1986-06-11

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, next week the World Food Council will be meeting in Rome for its annual meeting. It has been a tradition in this UN body that the immediate past president of the Council is invited to this meeting. The Hon. Eugene Whelan was involved in the founding of this Council in 1974 and represented Canada at its meetings with distinction almost every year since. He has not only represented the region of Canada, the United States and western Europe on the Council, but has also served on the Bureau, which is the executive committee. In 1985 he completed a two-year term as President of the World Food Council.
His experience and knowledge of world food problems would be invaluable to the Council at its meeting next week. I find it strange that Mr. Whelan has not been invited to attend this meeting in his capacity as immediate past president. Is this an oversight, or an example of a mean-spirited Government? I call on the Government to ensure that Mr. Whelan takes his rightful place at this meeting of the World Food Council.


APARTHEID
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Winnie Mandela has been denied a passport by the South African Government that would have enabled her to travel to Peru this month to attend the Congress of Socialist International Women. This is yet one more example of the total lack of freedom and basic human rights for the vast majority of people living in South Africa.
Like countless black men and women, Winnie Mandela is denied not only the freedom to speak and basic freedoms of political action in her own country, but she and they are denied the opportunity to practise such freedoms outside South Africa. The Botha government has now rejected the measures proposed by the Eminent Persons Group. It is time for Canada
to show some leadership in pressing for urgent change in South Africa. It is time for real economic sanctions.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to participate in the National Conference on Scientific and Technological Policy which ended yesterday in Winnipeg. In attendance at the conference were representatives of industry and of the Science Council, researchers in various fields, academics, union members, as well as federal and provincial Ministers. On the basis of a working document, the purpose of this forum was to study the situation and seek the views of all participants so as to lay the foundation of a productive national policy on science and technology. They all made constructive contributions and showed keen interest in the proceedings, for they are all aware that such a policy will have an impact on the future of our country.
t



Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on June 9 and 10 I attended a forum in Winnipeg hosted by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle). It was attended by leading Canadians from business, government, labour, and universities, who are interested in science and technology. Its purpose was to debate the need for, and essentials of, a national science policy for Canada. This objective was unanimously endorsed.
Other endorsements included the recognition of the fundamental importance of research and technology to our economic and cultural development, the need for more support for basic and applied research, the importance of science in all levels of education, and the importance of technology transfer to small business. It was an historic and exciting occasion and

June 11, 1986
a resounding success, a splendid example of the Government's commitment to consultation and leadership.


DISASTERS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House an unfortunate natural disaster which occurred in my riding in an area called Bonne Bay in the great Northern Peninsula between the communities of Rocky Harbour and Cow Head. Yesterday and last night a severe storm destroyed the lobster and fishing gear of hundreds of fishermen in that area.
I want to call upon the Government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), to undertake immediately in conjunction with the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland, an assessment of the damage to the fishery in that area and to work with the local fishermen's organizations to provide the necessary infrastructure to allow those fishermen to go back to work as soon as possible.
This time of year is crucial to a successful fishery. The fishermen will not be able to support their families unless quick action is taken. I ask the Government to consider the matter as quickly as possible.

[ Translation]


STUDENTS-IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYMENT CENTRES
Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labeile):: These past few weeks, Mr. Speaker, I attended the official opening ceremonies of student enployment centres in the riding of Labeile. This gave me a welcome opportunity to witness for myself the dynamic approach taken by these centres which found jobs for 437,000 young Canadians last year.
This year, Mr. Speaker, the Challenge 86 program has attracted more applicants than we had hoped for, and I can tell you that 200 projects have been approved in the riding of Labeile, and that over 335 students will have an opportunity to undergo career-oriented training and benefit from practical working experience. Earlier this week I got in touch with employment centre officials who are quite pleased with the students' positive response and the active participation of various local interests.
Mr. Speaker, our students are eager to work and make the community benefit from their skills. It is up to us to help them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, last week private producers and co-operatives in the Lac-Saint-Jean area lost most of their blueberry crop to spring frost, which could result in a loss of income of as much as $3 million.
According to Mr. Joseph Savard, as quoted in La Presse, the harvest will be almost a total loss, and last week's spring frost was the worst on record for the area.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) must help these producers who have no crop insurance and who are in an area that already has an unemployment rate of 17 per cent.


THE ARTS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to invite all Hon. Members and all Canadians to come to the riding of Drummond this summer for the Fifth World Folklore Festival to be held from July 4 to July 14. About half a million visitors are expected.
For ten days, the Festival will host more than 40 folk dance groups from all over the world, including Australia, the United States, France, Hungary and the Soviet Union, and Canadian participants from Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.
These groups will demonstrate the folk culture of various countries through their songs, music, dance and a host of fascinating activities.
This unique festival offers a broad range of activities in a program worthy of major international events, including ceremonies on a grand scale, concerts, community activities, a torch-lit procession, Fire works and a folkoteque. I again invite you all to come and discover the traditions of this country and from countries all over the world.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, while on the international trade front the Conservative Government resolutely defends the interests of Canadian workers and staunchly promotes expanding markets for Canadian products, the NDP typically pulls its horns into its shell and pretends
June 11, 1986

that the world does not exist. What is difficult to understand, however, is the complete absence of any policy on the part of the Liberals. They appear to be mired down in a morass of confusion and internal conflict.
When will the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) get off the fence? Will he throw in his lot with the pussy-footing protectionist from Winnipeg-Fort Garry or the fiscalamitous free trader from Saint-Henri-Westmount? Or is he just too busy looking over his shoulder trying to find out what Jean Chretien is up to?


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Over the last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to meet representatives of senior citizens who were simply asking, what do the Prime Minister and this Conservative Government have against the aged?
Over the past 20 months, there have been 5 measures detrimental to senior citizens. There was first the discrimination in connection with the spouse allowance; then the deindexing of old age security pensions; then the unemployment insurance benefit cuts in the case of workers having elected early retirement; finally, the rejection of all Job Development projects involving home-cleaning services for the aged. And we learn now about the cuts in the order of $3 million made to the New Horizons Programs directed at senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the meeting of the Cabinet priority Committee, the Government will review its position and improve its image with senior citizens by granting them what they deserve. These people have worked all their lives for the benefit of Canada.


CALL FOR COMPLETE ABOLITION OF PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the national energy policy introduced by the previous Liberal Government and supported by the NDP proved to be a mean-spirited, direct attack on western Canada. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) recognized the unjust and unfair treatment by this policy of the western Canadian oil industry and the people of western Canada.
Oral Questions
As a result, one of the first acts of our Government was the signing of the Western Accord which dismantled the hated national energy policy. The Western Accord calls for the phasing out by 1988 of the unfair production tax. This phasing out of the PGRT was agreed to when oil prices were $38 a barrel, and all parties recognized the severe financial problems facing Canada after prolonged Liberal fiscal irresponsiblity. However, present oil prices are too low to sustain a profits tax even on a phase-out basis.
The Liberal Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax must be removed now. We urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) to act immediately.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, more human rights workers have been seized by the Treasury Police in El Salvador. The Government claims that they are subversive. Apparently human rights in El Salvador are regarded as subversive. Last month, the President, Napoleon Duarte, called the leader of the postal workers union, who had supported him in the election, a communist. A few days later that unionist was assassinated by the death squads.
It appears that the Canadian Government is unwilling to come to grips with the fact that the Duarte Government either cannot or will not protect human rights in El Salvador. The Government will not oppose the United States' support of a murderous regime and, in fact, the Government insists on giving aid to that regime under the guise of humanitarian aid. I call on the Government to reconsider its policy toward El Salvador.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Another document from her own Department indicates that the Minister's $700 million Job Development Program is working badly despite her assertions in the House. The document attests that there are quotas on the amount of money allocated to non-profit organizations. The document also attests to the fact that the program is so mismanaged that only $340 million was allotted out of the $700 million authorized. How can the Minister reconcile the information in this document with previous statements she made in the House?

June 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition would like to try to pretend that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is not working. I can tell him that in Canada this morning,
75,000	Canadians got up and went to a training program or a job-creation program funded by the Canadian Jobs Strategy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Every day we are spending $6.3 million on the Canadian Jobs Strategy. This year, to date, we committed some $450 million to Canadians so that they can go to work and can take training.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO NON-PROFIT SECTOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the assessment of the Executive Director of the Minister's Labour Market Development Branch, Peter Hicks, according to the document that is now before the House. Once again, why is it that the Minister has always denied, in response to questions put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, that there are in fact quota systems against the non-profit sector in this particular program?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, we have invited the non-private sector and the private sector to take part in the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The Leader of the Opposition may try to rule out the private sector from participation. We do not believe that the private sector should be ruled out. We do not believe that it should be frozen out of programs as it was in the past. In fact the private sector has helped to create training opportunities that did not exist formerly, and there are thousands of Canadians who are thankful that that is taking place.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the whole co-operative and nonprivate sector has been frozen by the Minister.
Will the Minister confirm that the Canada Job Development Program budget has been frozen because the program is a total disaster-according to this document-and that it simply must be redesigned before being implemented? And these are the words used by Mr. Hicks.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to understand figures, and one can recognize that that is because of the financial mess his Government left behind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have already told him, and I will repeat, that under the Canadian Jobs Strategy we are spending $6 million per day. This year we have already committed $450 million to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We have allocated 17 million new dollars so far this year in April and May for the Job Development Program. I hope the Leader of the Opposition can understand that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I want her to know that her number is up, and I want her to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps the Minister will understand this figure. Only 28 per cent of Canadians approve of the Government's job-creation programs. It is now clear that Canadians are seriously questioning whether or not the Minister possesses sufficient competence to carry on in her Ministry. Will the Minister now admit that her Department is in utter disarray and the job-creation program is in utter chaos?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 560,000 more Canadians are at work today than when the former Government was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As well, 250,000 fewer Canadians are unemployed. I consider that to be a step in the right direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I also want to say that when I became Minister of the Department of Employment and Immigration I asked officials to monitor programs on an ongoing basis so that they could suggest ways in which programs could be improved, ways in which we could reduce the paper burden, ways in which we could more effectively use taxpayers' money, and ways in which we could create additional jobs.


John V. Nunziata: You can fool some of the people some of the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: That is how you got here.


Some Hon. Members:: Author!


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions
DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIAL'S MEMORANDUM	REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If the job-creation program is in fact working, as the Minister alleges, why did the Executive Director of the Job Development Branch find it necessary to write a 34-page document criticizing the program? Explain to the House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, under the former Government we had a lot of short-term, make work projects which qualified people solely for unemployment insurance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Explain, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We did not believe that that should continue. We brought in a job strategy which is fundamentally different-


Ms. Copps:: That is a farce.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and I make no apology for that whatsoever. In doing so we are training people; we are qualifying them for full-time jobs. I have asked my officials to be sure that as the strategy progresses they give me a monitoring of the situation so that I can see where it can be improved from time to time, quite unlike the former Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. As he knows, the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group has now reported. South Africa continues its recalcitrance at the cost of thousands of lives, and sanctions seem to be the order of the day. What will now be the Government's response to what it knows to be the contents of the report of the Eminent Persons Group?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the report will be made public tomorrow, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be commenting upon it at that time. We worked quite hard, along with other Commonwealth countries in Nassau, trying to find a formula which we thought would be beneficial in opening constructive dialogue to dismantle apartheid in South Africa. It appears that it was unsuccessful, as a result of which Canada will play an active role in pursuing with Commonwealth countries all means whereby the evil of apartheid is brought to an end.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that Canada has assumed the role of leadership. It is also clear, with the knowledge the Government has of the contents of the report, that it knows what action is dictated by it. My question to the Prime Minister, as before, is: Will the Government of Canada seek to accelerate the process so that action can be brought to bear on South Africa sooner than is presently planned, rather than wait until August when thousands more will have died at the hands of the South African Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with Commonwealth leaders and will be doing so again tonight, particularly those with whom we worked in Nassau.


An Hon. Member:: Sell out.


Martin Brian Mulroney: A member of the Liberal Party says: "Sell out". What we tried to do at the Commonwealth was to maintain the tradition of leadership by successive Canadian Governments on this very important issue of dismantling apartheid in South Africa. I am sad to see that the Liberal Party chooses to make a partisan issue of what is a national effort which we are trying to develop.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT ECONOMIC SANCTIONS BE IMPOSED
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister. The question has not been correctly answered. Will the Government seek to have the process accelerated, and will the Government if necessary organize and support sanctions by the Commonwealth that will be effective, even in the absence of action on the part of Margaret Thatcher who, from the very beginning, has indicated her likely refusal to participate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have sought to obtain unanimity without which the measures to which my hon. friend refers are clearly less effective than we would desire. The Secretary of State and I have had the opportunity in the past of indicating that if we cannot, notwithstanding our best efforts, secure a unanimous thrust of support from the Commonwealth members, which would be the most desirable course of action dealing with South Africa, we shall not hesitate to act either alone or in concert with like-minded nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 11, 1986
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last June, in a communique issued by the Minister and in a document on employment planning, the Minister stated, and I quote:
"Job development has been allocated a $700 million budget this year."
I checked with her officials and only $377.4 million have been spent. Can the Minister explain why all the money has not been spent and where the rest of the money is?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member of course confuses apples and oranges, and that is normal. I would think he would be the last one in this House to rise and ask questions. In his own riding under job development, some $2.2 million has been spent, one of the largest amounts anywhere in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for proving that I am a good Member. What I am asking is serious, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians would like to hear the answer.
Why did she announced in June that the Job Development Program had a $700 million budget, whereas her Department has spent only $377 million? Where is the rest of the money and why did the Government fail to allocate the full amount? Or did the Minister make a mistake?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can also say that that $700 million included the aspect of institutional training, and I will be glad to provide the Member with the combined figures.


OFFICIAL'S RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PRIVATE SECTOR
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This memo by Mr. Peter Hicks, Executive Director of the Job Development Program, adds more fuel to the fire that the Canada Jobs Strategy Program is not working. Specifically will the Minister reject the recommendation made by Mr. Hicks in this memo that will make it easier for the private sector to get job development money by allowing that group to bypass the job readiness stream and use the individually subsidized jobs program which is more lucrative?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Department is working on a number of recommendations to put before me to see where improvement might be made in the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. I think it is a very good thing that, after a program has been in operation for six months, a Department assesses it, sees where the wrinkles are, sees where the program can be improved, and makes recommendations to the Minister. I am awaiting those recommendations.


NON-PROFIT WAGE SUBSIDIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I have yet another memo that was given to me a few minutes ago from one of the people in Toronto. Will the Minister repudiate the recommendation made in this memo that wage subsidies in the job readiness stream used by non-profit groups be reduced from 100 per cent to 50 per cent? This program is important for non-profit groups.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 65 per cent of the funding of our summer programs goes to non-private groups. It goes to people who are working with the John Howard Society, for example. It goes to people who are working with young natives. It goes to people who are working with young black people who have dropped out of high school. Those are the kinds of programs we are funding, Sir. Sixty-five per cent of the program money this summer will go to that non-private category. We will continue to fund projects of that nature.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question, Flora.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will now realize that the DND Hercules aircraft has served as a Trojan horse for the Canadian people to allow them to have the peek at the Prime Minister's presidential travelling style.
Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Canada today that the use of the Hercules aircraft, vans, and video equipment to follow the Prime Minister around the world, is not, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday "perfectly normal"? Will he assure the people of Canada that this practice will be brought to a halt?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, when I said yesterday that it was perfectly normal practice I was quite accurate. However,

June 11, 1986
in the event that I may not have been, I double-checked with officials in the PCO who informed me that that practice was established in 1978 and has been followed ever since that time by successive Prime Ministers.
I also double-checked yesterday with respect to my response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am informed by officials that during the 1984 election campaign the sound and lighting equipment was used by the PMO. The equipment consisted of a PA system, including cable and microphones, press multifeed, two podia, and additional PA and lighting systems if required.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If I do not give the details, Mr. Speaker, I am accused of stonewalling. I am trying to give information.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Brian, why aren't you clapping?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would be wise not to mistake the applause of his backbenchers for the approval of the people of Canada.


REQUEST THAT PRACTICE BE STOPPED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians today that this practice of having a Hercules aircraft full of vans and video equipment following him everywhere he goes in the world will be stopped, because it is an example of waste and the presidential style of politics which is not acceptable in this country?


Mr. Dingwall:: An egostistical Prime Minister, a sick Prime Minister.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the practice is no different now than it has been since 1978. Previous Prime Ministers have used the Boeing 707. They have used Buffalo aircraft, Cosmo aircraft, and a whole range of the DND fleet of aircraft.


Mr. Gauthier:: Not true.


Erik Nielsen: The process has not changed. Incidentally, the impression was left yesterday that the Liberal Party paid the costs of the facilities which I described in my previous answer. It was not the Liberal party; it was the PCO, the taxpayer of Canada, that paid those costs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Where did the Leader of the Opposition go?
Oral Questions


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Why don't you incorporate and get a tax writeoff?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who refused to answer the question put by my colleague about Job Readiness and who, instead, focused on the Challenge '86-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! The Hon. Member knows he is going slightly beyond our rules. Will he just ask his question, please.


Abram Ernest Epp: Will the Minister repudiate the suggestion that Job Readiness funding be dropped to 50 per cent subsidy from the present 100 per cent so that non-profit groups can have the support they need for job training?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about a recommendation which has not come to me. However, I can tell him that one element in the Canadian Jobs Strategy has impressed me greatly. That is the fact that we have increased the participation of women, disabled persons, and native people, in programs. We made a conscious effort to do that and we are seeing results in a beneficial way. I can assure the Member that we will continue to ensure that people who are disadvantaged will continue to participate in increasing numbers.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I note that the question is still not being answered.


PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING
Abram Ernest Epp: Will the Minister also repudiate the suggestion that subsidies for the private sector be increased to 75 per cent, even though the Hicks memo recognizes that that makes possible the subsidizing of fast food outlets, thereby putting rival businesses out of business?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the Hon. Member is going to put out of business, but we are going to continue with the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We are going to continue to improve it. I will take recommendations which will improve the working of that program because we do not feel that at any point anyone has the final word.

June 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We can all work at making sure that programs are improved, and we will do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I, too, welcome him back to Canada.
As the Minister knows, charges brought forward by Indian Chiefs in Manitoba about financial mismanagement in the Minister's Manitoba region have now been substantiated by a special investigation. Will the Minister tell the House what specific action he is going to take now in view of the charges with regard to misleading reporting to Parliament, failure to comply with the Minister's own directives, perjury before the Public Accounts Commmittee, and the failure to live up to the requirements of purchasing controls?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member points out, these are very, very serious charges. When I appointed the independent auditor it was on the basis that there was at least some appreciation that the charges could be substantiated. The report is now available, as the Hon. Member pointed out. I have sent a copy to the standing committee, of which the Hon. Member is a member. I have also sent a copy to the Indian people involved in Manitoba. I will be meeting with the independent auditor at the beginning of next week and will, at that time, determine a specific course of action to ensure that the situation is rectified.


REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. I think the Chiefs of Manitoba acted courageously in bringing these charges forward.
Can the Minister indicate to the House whether he has any reason to believe that this kind of maladministration is widespread across other regions of the country? What will he do to reassure Indian people, and Canadian people generally, in this regard?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member in particular knows, the charges made by the Chiefs in Manitoba related to the administration of the Department in that region over many, many years. It is a deep-seated and very difficult problem. I spoke with the Deputy Minister in relation to this and will be speaking with him again. I asked him to take steps
to ensure that, if there is any way in which we can determine whether there are other such situations in the country, I know about them now, so that we can rectify them in the same way as we will deal with the Manitoba situation.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Am I to understand that the Deputy Prime Minister's answer to the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe was that if the Liberals misused public funds in years gone by it is okay for the Tories to do likewise now?


Erik Nielsen: Not at all Mr. Speaker. I was trying to explain to the House that it is perfectly normal practice.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Do two wrongs make a right?


Mr. Benjamin:: What's normal about that?


Erik Nielsen: I do not believe that it is an abuse of public funds, and neither do several members of his own Party who have used DND aircraft, as have all Parties in the House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: For home movies? Come on.


Mr. de Jong:: He doesn't even blush.


Erik Nielsen: I am simply establishing that the practice is common and normal. Indeed, if one looks fairly at the global figures one will see that, both in terms of flights and hours flown, there has been a reduction of almost 25 per cent since this Government took office.


TRAVEL FOR ELECTION PURPOSES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that it was the responsibility of the Liberal Party, and not the public taxpayers, to fund whatever was required by the then Leader of the Government when he travelled trying to sell himself as a candidate? If that be the case, is it not equally the responsibility of the Conservative Party to do likewise for the Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: I do not think there is a Member sitting in this House, with perhaps a rare exception, who does not want to sell himself or herself as a candidate. I think it is dreadfully wrong to use government aircraft or facilities for an election campaign. Yes, I believe that is wrong. It certainly would not be authorized under my ministership.
June 11, 1986


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Commodity-based Loan Program is an innovative refinancing program for existing Farm Credit Corporation clients under which the principal varies according to the selling price of the borrower's commodity. Is the program being accepted by the farm community and, if not, does he plan any modifications?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the difficulties facing Canadian farmers. I have indicated from day one that this program was designed prior to its presentation in the Budget. There has been a great deal of interest in the program. FCC loan officers across the country met last week and I have asked them specifically to look at whether or not, because of changing and deteriorating financial conditions in the country, we will obtain full utilization of the funds allotted in the Budget. If the criteria have to be changed, we are quite prepared to change them so that the allotted funds are fully utilized.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-TARIFF ISSUES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Another senior U.S. trade official, this time a gentleman with whom I think the Minister might be acquainted, Mr. Clayton Yeutter, their senior trade representative, said yesterday in Washington that the U.S. Government intends to raise the matter of the Canadian book tariff at the resumption of the free trade negotiations next week. Have we instructed our negotiator, Mr. Reisman, also to raise with the Americans the question of their tariff on cedar shakes and shingles and make it very clear that we will not talk about books unless they are prepared to talk about cedar shakes and shingles at the same time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear on a number of occasions, and welcome the opportunity to do so again, that if the U.S. is prepared to pull back its action on shakes and shingles, the Government of Canada is prepared to pull back its economic response which followed that action.


CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if we then agree to the inclusion of the question of
Oral Questions
books as part of those negotiations, does that not begin to raise the issue which the Minister and his colleagues have previously rejected, that our cultural industries will now become part of those negotiations?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has trouble enough with the words in his own mouth. I would like him to keep them there and not try to put words in my mouth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: And I am sure, when I say that, that I speak for the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHIPBUILDING
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Recently a third Vancouver shipyard closed down, adding to the thousands of unemployed shipbuilders in Canada. Will the Prime Minister tell the House when and how he plans to fulfil his election promise to revitalize the shipbuilding industry in Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion made it very clear that the whole matter of the state of the economic health of shipyards in Canada is under review. He proposes to come forward with a statement on this in due course.


ICEBREAKER CONTRACT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, "in due course" has allowed three major shipyards in British Columbia to close. I want to know when the Government at least is going to approve contracts for the ice breaker, and will it be built in British Columbia shipyards?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware, I am sure, that the shipbuilding industry throughout the world is in serious difficulties. That is recognized by this Government. We are taking very serious note of it. We are dealing with members of the industry and the unions, trying to come up with a policy that will respond to the serious situation world-wide. That will be coming in due course.
Oral Questions


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1986

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is supplementary to the earlier question concerning the Commodity-based Loan Program. Can the Minister tell me if he is setting up debt review panels under that program, and when they may take effect as was announced earlier this year?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House yesterday on government business but it is my understanding that our House Leader served notice of the introduction of that legislation. Given the rules of the House, I believe the very earliest we could proceed with the legislation would be tomorrow. That would be subject to agreement of the other two Parties. I hope we will have their support so that we can clear all stages of the legislation before we rise for the summer.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On March 3 the Conservative Member for Nunatsiaq called the Hon. Member for Bourassa a mafia mafioso. The last time a similar incident occurred involving a member of his caucus the Prime Minister said, as shown at page 2745 of Hansard:
Should anything at any time be said by anyone on this side, inadvertently or otherwise, I would immediately-repudiate.
I ask the Prime Minister for the third time to stand in his place and repudiate these racist comments and immediately issue an appropriate apology to that Member and the Canadi-an-Italian community.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I already have repudiated any statement that in any way casts aspersions on any group in this country. When the matter was alleged in the House I responded. I think my hon. friend knows full well my commitment and that of all Members of the House to the respect we all must have for minority groups. That has been the position of all Canadian Governments and it is certainly the position of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REPUDIATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the incident I speak of happened on March 3, 1986, not the other incident in March of 1985. The Prime Minister did not repudiate that remark and did not apologize.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Sergio Marchi: I ask him to stand in his place-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no!


Sergio Marchi: -and repudiate and apologize for the comments made March 3, 1986. Or is he prepared to let those racist comments stand on the record?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not see a question there. I do not know whether my hon. friend is indulging in inverted racism-


Sergio Marchi: You're lying.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York West must withdraw that.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw if he is prepared to tell the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows I must require an unequivocal withdrawal.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Once a day every day.


Mr. Speaker:: Simply that.


Sergio Marchi: I withdraw but I am looking for an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows I must require an unequivocal withdrawal.


Sergio Marchi: I withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. Does the Prime Minister want to-


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was in the process of saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my hon. friend is indulging in inverted racism. I have made very-


John V. Nunziata: I beg your pardon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member for York South-Weston
says-


John V. Nunziata: Spit it out.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -"I beg your pardon". You don't have to beg my pardon. What you need is to beg Canadians for their forgiveness of your lack of civility and decency in this House vis-a-vis so many Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 11, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members know that any comment by any Member about the conduct or behaviour of any other Member is out of order.


John V. Nunziata: Have him withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore must ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his assertion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let us not make this any more difficult than it is. The Hon. Prime Minister will please withdraw his assertion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you and Orders of the House, of course I comply with your request.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I want to commend the Minister for appointing an independent auditor to investigate Indian allegations of abuse, maladministration, and under funding of Indian run programs in the Manitoba region of his Department, and for making the report public. What steps does he now plan to take, first, to discipline high-level employees who breached both the spirit and the letter of departmental directives, second, to ensure that these and similar abuses will not take place in any region of the country in the future, and third, to compensate for mass under funding of Indian programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that he has already had two questions.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in an earlier answer, I have already indicated to the Deputy Minister that it is a matter that obviously needs to be investigated in all regions of the country under the administration of my Department. Second, I also indicated that I will be meeting with the independent auditor at the beginning of next week. We are attempting to arrange a meeting for that time and following that, of course, I will be taking further steps to make sure that the situation is rectified.
Oral Questions


James Douglas Manly: We will be watching to make sure that the Minister follows up on this.


FUNDING OF CHILD CARE SERVICES IN MANITOBA
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the report states that Indian child care agencies in Manitoba are being asked to accept a 1986-87 budget which is 79 per cent less than the expenditures they incurred last year. How does this square with the Minister's commitment that there would be no cuts to existing programs? Will he guarantee a restored level of funding for child care services in Manitoba?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the report quite clearly underlines that there were discrepancies between the commitments and what was delivered by the Department in the region. Therefore, my discussion with the Deputy Minister also involves a process by which we can rectify the situation, which also means an attempt to try to get back to having the delivery of service related to the commitment that was originally made.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The situation is critical in Abitibi and in Quebec. This year, 644 forest fires have destroyed 173,000 hectares valued at $125 million. Over the last five years, the average was-


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member please put his question.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would have like to continue my comments on the Abitibi area. My question is as follows:
I ask the Minister to have National Defence intervene immediately in the Abitibi region for the following reasons: today, 29 forest fires are burning in Quebec, 18 in Abitibi, which have already destroyed 155,000 hectares; seven fires are out of control and 11 water bombers and 15 helicopters are on the spot. Our pilots and firefighters need help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the Quebec Government so requests, we are willing to see what we can do, but we have yet to receive a request from the Quebec Government, and that is what we must have before we can intervene.

June 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is true that on the second incident the Prime Minister repudiated, but on the first incident I have a letter here from the Member from Mississauga which says: "Surely it should not be the obligation of the Prime Minister or anyone else to stand between them or to apologize." Since that first incident, I want to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister if he officially repudiated the first incident from the Member for Nunatsiaq.


Mr. Speaker:: I have had some trouble as to how these come under governmental administration. Hon. Members know that. Perhaps the Hon. Member can find a way to phrase it in a way that I can accept it as governmental?


Carlo Rossi: If he informs the House ... if at any time he apologized to... for the first incident that occurred and I am referring to what was said by the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq-a first incident.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to incident one and incident two-


John V. Nunziata: There have been a lot of them.


Harvie Andre: How come you let him do that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is the pillar of graciousness at it again. I have said, and perhaps I can say it again-


An Hon. Member:: Sleaziness.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will withdraw that comment because he knows it is personal and out of order-


David Charles Dingwall: You're sleazy; you're sleazy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond will withdraw that remark or he will leave the Chair with no alternative. I will give him one chance to withdraw it unequivocally.


David Charles Dingwall: Unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. Now it's your turn.


Harvie Andre: Come on.


An Hon. Member:: Where are you going, Andre?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He's going to look after the forest fires.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pauline Jewett: That is not very funny.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Prime Minister have something to conclude?


Martin Brian Mulroney: To respond to my friend who raised the matter-


Mr. Ouellet:: He asked for an apology, that is all.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have already indicated, I should tell my friend from Papineau-


Mrs. Finestone:: Is it so hard to say "I'm sorry"?


An Hon. Member:: Aw, for Christ's sake.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Herb's had enough.


Mr. Crosbie:: Come on, Herb, impose some muscle.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will try again, Mr. Speaker. I have conveyed to my hon. friend when it was asked at the time, the repudiation of any suggestion-


Sergio Marchi: No, you didn't.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sergio Marchi: No, he didn't.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members-


Sergio Marchi: He's lying.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Enough of this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Throw him out.


Sergio Marchi: I challenge the Prime Minister to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am given no choice. I name Mr. Marchi and require him to leave for the day. I require the Member to leave.


Sergio Marchi: It's not worth staying listening to that bull.


Mr. Speaker:: I require the Member to leave, and I call it
three o'clock.
June 11, 1986

[Editor's Note: And Mr. Marchi having withdrawn from the chamber.)


André Ouellet: Let him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: And I call it three o'clock.


André Ouellet: Saved by the bell.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Boo. We now have two Speakers. Our Prime Minister should get extra pay as the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I require the Hon. Member for Papineau to withdraw that comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I require the Hon. Member for Papineau-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I require the Hon. Member for Papineau to withdraw that comment. The Chair heard the comment. I require the Hon. Member for Papineau to withdraw the comment he just made with regard to the independence of the Chair. It is very simple. I require the Hon. Member for Papineau to withdraw the comment he just made about the independence of the Chair. I require an unequivocal withdrawal.


André Ouellet: I am sorry, I would like to know from the Speaker what he wants me to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau knows what he said. I heard it.


Charles Joseph Clark: I heard it.


Mr. Speaker:: I require him to withdraw unequivocally his comment impugning the independence of the Chair.


André Ouellet: I withdraw that the Prime Minister is doing the job that you should be doing.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


André Ouellet: That's what you asked me.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member saying to me that he is unequivocally withdrawing any allegations with regard to the independence of this Chair?


André Ouellet: I never put in question the Chair. I put in question the Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: No.
Tabling of Documents


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair took from the Hon. Member for Papineau an allegation with regard to the independence of the Chair. The Chair would like the Hon. Member for Papineau to make it clear to the Chair that he is withdrawing any such imputation.


André Ouellet: Well, if this is what the Chair thinks, I withdraw what the Chair thinks.


Mr. Speaker:: That is exactly what I asked him to do. Thank you.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is Turner when he's needed? You haven't got a leader over there.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Time for an election, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Time for leadership over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, boy. Order, please. All Hon. Members will please resume their seats or leave the Chamber, if they wish to leave.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) I wish to lay upon the Table in both official languages a Notice of Ways and Means Motion to Amend the Excise Tax Act.



Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) I wish to lay upon the Table in both official languages a Notice of Ways and Means Motion to Amend the Income Tax Act and related Act.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish :o table, in both official languages, the Canadian International

June 11, 1986
Committee Reports
Development Agency's Action Plan Concerning Women in the Area of the Development.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government response to five petitions, Nos. 331-487, 331-527, 331-549, 331-552 and 331-556.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association in both official languages. While I accept responsibility for all three reports, it should be known that the Seventh Report was prepared by Senator Molgat and the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz). The Eighth Report was prepared by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King).



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), who is chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-106,1 have the honour to report the same Bill back to the House with modifications.



CANADA PENSION PLAN AND THE FEDERAL COURT


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: By leave later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING

['Mr. Speaker, I have some 20-odd petitions regarding the closure of the Government House grounds to constituents of and visitors to the national capital area. The petitioners ask the Government and Parliament to open up this decision and to consult with the citizens of the area and of the country in order that a modus vivendi can be arrived at so that we can better enjoy this property.']
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is a little premature, but what the heck. There have been negotiations between the Parties with respect to the hours of sitting in the last 10 sitting days of June. I, therefore, believe there is unanimous consent to permit me to put the following motion for adoption without debate:
That, not withstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, during the period commencing June 12, 1986, until Friday, June 27, 1986, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m. and continue to sit without interruption until ten o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. The House shall meet at two o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and continue to sit without interruption until ten o'clock p.m. It shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m. on Fridays and continue to sit without interruption until five o'clock p.m.: and Provided that,
(a)	Private Members' Business shall be taken up and considered from six o'clock p.m. until seven o'clock p.m. on all days when such business would ordinarily be taken up except on Fridays when it shall be taken up at four o'clock p.m.
(b)	the provisions of Standing Order 10 shall be suspended; and
(c)	when the House adjourns on Friday, June 27, 1986 it shall stand adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m., Monday, September 8, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. There is unanimous consent necessary for its introduction. Does that consent exist?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 11, 1986

Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	the business that will be forthcoming on those dates and so
that the Members themselves can then prepare accordingly.
* *
*
* *
*

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have also been discussions between the Parties with respect to legislation which might be called in the coming days. As a result of those discussions I am in a position to announce the revised line-up of business for today as well as the business for tomorrow. I previously indicated that the first item I will call this afternoon is Bill C-95 with respect to Archives. The House has in fact given its consent to the introduction of Bill C-116, an Act to Amend the Canada Pension Plan for second reading so we will continue with that. We will then proceed to Bill C-75, the Canada Shipping Act. The first order of business tomorrow will be Bill C-75 which has not been previously completed. It will be followed by Bill C-l 11 with respect to the Customs Tariff.
We will continue to monitor the work of the House in terms of legislation and give prior notice of any change or alteration to the sequence of Bills. I will announce tomorrow the continuation of business for Friday and the following days.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the proposal regarding the extension of sitting hours, I take it that it is understood that the House will not sit on June 23 and June 24 in any event.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders are clear in that respect. June 24, being Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, the House will not sit. The Standing Orders also provide that when Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day falls on a Tuesday the Monday preceding it is also a day on which the House does not sit.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification purposes, earlier today we had given some thought to trying to get the Private Members' Bills or motions of those Members who have lost the opportunity to have them debated brought forward during the course of the next two weeks in the hour set aside for Private Members' Business. I just want to put on the record that we are in fact looking to do that, given that certain Members through no fault of their own have been unable to have their motions debated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, yes, that matter has been discussed. We are working on communicating with all of those Members who have missed their turn, as it were, in the sequence. As you would expect, Sir, once we have set an agenda that is satisfactory to the House and to the Members concerned in Private Members' Business I will propose a motion which will establish the sequence of Private Members' Business for specific days so that all Members will be aware of


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 444, 464 and 479.


Mr. McCurdy: Does Canada currently export military equipment and, if so (a) to which countries (b) what type of equipment and/or parts (c) in each case, what is the price of such equipment parts?


Charles Joseph Clark: Canada currently exports defence goods and/or services to NATO allies and other countries. Under the Access to Information and Privacy Act, specific details of these sales such as destination, equipment type and price are proprietary data which are provided to the Department of External Affairs by Canadian industry on the understanding that they will be maintained as confidential.
The following charts give a general overview of current Canadian defence trade statistics:
(A) Canadian defence trade with the U.S. and overseas Jan.-June, 1985
Procurement in Canada	Cdn. millions
United States	837.0
Overseas	95.4
Total	932.4
Canadian procurement	
United States	907.9
Overseas	42.7
Total	950.6
(B) Canadian	defence exports by industry sectors	
Jan. -	June, 1985 ($Cdn. millions)	
	U.S.	Overseas
Aerospace	190.2	47.6Armament	42.2	8.7Electrical & electronics	246.9	22.3General purchasing	38.2	0.7Shipbuilding	55.3	13.5Vehicles	264.2	2.6Total	837.0	95.4Total exports	932.4


Mr. Corbett: June 11, 1986
Motions for Papers
To the knowledge of the Government, since 1975, have any countries received arms or military equipment manufactured in Canada and, if so, which countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Since 1975, Canada has exported defence goods and/or services to NATO allies and other countries. Under the Access to Information and Privacy Act, specific details of these sales such as destination are proprietary data which are provided to the Department of External Affairs by Canadian industry on the understanding that they will be maintained as confidential.


Mr. Riis: Since October 1, 1984, what was the value of goods exported to Pakistan under the Export Control List for the categories (a) Section 7001 subsections (1) and
(2)	(b) Section 7002 subsections (1), (2) and (3) (c) Section 7003 (d) Section 7004 subsections (1), (2) and (3) (e) Section 7005 subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) (/) Section 7006 subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13) (g) Section 7007 subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) (A) Section 7008 subsections (1), (2) and (3) (/) Section 7009 subsections (1), (2),
(3)	, (4), (5) and (6) (?) Section 7010 subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) (k) Section 7011 (/) Section 7012 subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) (m) Section 7013 subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) (n) Section 7014 (o) Section 7015 (p) Section 7016 subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) (?) Section 7017 subsections (1), (2), (3)
(4)	and (5)?


Charles Joseph Clark: Under the Access to Information and Privacy Act, specific details of defence exports such as destination, equipment type and price are proprietary data which are provided to the Department of External Affairs by Canadian industry on the understanding that they will be maintained as confidential.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you be so kind as to call Motion No. 19.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Don Boudria:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any contracts issued by the Minister of Public Works to install, investigate, repair, alter, modify and/or
maintain the electronic translation and/or wiring system in the Liberal caucus room.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the Government and the documents will be tabled immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I sense a desire on the part of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to present a petition. Is it acceptable to the House that the Hon. Member be allowed to do that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have some 20-odd petitions regarding the closure of the Government House grounds to constituents of and visitors to the national capital area. The petitioners ask the Government and Parliament to open up this decision and to consult with the citizens of the area and of the country in order that a modus vivendi can be arrived at so that we can better enjoy this property.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-95, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of Government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
June 11, 1986

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to bring forward legislation entitled an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Federal Court Act, Bill C-116. It is the culmination of several years of consultation and co-operation among Canadians on the subject of pension reform.
The amendments to the Canada Pension Plan which we are discussing today will have far-reaching implications for virtually all Canadians in the labour force and for their families. As well, they will implement significant improvements for many individuals who are already receiving benefits under the plan. Indeed, there are few Canadians who will not benefit from the reforms to the Canada Pension Plan which are proposed to come into effect on January 1, 1987.1 believe I can state that this legislation is one of the most important Bills that the Government will introduce during its present mandate. Twenty-five years from now many of the issues that have preoccupied both sides of this House will undoubtedly have faded to the dusty volumes of history; but the Canada Pension Plan changes that we now have before us will still be affecting the lives of millions of Canadians.
I would venture to suggest to my hon. colleagues that there are few issues of greater concern to all Canadians than the evolution and sound financial management of a social insurance program which provides Canadian workers and their dependent family members with protection against the loss of employment income in the event of retirement, disability and death. Furthermore, I believe that the legislation to amend the Canada Pension Plan is the capstone to federal-provincial initiatives which will result in a wide range of benefit enrichments, as well as in the establishment of a financing arrangement to ensure the plan's long-term stability.
The Canada Pension Plan came into being 20 years ago in 1966 as a result of foresight and co-operation among federal and provincial legislators at the time. The plan's benefits and benefit levels were established in response to the economic needs and social attitudes of the day. It was agreed at the outset that any major changes to the plan in future years would require the consent of both the federal Parliament and two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population.

During the last two decades, the CPP has served Canadians well. With the federal Old Age Security program, it forms the solid basis for pension income for Canadian workers. As we know, many of these workers have yet to enjoy adequate
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
protection under an employer-sponsored plan, especially if they frequently change jobs-something which is becoming more and more necessary nowadays. And since CPP benefits are fully portable, the plan is the most important vehicle for providing income for retired workers.
I believe it is also appropriate to note that the federal Government, in addition to spearheading reforms to the Canada Pension Plan, has taken the lead in the area of reform of private employer-sponsored pension plans. While the majority of these plans fall under the direct jurisdiction of the provincial Governments, we have introduced legislation which will amend the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act which governs employer-sponsored pension plans in such federally regulated institutions as banks, railways, telecommunications services and federal Crown corporations.
The proposed amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act will implement important provisions for improved portability of pensions as well as earlier vesting of pension credits and greater flexibility in the age of eligibility for retirement benefits. I know that reform has been long sought by many people both in the House and out. These people have pointed out the need for vesting and portability in private pension plans and I am pleased to see that the Government and Parliament are moving very rapidly to fulfil those legislative requirements.
Moreover, we have consulted closely with the provincial Governments on the entire field of pension reform. Most of the provinces have indicated their intention to amend their own pension standards legislation and I am confident that in the wake of current federal and provincial initiatives, Canadians can look forward to a significantly great degree of uniformity in pension standards throughout the country in coming years. As Hon. Members know, standardization is important in a federal state such as Canada. In the past, it has been disquieting when people who wish for employment reasons to move from one province to another fear for their pension credits.
The continuation of federal-provincial initiatives such as those which have culminated in the reforms of the Canada Pension Plan encourages me, and, I am sure, all Hon. Members, to maintain a spirit of optimism for continued progress in the development of Canada's pension system. I must add that the co-operation of Canada's Parliamentarians from all sides toward reform of the nation's pension system has been a demonstration of the best aspects of democracy in action. I would like particularly to commend my two critics, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who not only have co-operated but have put forward suggestions. From time to time, people decry the way Parliamentarians act, but I think people will look back at the manner in which this matter has been handled and will feel that it was one of the brighter spots in Parliament with all sides acting together on behalf of Canadians.

June 11, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This non-partisan attitude has been evident through the consultation and discussion processes, particularly in the work of the special committee on pension reform, many of whose recommendations are addressed in the legislation that amends the Canada Pension Plan and the Pension Benefits Standards Act to which I have already referred.
Of course, the federal Government has also supported and implemented improvements in the income-tested benefits that are provided over and above the Old Age Security Program to low-income Canadians who have not had the opportunity to make adequate provision for retirement income. Even before we formed the new federal Government in September 1984, we supported the $50 monthly increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement for needy single pensioners age 65 and over. This increase achieved two important objectives. It brought the income guarantee for single pensioners to a level that ensured a more decent minimum income for all of its recipients and it also implemented greater parity between single and married pensioners who qualified for the supplement. Nevertheless, during the 1984 election campaign, we indicated to Canadian voters that we were concerned about a significant anomaly in the income-tested spouse's allowance which provides benefits to eligible persons in the 60 to 64 age category who meet the residence requirements for the Old Age Security Program.
At the time, under the legislation, some widows and widowers could qualify for this benefit and others could not. A widowed person's eligibility for this allowance depended on the age of both partners in a marriage at the time one partner died. We promised that we would terminate this obvious inequity and introduce legislation to provide the spouse's allowance to all low-income widows and widowers in the 60 to 64 age group regardless of the age of their spouses at the time of death. This commitment was an immediate priority when we assumed office and, as Hon. Members present will recall, the necessary legislation received Royal Assent by the end of June 1985, and the new widowed spouse's allowance became payable the following September extending benefits to thousands of needy Canadians who had been denied them under previous legislation.
Of course, improvements in social programs must always be carefully considered by the Government in light of present and projected financial considerations. Indeed, because expenditures on social programs normally involve a continuing and escalating outlay, there is probably no area of spending that must be subject to more careful thought. This guiding principle applies equally to changes under a program such as the Old Age Security Program which is funded entirely from general taxation revenues and to a contributory program such as the Canada Pension Plan which is self-financing, being entirely funded by its members' contributions and the interest earned by the investment of surplus money in the plan's fund. In both cases, it is the money of workers and taxpayers that is
paying for benefits, and the Government believes that Canadians should demand top value for their dollars which they pay in taxes or contributions toward those programs.
In the case of the Canada Pension Plan, it is necessary to obtain a federal-provincial consensus on major changes. This is required not only because of the unique rules for provincial consent to Canada Pension Plan changes but also because of the need for parallelism between the federal plan and its counterpart in Quebec, the Quebec Pension Plan. Discussions involving my Department, the Department of Finance and the provincial Governments were put in high gear very soon after the 1984 election and led to the federal-provincial agreement announced in December of last year. The results of these discussions are put in concrete terms in the Bill before the House today.
I think it is also important to pay special attention to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who, with his provincial counterparts, negotiated many of the financial aspects of this Bill. It is important to note that when this legislation was passed by the House, in its wisdom, in 1966-and I think the House was right to do so, not only because I am Minister of National Health and Welfare-the House saw this as a social policy initiative rather than a finance initiative. It is important as well to show co-operation among the various finance Ministers, both federal and provincial, and I commend and thank them for that co-operation at this time.
Four concerns dominated the federal-provincial discussions: first, maintaining the long-term health of the plan's fund; second, ensuring the affordability of premiums paid by working Canadians and their employers; third, adapting benefits to the changing needs of Canadians; and fourth, maintaining parallelism between the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan.
To meet the objective of putting the plan on a sound and stable footing for the future in the fairest and least disruptive way, it is proposed that gradual increases in the annual contribution rate will take effect each year beginning January 1, 1987. These rate increases will follow a 25-year schedule. Rates will increase by 0.2 per cent per year for the first five years of the schedule and by 0.15 per cent for the remaining 20 years. Therefore, by the year 2011-and obviously I invite all Hon. Members to be here at that time-the contribution rate will stand at 7.6 per cent, and of course workers and employers will each continue to pay half of the total contributions.
For Canadians earning an average wage, the premium increase in the first year of the new rates will add approximately $26 to the amount which they will contribute annually. In addition to the increase which will result from the annual growth in the year's maximum pensionable earnings for Canada Pension Plan purposes, or the YMPE as my colleagues will come to know it during this debate, it should be noted that the impact of the increases on take-home pay will always be
June 11, 1986

less than actual contribution increases because plan contributions are deductible for income tax purposes.
Two additional measures are proposed to ensure the stability of the Canada Pension Plan. The size of the plan's fund will be targeted to be approximately equal to two years of benefits in the long term rather than the present six years. This will guarantee a reserve sufficiently large to cushion the effects of economic and demographic fluctuations without building up a needlessly large and costly fund. By the year 2011, the fund will be slightly above the target in order to provide the cushion needed prior to the retirement of the so-called baby boom generation.
It is important for Canadians to know-and I think Hon. Members have been asked these questions in their ridings- whether the fund is solvent and whether there will something left when they retire. I want to tell them today that the fund is solvent, is in good hands, is paying its own way, and is secure. Yes, Canadians are contributing to the Canada Pension Plan fund which will pay them the benefits we are describing today.
There will be a procedure to review the financing of the plan at five-year intervals in the future, thereby ensuring that Canada Pension Plan finances are in good shape, that the contribution rate increase schedule is on track, and that there is always a 20-year to 25-year schedule of rates in place in advance.
As I indicated at the outset of my comments today, we have also secured agreement on a package of important Canada Pension Plan benefit reforms which nevertheless will have only a moderate impact upon long-term costs of the plan. Perhaps the most important feature of this reform package, the feature which will benefit the largest portion of plan contributors as soon as it is implemented, is the provision for greater flexibility in the age of eligibility for retirement benefits under the plan.
Before getting into the details of the changes, perhaps I should tell the House what we as a federal Government thought was most important. Not only did we want to guarantee the viability of the plan and to assure Canadians of its financial stability, we were absolutely insistent in the negotiations that we use the opportunity, whereby we knew we had to increase the contribution rate to improve the plan at the same time. The plan in 1966 was a good one, and it is a good one today. However, we knew there could be improvements. I know my hon. colleagues in the Opposition will say that there could be additional improvements to the plan, and I agree with that as well. What I am saying is that we should use every opportunity we have, as we have now done because the plan had to be reviewed from the point of view of its financial viability, to bring in improvements to a pension plan for which Canadians had paid.
As I have already mentioned, the benefit in the plan which I think will receive the most attention is the matter of flexible retirement entry. I should point out to Hon. Members that this provision is already in place in the Quebec Pension Plan. When I speak about parallelism, the Quebec Pension Plan in a
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
number of ways, especially in this provision, has shown leadership in terms of bringing in new adjustments to reflect more closely the situation in the workplace and the retirement requirements of Canadians. I am pleased that the Canada Pension Plan is reflecting what has already taken place in Quebec.
To date, plan contributors cannot begin to receive their retirement benefits until the month following their sixty-fifth birthday. There has always been a provision whereby persons who wish to continue working and contributing to the plan beyond this age could do so until age 70. However, this provision was usually beneficial only to individuals with very short contributory histories. Essentially the plan gave them no compensation for the years of benefit payments they were giving up by delaying receipt of their pension.
Under the new provision, all contributors to the Canada Pension Plan will be able to co-ordinate the plan with their personal retirement arrangements. Contributors will be able to make a choice to begin receiving their Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits at the most appropriate time from the age of 60 through to the age of 70 with corresponding actuarial adjustments. The way in which the provision will work is that when a contributor chooses to begin receiving his or her retirement benefits sooner than age 65 and after age 60, the pension will be calculated in a normal way according to the contributor's earning history. Then it will be reduced by one-half of one per cent for each month prior to the month following his or her sixty-fifth birthday. This means that there will be a reduction rate of 6 per cent per year and a maximum reduction of 30 per cent if the contributor begins receiving the pension at age 60. Similarly, the pension will be increased by as much as 30 per cent for a contributor who delays the start of benefits until age 70. As well, contributors will have to meet a test of full or partial cessation of employment in order to qualify for the Canada Pension Plan benefits prior to age 65.
Given this range of potential reductions and increases, individual contributors' choices as to when to begin receiving benefits will be very important and should not be taken lightly. However, the Government feels that Canadians have both the right and the responsibility to make these choices for themselves, and that Governments should do what they can to help them tailor their retirement income plans to their individual needs.
I should like to put it in very human terms. I refer to a cartoon which I saw in one of the national newspapers last weekend. It showed a gentleman reading a newspaper which indicated that he could now retire at age 60, and its caption was "Free at last". Perhaps that describes the attitude of some Canadians to this provision better than I can describe it.
The new provision will be especially advantageous to individuals who find themselves out of work in their early sixties and are confronted with limited job prospects for unemployed individuals in that age category. The provision will also help workers whose private employer-sponsored pension plans offer options for early retirement. In such cases,
14252

June 11, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
the company pension alone is not always sufficient to meet the income requirements, and he or she therefore is unable to take advantage of the option. Under the new legislation, however, workers who have this option will also be able to receive an early retirement pension from the Canada Pension Plan. In combination with the company pension, this should make it easier for them to retire sooner than age 65 if they truly wish to do so. We estimate that there are about 175,000 contributors in their early sixties who will want to take immediate advantage of this provision, or at least to look at the provision to see whether or not they want to follow those options. Moreover, I would like to emphasize that the implementation of this provision for flexible retirement will not add to the long term costs of the plan.
Another major benefit improvement, Mr. Speaker, one of which I am especially proud, will be a substantial increase in disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan so that the maximum monthly disability benefit in 1987 should be in excess of $600, a dramatic increase over the 1986 maximum of $455. Moreover, because this increase is being applied to the fiat rate portion of the benefit rather than to the variable, earnings related portion, there are about 155,000 current CPP disability pensioners who will see a significant rise in their payments next year.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the contributory rules for the plan's disability benefits will be relaxed, allowing workers who become disabled to qualify for benefits if they have contributed to the plan during two of the three years preceding their disablement; and the requirement that applicants must have contributed for at least one-third of their contributory period will be removed. As a result of these changes, an additional 5,000 people could qualify for benefits next year.
Under the Government's new legislation there will also be significant improvements in combined benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. The ceiling on combined disability and survival benefits, for example, will be increased to accommodate the higher fiat rate benefit. The maximum combined pension in 1987 will be in excess of $700 per month. This change, Mr. Speaker, will also benefit as many as 5,000 people.
The ceiling on combined retirement and survivor benefits after age 65 will remain at the level of the maximum retirement pension during the year in which the combined benefit becomes payable. However, there will be simplifications in the calculation of such a combined benefit and this will result in increased payments to about 25,000 people during the first year of implementation.
There will also be a new category of combined pensions where a survivor beneficiary under age 65 has chosen to receive a flexible retirement benefit. New rules to cover this category of combined pensions are laid out in the Bill as well.
An important further provision regarding survivor benefits under the plan is that, starting next year, such benefits will no longer be withdrawn from a widow or widower upon remarriage. Benefits will be restored, on application, to former recipients whose benefits had been previously withdrawn upon remarriage. We estimate that some 35,000 people will qualify for reinstatment of their Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits as a result of this provision.
In preparing this package of benefit enrichments, the federal and provincial government representatives have been concerned with the need for improvement in the various forms of pension coverage that are available to women. Traditionally, women in Canada have experienced a greater degree of financial hardship during their senior years than men, and I am especially pleased that several features in the Government's legislation to modify the Canada Pension Plan particularly addressed the needs of women in retirement.
The improvements in survivor benefits, which I have just mentioned, are one part of these provisions. Another is the amendment which will ensure that, upon divorce, Canada Pension Plan pension credits earned by both partners in a marriage will be subject to sharing between the former spouses, without application, as soon as the necessary information is received by the planned administration. Similarly, when married couples separate or when common-law couples part, the division of the pension credits earned during the marriage or relationship will be mandatory upon application by one spouse. As well, Canada Pension Plan pensions earned during a marriage will be shared equally between spouses upon retirement if one of the spouses so requests. For this provision to apply, both spouses will have to be at least 60 years old and have ceased contributing to the plan. Spouses will have the right to preclude a division of pension credits or sharing of pensions, but only by mutual agreement explicitly referring to their Canada Pension Plan rights.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a small but important change governing the provision of children's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. At present, the Plan pays a $91 monthly benefit in respect of a child of a contributor if the contributor dies or becomes disabled. We are now proposing to double the benefit in the cases in which the employment income of both parents is lost as a result of death or disability.
There are other provisions, but I do not have the time today, nor do I want to take up even more time of the House than I have already, relating to adoption. I have been concerned about what I think are archaic rules regarding the rights of adopted children. In some cases in federal legislation the rights of adopted children are not equal to those of children born to a family where benefits of the various provisions flow naturally and normally to a child. I would think the benefits in federal legislation generally-I am giving it as a general principle- should apply equally to adopted children as to those born to a family. I will not go into those details but I think in that area the same conditions will now apply under the Canada Pension
June 11, 1986

Plan for adopted children as for other children. That is a step forward, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated earlier, these reforms to benefits and funding under the Canada Pension Plan have come about as the result of exceptional communication and co-operation among governments. The federal-provincial discussions which have culminated in the legislation now before Parliament have demonstrated that when responsible, committed Canadians agree on a mutual objective, they are able to arrive at a consensus which reaches across the borders between different levels of governments and Parties. Today, therefore, I wish to offer my most sincere expression of personal gratitude for the spirit of co-operation which has been evident from Hon. Members from all Parties in examining this legislation. I am not hopeful that Parliament, in giving this legislation its final consideration and in exercising further this co-operative spirit, will pass it with the expedience it obviously deserves and that the Bill will receive Royal Assent before the summer recess.
I am making this request to my hon. colleagues, because three major steps remain to consolidate these reforms to the Canada Pension Plan. First, the provincial Governments, which indicated their provisional agreement on the proposed legislation last December, must conclude their own ratification procedures before the end of this year. Second, my department must prepare for the implementation of substantial changes in the Plan's administration. Just as an aside, we have 19.5 million Canadians on record and every time a person contributes to the Plan, every Canadian employed, self-employed or otherwise, those changes have to occur and have to be accurate for each individual. It is the people's fund and their plan. I think Members of the House will see very quickly why the lead-up period of at least six months for implementing such changes for January 1, 1987 is needed to affect this in an administrative sense. Third, my officials must also prepare and disseminate important information about coming improvements in the Canada Pension Plan, both for current contributors to the Plan and for current and future beneficiaries. I call on Hon. Members of the House to use either their householder mailings, their good offices or contact with their constituents to indicate the changes coming about. They are complex and it is important that Canadians understand and know them.
In terms of disability, I am looking at getting a communication to doctors across the country. They might have information available, and as a person applies possibly for disability, the doctors will know the time frame in which the application has to be made. In that way people will not lose the benefits to which they may be entitled because of lack of knowledge of the regulations and provisions. There is obviously still a lot of work to be done on this matter.
I know that all of my colleagues in Cabinet, especially the Minister of Finance with whom I have shared jurisdiction over the preparation of this landmark legislation, join me in emphasizing the importance of ensuring its prompt passage so
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
that we can provide much needed and much anticipated improvements in Canada Pension Plan benefits to Canadians in January of next year.

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that even after these chages to the Canada Pension Plan have been implemented, there will always be room for improvement in this area, and I am referring both to the Canada Pension Plan and to the other public and private programs that make up of the retirement income apparatus in this country.

During discussions on the provision of improved retirement income for homemakers, including proposals to incorporate such a provision into the Canada Pension Plan as Members would also like us to proceed with, we will examine and seek solutions to the complex questions of equity, cost, and other related issues so that the necessary steps can be taken to achieve solid improvements in this area.
As I am sure my hon. colleagues can appreciate, this is a subject with broad social and economic implications. Nonetheless, the federal Government recognizes the importance for all Canadians of work done in the home. We want to ensure that homemakers can look forward to their retirement years without fear for their financial security. I am especially pleased that the provinces have agreed to pursue this subject further.
I am convinced that that is the next frontier in pension reform. I personally believe that the best vehicle is the Canada Pension Plan. There may be some who believe that there should be another vehicle, a separate account. I would like to have that discussed. I do know that just as we give value to and can administer work which is related to earnings, the time for a homemakers pension has come for work related to the home which builds the mortar and bricks on which the family unit is based. A homemakers pension is valid and Parliament should take upon itself responsibility to ensure that this next step is taken before long.
In closing, I believe that the Canada Pension Plan reform legislation now before us and the commitment of federal and provincial Governments to pursue further improvements in the area of pension reform are a salutory affirmation of the parliamentary process as it continues to serve Canada with distinction.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks this afternoon by thanking the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for the compliments which he gave me and the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). It is precedent setting in the sense that all three Parties in the House have allowed this legislation to proceed in order that we can pass this Bill before the end of June. I would like to thank the chairman of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) for the work which he did as well.

Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Due to the precedent-setting way in which we have introduced this Bill, Members of the Opposition will not be allowed to introduce amendments to the legislation at committee stage. For that reason, in the latter part of my remarks I will put clearly on record the way in which the Liberal Party would have moved to improve the legislation had we had the opportunity to do so.
I first commenced to gain knowledge of the subject matter when I was asked by the previous Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Monique Begin, to head a task force in the early winter of 1983 to study two particular areas. The first was private pension plan legislation in the country and the second was public pension plan systems in the country. We were very fortunate that during the 10 months in which we studied that subject matter all three political Parties approached the matter on the basis of arriving at a consensus to allow us to move forward with the legislation program on the much needed reforms to both private and public pension plans.
It is a compliment to the parliamentary system that we were able to produce a largely consensual document in December of 1983. For that reason alone we are today advancing to the legislative agenda the much needed pension reform in the country. While we are paying compliments, we should compliment the members of that committee from three years ago because they were instrumental in allowing us to come to grips with the legislative agenda on pension reform.
During those 10 months of study in 1983 I learned that the subject matter is very complex. The more I thought I knew about the subject matter, the more I learned that I did not know about it. That having been said, as always happens, there came a day when the political parties had to make decisions on the improvement of pension legislation. We did so in December of 1983.
There were two major reasons why we required pension reform in the country. The first was the new emerging work patterns in the country which were totally different than the work patterns of my father's generation. The second reason is the monumental changes in lifestyle. With regard to lifestyle, I speak of the regrettable fact that we have a much higher rate of marriage breakdown in the country today than we had in previous generations. For that reason, many of the recommendations of the task force which you will see in Bill C-116 and Bill C-90, the Act relating to the private pension area, are much needed.
With regard to emerging work patterns, people who go into the workforce can be expected to work in two or three different provinces during their lifetime. They can be expected to be retrained at certain points during their work career. As a result, the system must become much more flexible and affordable. Many of the recommendations in this legislation and Bill C-90 were made as a result of those two emerging patterns.
I would like to indicate to the House why the Liberal Party decided to allow swift passage of this legislation. However, since we are not allowed to move amendments, I think it is necessary to put on the public record the amendments we would have moved to the legislation.
The agreement was reached because, frankly, the legislation before us is better than the legislation which presently exists. It goes a long way to addressing the needs of my own constituents and other working Canadians. I recognize that if we were not able to pass this legislation by the end of June the improvements to public pension legislation would have been delayed by a year. Rather than being able to institute these changes by January 1, 1987, they would have been delayed until January of 1988.
Having become intimately involved with the subject matter, I can appreciate the problem of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Once one has mastered the subject matter, it is still difficult to transverse the regulatory mechanism in order to attain the changes. The Minister stated previously that it requires the agreement of two-thirds of the population representing two-thirds of the provinces in order to accommodate change to the public pension plan system. Therefore, even though you have finally reached the position, it takes a lot longer to arrive at a consensus among the provincial Governments. I recognize that is a major obstacle, hence an added reason for realizing that the Minister has already negotiated to the best of his ability a consensus package with his provincial counterparts. I will be the last one to stand in the way because I also recognize the complexity of that kind of negotiation.
I happen to believe, as the Minister does, and I think as the Hon. Member for Beaches does, that this is a very unique way of introducing legislative change on the floor of the House of Commons. Hopefully it can become a model, to some extent. We talk about the need for parliamentary reform, and that is a prime area where individual Members of Parliament can have some influence on the way in which legislative programs come into being. 1 hope that in future, prior to the Government entering negotiations with the provinces in order to attain this kind of change, it would feel able to reference the changes to the standing committee so it can have some input to the agenda for negotiation with the provinces. I think that would be an added step towards meaningful parliamentary reform.
I would now like to focus on three key areas where I feel the Bill could have been approved. I speak now as the Member of Parliament for Sudbury. I hope the things I have to say will reflect many of the problems individual Members of Parliament have with their constituents.
In my own constituency the one area I have a great deal of difficulty with is that of CPP disability pensions. The majority of my constituency workload is in this area. I was hopeful that, having undertaken legislative reform of the CPP after 20 years, we would have been able to improve the Section dealing
June 11, 1986

with disability better than we have in this Bill today. The Minister has correctly stated that this Bill will significantly enhance disability benefits. It will increase the amount paid from $458 a month this year to a little over $600 a month next year. To me that was reason enough not to stand in the way of passage of this legislation.
However, once that is accomplished, the flat benefit portion of a CPP disability pension will still represent only 80 per cent of the Old Age Security cheque. I think all of us recognize that those 65 and over are relatively well protected by the social safety net in place. Where we have problems is in the age bracket of 45 to 64. If a Canadian falls victim to a stroke or a heart attack, or has some long-term disability hit his family, and he has no private pension that will cover it, he falls solely into the arms of the Government for support. That is where our legislation is woefully inadequate. Even with this significant improvement, we still fall short of what is required for a decent standard of living.
This is where the Liberal Party differs. We would have preferred to have increased the fiat rate to 100 per cent of the OAS. In addition, on the earnings related portion, which will remain at, I believe, 75 per cent of the earnings component, we would have put forward as an objective 100 per cent replacement. We could therefore have significantly improved the standard of living of those individuals who have to rely solely on the disability benefits under the CPP. How much would that have cost contributors? Not very much. The package we are putting forward today is very modest, although a significant improvement. The cost of increasing the payments to the levels I suggest would not have cost more than a 0.2 per cent increase in the amount of contributions. I do not think there is a working Canadian who would object to an increased payment of $24 a year to obtain a better standard of living for those unfortunate enough to have to rely on a disability pension for their livelihood.
Most Members of Parliament recognize that our constituents must almost have one foot in the grave before they qualify for a CPP disability pension. Yet if there is one province which deserves credit for improving the legislation, that has to be the Province of Quebec. What we have seen tabled in this Bill today has been in effect in Quebec for the last four years. As well, in January, 1984 the Quebec Government changed the definition of disability for contributors between the ages of 60 and 64 to the following. They are considered disabled if they are incapable of carrying on a job they had before becoming disabled. That kind of change would have been an improvement of this legislation. The problem at present is that when people apply for a CPP disability pension, a civil servant can ask that person to seek employment in an area with which he is not familiar. That is in effect another way in which we block access to a disability pension. Therefore I would have preferred changes in the definition of disability to allow more Canadians the opportunity to obtain a disability pension.
Last but not least, I believe there should be changes made to the eligibility criteria with respect to the number of years
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
worked prior to the application. How many times has the bureaucracy, and this is not their fault because they are simply following regulations, refused a pension on the basis that the person should have applied for it prior to coming to us as Members of Parliament? There is absolutely nothing we can do once they come to us if they do not meet this particular eligibility requirement.
Having said all that, I want it clearly on the record that, despite these changes to the CPP, Parliament has to push forward on a national disability insurance plan. That is the only way in which I believe the public can best be served. It has to be separated from the CPP if we are going to properly address the needs of disabled Canadians. I just want it clearly on the record that in addition to those improvements in the Bill, the Liberal Party is in favour of the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme.
Another significant step forward, I believe, is the introduction of the concept of early retirement in this legislation. That is a very progressive step. It will allow someone the opportunity to take a pension as early as age 60, at a reduced amount. If at age 65 you are eligible for a $400 a month pension, and you take it at age 60, it will be reduced to $280. If you wait until age 70, it will be enhanced and could be worth as much as $700 a month. I hope our constituents understand that while this introduces the concept of flexible retirement, there will be a difference in the amount of pension that they can collect. Earlier flexible retirement is an excellent part of the legislation.
There is one area that I believe Parliament should consider when it next undertakes reform. It is the way in which the Canada Pension Plan is stacked and integrated with private pension plans. While Parliament is going to significantly improve early retirement benefits and disability benefits, I find it objectionable that we have not dealt with the workers who have access to a private pension plan at their place of employment. For every extra dollar we give today, they will lose a dollar from their private pension. I think that is a sad reflection on the way we, as legislators, have failed to protect workers' interests in this country. We could have also made significant improvements if we had studied this particular area.
I have already talked about how emerging lifestyles impacted on the legislation before us. As well, I stated that some 40 per cent of today's marriages break down. Significant portions of this legislation and Bill C-90 will go a long way to improving the lot of women in our society, because this is largely a woman's issue.
The Minister already noted the effects of survivors' benefits. The measures in the legislation which dispel the idea that one is no longer chattel in this country are a significant improvement. Previously, those who remarried lost survivors' benefits. Not only will that be corrected, it will be retroactive so that

June 11, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
people who previously lost benefits under survivors' benefits can apply to have them reinstated on January 1, 1987.
Last, but not least, I want to talk about the inclusion of home-makers in the Canada Pension Plan. I recognize, as does the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that there is significant public opinion on our side in allowing the introduction of home-makers into the Canada Pension Plan. This has only been a result of changes in provincial Governments in the Province of Quebec and the Province in Ontario. Those provinces, because of their size, effectively had a veto. Now that those provinces are at least in favour of the principle of the inclusion of home-makers in the public pension plan area, I think we have a reasonable opportunity to reddress a wrong that was done with the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966. I believe that when we allowed the workers of that generation to have access to a public pension plan in 1966, we should have embarked upon a study of the concept of a home-maker at that time.
The Canada Pension Plan was phased in over ten years after its introduction in 1966. Public pension plans operate in a way totally different from the private pension and people should understand that the public pension system is probably the best bargain for any worker in this and the previous generation. In the previous generation, for every dollar of benefit derived from the Canada Pension Plan, those contributors paid only 17 cents. The other 83 cents has been transferred to the next generation of Canadians, who include the Pages in the House. They will be paying the other 83 cents.
When we studied whether or not we should expand the Canada Pension Plan, we made sure that the recommendations we made to Parliament would not place an undue burden on the next generation. I have no fear about the solvency of the Canada Pension Plan, but it should be made clear that the Canada Pension Plan will remain solvent so long as that burden that we transfer to the next generation of Canadians can be tolerated. The moment we go beyond that, we are in danger of reneging on the intergenerational transfer of responsibility from one generation to the other. That fact bears close scrutiny when we undertake any future changes to the Canada Pension Plan.
During the ten-year phase-in of this plan from 1966, we were dealing with a male versus female problem. In those days, the majority of the workforce was male. Parliament was allowing them the best opportunity at the best bargain price to enter into a public pension plan, but we did not allow the mothers of that generation the same opportunity. They had worked equally hard to build the infrastructure in this country that my generation and future generations would be allowed to enjoy. That is why I am greatly in favour of the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan and I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will strongly recommend homemakers to be included retroactively. The cost involved in giving our parents' generation an equal opportunity is not great. We are talking about those born since in 1901. I
hope the Minister strongly urges retroactivity with respect to homemakers.
In the event that we are unable to successfully negotiate the inclusion of homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan, I want the public record to show that the Liberal Party will consider the Cofirentes model with respect to an improvement in the Canada Pension Plan.
Let me explain the Cofirentes model. The present Canada Pension Plan only replaces 25 per cent of the average industrial wage for those Canadian workers who earn one-half or less of the average industrial wage. The Cofirentes model, recognizing the need for low-income workers to have more of their pension requirements met by the public pension system, recommends an increase from 25 per cent to 50 per cent for the first half of the average industrial wage, while maintaining the Canada pension replacement at 25 per cent for the next half of the average industrial wage. In the event that homemakers are not included in the public pension plan system, I am stating for the record that we should be considering an option like the Cofirentes model for improving the lot of lower income working Canadians.
[Translation)
Mr. Speaker, I have already explained the situation concerning the problem due to the complexity of this question and the negotiations and, for all the reasons I have given, the support of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is required to amend the legislation. I support this measure and I hope we will have an opportunity to hear and question witnesses in committee. I am sure of that. I can appreciate the problem of the Minister and Parliament.
If we want to change the law we must have the co-operation of all Parties in the House. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to give my support and to co-operate because, after studying this problem for a number of years, I am sure that the measure introduced today will improve the situation of Canadian workers.

Having said that, I know that the Hon. Member for Beaches wishes to join in the debate. In conclusion, after studying this problem for several years, I am proud that at least this study in which all parties took part did not gather dust. I can honestly say that with the Bill that will be passed today, and Bill C-90 which will be introduced before the end of June, we will significantly improve the lot of the average worker in this country.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say that the co-operation that has been shown by members in my Party will continue in order to ensure the speedy passage of this Bill prior to the House rising for the summer recess. Let me also say that I have enjoyed working with the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), who was the Chairman of our
June 11, 1986

committee, as we tried to work through what I have previously described as a rather difficult but unique process. It has been difficult because of the nature of negotiations between the federal and provincial Governments with respect to bringing amendments to the Canada Pension Plan forward. While I appreciate that, and support the amendments in so far as they go-I believe they are a vast improvement over what presently exists-it does not mean I am entirely happy with the process or the question of whether the amendments go far enough or even whether the amendments will do what we like to believe they will do, and I will come back to that momentarily.
As has been pointed out, the amendments cover such things as early retirement, improvement in disability benefits, improvements in the area of credit and pension splitting and survivor benefits. We have gone through this lengthy and difficult process of negotiation with the provinces and the federal Government to arrive at the amendments now before us, and what disturbs me is that this is the first time in 20 years that there has been a major review of this plan.
I suggested to the Minister in committee the other evening that it is not satisfactory for an agreement to be negotiated, arrived at and concluded, then simply brought back to the House of Commons for our stamp of approval, because we cannot offer any amendments to the proposals which are before us. I suggested to the Minister, and I would suggest to any other Minister who is involved in much of the same kind of process, that some mechanism must be found where the Opposition Parties in the House of Commons are consulted in a very real way about the manner in which the negotiations between the federal and provincial Governments are carried out. I say to you in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that both the Hon. Member for Sudbury and myself, on behalf of my Party, could have been quite helpful in that process.
I understand there are still some negotiations to be carried out with the Province of Ontario. I am hopeful that at least on an experimental basis some all Party discussions can take place on a unified Canadian position with that province or with any other province in future negotiation. I think it would be a good thing to do. Not only would it be a good thing to do in terms of what we are interested in, but certainly in the spirit of Parliamentary reform. So I strongly recommend that to the Minister. Knowing him from the years I have worked with him, I am sure he will be open to that suggestion. Perhaps he will take it up with his officials to see if some mechanism can be worked out to accommodate that need.
As the Minister said in his opening remarks, he would be quite surprised if Members of the Opposition did not offer some criticism. I do not want to surprise him. I am sure he expects us to say a few words, albeit, not harsh words, about the Bill before us.
First, I really think we have missed an opportunity to take a hard look at how we could improve the benefit pay-out to all contributors to the Canada Pension Plan. There have been a
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
number of recommendations made by various Parties over the years who have recognized that the Canada Penson Plan is probably, next to the Old Age Security Act, the best way of providing an adequate income when people retire. My colleague who is no longer with us, but who certainly served on the committee which took a look at parliamentary reform, Ted Miller, argued very strongly that there should be an increase in pension benefit pay-out to equal about 50 per cent of the average industrial wage. As we know, at least half of the people who are employed in Canada are not covered by private pension plans. For many of those Canadians it means looking forward to the so-called golden age of retirement as the golden age of poverty. It is a fact that 6 elderly single women out of 10 over the age of 65 are living on incomes well below the poverty line. In a country as rich as Canada, with our resources, potential and people, I think that is a national disgrace. In a country as rich as Canada, the fact that we allow 6 elderly single women out of every 10 over the age of 65 to live in poverty is not acceptable today, if it was ever acceptable before. It is something we should be able to do something about.
While I am on that subject, there is also a large population of single elderly women who have never had an opportunity to participate in the Canada Pension Plan and, therefore, are not elegible for a benefit under the CPP. There is a real need to do something about that group of Canadians. Unfortunately, the way the CPP is structured at the present time there is no relief. Certainly I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare is taking a look at the Old Age Security Program to increase benefits in order to give some relief to that large group of single elderly women.
I would like to pose the question, Mr. Speaker, why the Government felt it necessary, when it loosened up the retirement age from 65 years to 60, to make the formula for reduction in pension benefits in the area of 6 per cent per year of early retirement? That will not be much of an inducement to take early retirement. If the object of the exercise is not only to improve pension benefits for Canada's elderly, but also to allow younger people to enter the workforce, I do not think a 30 per cent reduction in pension, if a person elects to retire at age 60, is much of an encouragement for that individual to leave the workforce. Many people cannot afford to live on that kind of income. I would have much preferred a formula more in line with what has been accepted in many private plans, which is something like a 4 per cent reduction in each year of early retirement rather than the 6 per cent proposed by the Government.
With respect to disbility benefits, I would agree with the Hon. Member for Sudbury. I had the opportunity of working on another committee with the Hon. Member for Oxford. It was a Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped in the last Parliament. Fortunately, that committee has now been struck as a permanent subcommittee which I hope will go on beyond this session, because it is of such value to the disabled community. However, in the previous committee we presented

June 11, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
a report to the Elouse of Commons which was entitled "The Obstacles Report". Recommendations Nos. 39 and 40 in the report of that committee, which was an all Party committee, strongly recommended the setting up of a national disability insurance program for very good reasons, and I will not go into all of them today. We recognize that there are a large number of Canadians who have never been in the workforce and who will probably never enter it simply because they are disabled or handicapped to such an extent that they cannot perform within the workforce as we understand it. For them there is no such thing as a disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan. We felt that a more sensible approach would be to set up a national disability insurance program to take into account that approximate 10 per cent of the population which is excluded. Not all of them are excluded at the present time, but certainly a great many of them are. For example, within the visually impaired community in Canada the unemployment rate is in excess of 90 per cent. In other words, if one happens to be visually impaired, or what is called legally blind, one's chances of finding employment in the regular workforce are practically zilch. It seems to us that a much better way of dealing with this problem would be to set up a national disability insurance program.
Every Member of the House who has ever dealt with a constituent who has attempted to obtain a disability benefit under the Canada Pension plan is as familiar with the problems as I am. First, in order to receive a disability benefit under the CPP one has to be practically comatose or bedridden. That is much too difficult a requirement to meet to make one eligible for a disability pension. While we applaud the increase in disability benefits proposed by the Minister, and while we very much agree with the proposed amendment which would allow a person who has been in the workforce for two years out of the last three to become eligible for disability benefits, I suggest that in many cases it is not helpful to a great many people unless they become eligible for the program in some other way. I would like to see a loosening up of that eligibility requirement. I agree that it is probably too late in dealing with these amendments to do much about that. But certainly in the next round of negotiations between the federal Government and the provinces the whole question of disability benefit eligibility requirements should be high on the list of priorities for negotiation.
I welcome the Minister's remarks today in which he said that his Department would step up a national program to the medical profession with respect to disability requirements setting out what is required of individuals in terms of contribution records in order at least to qualify to apply for a benefit. I say to the Minister quite plainly that if his Department wishes to put together some type of explanatory package which is easily handled and easily read I would certainly be interested in including such a package in the reports I mail out to my constituents. I would recommend to members of my caucus
and to other Members of Parliament that they take advantage of this type of offer if it is forthcoming.
If there is one major problem that people have out there it is with respect to the lack of information on a whole host of government programs. It is also difficult to disseminate this information. However, if the medical profession were made aware of what is available to their patients, that would go a long way toward solving many of the problems we now have about how people find out what is available to them in terms of disability benefits. I welcome any offer that comes from the Minister's Department in that respect.
There is another area with which I wish to deal. I see that Section 116(2) of the existing legislation has had some minor amendments to it. As I understand the section, whenever any amendments are introduced or presented to the House the Chief Actuary is supposed to provide us with cost and impact figures with respect to what we are proposing to do under the Canada Pension Plan. I have not received those figures. I do not know whether the Chief Actuary has actually done that or not. However, he is supposed to do it with due haste and speed. The quicker I get my hands on that material, the better off I will be. It will provide some insight with respect to just what the costing is. Perhaps it will even erase some of the concerns I have at the present time. If such information is available I would like to receive it before we get into report stage and third reading of this Bill.
I would now like to deal with two other areas, one of which the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) touched upon in his speech. I also spoke about it at great length when Bill C-90 was before the House. When someone leaves his employment due to a disability, at the present time under most private plans there is a benefit that is generally described as a bridging benefit. In other words, the individual receives a pension earned up to the point of leaving employment. There is usually then a supplemental benefit paid which equals either Old Age Security benefits, which would otherwise be received at the age of 65, or, in some cases, the full equivalent of Canada Pension Plan benefits, which would otherwise be received at the age of 65. However, what happens is that if this individual applies for a disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan, usually on the advice of a physician, and the eligiblity is determined and accepted and the individual actually receives a disability benefit, then the insurance company immediately deducts dollar-for-dollar off the amount that it paid to this individual. I am fearful that unless something is done under this legislation to prohibit such a practice, then all we are doing as a result of increasing the disability allowance is in effect giving the private insurance companies a windfall. It will be those companies which benefit and not the recipient of the disability benefit under the Canada Pension Plan.
There are other areas which I am not sure the Government has considered. Under some plans in which an individual is entitled, as a bridging benefit, to full CPP benefits as if he had worked until the age of 65, if that individual decides to retire at age 60 on January 1 of a given year with a 6 per cent
June 11, 1986

reduction for each year of early retirement, does this mean that the employer will then turn around and say: "Look, the legislation does not say you should receive 100 per cent Canada Pension Plan so therefore we will reduce our pension pay-out to you by 30 per cent"? I do not know whether or not the Government considered the matter when it was discussing these amendments. If it has not, then it would be very useful if it did something with the regulations that would prohibit the private insurance companies from receiving a windfall profit, as I have suggested.
While the Government's proposed splitting of pension credits on marriage breakdown has gone as far as it should probably go, I am a bit disappointed by the proposals for the splitting of pension benefits at age 65 between married couples or at age 60 if the couples have elected early retirement. I am disappointed because that is elective rather than mandatory. One or the other spouse would have to elect to split that pension benefit rather than have it be mandatory.
As long as I have been around here, women's organizations and others concerned about pension matters have argued loud, clear and long on that matter for very good reason. For example, in the case of a marriage breakdown, there are an awful lot of sharp lawyers out there with sharp pencils who attempt to make the pension credit a part of the divorce settlement by offering the woman a lump sum payment rather than the credit. Very often, because of the circumstances of the marriage breakdown, that lump sum seems to be attractive at that particular point in time. However, when the woman reaches age 65 and discovers how much pension she is about to receive, she then questions if it was indeed wise to accept the lump sum payments. Therefore, I would much prefer to have the proposal regarding pension splitting on retirement mandatory rather than elective.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There are problems with provincial property rights.


Neil Young: The Minister tells me that that presents problems with provincial property rights. That may very well be, but I would suggest to the Minister that this is one of the reasons opposition Members should be involved at least in a consultative way prior to the negotiations with the provinces. Perhaps we could request the provinces to change the legislation to accommodate what I think would be the right thing to do.
I have one last point to make and this is a point which has been raised with me many times. I appreciate some of the difficulties involved in it. However, it is something that I think should be explored. I am talking about what happens when people are temporarily out of the workforce or are in the workforce but, because of their employer-employee relationships, are denied the opportunity of making contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. As I understand it, perhaps because of the income tax laws, taxi drivers cannot pay into the
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
Canada Pension Plan. I do not know if this problem lies with income tax people. I know they have a lot of problems and they give us problems many times. However, it seems to me that we may be creating other problems for people on retirement if we do not allow those individuals to pay into the Canada Pension Plan. We may be faced with increased welfare payments when they reach age 65, and it may be false economy to deny people the opportunity to participate by making contributions into the CPP.
As well, if a person leaves the workforce on a temporary basis, say because of a heart attack, that individual is not allowed to make contributions on his own behalf while outside of the workforce. As a result, he faces a reduced pension at retirement age. I do not know if this is a bureaucratic thing or if there is some sensible, logical explanation behind it. If there is, it escapes me. If an individual is willing to pay his or her share plus the employer's share into the Canada Pension Plan, then I cannot for the life of me see why he or she should be denied the opportunity to do so. Perhaps that is something else that could be given consideration before we return to negotiations with the provinces on further amendments to the Canada Pension Plan.
As I said before, I want to assure the House of our continued support to ensure that this legislation is passed by the end of next week so that the Department will have an opportunity to do all the things it needs to do to ensure that these benefits are indeed passed on to Canada's pensioners on January 1 of next year. If the Minister would like to think about some sneaky ways in which he could sneak my suggestions into the legislation, it would be even better.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a question which I see as extremely important. However, I warm you that unlike the three previous speakers, my reaction to the Bill will be as negative as theirs was positive, if not more so. I shall explain.
If we look at the amendments proposed by the Minister, following consultations with the provinces, if we look at the figures released by the National Welfare Council in 1985 on the poverty profile, when we see that in 1984, 54 per cent of the elderly were living below the poverty line, and if you then ask me whether this Bill, together with Bill C-90, will remedy the situation, I have to say it will not.
Mr. Speaker, earlier we were looking at certain advantages of this Bill that would enable people to retire early and receive benefits under the Canada Pension Plan at age 60, as is already the case in Quebec, but subject to a penalty.
Mr. Speaker, when I see Members of this House, whatever their political stripe, who believe that this Bill will make it attractive for people to retire early, I think they are being very naive, because, this is another measure aimed at helping the rich. The benefits received under the Canada or the Quebec Pension Plan alone are not enough for a person to live on. It

June 11, 1986
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
means that this person has to have a good RRSP and a good private pension plan, to afford to draw his Canada Pension Plan benefits at a 5 per cent discount per year.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about early retirement and look at the whole range of important decisions that are supposed to make it attractive for people to take early retirement, I don't think that cutting unemployment insurance benefits for people who agree to retire early from a full-time job and find parttime work will do it, nor imposing a 5 per cent reduction in Quebec or Canada Pension Plan benefits as a condition for allowing people on average and low incomes to retire early and thus give younger people a chance.
Mr. Speaker, what the Canada Pension Plan Bill does is increase taxes. It will increase our taxes by $286 million in 1987, $615 million in 1988, $1.04 billion in 1989, and if no changes have been made by the year 2000, by $7,746 billion annually.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there are provincial governments that owe considerable sums of money to the Canada Pension Plan, nearly $30 billion. The Province of Ontario alone owes $15 billion. These provinces are not being pressed to pay back what they owe. If they were, perhaps this would keep contribution levels from increasing so quickly or, if we were to increase contributions at the rate proposed in the Bill, we could then increase benefits by 50 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at this Bill and Bill C-90, which introduces changes to private pension plans, we see that both Bills are aimed at improving the situation and indeed, there is an improvement, but it benefits those who are well-off. Bill C-90 does nothing for people who have no indexed pension plan, as CN retirees and others know too well.
There is no new policy, no improvement for the thousands upon thousands of Canadian men and women who work for companies without pension plans, the thousands of Canadians who work for small-and medium-size businesses which have no pension plans either, and their future is not made any brighter by these two Bills which we will be considering in the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) must take the blame for this situation. In May of last year, as you may recall, the Minister of Health failed to rise in Cabinet to defend the interests of elderly Canadians and he simply stood by while the old age security pension deindexation project was approved. Elderly Canadians themselves had to march on Parliament Hill on June 19, forcing the Government to recant and admit that the Opposition Parties and retired Canadians were right.
Just looking at the propositions contained in this Bill and in Bill C-90, I can tell they come from the same Minister. There has been some improvement because it was this Minister who sponsored the Bill concerning the spouse's allowance for widows and widowers, but he did not do anything to stop
discrimination against people who are unmarried, separated or divorced, and again we find out that he lacks the leadership and courage to stand up for his own convictions.
I agree with the Minister that negotiating with the provinces is no picnic, but I think these propositions amount to a very minor reform. I sincerely believe that nothing is being done to make sure that all Canadian workers, men and women alike, can look forward to a financially secure retirement. In my opinion, the only groups that stand to gain in this case are the provincial Governments.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider the choices made by this Minister and this Government, let us consider their suggestion that people be allowed to invest in RRSPs to prepare for retirement. I have here an article written by La Presse financial reporter Claude Piche who clearly explains who stands to gain most through RRSPs. Can a man or a woman earning $10,000 afford to invest $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 in a RRSP for his or her retirement days? No.
Let us refer to the table in Mr. Piche's article. An unmarried taxpayer with a gross income of $10,000 who invests $1,000 in a RRSP will end up with tax savings of $159. Another one whose income is $30,000 and who invests $1,000 in a Registered Retirement Savings Plan will save $347 in taxes. Yet another one who earns $50,000 and invests $1,000 in such a savings plan will pay $432 less in taxes. And if that same person earns $80,000 in Canada, is single and invests $1,000 in a RRSP, it means saving $510.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear these measures tend to improve the situation of people who are well off. And how do they affect someone who has been a Member or a Minister here for 15 or 20 years? He will be entitled to his Member's pension. He will be entitled to benefits under the Quebec Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Plan and will be allowed to draw these benefits when he is 60. He won't mind the 5 per cent penalty. He will also have his RRSP and be entitled to this and that and the other. And what do the people in our ridings think about this? There are hundreds of men and women and young people-and I am not talking about people who have already retired. I am talking about people who will retire, eventually. It was hoped that as a result of a thorough reform of our pension system, future generations would not go through what our senior citizens are going through today. We hoped things would be done the way they were done in Europe, in all countries that for over one or two centuries have been concerned about giving people a decent pension plan, a decent retirement plan. Mr. Speaker, we have failed to improve the situation of three quarters of the people in our ridings.
And if we consider all these people who work in a corner store or a grocery store, all these people who work in small businesses? We all know that increasingly, in Canada and Quebec, small business is the industry of the future, but where there are only 10, 15 or 20 employees, there is no provision for a private pension plan, considering the cost and employe earnings.
June 11, 1986

Bill C-90 does not do anything for these people. If we look around in our ridings, none of the people working in the textile and footwear industries, mothers with children, and so forth, have any protection today. We are doing nothing to improve their quality of life. And tomorrow, these people will still have to go and get their Old Age Security pension and their Guaranteed Income Supplement and they will still be living below and on the poverty line. And why is this going to happen? It is because we have not seen fit to take our respon-sabilities seriously.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Pension Plan is excellent. When they decided to increase contributions they should have made sure that the provinces would repay the money they owe, for the Canada Pension Plan must no longer be a loan fund from which the provinces can borrow at will to pave roads and build sewer systems and highways. That money belongs to working men and women throughout Canada.
Their first objective should have been to make sure that the benefits paid to any Canadian worker from the CPP or the QPP amount to 50 per cent of his or her income. No, Mr. Speaker, the private sector must be left alone, so only one class of people stand to benefit.
There is a three-tier plan in England. The public pension plan is equivalent to what we have in Canada, the old age security pension plan. There is a very important public pension system similar to the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, and if a company with a collective agreement offers a private pension plan, there is an opting-out option, but people do get decent and reasonable retirement benefits.
I agree there has been some improvement, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately this same Government in 20 months ... let us keep in mind what it has done to the elderly.
The spouse's allowance, people between 60 and 64, discrimination against 80,000 Canadians, 85 per cent of whom are women, people who are unmarried, separated or divorced, and their civil status is the only reason why they were turned down. The deindexation of old age security pensions: thanks to the elderly, the Government was forced to backtrack and admit it was wrong. Unemployment insurance cut-backs: they brag about making it easier for people to take early retirement. This same Government says: We will allow people aged 60 to 65 to retire early, but there will be a 5 per cent penalty, yet at the same time another Minister states: No way, unemployment insurance benefits will be cut off.
Those are three proposals intended for senior citizens, and as we know home care projects that were offered to provide home care services have been cut, the New Horizons programs, and now they come up with hidden tax increases for future pensioners. Each and every Canadian taxpayer will have to pay more taxes out of his pay cheques, and in return will be entitled to improved benefits if and when disabled. But if the taxpayer does not become disabled, his increased contributions to the Canada Pension Plan will not come back to him as improved benefits, unless he decides to keep working until age
Canada Pension Plan and Federal Court Act
70. Mr. Speaker, we have 1.5 million surplus workers looking for jobs, but this Government is having a policy that encourages people to remain in employment. At the same time, they say: We will let people take early retirement, but if they do so, they will be subject to a 5 per cent penalty. Mr. Speaker, this is inconsistent and ill-concerted. We have the same thing with Bill C-90, and I would like to refer again to the National Welfare Council paper on the poverty level: 50 per cent of senior citizens live below the poverty line. Those between ages 60 and 64 are the less privileged, and the Government intends to increase the percentage of people in that situation by telling them: You are entitled to the Canada Pension Plan, but we are cutting back benefits, you are going to live below the poverty line, and this is what we want. I for one believe the Minister could make another effort before the Bill is adopted. My colleague said he was ready to cooperate and let this Bill pass before the summer recess, but I am wondering if all Hon. Members are doing the right thing. Since we are sure those amendments will not effectively improve the situation for the majority of Canadian men and women, would it not be advisable to ask the Minister to make one more effort and move further amendments. We have in Canada a very efficient communication network-we can use the telephone, make conference calls. We have air travel facilities that allow Ministers to convene. We can use the Hercules. Instead of taking the Minister's family on a junket, we can pick up all the Ministers and have a conference. Sincerely, I feel the Minister could make another effort. I would remind him that last year, in May, he failed to make an extra effort for senior citizens, but senior citizens made that effort and won their day.
If the Minister cannot do anything about the Canada Pension Plan legislation, certainly he can do something about pension reform. Bill C-90, to ensure-and I think that this is what all the Members of this House ultimately want-that the main purpose of any legislation passed to improve Canadian pension plans will be to guarantee that, in the future, no senior citizen will be under the poverty line. We would then need legislation to ensure that these people receive about 50 per cent of their previous income. Otherwise, if we are satisfied with minimal changes simply to improve the standard of living of those who are already well-off, each one of us will have to assume the burden of guilt for letting people live under the poverty line during the next five, ten or fifteen years.
Mr. Speaker, while the spokesmen for the three parties bragged about having done good work and gave us fifteen minutes of mutual compliments, I am convinced that some Members of this House are not completely satisfied with what has been introduced.
Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), the National Welfare Council is an advisory board appointed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to advise him. The situation is too serious and too important for us not to act to ensure that the thousands of retired Canadians and homemakers will have the decent pension plan which everyone should have in Canada.

June 11, 1986
Canada Shipping Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I just, before I start my remarks, make a brief intervention by way of a point of order? The Speaker is currently considering a decision taken during report stage of Bill C-75. May I have your indulgence to rise on a point of order at some point later on regarding a matter of procedure?
It gives me a fair amount of pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-75 at third reading. This Bill has been before us since September of last year. It will amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and a number of consequential Acts as a result of measures included in these amendments.
We have made some important improvements to this Bill during the committee's deliberations at second reading. As I mentioned a moment ago, it is with respect to those amendments that I might want to open a question of procedure later on.
I would first like to compliment the committee and its Chairman, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), for their very diligent work in the review of this Bill. Over 60 witnesses representing 20 organizations and associations have been heard over the past two or three months. More than 20 amendments were made to the Bill as originally introduced. As a result of the committee's work I believe that we have an improved Bill which will go a long way toward bringing the
Canada Shipping Act into line with similar legislation of our major trading partners around the world.
As I have said on a number of occasions, we have recognized the open-endedness of Clause 4 dealing with the recovery of some portion of Coast Guard expenses. The Minister responded by establishing an appeal process and by embodying principles of fairness and equity in the legislation itself. During his appearance before the committee the Minister advised that it was the intention that Clause 4 would not be proclaimed before January 1, 1987, and that charges for Coast Guard services would not become effective until January of 1988. He also noted that this action would be preceded by an extensive consultation process with Coast Guard stakeholders in major centres across Canada.
The Senate committee hearings are currently in progress. I believe the preconsideration of the Bill was concluded last evening and I think the other Chamber will be moving in concert with us in seeking third reading and passage by the House. In reading the transcripts of the committee hearings I have noted that there still appears to be some misunderstanding with regard to the revenue target set for the introduction of charges under this section of the Canada Shipping Act. I would like to reiterate once again the statements that I and the Minister have made, both within and outside of the Chamber, and to the legislative committee.
I would like to quote statements made to the legislative committee in this regard on March 12, 1986. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) said:
We are looking at something less than 15 per cent, and maybe to be more specific, we will try to quantify that in specific dollar terms. The target in mind would be to realize an additional $20 million net revenue by 1988. That would be commencing in 1988. This would be over and above the forecasted revenue from existing sources of approximately $28 million in 1988-89.
This would have the effect of increasing our revenue to expenditure ratio from the current 3 per cent approximately, to 7 per cent approximately, in net terms, by 1988.
Included in this 7 per cent is revenue forecasted from services which are already subject to cost recovery.
What the Minister has said is quite clear. It is hoped that we can recover an additional $20 million in that time frame. However, that will only increase the percentage from approximately 3 per cent to 7 per cent. As a comparison, approximately 42 per cent of the costs of air transport are now recovered.
It is important for Members to recall that the Auditor General made observations in his reports of March 31, 1983, and March 31, 1985, on cost recovery. He said that cost recovery is an important requirement of the Department's strategic plan. He further stated that the Coast Guard could recover part or all of its cost from users of its services.
There is support for our initiative to recover a small portion-and I emphasize "small"-of Coast Guard expenses. The Council of Boating Organizations of Canada has said that the principle of paying for services is a very legitimate one. Similar expressions of support have come from the Great Lakes Waterway Development Association, the St. Lawrence
June 11, 1986

Ship Owners Association, the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, the Seafarers International Union, Stelco, Oshawa Harbour Commission, the Dominion Marine Association, and Canada Steamship Lines. I could elaborate, as was done before the committee, but suffice it to say that we are encouraged by the very positive reaction from these important associations, companies and organizations.
I would also note that in committee the exclusion clause for Canadian mobile offshore drilling units drilling on Canada Lands was removed so that the revised Bill provides the enabling legislation for the drafting of regulations to cover Canadian MODUs at all times. The Bill provides that when the regulations for certification and training and for design and construction are submitted for Governor in Council approval, they will be jointly recommended by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney).
You may wish to note that there is precedent for joint recommendation by two Ministers in Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. It is also important to note that drill ships and MODUs are, at one and the same time, floating marine platforms subject to the laws of hydrodynamics as well as industrial sites involved in oil exploration. It is, therefore, appropriate that both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should recommend regulations in this circumstance. We see this, however, as only an interim solution to a very difficult and complex problem.
Pending completion of the comprehensive legislation specific to mobile offshore drilling units announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on April 14 of this year, a single agency concept was recommended by the royal commission investigating the Ocean Ranger marine disaster. This amendment, proposed by the Government, moved in that direction within the framework of the existing legislation.
I would like to emphasize that this legislation will allow Canada to accede to six international conventions and five codes dealing with certification of masters and seamen, ship construction, ship safety, liability and compensation and prevention and control of pollution from ships. The most important conventions are the conventions for standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, the convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, the convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage. These codes deal with ships carrying liquified gases in bulk, ships carrying dangerous chemicals and the construction and equipment of mobile offshore drilling units. You will appreciate the importance of this particular piece of legislation as it relates to standards which are international in scope, levels of compensation for damage, and to fines for violation of those provisions.
I would like to talk about certification of pleasure craft operators for a moment. During the course of committee hearings there were very obvious misunderstandings and, as a result, a lot of legitimate apprehension and concern among
Canada Shipping Act
pleasure boat operators. I think a word on that matter is in order. It is our view that these views were erroneously perceived and that there should not be much concern for the people involved. For example, there was great concern that in order to paddle a canoe on a little lake in the woods one had to be a certified operator of a boat, in other words, that one had to have a watchkeeping certificate, that one had to know and understand something about navigation and that one had to know and understand something about engineering. In other words, one has to be something of an expert. That includes your little rowboat, raft, windsurfer, indeed everything. Of course, that is nonsense. That was never the intention at all. In order to reassure the boating public and in response to the concerns expressed by Members and the general public, we amended the Bill to exempt pleasure yachts of less than 20 metres and vessels, boats or craft of any length propelled manually by oars.
Finally, I note that the amendments made during the committee review, taken as a result of strong representations by the Official Opposition, mean that Canada will have stiffer penalties for pollution incidents in our waters. This means that the three existing Part XX penalties of $100,000 will be increased to $200,000. One would be increased to $250,000, and the existing penalty for a Master who does not give reasonable assistance to a pollution prevention officer would be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. If people wonder what I am nodding at, we wondered whether or not the Speaker had ruled these amendments out of order. Apparently they are in order and I am very pleased at that.
The Government gave proof of its willingness to listen to representations made by witnesses and committee members and to react to them in a very positive way. Members of all Parties will understand the importance of this legislation to the shipping community and shipping activity in Canada generally. This Bill significantly improves and modernizes a 50-year old Act dating back to 1936. I urge Members to consider the important safety features fundamental to the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and recognize the improvements made in this legislation as a result of Bill C-75. For reasons which I believe are evident and in the interests of safe shipping, I ask the House to give expeditious passage to this legislation which has been long awaited both nationally and internationally by the shipping community.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the Government on bringing forward these long overdue initiatives, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could tell us whether he had interventions from organizations such as the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food & Allied Workers Union. As well, can he tell us what the impact is going to be on fishermen? I have some concerns about the general trend of user-pay in the Atlantic area. I am particularly concerned about its impact on small boats. I am talking about boats up to 65 or 75 feet in length. There are major companies in the Atlantic area

June 11, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
which can afford to pay fees for their vessels, but there are other fishermen who cannot. They are already going to be charged for environmental forecasts, berthing fees, Coast Guard operations, dredging, and a whole host of other things. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the impact is going to be and what steps the Government has taken to relieve those fishermen of the burden which might otherwise be imposed by this Act?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to say that for the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the question he will need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, if there is not unanimous consent I would simply be closing the debate. I have no wish to do that.
I would respond to the Hon. Member by saying that the Minister would not want to prejudge or intervene in the consultative process he will establish very shortly. I should have indicated that in the course of my general remarks. It would be his intention to strike a consultative committee, widely based. It will have as members people from the fishing fraternity. It will include broad representation from all the principal sectors of the marine community. Hopefully, in the terms of reference the Minister will give that type of direction to the committee which would reflect the concern the Hon. Member is expressing. This applies not only to fishermen but, for example, to the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island. There are a number of areas where undue cost recovery would indeed create significant problems. I am confident the terms of reference will take those concerns into consideration and not result in undue burdens or costs being imposed, particularly on the fishing sector.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for another question or comment by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I want, first to apologize to the Parliamentary Secretary for not being able to hear his opening remarks. We were having certain discussions about particular items in the Bill. I can assure him that everything has been resolved in favour of the decision the committee made. Because I did not hear his opening statement I want to ask him if he will confirm that the Government does not intend to withdraw Clause 4 and ignore the Prime Minister's promise to the Premier of Quebec to have another look at that clause.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the Government, as he well knows, to withdraw Clause 4. Very real and legitimate concerns were expressed by the Government of Quebec, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote), and meetings were held between the federal and provincial Ministers of
Transport, following which the provincial Minister indicated quite publicly his support for Clause 4. He recognized that while it might well be argued that it could reduce the competitive position of the Port of Montreal or the Port of Quebec, the fact is that in the interests of the maritime community some cost recovery has to be achieved. I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that the great Province of Quebec is now on side. Our federal Ministers have been persuasive in that regard.


Iain Francis Angus: Liberals and Tories together again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-75. May I say at the outset as well that I regret I was not here to listen to the words of wisdom from the Parliamentary Secretary at the beginning of his remarks. With his knowledge, consent and co-operation I was with my friend from the NDP ensuring in discussions with the Speaker that these very important amendments to which the Government consented in committee were a legitimate part of this Bill. Those amendments deal with the penalties imposed upon people who knowingly pollute Canada's waters.
Let me begin my remarks by saying to the Parliamentary Secretary that I have found him personally to be extremely cooperative in so far as the examination of this Bill is concerned. I have found the Parliamentary Secretary, personally, to be more than willing and able, on occasion, to ensure that the time required by the legislative committee to examine this Bill was forthcoming and available to us. I have found the Member to be one who has approached many of the amendments of the opposition Parties with an open mind and a fair and reasonable outlook. In fact, in a number of important areas he has responded on occasion to the recommendations not only of the opposition Parties but indeed of members of his Party and members of the general public who have made comments on this Bill. I wanted to state that for the record.
Let me outline some of the more important amendments which were brought to Bill C-75. They include the amendments dealing with the requirement for certification of vessels beyond a certain length, to ensure that not every small boater in this country would find that he was suddenly borne down by the great weight of bureaucratic red tape as represented by this Bill. Another important set of amendments were those dealing with penalties to be imposed on those people who knowingly discharge into Canadian waters pollutants which negatively affect our environment. There are now in place some substantial and stiff penalties. Those were good amendments.
If the Bill dealt primarily with a rewrite of the Canada Shipping Act, which is decades old, if it dealt with excluding small Canadian boaters from bureaucratic red tape, if it dealt with substantially increasing the fines for those who pollute
June 11, 1986

our waters, and if it came to the House in that form only, not only would I be able to say that the Parliamentary Secretary has been co-operative, helpful and reasonable, I would be able to say that he has done a great service to Canadians with this Bill.
However, there is one small problem. Clause 4 is the problem. It is not an amendment of a provision that previously existed in the Act. Clause 4 does not beef up fines that previously existed in the Bill. It is not a change in previous regulations that affected the size of boats. Clause 4 is a new clause that has been introduced despite the screams, the shouts, the protest and reasoned arguments of people who are interested, concerned and knowledgeable about the shipping industry. This clause has been imposed in what otherwise would be a good Bill.
I suppose that the Opposition has two choices. It could say that as far as the Canada Shipping Act and the changes that have been made in the Bill are concerned, it is not a bad Bill and maybe we can ignore this festering sore that the Government has introduced to the Bill.
Our other choice is not to accept what is essentially a good Bill that has been seriously flawed by the Government as a result of its introducing an entirely new measure that heretofor was unheard of. That measure is Clause 4.
My friend from northwestern Ontario asked the Parliamentary Secretary an all too familiar question these days; whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was going to keep his commitment to the Transportation Minister of Quebec, Mr. Cote, and the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, that he made last week on the CBC national news. That commitment was to re-examine Clause 4 of the Canada Shipping Act before it received final reading in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister told the Quebec Transportation Minister and, more important, the Premier of Quebec: "I will take another look at Clause 4." He said he would take another look at this change which has been thrust upon what otherwise is not a bad Bill. That statement was made a few days ago, but in the House today, when we pick up the latest version of the Bill and look for evidence that the Prime Minister has taken another look, we see Clause 4, unchanged, staring at us from the pages of the Bill.
By now, we are being asked, what is Clause 4? Is it a disease?


Iain Francis Angus: Yes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is it communicable?


Iain Francis Angus: Yes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will it wreak havoc on Canadian citizens?


Iain Francis Angus: Yes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: My colleague from the New Democratic Party says: "Yes, yes, yes." What is Clause 4? It is an enabling
Canada Shipping Act
provision that gives the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) the power and authority, which he does not and never did have in the history of this country, to impose upon the users of Canada's navigation system charges for services that the Government has always provided as a right to Canadian citizens. It is a provision by which the Minister seeks the authority and power to impose charges on fishermen in Atlantic Canada for Coast Guard services and lifesaving services. They will be charged if they are in danger at sea.
This provision allows the Government to impose charges on all Canadian vessels of every size for icebreaking services everywhere in the country. This provision means that only those who can afford to pay for navigational aids will have them. Therefore, those who live on the bluff of Cape St. George on Port-au-Port Peninsula in the Province of Newfoundland and cannot afford to pay these user fees for navigational aids for search and rescue facilities will not receive them.
This provision allows the Minister of Transport to apply additional user charges for the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is a major mode of transportation which is in decline throughout the Province of Quebec and all Canadian provinces. Those additional user charges may make that transportation system more uneconomic and may put its very future in doubt, thereby choking the life from that major Canadian transportation artery.
If that is not bad enough, let me tell the House what is worse. Not only does the Minister of Transport want the power to impose all these charges on the people of Canada, he will not tell us who will be charged, how much and for how long, until later. When one hands someone a gun and that person says he wants the hammer pulled back and the bullet shoved into the breech, is it not logical to ask for whom the bullet is intended, and why? The Minister, asking for the authority to impose charges through Clause 4, is asking for a loaded gun. It is a user-pay concept, as my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) points out. The Minister wants the gun and the ammunition but he will only tell us we are the targets after we get the bullet right between the eyes.
The Government, in asking for this authority, made no reference in this 111-page Bill to who will be charged, how much and how these charges will affect their economic wellbeing.
The Government has done absolutely no analysis of the impact on the St. Lawrence Seaway. It has done no analysis to find out whether fishermen in the Gaspe of Quebec, in Shediac, New Brunswick, White Bay, Newfoundland, in South West Nova or along the coast of British Columbia can afford these additional charges. I see Hon. Members opposite from fishing constituencies. I know that short of Party discipline and the threat of the Party Whip being laid across their backs, they would be on their feet in outrage that such a regressive

June 11, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
measure would be imposed upon their constituents. I empathize with those Hon. Members as much as I do with the fishermen.
I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) is a Minister who is congnizant of the fact that the fishermen in the area of the Great Northern Peninsula had a summer storm yesterday which rolled in over an area of 100 miles and wiped out their lobster traps, destroyed their gear and took away their means of livelihood. I am sure he is aware that those fishermen are not comfortable with the notion that the Minister of Transport has been given a gun, that it has been loaded and it is pointed at them. They do not know whether they can carry on their backs, on top of a poor fishery-better prices but poor landings this year, as the Minister is aware-the provisions of this Bill.
The Minister is so unsure of the political reception this Bill is going to receive that he says he will tell us about it a year from now. After he has been given the gun he will tell us a year from now who is to be shot with it. The fishermen of Atlantic Canada and British Columbia have already had one shot through the bow and they are taking on water.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans himself is imposing berthing fees for the first time in the history of Atlantic Canada. He is going to charge a fisherman to tie up to a wharf. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, such a ludicrous proposition? The Government of Canada has a wharf. Tied to the wharf are 10 vessels going out in a straight line. The wharf is only big enough for one boat to tie up to it. The question becomes, who pays the berthing fee? Is it Tom who is tied up to the wharf, or Bob who is tied up to Tom, or Harry who is tied up to Bob? The Minister is going to impose the wharfage fee because he has had a $100 million shameful and shocking cut-back in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That is the issue.
We cannot look at Clause 4 of this Bill in isolation. The provisions of Clause 4, even though it is a Bill of the Minister of Transport, will apply to the constituency of the Minister of Fisheries. They will apply to the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) because the potato farmers in Prince Edward Island are being told that if they want to move their potatoes to market, and if there is an ice problem, the Government will send in an ice-breaker but the potato farmers will pay for the ice-breaking costs. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? If a farmer grows potatoes where there is ice, he will pay an extra charge. If a farmer happens to live in the interior of this country, and not on the Atlantic Coast, he does not have to carry those kinds of charges. We are going to have first and second class Canadian farmers based on this Bill. Those who live in areas where the Government is expected to provide ice-breaking services are second class Canadians, according to this Bill. But if a farmer happens to live in the central region of the country by the railroad lines-we do not have one in Newfoundland, at least for a few more days-or if he happens
to live near a trans-Canada Highway, there is no problem, it is gratis, compliments of the Government of Canada. But if he happens to be clinging to the rock on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean trying to scrape a living out of an area where unemployment is high and opportunities are few, then, by God, we bring down the hammer and slap another charge on his back. I see the Hon. Member from Port aux Basques sitting opposite. He is nodding his head in agreement.
I intend to talk a little more about Clause 4. But as an introduction to some of the kinds of things which bother me about what could have been a good piece of legislation, I would like to speak about another major flaw in this Bill. A major recommendation of the $15 million royal commission, established jointly between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland to look into the Ocean Ranger disaster, was to include within Bill C-75 provision for bringing oil rigs which operate off Canada's East Coast, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. That was a recommendation of the $15 million royal commission co-sponsored by both Governments which looked into the February 15, 1982, sinking of the Ocean Ranger, which was a disaster regretted by all Members from all Parties. It resulted in the loss of the entire crew of that vessel, 84 men, including 69 Canadians, 56 of whom were from my home Province of Newfoundland. That is a disaster which none of us wants repeated, and a great deal has been done to improve the conditions in the offshore. There is no question about that. A great deal has been done by this administration and by the previous administration.
The major cause identified by the royal commission studying the disaster was inadequate training and inadequate command structure. The solution was to include those rigs under the Canada Shipping Act. It was recommended not to leave them out there in limbo under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That recommendation has been ignored in Bill C-75, nothwithstanding the fact that the Liberal Party in committee moved amendments to this Bill to include those rigs under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act. Those amendments were defeated by the unanimous, negative, no vote of Members of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I take this opportunity to thank my colleague in the New Democratic Party who at least saw the wisdom and voted for the amendments I had the pleasure of moving on behalf of my Party. The Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger Marine Disaster indicated in its report that the main contributing factor to the breakdown of the command structure on board the vessel was the fact that the captain who commanded the oil ring, when the rig and crew were in danger, did not have the proper qualifications to avoid what transpired. That was on February 18, 1982. Today, as we in this House debate the provisions of Bill C-75, we are aware that still today six rigs operate in the offshore of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, four in Newfoundland and four in Nova Scotia. Those rigs still do not have the command structure in place. They do not have
June 11, 1986

June 11, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
a barge used for cargo was a ship, using the definition found in the Canada Shipping Act.
So according to the Canadian courts a barge which moves primarily all types of products with no humans on board is a ship and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act. A floating crane which operates primarily in harbour and not out 200 miles in the stormy and savage North Atlantic is also a ship. There is no problem there. However, an oil rig, which the Federal Court has decided is a ship under the Canada Shipping Act, is not a ship. It is there as part of a personal kingdom, one of the emperor's toys under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Transport knows better, as does his Parliamentary Secretary, who is honest enough to admit he knows it. This is so notwithstanding the fact that if a free vote were taken in the House, every Member would say: "For God's sake, man, let's do the right and intelligent thing". For some reason or another the Minister of Energy, for her own political, egotistical reasons, has been able to keep out of the Canada Shipping Act the recommendations of a royal commission primarily designed to prevent a repeat of a disaster
which all of us regret and which all of us would not want to see happen again. It is for those reasons that I cannot support this Bill at third reading.
Earlier I mentioned the St. Lawrence Seaway. In this environment of so-called free trade talks, when the Government of Canada wants to co-operate with the Government of the United States to set up a free trade zone, it might be worth noting that the American counterpart to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has written the Prime Minister of Canada requesting that he put a hold on Clause 4. The American counterpart jointly manages the Seaway. It is asking the Prime Minister what he is doing unilaterally-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member whose time, of course, has not expired on this matter.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 12, 1986