his life is to be jeopardized by being deported as a refugee claimant.
The delays have caused hardship to refugee claimants and their families, and cost to the Government. Yet the Minister herself caused delay a year ago when she delayed for six months the reception and publication of the report of Rabbi Plaut, which had been asked for in the previous year by the then Government. She stalled further the action on that report by asking the committee to study it. When the committee studied it and tabled its reports in Parliament in November and December, after many hundreds of hours of painstaking work, instead of acting on it, even within the rules of the House, the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) violated the rules last Friday by refusing to respond to the report of the committee which was tabled in November in the House. On the 120-day limit, he was supposed to give an answer, and he just refused to do it. He said instead that he would couple it with an answer to a later report some weeks down the road. That report which he refused to answer was the report that would have provided a legislative plan for correcting the errors and weaknesses of our present refugee system. Therefore, the errors and weaknesses continued to accumulate.
What has happened during this past year is that certain sharks, certain shysters, consultants and some lawyers brought in hundreds of Portuguese people last year, and more this year, to abuse the situation of backlog and delay. They claim they are Jehovah's Witnesses and would be persecuted if they returned to Portugual. Nobody believes the claim. It does not

March 13, 1986
Adjournment Debate
matter. By making the claim, they must be allowed to stay for the refugee process because the Minister and the bureaucrats have delayed any action to correct the law to close that loophole.
These claims could still be expeditiously disposed of by a report our committee delivered in December, just before Christmas. It is not 120 days, but no law prevents the Minister from acting upon the report before 120 days. That report showed ways that could be followed without legislative change on the basis of the present Immigration Act. By some adjustment of regulations to meet the crisis, most of the claimants, whether they are Portuguese, Guyanese, Iranian, Sikh, Bangladeshi, African, Latin American, no matter from where they come, most of them, according to the officials' admission, could be settled here on grounds of family reunification, on grounds of effective integration into Canada, or on grounds of extreme hardship and compassionate consideration. That would have saved untold human hardship and would have saved many millions of dollars to this Government. Instead, the Minister still delays, is building up the hardship and the cause and building up bitterness. Unscrupulous journalists are using false figures to slander these refugee claimants. They are likely to destroy Canada's good refugee determination system which needs improvement, but not destruction. Perhaps what is sought is a way of bringing in cheap, illegal labour for the labour market in Canada and returning to the bad old days of the worst immigration policies we have had.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reply to the question on behalf of the Minister.
However, I would like to start in a lighter vein. Last week I accused my Liberal friends and colleagues of being a "bot-toms-up gang" because they could always be found burrowing in some waste basket or other, looking for letters and papers to bring before the public eye. I think my hon. colleague has caught the same habit: it must be contagious on that side of the House. And always the intimations that a series of assumptions and documents will be forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, from my experience as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. MacDonald) for almost a year, I can say that every week, the Minister receives tens, and when it is really busy even hundreds, of proposals varying from the most complex to the most farfetched.
We signed the Geneva Convention, and according to the Convention which was in fact ratified in 1951, it is strictly prohibited to expel anyone before entry. We signed the Convention and we intend to observe our international commitments.
Regarding the crux of the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker, it is absurd to imply that the Canadian Government
could be endangering the lives of refugees by expelling people who, in fleeing their country, pass through another country.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that in the legislative committee and in this House we had a debate on a Bill to increase the number of appeal commissioners from 18 to 50, which was vehemently opposed. Keep in mind that we now have 20,000 cases. Admitedly these are not all refugee cases, but you know there is no distinction between refugee cases and regular immigration cases. Twenty thousand cases are pending and we simply must find a way to give them a hearing.
With respect to the implementation of the Geneva Convention, as I said a moment ago there is a well established principle whereby the summary expulsion of a refugee to a third country which in turn deports the refugee to his or her country of origin constitutes an expulsion. The expulsion or forced return of a refugee to the country where he was persecuted is a procedure to which convention signatories are not allowed to resort. Canada happens to be among the signatories, Mr. Speaker, and it has no intention of using such tactics. Obviously we have never authorized the drafting or publication of proposals which would breach that non-expulsion principle and which would be unfair to Canadians and others who may wish to become Canadian citizens.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-COLLECTION OF BENEFITS BY BRICKLAYERS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to expand on my question regarding unemployed Metro Toronto bricklayers. I feel that the issue raised in the question is one which goes beyond bricklayers and hiring hall agreements to the very core of the unemployment insurance system. The issue is now to ensure that only those who are genuinely unable to find work receive benefits.
My intent is not to single out bricklayers as abusers. In fact,
I would think that the ratio of abusers among bricklayers is likely no higher than that among any other occupation. I merely wish to illustrate the problems that exist within the program.
According to recent reports, 1,400 bricklayers in the Metropolitan Toronto area are presently receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Yet builders have set up an emergency manpower committee to try to locate qualified bricklayers to fill the urgent demand for their services.
Bricklayers have countered charges of abuse by stating that weather conditions are such that they cannot perform the work. When builders are asked about this, they state that tenting building sites with tarpaulin creates adequate conditions for laying bricks.
If the builders are correct, then some 1,400 individuals are collecting benefits to which they should not legally be entitled. If they are wrong, then bricklayers' work would appear to be seasonal and under unemployment insurance regulations, they
March 13, 1986

would be required to seek work in other fields during those months when they cannot work in construction.
I am not questioning the bricklayers' belief that working conditions are not adequate during winter months. Only an investigation of conditions could determine the validity of their concerns. However, assuming that their concerns are valid, I am anxious to be reassured that adequate checks are being made to determine that claimants covered by hiring hall agreements are actively pursuing work in other fields during those winter months. I believe that any investigation by departmental officials should address these questions.
If one accepts the builders' belief that working conditions are acceptable, then there appears to be no adequate reason that these jobs are going unfilled, and benefits should be cut off to anyone not accepting the work offered. The Chairman of the Emergency Manpower Committee set up by the Toronto Home-Builders Association has stated that if even all 1,400 of the individuals now collecting benefits reported for work, there would still be a shortfall.
These jobs are not just statistical figments of someone's imagination. They are very real, and the current housing boom has made builders desperate to locate skilled workers. The jobs are there. The labour to fill the positions is and should be available, yet jobs go vacant. This is a major problem which needs to be resolved before taxpayers are asked to pay out one more dime in benefits.
It must be determined if working conditions are acceptable or not. If they are not acceptable, then I would like assurances that adequate measures will be put in place to determine that claimants are actively seeking other employment during the winter months. If conditions are found to be acceptable, then I request an immediate stop to benefits for anyone found unwilling to accept work. Should the problem prove to be one of communication between the builders and the hiring halls, then installation of an effective communications system should be a first priority.
The integrity and credibility of the entire unemployment insurance system in Canada is at stake. Taxpayers have been asked for an ever increasing share of their hard-earned dollars over the years to finance the program. All that is asked in return is that those dollars be effectively directed to those who are willing and able to work but cannot find it. If funds continue to be directed to individuals who do not work by choice, the entire system cannot help but fall into further disrepute.
Since its inception, the Unemployment Insurance Commission has helped millions of Canadians to stay afloat until they were able to get back on their feet and working. However, financial resources are limited, and it has become increasingly important to ensure that available resources are directed only to those who are genuinely deserving of assistance. It should be
Adjournment Debate
remembered that unemployment insurance is an insurance against loss of job income and is designed to bridge the gap between one position and another, and it should be treated as such.
While I expect the Minister's investigation will deal with these immediate problems, I look forward to the report of the Forget Commission to address the wider range of problems which plague the Unemployment Insurance Commission. While the unemployment insurance system must remain flexible in order to accommodate compassionate circumstances, we must be rigid in our efforts to prevent abuse. I look forward to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure it will shed significant light on the problems I have outlined.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, you should say the Parliamentary Secretary speaking for other Parliamentary Secretaries who are at the convention in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to the question asked by my hon. colleague, especially as I worked in this Department for nearly a year. All Canadians, as well, naturally, as the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Employment and Immigration, recognize the collective agreements between labour and management which are at the basis of certain general working or hiring conditions. In this particular case, the employers had agreed to make job offers through the union hiring offices. Thus, the workers under the jurisdiction of a designated union hiring office are exempt from registering at the employment centre for periods of employment of up to sixteen weeks, and this is the cause of the problem.
In the Toronto region, 1,400 bricklayers have applied for unemployment insurance benefits. On the other hand, there are three union hiring offices to facilitate the placement of workers. According to these offices they are having problems referring workers because of a shortage of bricklayers in their sector.
Four employers when to the Canada Employment Centre to fill vacancies. Beginning on February 24, 1986, all CEC's in the Hamilton and Oshawa regions started to contact their clients with bricklaying skills. Those who refuse a job without a valid reason will have their entitlement reviewed.
On March 7, Department officials visited the three union hiring offices in the Toronto region to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreements signed with the union.
These offices of the Bricklayers' International Union are keeping to the terms of the agreement between the Commission and the hiring offices. However, the Commission is also checking to see whether the independent union of bricklayers is complying with its agreement.
11542

March 13, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The purpose of all this is to ensure that the Unemployment Insurance Plan works adequately and that the agreements signed are also working.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,
the House Stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to the motion adopted earlier today and to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 17, 1986