1986-03-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to announce that the Government has decided to produce a new Canadian one-dollar coin. As a consequence, 1 will be introducing amendments to the Currency Act at the earliest opportunity.
[ Translation]
As the Minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint, I have asked the Master of the Mint to strike a one-dollar coin that will be in circulation by January 1987.
Mr. Speaker, the concept of a one-dollar coin is not new. The Members of this House will recall that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates held hearings on the subject last year and published a report recommending that a coin of this denomination be issued.

The Mint will initially produce 300 million one-dollar coins. Each coin will be made of an aureate bronze plated on pure nickel. This will mean a one-time requirement for five million pounds of nickel coin blanks, and an annual demand for half a million pounds. We believe this requirement will have a positive impact on jobs in the Canadian mining industry.
The coin will be struck at the Royal Canadian Mint in Winnipeg where all of Canada's circulating coinage is presently produced. The technology involved in this type of production run will continue to keep Canada in the forefront of the coinage production industry, resulting in enhanced opportunities for offshore orders.
The coin will be 11-sided, slightly larger and heavier than a quarter, and gold coloured. Because of its shape it will be easily distinguishable from other coins, thus greatly beneficial to the visually impaired.
I also wish to advise the House that the Canadian one-dollar bill will be phased out of circulation following the introduction of the new dollar coin. This measure alone will result in savings of over $175 million in currency production costs over the 20-year life span of a circulating coin, as the existing dollar note has to be replaced each year.
Several organizations have called for a circulating dollar coin for years. The Canadian Urban Transit Association, representing the public transit authorities from across Canada, looks forward to the tremendous cost savings once processing of paper money used for fares is no longer required. Other groups, including vending machine operators and the visually impaired, are also strong proponents of this coin.
In summary, the Government is proceeding in this direction because we believe everyone in Canada stands to benefit. The circulating dollar will be of great importance to the mining industry, result in a tremendous saving to the taxpayer, and make cash transactions easier and more efficient for all concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased at the announcement made today by the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services. A parliamentary committee had extensive hearings on this topic approximately one year ago. If there is any criticism I could make over the decision, it is that it took so long before the Government finally arrived at its conclusions.


Mr. Murphy:: It took you guys 16 years to even think about it and you turned it down.


Don Boudria: The parliamentary committee reviewed this proposal and came out with a very good, thorough report, as I am sure the Minister would agree, regarding the striking of a dollar coin here in Canada. The coin is modelled on the Susan B. Anthony coin in the U.S. The reason for that, we are told, is because it has to match that size in order to be accepted in vending machines. That is of course the way it should be, otherwise the people in that business would have to bear a considerably higher expense in order to obtain coin acceptors to do that task.
I have a few questions I would like to raise in the House concerning this decision. First of all, it is of course a good Liberal initiative started back in 1978.


Mr. Rodriguez:: What took you so long?


Don Boudria: Perhaps the Minister inadvertently forgot to mention that, so I thought I would remind you because 1 am sure you remember that vividly.
The Canadian Bankers' Association had suggested that the initial cost of distributing the coin to various banks be borne by the Government. I would like to know at the appropriate time if that will be the case and what will be the cost to the taxpayers if such is undertaken. I believe those questions

March 25, 1986
Statements by Ministers
remain unanswered. The other thing we should know is whether or not there will be new distribution centres for the coin as has been requested by Canadian bankers.
Do I have only one minute, Mr. Speaker? There are many issues here and I find it unfortunate that we are limited to so short a period of time. Finally, there is something symbolic 1 would like to raise with the Minister, and I would like to get an assurance on the part of the Government. The picture on the reverse side of the one-dollar bill is that of the Parliament Buildings of our country. I would like an assurance from the Government that in fact a new denomination will bear the same picture, namely, the picture taken from the City of Hull of the Parliament Buildings. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to ensure that it will be placed on the two-dollar bill, or some other bill, so Canadians can look at their currency and see the picture of our Parliament Buildings.
The new dollar coin will be beneficial to the blind and to many other people in this country. I would like some assurances from the Government of Canada that the phasing out will be done in such a way as to not run out of dollar currency, either coins or bills, and, of course, that jobs will be protected in some way for the people working in the bank note production industry.
Again 1 wish I had more time because there are many other issues 1 wanted to raise with you this morning.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party caucus are pleased with the announcement by the Minister with respect to moving to a dollar coin. I suppose instead of having a 72-cent dollar we will have a 72-cent coin. We are pleased with the decision. We believe it represents convenience and saving to the consumers. 1 think the time is right.
The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) expressed grave concerns about the effects of moving to a dollar coin, the effects it would have on those workers who produce the dollar bill. We satisfied those concerns in the committee and I see the Government has recognized it in the statement that in fact we will phase in the dollar coin over a three-year period and phase out the dollar bill over a similar period. This would also reflect an increase in demand for the two-dollar bill; it is expected that there will be a 50 per cent increase in demand for the two-dollar bill and the higher face value currency.
There was a concern that I, and my colleague from Ottawa Centre expressed regarding the choice of finish on the dollar coin. We are pleased to note that the dollar coin will be made of a 100 per cent pure nickel, but the covering will be the aureate finish, which is tin copper alloy. It tarnishes, and we did express concern that maybe we should have gone to the nigold finish, which is a process developed by Inco in the Sudbury Basin. The nigold finish wears and is much more attractive and offers an opportunity for an industrial diversification in the Sudbury Basin.
I have a concern which I must express to the Minister, and I hope he will take note of it. In the committee we recommended that the nickel which will be put into the dollar coin should be made from 100 per cent Canadian mined and processed nickel. That will ensure that the contract for the nickel to produce the dollar coin will go to the Canadian mining industry and jobs will be kept in Canada, particularly in the areas where we mine nickel.
I am also concerned that there was a recommendation, and 1 do not see anywhere in the Minister's statement a follow-up to the recommendation, that a special coin might be struck of the nigold finish in commemoration of the Calgary Olympics. I note that that is absent from the Minister's statement. That was one of the compromises the committee had come up with to assist Inco in developing the nigold process which they hoped to convince the Americans to apply to the Susan B. Anthony coin, and maybe then it would start circulating in the United States.
I noticed in the statement of the Minister that there was no mention of seigniorage. The committee recommended that $60 million of seigniorage on the dollar coin ought to go to the Calgary Olympics. There was no mention of that $60 million of seigniorage on the dollar coin. I hope that over the ensuing days the Minister will clarify those particular concerns.
All in all, I salute the Government for taking this step. I know the people in the Sudbury Basin are looking forward with anticipation to bidding on the contract to supply the five million pounds of nickel in the first year and the half million pounds in subsequent years for the production of the coins.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am honoured to present the official report, in both official languages, of the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) who represented Canada at the following North Atlantic Assembly meetings. On February 12 to 13 he visited the Special Committee on Nuclear Strategy and Arms Control in Geneva, Switzerland, and on February 14 and 15 a political committee in Brussels, Belgium. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for his participation at the meetings and for his excellent report of the proceedings.
Section 101 of our new Standing Orders calls for reports within ten sitting days after return to Canada of a delegation. There have been some difficulties with this time limit. The ten-day limitation creates difficulty for Private Members who do not have priority access to our official translation services.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his
representation.
March 25, 1986


SELECTION
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Twenty-Sixth Report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


PRESENTATION OF TWENTY-SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have several petitions asking the Government to reconsider its decision to terminate the Katimavik program, and to deal immediately with the pressing problems of Canadian youth and the 700,000 unemployed young people we have in this country.
I have several petitions from Ottawa-Vanier. I have a petition with 540 signatures, again from the Ottawa area and Kingston.
I also have another petition from my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, which contains several dozen signatures.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions dealing with the same subject, that is, reinstating the program Katimavik to look after the serious problems of youth unemployment and to try and persuade the Government to change its mind on the question of youth unemployment and Katimavik.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I also have a petition signed by probably several hundred people from various parts of Saskatchewan about the high price of automobile fuel in this country. They are calling upon the House of Commons to reduce the federal taxes applied to gasoline; that is the excise tax and also the federal sales tax.
They are suggesting in this petition that there be a federal-provincial first Ministers' conference called on this particular
Petitions
issue to explore ways to reduce the federal and provincial tax on gasoline in Canada. It is my honour to present this petition. It is unique in the respect that it comes not from one community but, indeed, from several dozen communities throughout Saskatchewan.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to table a petition signed by several residents of Nickel Belt who call upon Parliament to require the Government of the Province of Ontario to remove any restrictions which may have been placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto in regard to the laying of charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code against the operators of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions that have been found to be in order pursuant to Standing Order 106. The first is a group of petitions from the residents of Atikokan, expressing their concern about high gasoline prices. They indicate that they pay anywhere from 53 cents to 67 cents a litre at the gas pumps and call upon the Government of Canada to use Petro-Canada as a tool to drive prices down.
My second petition is from 86 individuals of the community of Thunder Bay who indicate that they are paying anywhere from 50 cents to 57 cents a litre at the pumps in Thunder Bay. They are concerned that Canadian gasoline can be purchased in the United States for much less than in Canada.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions. The first petition states-

-that the Katimavik Program was a success because of the training received by the 20,000 young people who took part and the important community projects that were carried out. [English]
The petitioners are asking the Government to restore this program.
The second petition also deals with the question of Katimavik. It asks the Government-



that this program gives Canadian young people an opportunity to become better acquainted with their country and the language and culture of the people that live in it. That is why these petitioners humbly pray Parliament or the House of Commons that the decision to terminate Katimavik be reconsidered.

March 25, 1986
Petitions

I have another petition on the issue of Katimavik. Since the program has been a great success in relation to 20,000 young people who have participated in the last 10 years and for the community works that have been carried out, the petitioners call upon the Government to reconsider its decision to terminate the program.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from constituents in the riding of Hamilton East in the Province of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your humble House will therefore provide a remedy.
The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to require the Government of Ontario to remove any restrictions which may have been placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto in regard to the laying of charges under Section 251 of the Criminal Code against the operators of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic and to express to the Government of the Province of Ontario the displeasure of your honourable House in witnessing the refusal of the Government to do everything in its power to enforce Section 251 of the Criminal Code as enacted by your honourable House.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions dealing with Katimavik. They ask the Government to recognize the short-sightedness of its budgetary measures in cancelling Katimavik and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full funding of the Katimavik program for the young people of Canada. The petitions come from Prince Albert, as well as Birch Hills, Shellbrook, Path-low, St. Brieux, which are communities in the area of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petitionon on behalf of a large number of residents of my constituency of Burnaby who point out that the telephone is essential for communication, that rental costs must always be affordable and that the telephone pricing scheme known as local measured service, or charging for each local call, would mean that having a telephone would cost significantly more per month for most people and would have a very detrimental impact on the voluntary sector, senior citizens, the handicapped and many other Canadians.
My constituents call upon Parliament to direct the CRTC to deny to telephone companies, such as BC Telephone Company, the right to charge for each call and order the retention of monthly rental for telephones.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have the honour to present a petition signed by many citizens of the Calgary, Alberta area as well as from Saint John, new Brunswick; Guelph, Ontario; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Hamilton, Ontario and a number of other large and small towns across Canada. They call upon the Government to implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, to end the discriminatory policies of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, to amend security clearance guidelines and to amend the Criminal Code to ensure a uniform minimum age of consent.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that have been found to be in the proper form. The first petition from citizens of Thunder Bay-Nipigon protests the continued operation within the city of Toronto of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic and calls upon Parliament to require the Government of the Province of Ontario to remove any restrictions which may have been placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto in regard to the laying of charges relating to its operation.


Abram Ernest Epp: My second petition comes from residents of the City of Thunder Bay as well as Dawson Creek, British Columbia. The petitioners protest that the federal Government's decision to cancel the youth program, Katimavik, is short-sighted. They point out that a 1985 study found that 59.8 per cent of Katimavik participants over a four-year period were employed; 27 per cent in school or university and only 6.7 per cent were unemployed at a time when country-wide unemployment rates for youth were at 18 per cent to 23 per cent. These citizens call upon the Parliament of Canada to re-establish Katimavik with full funding for the young people of Canada.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to present a petition with respect to the cutting of Katimavik. The petitioners request that I bring to the attention of the House the fact that Katimavik helped thousands of young Canadians to develop social skills and employment options while providing an opportunity to do useful work in different regions of Canada. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to reinstate full funding to the Katimavik program in order to give a great number of young people in Canada the opportunity to further their ambitions.
March 25, 1986



Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour of presenting to this House another petition, in which petitioners ask that the Government of Canada reinstate the Katimavik Program.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of several hundred Canadians asking the Government of Canada to immediately restore the very worthwhile Katimavik program.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair must advise the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that the petitions they have submitted are uncertified and will be returned to them.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The petition that I entered today is certified and this is the certificate of certification.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not of much use to us if it remains in the hands of the Hon. Member and is not submitted with the petition.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was asked yesterday to reserve on a point of order and is interested in knowing whether any further comment will be made to the Chair.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in response to your invitation to make comments on the matter on which you reserved yesterday, it would appear that yesterday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised a point of order with respect to: "The language used by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) during the Question Period on Friday, March 21".
I think it is clear from our rules and precedents that points of order or questions of privilege cannot be raised during Question Period. When the matter in question came up in the House during Question Period on Friday, Hansard shows that you. Sir, specifically invited Members who had anything to say on this matter to raise their concerns after the Question Period. I checked Hansard very carefully and I find no record whatsoever of the language allegedly used by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) during Question Period on Friday being raised in any way, shape or form immediately after the Question Period on Friday.
The precedents on this matter are clear. I draw your attention to page 114 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 323, wherein paragraph 1 states:
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Unparliamentary words may be brought to the attention of the House cither by the Speaker or by any Member. When the question is raised by a Member it must be as a point of order and not a question of privilege.
Paragraph 2 of Citation 323 states, and I draw your particular attention, Mr. Speaker, to these words:
The proper time to raise such a point of order is when the words arc used and not afterwards.
As I have said, this matter could not have been raised during Question Period on Friday but it could have been raised immediately thereafter. In spite of your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, during Question Period as to the procedure which could be followed if Members wished to do so, it was not done.
In Hansard of Monday, March 24, the Government House Leader is reported to have said that he called for a point of order at the time with respect to the language of the Hon Member for York South-Weston. I respectfully submit that the Government House Leader was in error, inadvertently, I am sure, in this regard. The record of Hansard for Friday, March 21, shows that no point of order with respect to the language allegedly used by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston during the Question Period was raised by the Government House Leader, or by anyone, at the time it should have been done according to our precedents, which was directly after the Question Period on Friday.
Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the precedents are clear that whatever may have been recorded in Hansard for last Friday with respect to language attributed to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, it was too late, according to our clear and established precedents, to raise the matter yesterday morning as a point of order.
I submit, therefore, the Chair should not be put in the position of being called on to rule on the parliamentary or unparliamentary nature of the words alleged to have been spoken last Friday during Question Period by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I am probably out of order according to strict rules, which Your Honour would like to see observed here with respect to formality, in speaking a second time to this matter, but I simply will say that I have addressed myself with respect to whether or not I tried to bring this matter to the attention of the Chair during Question Period. It is quite true that I did not rise again after Question Period with respect to the statements on the part of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) which have now been clearly recorded.
Rules of procedure, as any one of us who have practiced in a court of law know, are there as technicalities. What 1 was trying to get across, and what I did indicate at the end of my presentation yesterday, is that I thought the honourable thing for a person who had respect for the House of Commons as an institution, about which a feeling of goodwill would prevail, would be to take it upon himself or herself to rise, if there are parliamentary offensive words spoken, and categorically and unequivocally withdraw those words, not as a reflection with respect to any technicality but rather because it would demon-

March 25, 1986
Committee Reports
strate, it seems to me, respect for the institution of the House of Commons. 1 simply base my submission on the fact that if the Chair wants to review Hansard again it will find it was raised at the time the incident occurred. Your Honour indicated you did not hear any offensive language. Upon checking the record at the first opportunity, I did come forward and raise it the first time 1 had an opportunity to do so, which was at the beginning of the proceedings yesterday.
The matter, it seems to me, could be resolved from the point of view of the House of Commons if the Hon. Member, who is in the House today, stood up and withdrew the remarks. It seems to me that would be the honourable thing to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I will reserve on this matter and think about it a little further.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether it is a point of order, but I wonder if the Government House Leader could clarify for us his comment or statement, and I quote from Hansard of March 21, 1986, at page 11746:
One of the jerks sitting next to him! Not that jerk, the one over there.
Would the Government House Leader clarify whether that constitutes his impression that he raised the issue at the time?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, just to show you what I am talking about, I unequivocally withdraw and apologize for that particular remark. I just want to set an example for the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and I think you will find a disposition to receive by unanimous consent and pass without debate the following motion:
That the first report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, presented to the House on Monday, March 24, 1986, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations and I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to the following motion:
That the Fifth Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments presented to the House on Friday. March 21. 1986. be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Mr. Lewis:: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 11570).
Mr. Speaker:: May 1 advise the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes beginning at one o'clock today.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to take up where I left off on Friday when I had asked the House this question. In light of the problems facing Alberta vis-a-vis the collapse of the oil industry, and the fact that all the federal seats in Alberta are represented by Conservatives, where are the voices for Alberta in this House? Where are the Tories from Alberta? They are extremely silent, as silent as a cemetery at midnight. They are great ones for getting up and pushing things like capital punishment and other social issues, but on the most important issue facing Alberta today, the collapse of the oil industry-120,000 workers in the oil industry in Alberta are affected-we hear not one sound from the Government benches. It is shameful. It is despicable. It cannot be claimed any longer that there is a Government in Ottawa which is of a different political stripe from the Members who represent Alberta. They all share the same blood. At the moment they are all blue bloods. Yet they have not made one sound in the House about the most important issue facing the
March 25, 1986

people of Alberta. The economy of the Province of Alberta is collapsing.
We heard the other day that Imperial Oil will lay off 1,800 workers. Where are the representatives from Alberta? Where is the Hon. Member from Strathcona? Where is the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)? Where are they all? Have they all flown south and forgotten to fly back north? Where are the Hon. Members from Calgary? Where is the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone)? Where is the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards)? Where are they all?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not to mention the presence or absence of any specific Member, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am sure they are present. I am not mentioning their absence from the House. It is the absence of their voices which I am mentioning. They are absolutely silent.


Mr. Holtmann:: Talk louder!


John R. Rodriguez: Now they seem to have their voices back.


Felix Holtmann: Do you want us to yell at you, too?


John R. Rodriguez: It is the voice of Manitoba. One would think he would be quiet. I think he should be silent.
There is a new Premier of Alberta. How does he see the resolution of the oil crisis in Alberta? What he does is pick up the phone. Whom does he phone? Does he phone the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney)? No, he phones Sheik Yamani. Yes, he phones the OPEC sheik. He phones the sheik who calls the tune in OPEC. So we have Sheik Getty phoning Sheik Yamani and leaving Sheik Carney out of the whole picture. Here is Sheik Getty sneaking into the tent of the OPEC sheiks. And what are they doing? Are they committed to some sort of competitive market for setting oil prices? These are the people who said they wanted free enterprise in the oil industry. Was he phoning up Sheik Yamani to say: "Let's compete"? No. He wants to back into OPEC. That is what he wants to do. The situation is ludicrous.
So what does the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) say? He says: "You can't phone Sheik Yamani. I speak for Canada".


Mr. Manly:: Who speaks for Alberta?


John R. Rodriguez: The point is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not speak for Canada either since Sheik Getty very clearly said: "I don't intend to inform Mr. Clark when I call the sheik".


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not the Wayne and Shuster Show. If the NDP would like to have a meeting of its
Borrowing Authority Act
caucus, 1 would ask Your Honour to give them some direction on this debate. We are a serious Government and the figures speak for themselves. If members of the NDP want to act like comics, I would ask Your Honour to throw them out of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker as the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) used to say: "They are dancing sheik-to-sheik". What we have in Alberta is a situation which requires some leadership and direction from the federal Government. There is a Conservative Government in the Province of Alberta, just as there is a Conservative Government in Ottawa. All 21 Alberta seats in the House of Commons are represented by Conservatives. Yet they are allowing the oil industry in Alberta to go down the tubes. In fact, 120,000 jobs are in danger because of their inaction.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are "sheiking" their responsibility.


John R. Rodriguez: My colleague says that they are "sheiking" their responsibility. That is true. They are doing just that. More than that, they have locked themselves into the whole business of having competition and allowing the market-place to determine the price. I do not hear much talk about that these days. I do not hear much talk these days about having competition and letting it set the price. Where are those voices now?
I ask members of the Government to give us some direction. Can the Government not tell us what it intends to do to ensure that these jobs in the oil industry do not disappear? Can the Government assure us that the oil industry is important to Canada and, in particular, to western Canada and that something should be done? After all, the Conservative Government cancelled the National Energy Program. It said that it had all sorts of faults and it came in with the new Western Accord. What has happened since the introduction of the Western Accord? Members of the Government found out that in fact the oil prices are controlled by the cartel and that there is no competitive base. Prices have been dropping and the bottom is falling out of the industry in Alberta. They are the leaders across the way. What do they intend to do about it? Where are the voices from Alberta speaking up for the people of Alberta? Who speaks for Alberta? Who speaks for Canada? It seems to me Members opposite are extremely silent.
Then there are the consumers who are paying through the nose. The 60 days is up today and they are still paying very high prices for petroleum.
I notice that you have given me the signal, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate I do not have enough time to continue in order to explain the whole situation.


Mrs. McDougall:: It's fortunate.

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


John R. Rodriguez: "Squander Woman" says that it is in her heart to give me unanimous consent to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to continue his very illuminating speech?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently there is not unanimous consent. Therefore, are there questions or comments?


Mr. Lanthier:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: No, you asked for comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am sorry, but at this stage there is no period for questions and comments. We shall therefore continue debate with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to say a few words following the magnificent address by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the intervention to the effect that perhaps he was making fun of the federal Government, and was not all that serious. I would like to get serious for a moment and refer to the borrowing authority. I would also like to refer to the Budget of the Government and to what the Government seems to be hanging its coat on.
For your benefit, Mr. Speaker, I will refer to a publication put out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) entitled Restoring Canada's Financial Stability. As Hon. Members know the Government of Canada has been claiming that the deficit is the major problem facing the nation. What does one see when one picks up the Minister of Finance's booklet and a copy of his Budget Speech? We see that he said that in 1984-85 we had the highest deficit ever at $38.2 billion. The present Government was in office for half of that year and it must assume some of the responsibility. The Minister of Finance also says that he expects the deficit to be reduced from $34.3 billion this year-that is the year after we had the highest deficit. So now we have the second highest deficit in Canadian history. Lo and behold, when we look back at the times we are talking about here we discover that this Government is in power not only for the highest deficit in Canadian history, but also for the second highest deficit in Canadian history.
[DOT] (M50)
Then we go on to find that the Minister of Finance said the deficit will go to $29.5 billion next year. Going back over the
record again we discover, lo and behold, that that will be the third highest deficit in Canadian history. When looking at the facts presented by the Minister of Finance, we discover that the Government, which is claiming that the deficit is the biggest problem facing this nation, has while it has only been in power for 18 months run up the highest deficits and is projecting continuing high deficits.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Finance has asked how we can solve the problem of the national debt. In the first 18 months of Conservative rule a full 24 per cent of the total national debt has been accumulated by this Government. Taking the projections of the Minister of Finance to the year 1990, if the Government remains in power, which it will not, we see that it will have accumulated a full 50 per cent of the total national debt of this nation, the total accumulated deficits of the Government of Canada since confederation.
We all know where the money has been going. We all know about the mistakes made by the Government. The point is-


Mr. Redway:: Do we cut the expenditures in Newfoundland to cut down on that deficit, George?


George Baker: An Hon. Member is saying something. I cannot comprehend him completely. Perhaps he might repeat it while 1 am saying my next sentence and I might understand what he is saying.


Alan Redway: We understand how you can't comprehend, George.


George Baker: If that were not bad enough, the Government has been propagating a great misconception in this nation, the misconception that it was the previous Government that was responsible for the financial mess this country is in, when by the Minister of Finance's own words we see that it is the mistakes of this Government that has gotten us into the supposed mess in which the Minister of Finance claims we are.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) are now asking for borrowing authority. Borrowing authority for what, Mr. Speaker? I have not seen one program introduced by the Government in a way that made any sense. For example, Mr. Speaker, you know about the ridiculous change made by the Government when it decided to treat pensions as earnings for unemployment insurance purposes.
I have to hand the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) a congratulatory note today because he objected to that change so much that today unemployment insurance offices received a memo indicating that war veterans' allowances will not longer be treated as earnings for unemployment insurance purposes. That memo was sent because of the objections of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The Government of Canada announced that all pensions that were received because of service or work would be treated as earnings for unemployment insurance purposes, so veterans' allowances received by people who were overseas and served
March 25, 1986

during the War were initially treated as earnings for unemployment insurance purposes. But the Government forgot one thing. It forgot that veterans' allowances are based on means tests. The unemployment insurance benefits for those people were cut. But automatically the allowances rose, and then the unemployment insurance benefits were cut again. It was an administrative nightmare. The Minister of Veterans Affairs intervened, and he was successful over the past couple of days.
I think he deserves the credit for correcting such a stupid rule brought in by the Government.
Perhaps I only have time to make one further point, but I think it is a very important point. Members of the House and the Canadian people do not know what measures the Government has instituted from the Ministerial task force on program review. When the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) tabled all those task force studies we were not told what recommendations for program cuts went to Cabinet and were approved. They have gone to Cabinet. All of the recommendations from the task force report went to the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet and have been decided upon, and a timetable has been set for the various changes that are to be made.
In May 1985, the Government did not bring in the results of the studies but it brought in the actual decision of the Government based on the Ministerial task force on program review. The document tabled in this Chamber indicates that the task force was under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister and that other members of the task force were the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). Those Ministers took the flak for those cuts, but then the committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister decided not to take the flak any more, but to present the task force reports to the House without telling the House or the Canadian people what recommendations it had taken from those so-called task force study groups.
Why should the House grant borrowing authority to a Government that has completely misled the Canadian people on the facts regarding the deficit and the debt, a Government that will not tell the Canadian people what it has implemented from the recommendations of the study groups? Incredibly enough, we have even heard members of this Ministerial task force say in their ridings through the local news media that they did not have anything to do with the Ministerial task force on program review, and that they are not responsible. They said that all of these study teams have reported to the House of Commons and they will be discussed over a period of time.
Should we grant borrowing authority to a Government that does not know what it is doing, a Government that has implemented measures on which it has had to go back when it saw the error of its ways? Are we going to grant borrowing authority to a Government that is over-taxing the people of Canada and destroying social programs? It should not be given authority to borrow any money to do anything.
Borrowing Authority Act


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the debate on the motion to delay the approval of borrowing authority. Earlier today I had the opportunity to present petitions from residents of the communities of Atikokan and Thunder Bay and surrounding areas, petitions dealing with gasoline prices. The petitioners pointed out that, in the case of Thunder Bay, they were spending anywhere from 50 cents to 57 cents per litre for gasoline about two weeks ago, while in the case of the community of Atikokan, 120 miles to the west of Thunder Bay, they were spending anywhere from 54 cents to 67 cents per litre for gasoline. That was at a time when the Government was promising that gasoline prices would come down as the market forces would prevail, and that after 60 days had passed gasoline prices at the pumps would be reduced. That clearly did not happen, certainly not to the degree that the price of oil on the world market has decreased. This was at a time when Canadian gas companies were selling their petroleum products in the United States at seven cents to nine cents per litre less than they were selling them to Canadian distributors.
If one lives in a community such as Fort Frances, which is in the riding of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), and there is only a few feet between the gas stations in Canada and those in the United States, one knows that the business of selling gas to Canadians will occur on the American side of the border. That is a loss to our economy and it is a loss to Canadian revenues. For every gallon purchased in the United States, as opposed to being purchased in Canada, the federal Treasury and the provincial Treasury lose revenue.
It is for that reason, as well as others, that we in the New Democratic Party moved a motion to deny the Government the right to borrow for six months, to give it time to get its act together and to ensure that revenues in Canada were properly reviewed and considered.
One group which submitted petitions to me indicated that since the price of oil began to drop Canadians had been overcharged to the tune of $302 million by Canadian energy companies, by those gas giants. It will be interesting to hear the announcement of the Government today or tomorrow with regard to a campaign to eliminate the use of leaded fuels. The rumour is that the Government will not provide a financial incentive to consumers who have cars which use leaded gasoline to convert those vehicles. There will be no financial incentive to discourage owners of cars requiring lead-free gasoline from converting them illegally to leaded gas, because the price at the pump for leaded gas is much cheaper than that for unleaded gas. Supposedly the Government will mount an advertising campaign. It will spend $1 million or $2 million convincing people of the error of their ways. If unleaded gas was cheaper at the pumps than leaded gas, even if it were only one cent, we would find that Canadians would not be converting their cars to use leaded gas and that more Canadians, when considering buying a new automobile, would choose one which used unleaded gasoline. We would do two things if we took that approach. First, we would reduce lead auto emis-

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
sions, a very serious compound. At the same time we would generate new revenues for the Government of Canada. It is important to do that in a way which makes environmental and economic sense, and to deal with the realities of human nature.
During the debate on the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) we on this side of the House pointed out that the policies of the Government and the application of those policies over the last 19 months had cost the average Canadian family $1,304.50. I will not go into the details of that, as we have raised them time and time again in the House. However, it is very clear that the Government is very expensive for ordinary Canadian families. The kind of change to which they were subjected in September, 1984 has become very expensive. Their purchasing power has been reduced. The ability of consumers to regenerate employment has been reduced because they have less money to spend. Ultimately there has been a very negative impact upon the Treasury of Canada.
Even the cost recovery philosophy stands to be challenged. During the debate on Bill C-75, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which would allow for cost recovery for the Canadian Coast Guard, we learned that any amount imposed as a fee would be deductible from taxes owing. Canadian steamship lines presented evidence which indicated that if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) were to charge users of marine services $10 million, while the bottom line of the Coast Guard would look good-we would see a $10 million figure on its revenue side-on a global scale the net gain to the Treasury of Canada would be considerably less.
In the marine industry on the Great Lakes, taxes are effectively paid at the rate of 52 per cent or 53 per cent. If we apply that to the $10 million figure, we find that from those companies which have been profitable-and if the Bill passes later, there may be some question about that-the net gain to the Government of Canada would only be $4.8 million or 48 per cent. From that $4.8 million the Government has to pay for the inspectors and the cost of administering that cost recovery regime. The benefit to the federal Treasury is considerably less than the proposed figure.
What I am trying to point out is that the Government has not yet come to grips with the reality of some of its philosophies. It cannot bring in cost recovery without understanding the benefits, both in terms of the bottom line to the Treasury of Canada and their impact upon communities, industries and individuals.
It is time to take another look at the borrowing authority and to say that there are more efficient ways of ensuring growth in our revenues. One of those ways would be by ensuring that we maximize the number of jobs created, so that more people are paying taxes and less people are collecting unemployment insurance and more money is coming into the federal Treasury to wipe out the deficit about which the Government is so worried.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority to the Government so that it can
borrow $22.6 billion as may be required for public works and general purposes.
We in the House know that the Government needs money in order to operate. However, we should look at just how much is $22.6 billion. It is very difficult and almost mind-boggling for the ordinary person to understand what it really means or how much it really is. I have conducted some research. Of course $100 million is $1 billion-


Mr. Althouse:: It is 10 times that much. What are you talking about?


George Roland Henderson: If $1 billion in $1 bills were piled one on top of the other they would reach about 85 miles into the air. What we are looking at here is $22.6 billion would be a stack of $1 bills piled on top of each other and reaching 1,955 miles into the air. Of course, if they were laid end to end, I am sure they would go around the world many times. I think that puts what we are talking about into perspective. It is a huge amount of money which is mind-boggling to many of us here in this Chamber. I am sure it is mind-boggling to people from my part of the country, Prince Edward Island, the Atlantic Coast, northern Ontario and northern Quebec; in fact, to people from all over this great country. What is $23 billion is a question sometimes all too quickly asked. I wanted to give what we are talking about in Bill C-99 a little perspective.
I am asked, as is every Member of Parliament, to approve the amount set out in Bill C-99. As a representative from a poor riding, the riding of Egmont in Prince Edward Island, I have to look seriously at not only why the Government needs to borrow $23 billion and have the authority to go to the bond market or wherever to get that money, but will the Government borrow it all in one chuck? I hope it will not. The interest, however, on that amount of money will add up significantly, and even further increase our deficit.
What benefits, and I thought about this the other day, are the people from Prince Edward Island going to get from the Government borrowing that money. I looked at job creation. What happens to a province like Newfoundland which has the highest unemployment rate in the land? Its rate, according to the last figures, was hovering around 18 per cent. My province of Prince Edward Island has an unemployment rate of almost 15 per cent.
Most Members of Parliament send out congratulatory messages to high school students. At any rate, I do. I send out roughly 800 of these messages to students from Grade 12 going into university. I do not think that as a result of the budget presented to this House, with all the papers we have seen coming from the Government and from different departments, the Government will be instrumental in creating, any more than 150 jobs in my riding. I do not see any great benefit for the people I represent in supporting the Government's request to borrow this money.
I look at our agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island that is almost if not at the brink of disaster. Potato prices are 2
March 25, 1986

cents a pound or $2 a hundredweight. That means a bag of PEI Canada No. 1 potatoes pays for about two chocolate bars. We know that the cost of production is, roughly 5.5 cents to 6 cents a pound. We know what farmers lost by growing potatoes last year. They have been asking the Government of Canada for assistance to help them out through this most difficult year, but since last November until today there has been no assistance from the federal Government or from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). We hear promises that something is coming, but I need not remind the Minister of Agriculture and the Government that planting season for potatoes is only four weeks away. The wolf is at the door. There is no way that these people will be able to get enough money to put another crop in next year even on a reduced scale. The farmers admit there needs to be some sort of management supply system, but the Nielsen Task Force report is strictly against supply management systems.
I have looked at the fishery. I saw $76 million cut from the fishery by the Government. I have seen the vessel subsidy program, about a $9 million to $10 million program cut. It helped small inshore fishermen improve their vessels so they could bring in better quality product to the market and thereby net a better return.
We have just had a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) appointed. Upon his appointment I heard him say to reporters that his objective was to grow more fish. That is a very admirable objective.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Grow more fish?


George Roland Henderson: That is what the new Minister of Fisheries said he was going to do, grow more fish. A lot of biologists and scientists and those who really understand and know the fishery know that that was the most ridiculous statement ever to come from a Minister. I realized that the Minister knew nothing about the fishery when he was appointed, but I hope over the next few weeks or months he will gain some experience from the fishery. If he had some sort of magical wand to grow more fish at the snap of a finger, then he should have made provision for the fishermen to bring more fish to shore in top quality, which would increase income.
Let me talk about user fees. Other Members have pointed out the user fee problem. The Government is not only increasing taxes across the board to the ordinary working Canadian, but it is also using what I call the back-door tax method of user fees. We have inspection fees on potatoes and increased ferry rates to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The Nielsen Task Force had the audacity to suggest that while the ferry service from Borden to Cape Tormentine in Prince Edward Island and from Port aux Basques to North Sydney, Cape Breton, was constitutional, the whole issue should be referred to the courts for a decision as to whether or not the Government is obligated to subsidize such a service. That sort of mentality and thinking scares me. It scares people from PEI and Newfoundland as to where the Government is heading and where they fit into Confederation, how they see themselves as
Borrowing Authority Act
Canadians. I think we should get that nonsense out of the Government's head forthwith.
Many Members will say that it is fine for the Opposition to say we need more money for this and that and that we need to reduce the deficit. I want to remind the citizenry of the country of some of the things the Government has been doing since it was elected. We have the largest Cabinet in the history of the country. Right now we have 39 cabinet Ministers. It was a Cabinet originally made up of 40 Ministers. That is an extremely heavy Cabinet for Canada. We see well over 100 people on staff in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) office, the largest staff ever in that office. We have seen the bail-out of depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank to the tune of almost $1 billion. We have seen a number of programs the Government has initiated which give no future or hope to the ordinary Canadian.
I cannot support this borrowing authority Bill. I cannot trust the Government with this kind of money. It has not proved to me in its year and a half in office that it is able to manage the economy for the good and benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-99, the borrowing authority. I do so with some pleasure since this is an important matter of public policy, particularly given the country's economic circumstances. Of course, the debate is not now on the Bill itself but on the six-month hoist motion proposed by my House Leader and seconded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). That motion is designed to kill the Bill. Let me explain why I am pleased to speak to that amendment and why I think the Government should not have the borrowing authority it seeks.
As I said a moment ago, the economic circumstances we are experiencing are such that not only are many people unemployed, the increase in jobs which the Government talks about does not actually reduce the number of unemployed by very much at all. The percentage is declining very, very slowly. As the labour force continues to grow and more people seek jobs, the actual number seeking work remains at about the same level. In those circumstances, with so many unemployed, with so much of our economic capacity not being used, any Government would expect to be running a deficit in its operations and be compelled to come to Parliament to seek authority to borrow money to cover those operations.
The difficulty is that the Government continues to live with a deficit situation which is years old. It was created by predecessor Liberal Governments and this Government has failed to come substantially to grips with the difficulty. The result is that it is forced to seek authority to borrow, in this case, $22.6 billion, or something over one-fifth of the Government's expenditures in the coming fiscal year. It is possible that before the fiscal year, beginning April 1, is concluded on

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
March 31, 1987, the national debt will be in the vicinity of $150 billion. It will surely have reached $145 billion. That is the enormous national debt which the Conservatives decry so intensely.
Why has this happened? Why are Canadians burdened, not with just the absolute amount, which if you were sensible about these things could be borne, but with interest payments which in the coming year will take about 75 per cent of income tax revenue? Why has a Conservative Government, which has been in office more than 18 months, done so little to change the situation? The difficulty is that policies have been developed in the Ministry of Finance and implemented by Revenue Canada which have produced one of the most inequitable tax systems in the world. Individual Canadians in the lower and middle-income groups find themselves more and more heavily burdened with taxation. On the other hand, rich Canadians and big companies continue to escape taxation on all kinds of income. It is not that the country does not have the wealth needed to move the Government closer to a balanced budget. The fact is that this Government, very much like the previous Government, does not want to come to grips with the problem. Instead it creates the deficits which Bills like this borrowing authority have to cover. Tax expenditures which reflect notions from the early 1970s, that if we can only encourage investment we will have a prosperous economy, are at the very root of our difficulties. It is quite obvious by now that those policies have not had that effect.
If we look back to the middle 1970s we can see on the one hand policies of encouraging investment, and on the other hand Governments anxious about revenue shortfall beginning to restrain expenditures. From that time onward deficits have risen sharply while our economic situation has not improved at all. Unemployment has grown.
This is the situation in which lower and middle-income Canadians find themselves. They are more and more heavily burdened with taxation and less and less capable of maintaining economic activity. On the other hand, those who should be encouraging prosperity by using the money they do not have to pay in taxes for investment purposes are not doing what they should be doing. They are using the money to buy existing operations so that our economy becomes more and more concentrated in about seven different control centres, seven different family and other groups, controlling more and more of our economic life. They use their power to reduce competition and put people out of work because they do not need as many employees. None of this is in the economic interests of Canadian consumers, workers or taxpayers, or for that matter those who sit on the front benches across the way as the Government of Canada. Yet the Government goes along this misguided, dead-ended path and pursues these policies without any really significant change.
Certainly some of the worst abuses have been dealt with. The Scientific Research Tax Credit, which proved to be rife with fraud, has been closed off and the Government will have to pay precious dollars to lawyers involved in the prosecution of people who took advantage of that rip-off of the Canadian
taxpayer. However, the really significant thing, aside from the abuses, is that there has not been any readiness to come to grips with the whole issue. Tragically enough, the Nielsen task force report, which talks about assistance to business being given with both hands-dollars being shovelled out in various ways-does not come to grips with the issue of tax expenditures. The argument is that we should get rid of the grants while increasing tax expenditures. That suggestion is the most stupid one of all. If there is one deplorable aspect of the tax expenditure system it is that there is no way the people of Canada and their representatives in Parliament can deal with these matters, because the information is not in their hands.
The Nielsen Task Force has failed us grieviously in this absolutely fundamental area involving a heavier burden of taxation on individual Canadians, and the continuing large deficit which the Government tries to finance. These failings indicate the bankruptcy of the Government when it comes to the will required to come to grips with these matters.
For those reasons I support the six month hoist of this Bill. It is not a borrowing authority for Public Works, as the Bill itself suggests. It is instead being used to cover the day-to-day operations of government, because the will is not there in the front benches to take the action required to get this country on a sound fiscal and economic basis.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to spend a few moments talking about the proposal before the House today, Bill C-99, which is a request for borrowing authority by this Government of a sum in the amount of $22.6 billion. This is just an interim request to the House to cover up some of the deficit that will be accruing because of the budgeted plans by this Government for the coming fiscal year.
The exact motion we are looking at today is for a six-month delay in implementing this Bill, to provide some time for the House to get acquainted with the Government's expenditure program. I think it will take at least six months to thumb through the estimates we received this year. It becomes very uncertain exactly what the expenditure program is. It becomes a question of which set of figures do you take, and the variance between those figures is quite dramatic.
For instance, we have this year been presented with our expenditure program set out on the old accounting basis and on a revised accounting basis. If we use the forecast on the old accounting basis for 1985-86, the coming fiscal year, the Government intends to spend $103,944 billion. If we use the revised accounting basis they are proposing on the same budget to be spending $112,250 billion, a difference of some $8 billion or $9 billion just in the form of accounting used. They explained that that comes about because they are trying to include the Exchange Fund Account, the Unemployment Insurance Account, the Western Grain Stabilization Account and other similar unstated accounts, all of which apparently amount to $9 billion or $10 billion.
March 25, 1986

These are the estimates the House is asked to pass. In order to cover some of this vagueness in figures we are asked to set down for the Government the authority to borrow in excess of $22 billion, in case the figures do not work out under either the new or the old accounting systems.
The deficits we have accumulated have been of a concern in this House. I just want to go back into the accounts to make a few comments about this. The current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in one of his first budgets, his economic and fiscal statement for 1984, and I refer to page 4, said that by the end of 1984 the accumulated deficit of Canada would be in excess of $190 billion. That was his estimate to the end of
1984.	Since we added in excess of $30 billion to that deficit in 1985 1 think we can assume that the accumulated deficit for 1985 is in excess of $220 billion. Indeed, in his economic and fiscal statement of 1984, on page 4, the Minister of Finance estimated that by 1990 we could be having an accumulated deficit approaching $410 billion.
What that means is that in each year in the expenditures that we set out for ourselves, whether it is $103 billion, $112 billion or $107 billion-and you can find all of those figures, being the expenditures for the coming year, in our estimates for 1986-87-the question arises as to what these deficits will cost us. Again, we only have estimates, but in these same papers the Minister of Finance points out that the total public debt charges, essentially to cover the cost of carrying the deficit for 1984-85, was in the area of $22.5 billion. At the end of 1985-86 it is estimated that those carrying charges will be in excess of $25.6 billion, and are estimated by the end of 1986-87 to be in the neighbourhood of $27.4 billion. If you compute the interest rate, it reinforces that the deficit is certainly in excess of $200 billion.
What has changed in the past few years that is somewhat disturbing to me, because I tend to come from the school that says deficits, if they can be used to provide jobs and constructive activity within the country, are not a burden on the country so long as they are financed from within the country, is that we have moved recently to more reliance on foreign debt.
At the end of the 1984-85 fiscal year we were paying interest on debt payable in foreign currency, that is foreign debt, of just over $600 million. The accounts say $608 million was paid out to carry our foreign debt requirements at the end of the 1984-85 fiscal year. The estimate for the end of the 1986-87 fiscal year is more than twice that. The estimate of what we will be paying is $1,380 billion to pay off our foreign debt.
We are putting ourselves at the mercy of foreign borrowings and will have very little negotiating room out of that. I think when we look at the deficit with a common sense approach, one that my Party has followed when in provincial Governments-I assume it would be a policy we would follow if we were in federal Government-we must look at the expenditures that are required, and decide how to raise the money for those requirements. As it is, we have gone the last couple of fiscal years spending about 30 per cent to 35 per cent more
Borrowing Authority Act
money than we intended to collect. We have been spending about $100 billion and we have been running deficits in excess of $30 billion, which means that we have only been collecting a bit over $60 billion for expenditures in excess of $100 billion. That does not make sense and has to be addressed.
If we look at the method we use for raising those revenues any observer would agree that we do not do it very equitably. We have in this countrya society where the lowest income people are carrying a far higher and heavier burden than are the higher income people. We ask them to bear a lesser per capita part of the debt. We do not have a system which permits them to have equal access to the country's resources. For instance, the lowest paid 20 per cent of our population works with only about 4 per cent of this country's assets. While 20 per cent of our population can manage on 4 per cent of the country's assets, the 20 per cent of our population that has the highest income has the use of 43 per cent of the country's assets. If one were to make a decision on a straight business proposition, it would seem that the low income 20 per cent were extremely efficient while the 20 per cent high income earners were profligate spenders who did not know how to manage the economy. Yet the tax system encourages upper income earners with reductions in their tax bite, while increasing the tax load on lower income Canadians.
The Budget estimates that individual taxes will increase three times faster than corporate taxes by the year 1986 and will have increased to ten times as much by 1990. The Government is taxing the poor without touching the rich and this is leading to greater unfairness. We believe this Bill needs study and that is why we suggest a six-month hoist.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to make submissions concerning Bill C-99 through which the Government is requesting the authority to borrow some $22 billion in order to bring into effect certain measures and other Government expenditures related to the Budget. 1 want to take this opportunity to express my views on the Budget which my Leader referred to as regressive, unfair and harsh. Many Canadians agree with the Opposition that the Budget is unjust and unfair. If one examines this Budget and the first Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the evidence is overwhelming that both are unfair.
It is quite obvious that the intent of the combination of the two Budgets is to reduce the deficit. There are not too many Members in the House of Commons who would argue against reducing the deficit, which is in excess of $30 billion a year, but there is disagreement with respect to the method by which the Government should reduce that deficit.
The Conservative Government believes that the deficit should be reduced on the backs of the disadvantaged in our society and has already shown that it is quite prepared to do this through measures that are unjust and inequitable and which attack the disadvantaged. While it is prepared to give concessions and opportunities to its rich friends on Bay Street,

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
it is absolutely insensitive to the plight of the needy and disadvantaged. The Government's performance in the past year and a half provides ample evidence to indicate that not only does the Government intend to reduce the deficit on the backs of the disadvantaged, it will do so on the backs of lower and middle income Canadian families as well.
When one analyses the net effect of the two Budgets, middle and lower income families will be hit the hardest. As my Leader has pointed out in the House and elsewhere, when one combines both Budgets the total tax increase for an individual earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year over the next five years is only 1 per cent while it is in excess of 20 per cent for individuals earning $20,000 a year. Where is the justice or fairness?
The Conservative Government is paranoid about the deficit and is prepared to do anything in order to reduce it. While we all agree that Governments should be fiscally responsible, it is quite obvious that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and his deputy are taking their marching orders from the oil barons in Calgary and Edmonton, as well as from the financiers on Bay Street and the money people in New York, Europe and elsewhere. The Government is more concerned about the Budget's acceptance on Wall Street, in Washington, Paris or London than its effect on the average Canadian. However, those financiers did not vote for the Government and the Government is not responsible to them. It is responsible to Canadians from coast to coast. The Government does not realize the effect that this regressive Budget will have on Canadians.
The Minister of Finance has made certain predictions in his Budget. He looked into the crystal ball provided to him by the oil barons, the wealthy and affluent on Bay Street and Wall Street and predicted that the average price of crude oil in this fiscal year will be $22.50 a barrel. He also predicted an average interest rate of 9.5 per cent. Those assumptions are the foundation upon which he and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) based the Budget. Building a foundation on such assumptions is like building a house with playing cards. What will happen if the prime rates does not average 9.5 per cent this fiscal year and the price of crude oil does not average $22.50 a barrel? All of the Minister's predictions about a reduction in the deficit and all of his economic forecasts will go out the window.
The reality today is that the price of crude oil is not $22.50 a barrel, $20 a barrel or $18 a barrel. The price of crude oil is less thant $15 a barrel, yet the Minister is basing his Budget on that average price of $22.50. I am not aware if the Minister is privy to what happens at OPEC. Perhaps he and the Premier of Alberta have a private telephone line to the OPEC ministers. But it does not appear that the price of oil will be $22.50 a barrel, or will average out at that amount over the next fiscal year. It is quite obvious that interest rates will not average 9.5 per cent.
We in the opposition, therefore, call into question the assumptions underlying this particular Budget. We also call into question its fairness because the Government and, indeed, this Parliament will not be judged by how low the deficit is, but the decency, civility and caring of the Government. This Parliament will be judged on how the disadvantaged in our society are dealt with. That is the reflection of the greater intention of the Government of Canada, indeed, of any Government or any Parliamentarian. It is how we treat the disadvantaged that tells the tale.
Might I say in conclusion that we support the motion to hoist this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-99, for six months. We ask that the Government, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with this particular Budget, send the Minister of Finance back to the drawing table-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Change its assumptions.


John V. Nunziata: The Government should change its assumptions and rethink what it is proposing. I see a lot of Hon. Members opposite nodding in agreement. They know in their heart of hearts that the Budget is regressive, unfair, harsh and anti-Canadian.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, some Tory is saying: "Thank you and good-night". I think he is falling asleep over there.


Philip Derek Lewis: This will really do it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are debating a Bill which gives the Government authority to borrow $22 billion. 1 want to begin my remarks by saying that I oppose the Budget because it is regressive. The only good thing about the Budget is that it helped Howard Pawley become the premier of Manitoba once again. For that, of course, we thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Mr. Gustafson:: He barely got in.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I thank the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and all of the people who helped us re-elect Howard Pawley in Manitoba. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, being unpartisan, would agree with that.
We must ask ourselves why the Government wants to borrow $22 billion. What kinds of progams does the Government have which calls for it to borrow $22 billion? I would like to look for the moment at a program introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). It is a program for summer employment for students called SEED, Summer Employment Experience Development program. In examining the brochure I get the impression that the SEED program is supposed to give students meaningful jobs which will help them in their careers. I am sure the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is hoping the Budget will help elect Allan Blakeney as the premier of our province in a few weeks.
March 25, 1986


Leonard J. Gustafson: 1 wouldn't count on it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 am sure it will. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia agrees. The Hon. Member for MacKenzie (Mr. Scowen) agrees. I hope Conservatives will listen because when they were in opposition they complained about Liberals wasting money and not fulfilling the regulations of the various programs. The brochure on the SEED program states, and I quote:
SEED jobs will provide practical work experience to enhance the student's future employability or will relate to a field of study or future career.
This program is supposed to enhance the student's future employability and to relate to a field of study or future career. I would like to refer to some of the applications which have been approved under the SEED program and ask the House whether or not we want to spend the taxpayers' money, which we must borrow, to fund programs to enhance students' careers in this way.
I have an application which is being approved for a retail company in Richmond, British Columbia, to provide 15 jobs in Saskatchewan. Of course, we want summer jobs for students but what kind of jobs? This application is for 15 store clerks in the province of Saskatchewan. How is store clerk going to enhance his or her future employability or career? It seems to me if we are going to have a program designed to enhance the employability of students and to build one's career, they should be provided with jobs which are more relevant to their future. But here is a company which will receive a wage subsidy to employ 15 store clerks in the province of Saskatchewan.
I have another application here from a company called Peavey Industries Limited in Red Deer, Alberta.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has on occasion accused Ministers of making public information which should be private. I wonder if he would like to reconsider having read into the record the name of an applicant for Government funding which I do not believe is normally made public.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a matter for debate as far as the Chair is concerned.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With great respect, I think the Chair has reason. We can go either way on that one, Mr. Speaker, but I will continue. Peavey Industries is in Red Deer, Alberta. It has received some money under the SEED program to hire nine sales clerks in Saskatchewan. Is that what the Minister of Employment and Immigration wanted to do in establishing this program for students in 1986? I have another application for funds to hire a farm labourer. In this particular case it is a farmer hiring his son to work on the farm. I just wonder whether that meets the criteria of the program.
I will read once again what the Minister tells us the program should be.
Summer Employment/Experience Development (SEED) provides wage subsidies to stimulate employers from all sectors to create jobs for students that would not otherwise be available. Under SEED, students in all parts of Canada will
Borrowing Authority Act
have job opportunities which will benefit their future labour market participation as well as assist them in the continuation of their studies.
SEED jobs will provide practical work experience to enhance the student's future employability or will relate to a field of study or future career.
Most of these applications call for clerks, farm workers, waitresses, waiters, labourers and so on. There are all kinds of jobs which need to be done but I do not feel those kinds of jobs meet the criteria of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I have another example of an application from someone in a small business. He will receive a subsidy to hire his daughter for the summer as a clerk in his store. I have another applicant who has gotten a project approved, and there is no job title or description whatsoever. It is just one big question mark as to what this money is being used for. I have another application by a pharmacy which will receive money to hire two clerks in a store. A town will receive a grant to hire one clerk in a store. Another pharmacy will receive money to hire one clerk in a pharmaceutical store. There is another pharmaceutical business which will receive money to hire two clerks, and another pharmaceutical which will receive money to hire one salesperson.
We can see what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. The summer program which is supposed to enhance the career and studies of students is being used by a number of pharmacies and companies to hire someone to work for the summer. They are using it strictly as a subsidy and saving themselves money, as well as taking away a full-time job from someone.
I have another application from a multinational company, International Minerals and Chemical Corporation, which is well known around this continent. It is receiving a grant to hire 13 labourers, 13 helpers and four others, for a total of 30 people. Another company is receiving a grant to hire a labourer. Another company in Estevan, which 1 think is in the riding of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, is receiving some money to hire a waitress.


Philip Derek Lewis: Are you against jobs in Estevan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have an application for money to hire a grocery clerk, and another to hire a labourer. We can go on and on through all the application forms and we will find that time and time again the grants are going to provide jobs for clerks, cashiers, stock persons, waitresses, yardmen and things of that sort.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Real jobs.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What I am saying is that we are borrowing money to finance this program and the Minister of Employment and Immigration is saying in her own brochure that the objective of the program is one which will enhance the student's future employability and will relate to a field of study or future career. That is the objective of the program. It seems to me that some of these applications are really questionable in terms of whether or not they meet the objective of the program. There are all types of other programs which we could have put in place to hire farm labourers, clerks, waitresses and

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
helpers in pharmacies rather than providing multinationals with subsidies. Let us not use the student summer employment program which has as its objective trying to enhance a person's career with work relevant to that career as one of the means of accomplishing that end. That is just another reason why the House should be in no rush whatsoever to approve the borrowing of some $22 billion by the Government. It is really just an extra tax on ordinary citizens.
I remember when the Conservative Party formed the Official Opposition. Members of the Party used to speak loudly and clearly about the Liberals borrowing $5 billion, $10 billion or even $20 billion. The present Government is now doing the same thing. However, it is doing it bigger and more frequently than the Liberal Government used to do in the past. I am sure some of my friends in the Conservative Party who spoke so often and loudly about all this borrowing a few years ago must be feeling very embarrassed for the Prime Minister and for his Cabinet. It is my opinion that, if one takes into consideration the results of public opinion polls, in about two-and-a-half years members of the Conservative Party will be back on this side of the House once again. In the history of polling in the country we have never seen a Government fall so far and so fast as this Government has fallen from favour in the eyes of the Canadian population. It has never happened before provincially or federally. A year or so ago the Conservative Party was sitting at some 55 per cent or 58 per cent in the Gallup poll. It is now in the mid-30 per cent range, it is in a freefall. It is no wonder, since it has broken trust and faith with the people of our country. The Hon. member for Assiniboia being a good red Tory feels the same way as I do. However, he has a fierce loyalty to the Prime Minister of Canada which inhibits him from getting up and speaking his mind.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) for his fine introduction in terms of setting us up for re-entry into Government. It is always pleasant to see such an experienced and learned colleague be so astute in terms of forecasts and prognoses.
In saying a few words on this Bill I simply wish to draw attention to some crucial issues affecting the western part of Canada, which are not in any way countenanced in the types of expenditure patterns we see being proposed by the Government. I find it surprising and disturbing that matters which are of crucial economic importance to major economic regions are ignored in the Bill.
There is a storm cloud gathering which has nothing to do with the late arrival of spring in Canada. That cloud is called the U.S. Farm Bill. It will have the impact of driving down world grain prices by something in the order of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. For western Canadian grain farmers this means that the opportunity to try to recapture some economic benefit, after two very difficult years, will be almost impossible. If one were to project the price of grain for June, which is now being done in the futures market on the Chicago Exchange, one will
see it is down 40 cents or 50 cents from what the price is at the present time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is actually 90.


Lloyd Axworthy: As my hon. friend points out, it is actually approaching 90. This means that the cost of growing a bushel of wheat in western Canada will be close to 60 cents or 70 cents above what will be received for it. There is absolutely no provision anywhere in statements by Ministers or in expenditures of the Government to deal with this eventuality.
A grand opportunity was lost last week when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with the President of the United States. That was when a representation for changes to the American should have been made in order to bring together the major grain-producing countries to try to work out a formula which would not cause a catastrophic drop in world grain prices. As far as we know the topic was never even mentioned. It was not brought to the attention of the U.S. administration. We are now entering a new growing season in which every grain farmer in western Canada is faced with the alarming prospect of having every seed he puts in the ground costing him 30 per cent more that what he can get for it. What a crazy and absurd situation!
The primary test of any Government is not its philosophy or theology; it is how it responds to an immediate, important issue faced by large numbers of people. In this case it has certainly failed the test miserably.
We are now asking farmers in western Canada-in fact farmers right across Canada-to lose a substantial amount of money. Corn growers in the east will face the same problem, just as will growers of other commodities. They will be putting crops in the ground in a matter of weeks which will result in a substantial loss of money. What do we hear from Members opposite in this regard? Nary a word. What do we hear from Ministers? Excuses. What do we get from the Prime Minister as a result of his grand negotiations with the President? A great zero. That is not effective Government. That is the reason the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is right in saying that we will be back on the other side of the House. We can at least understand the problem. We knew how to respond to it. Rather than sitting silent for the sake of good public relations in Washington and avoiding coming to grips with a major issue we understood it.
Let us look at what is happening to the oil industry in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. As prices tumble, and as the industry slides down the slippery slope the only answer we have from Tory MPs from the City of Calgary is that they will set up another task force, just as their comrades from the east end of Montreal set up a task force to provide for a new economic renewal program. If that task force in Calgary is as effective as the one in east Montreal, God forbid, then I can only offer my condolences to the people of Calgary.
The fact of the matter is that once again there is an immediate and important issue taking place in western Canada which is being totally ignored by the Government. The Minis-
March 25, 1986

ter of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), when we can find her-she is rarely in the House-says that there is no problem. She tells us not to worry about it, things will get better and the sun will shine. There are already major lay-offs taking place at the big oil companies in Canada. The smaller Canadian companies are simply preparing to sell out since that is the only way they can gain some return.
I would now like to give Hon. Members a smaller example, one that is crucial in my province, of the maladministration, inattention and indifference of this Government. I refer to the Port of Churchill. It was a matter of major concern to westerners for a long period of time that something be done to try to restore the Port of Churchill as a viable and useful port facility. We signed an agreement in 1983 with the Province of Manitoba committing something in the order of $93 million of joint expenditures to bring the port up to proper and sufficient working efficiency. Some two-and-a-half years have gone by since that time.
During that period the Conservative Government, which has seven Members from Manitoba, has done absolutely nothing to implement the agreement. When we look at the proposals for expenditures for 1986-87 all we see in it is a line stating that there will be a major development of a port facility at Step-lies. We know whose riding that port facility is in. It will receive something in the order of $8 million. But we receive a consolation prize. The Government is going to build us a tug for the Port of Churchill. It will not do the dredging so that the port can operate. Nor will the Government fix up the grain terminal or go ahead with the major refurbishing of the railway line. The Government plans to build a tug. I know that the tug can be moved somewhere else, probably to Sept-Hes to serve the constituency of the Prime Minister.
The commitment I refer to was legal and binding. The money was in place. We talked about consultation with the provinces. There was full consultation with the province. There was a full accord with respect to the objectives and goals.
What has this Government done since it took office? Absolutely nothing. As a result, the Port of Churchill is once again on the brink of extinction. Once again, the Port of Churchill is being threatened with closure because the Government refuses to take the action that a previous Government had already prescribed and funded. The Government simply has not gotten around to finding its way clear to do anything about it.
The Government is asking Parliament for a large amount of money so that it can do good works for Canadian people. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are no good works being done in western Canada, and there is no reason to vote for this borrowing authority because the people of western Canada are being gypped by the Government. They are not getting their fair share of attention. They are not getting their fair share of resources and they are not getting their fair share of proper, effective Government from the Tories in Ottawa. Therefore there is no reason for anyone on this side of the House who
cares anything about western Canada to support the Government in its request for borrowing authority.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 minutes after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.11 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, not only has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) broken his promise to the young people of Canada by failing to table some new youth programs by the end of March, it is quite clear that the approach of the Government to the position taken by Senator Jacques Hebert has been in fact to allow the issue to become a political football. The statements made by the Minister on the weekend will in no way lead to an early resolution of the situation.
I draw to the attention of the Government that not only has Senator Jacques Hebert fought for the reinstatement of the Katimavik program, but the Business Council on National Issues, the organization from which the Government derives most of its economic policies, was so praiseworthy of the program in a policy statement last year that it suggested that it should be continued and expanded. The Council thought the program was working and was reaching out to the social conscience of Canadians. The Government has chosen not only to ignore Senator Hebert and to ignore the plight of young people but also to ignore the suggestions of BCNI.


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


GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Greek Canadians and all people who love freedom celebrate today the anniversary of Greek independence when a very small and long oppressed people finally overthrew the yoke of the Ottoman Empire. However, freedom once gained can be lost, and independence for a small country next to a large one, and one with much greater military power, is always at risk. This is why Greek-Canadians have been concerned with such

March 25, 1986
matters as Canadian sales and give-aways of military equipment to Turkey, the major power of the eastern Mediterranean.
For Greeks, also, the joy of their own independence will not be complete while Cyprus, which shares language, religion, and culture with them, remains under Turkish occupation. Canada's contribution in this regard, however, has been meritorious in helping to keep the peace.
Since Greece is the country which took the first steps to democracy, its fate has a special meaning for all of us, and the Greek National Day is an international day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, in the night of March 21 to March 22, an exceptional man from the Gaspe died in Honduras.
Father Arsenault had lived for twenty-one years in Honduras, where he was working to give the poor and children without homes a better life.
His dedication to the cause of needy children, together with his religious vocation, have made him a shining example of goodness and courage for the people of the Gaspe and for all Canadians.
Whatever the cause of his death, Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous loss for Honduras, and especially for his family and friends in the riding of Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine.
I am sure I express the feeling of my colleagues when I hope that his example will give other Canadians the desire to get involved and help the children of this world.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to point out to the House that the action taken by this Government has brought about some very encouraging results for our economy.
During the last twelve months, that is, since February 1985,
62,000	jobs were created in the Montreal area alone.
The value of construction permits increased 12 per cent in
1985.	This represents $208 million in additional revenue for the construction industry in Montreal.
The volume of retail sales has increased 10 per cent since our Government was elected in September 1984.
In 1985, construction starts reached one of their highest levels.
In January 1986, 27 per cent more homes were being built than in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, this proves Canadians chose wisely when they elected our Government in September 1984.


EXTERNAL AID
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, as one of four Members of Parliament who visited Ethiopia last week, I want to remind Canadians that the danger of famine has not passed. The worst of the drought may be over, but six million people, still at risk, will need emergency food aid in the coming months.
Over the past 18 months Canadians gave important help to the famine victims, but the mandate of David MacDonald, Emergency C-ordinator for Assistance, expires the end of this month.
The Government must act now to announce a new program so that Canadians can continue to help the people of Ethiopia. In addition to providing emergency aid, Canada should announce a program of development assistance in such areas as education, health, agriculture, and forestry.
We can help the people of Ethiopia not only to survive the famine but also to become self-sufficient.


WORKERS' SAFETY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent submission to Government, Mr. Jim Evoy of the Construction and General Workers Union stated:
No matter what the rules say, men and women working outside when the temperature is minus 45 degrees find the steel-toed boot far too uncomfortable to wear. People don't wear those boots when it is very cold outside, and thus end up working without any protective footwear at all.
Judging it not to be beyond human ingenuity, I hereby challenge the footwear manufacturers of Canada to develop a certifiable protective boot for Arctic conditions which is also warm and comfortable. No longer should northern workers have to face the uneasy choice between having their toes either crushed or frozen.
March 25, 1986


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, workers at the General Motors plant in Boisbriand have never been as uncertain about their future. It seems the company is seriously considering the possibility of closing the only plant it has in Quebec, because the plant's assembly procedures have now become obsolete. And this comes at a time when the company has just announced a complete overhaul of its plant in Oshawa, that will cost $2 billion.
Boisbriand workers are at least as productive if not more so than those in other North American plants, and I think we should give this skilled work force a chance to show what it can do and ensure the plant will be viable.
If General Motors spent part of its $8 billion renovation budget for 1985-86 on the Boisbriand plant, it would be acting as a responsible corporate citizen and could protect 3,500 jobs in Quebec, a province where the company makes about 30 per cent of all its sales in Canada.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Teleglobe Canada is a fine, outstanding example of a well managed Crown corporation built by Canadians, for Canadians, with Canadian money. It is our international voice.
I cannot understand, when we have eight out of eleven Canadian bidders, why the Government would not direct its interest only toward those Canadians bidders, would not also insist on 100 per cent Canadian content in all purchases, would not ensure that Telecom communication workers' contracts are protected, as they are today, and not also ensure that Canadians will maintain a 100 per cent Canadian interest through Canadian management, and only through a telecommunication group, not just an entrepreneurial oriented group.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, after a recent crude oil price reduction the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) asked oil industry leaders to reduce prices at the pump. This met with criticism and doubt from cynics, including the Opposition. I am encouraged by the way gas stations are already showing the effects of that persuasion.
On March 13, for example, one Scarborough West gas station charged 46.9 cents for regular gas and 49.9 cents for unleaded gasoline. Today that same station charges 44.5 cents for regular and 47.5 cents for unleaded gasoline, a drop of 2.4 cents a litre.
Crude oil prices have dropped around the world again. It has been demonstrated by the figures I have cited that moral suasion by the Minister produces results in a free enterprise economy. I urge her to take that action again, and to take it now. Canadian consumers deserve a better deal at the pump.

[DOT] (U10)


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in January the Emergency Health Services Commission of Transport Canada banned the use of single-engine helicopters for night medical evacuations in British Columbia. A few days ago a physician from Prince Rupert phoned to advise me that a two-day old baby required medical evacuation to Vancouver at night. The Medevac jet sped from Vancouver to Prince Rupert. Over the next four and a half hours the special incubator was taken by bus to the ferry, from the ferry to the hospital, hospital to the ambulance, ambulance to the ferry, then to the airport on Digby Island for the jet to Vancouver. It took four and a half hours instead of four minutes.
The northern B.C. coastal communities have had on average over the past year a night-time medical evacuation every three days. The bureaucracy and the Minister may be happy with the ban and the offer of the defence of necessity. However, let it be known that the situation as it now stands, according to doctors, is endangering lives.
The Minister has a responsibility to issue to hospitals, emergency personnel, pilots, helicopter companies, and the public, a statement of circumstances under which patients who cannot be stabilized-


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

[ Translation]


BEHAVIOUR OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the behaviour of the Opposition in this House. It has been quite some time since Canadian men and women have heard such language and witnessed such disgraceful conduct on the part of their elected representatives.

March 25, 1986
According to Marcel Adam of La Presse, Mr. Speaker, this Opposition "is acting in bad faith, intellectually dishonest and disloyal by systematically thwarting all Government endeavours instead of concentrating on constructive criticism".
The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson was quite right when he wrote recently, and I quote: "The Liberals' response to the Wilson Budget offers further depressing evidence that intellectual inconsistency, hyprocrisy and political opportunism-


POLITICAL PARTIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Tories made 338 promises to the Canadian people. Today's reading from the "Book of 338 Tory Promises" will be on research and development. The first promise was to double our R and D effort to 2.5 per cent of GNP in the first four years in office. The second promise was to change and simplify the tax system. The third promise was to strengthen the linkage between private and public sector research. Another promise was to assist Canadian companies to export their technology abroad, and finally, to facilitate the adaptation in Canada of innovative technology developed abroad. All these promises have, of course, been broken.



Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a pattern is setting in for former Liberal Party leadership contenders. First you get a part-time job as a lawyer. Next you spend a little time in Ottawa. Third, you write a clandestine book about the solidarity of the former Liberal Cabinet.
Straight from the Heart was the first insight into the peace, love, and harmony which permeates the Liberal hierarchy. Yesterday the love-in continued with the launching of a book called Up the Hill. The author, the external affairs critic for the Official Opposition, offers many insightful examples of the harmony, consultation, and team work which existed through 1980-84. The National Energy Program was too minor to bring before Cabinet, as was the decision to have Petro-Canada take over Petrofina.
The author's respect for his former Leader's imagination and feelings on gut issues, and the former Prime Minister's determination to seek advice only from elected representatives, certainly galvanized his Cabinet's solidarity.


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


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable concern in the automotive industry occasioned by the threat from the free trade talks to the Auto Pact. Members of Parliament from Windsor, as well as workers from the area, have sought meetings with General Motors and Chrysler. Their concern arises from the loss of jobs at the trim plantin Windsor and the failure to open the Chrysler engine plant. We have asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to arrange meetings with those two manufacturers.
More recently Local 444 in Windsor sought a meeting with the Minister. They wrote a letter on January 28. That letter has not yet been answered. They ask that that letter be answered and that meetings be arranged as they have requested.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMISSIONER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND CO-OPERATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZAIRE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the presence in our gallery of Citizen Mokolo Wa Mpombo, Commissioner of State for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of the Republic of Zaire, accompanied by a parliamentary delegation of Zaire.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Speaker:: Let me also advise Members of the presence today of the Hon. Robert McClelland, Minister of Industry and Small Business Development of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian Government examined the means and, if so, would the Minister care to enlighten Parliament on how the Canadian Government feels it can contribute
March 25, 1986

to an international solution to the situation in the Gulf of Sidra off the coast of Libya? What is the Canadian position?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the question from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. That is a matter of some tension and of particular interest to Canadians because of the presence in Libya of some 1,300 of our citizens. All facts are not available, but from the facts that are available it appears to us that there was an attack upon the United States, to which the United States responded. We are seeking to gather information from a wide variety of sources. As those facts become available I will certainly make them available to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and to all the Members of the House.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF SITUATION OF CANADIANS WORKING IN LIBYA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we know as well as the Minister that 1,300 Canadians are now working in Libya, and we are a little concerned about their future. Could the Minister inform the House whether he feels our fellow Canadians are at risk and whether an emergency plan exists to repatriate them?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have dispatched one of our consular officers who will be in Libya tomorrow morning, local time. We are keeping directly in touch with the Danish Embassy, which in the circumstances has been acting on our behalf to provide information on the situation in Libya. We have no reason to be concerned about the situation for Canadians who are down there.


TRAVEL BY CANADIANS TO LIBYA
John Napier Turner: Has the Government advised Canadians not to travel at this time to Libya, and should not the Minister be preparing a more precise plan to evacuate Canadians already working there?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are not preparing a precise plan for evacuation because, in our judgement, the situation of the last day and a half has not made any more difficult the situation of Canadians who are there. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the House will know that sometime earlier this year in January a statement was made by the Government indicating to Canadians who were working in Libya that they should use their own judgment and come to their own determination as to whether or not there was a danger to their security. At the moment we have no reason to change that advice. We are seeking information, as I have said to the House earlier, and if that information causes us to change that
Oral Questions
advice to those Canadians, we will communicate that to them and to the House.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I join with the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister in congratulating General Motors of Canada on its recent decision to invest $2 billion in its Oshawa plant. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he would share with the House what representations he has made to General Motors of Canada to protect the jobs, the community, and the economy of Sainte-Therese in Quebec?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: 1 have made the representations that the Government is committed to fair regional economic development, and that requires an investment in the automotive sector not only in Ontario, which we are very grateful for and which we seek more of, but also in the Province of Quebec and other regions of the country. There is a base to be maintained and to be built upon, and this Government is deeply committed to enhancing that sector in the Province of Quebec.


FUTURE OF WORKERS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister might have been more specific because those assurances certainly do not alleviate the anguish that the people in Sainte-Therese are facing.
Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that he will use his office and the programs of Regional Industrial Expansion to ensure that General Motors will in no way reduce its workforce in Sainte-Therese, Quebec, thereby affecting the entire community?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if 1 am not mistaken, the first major investment in the automobile industry in Quebec in almost twenty years was made last fall with the Hyundai deal, thanks to the intervention of the Government of Canada.
And are the Liberal Members ... ah yes, the Members of the Liberal Party are against investment in the automobile industry in Quebec, and Quebecers are going to remember that!

March 25, 1986
Oral Questions
[English)


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the same subject.
The new investment decision by General Motors is, of course, a good decision for Canada. At the same time, however, three Ministers of the Crown have described the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement as a free trade agreement. The President of General Motors, who knows differently and knows that it guarantees certain investment in Canada, said yesterday that the Automotive Agreement should not be on the negotiating table in talks that are going on with the United States.


Mr. Stevens:: That is not right.


John Edward Broadbent: He said it. 1 was there.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He did not.


John Edward Broadbent: It is not a free trade agreement and the President of General Motors said that it should not be negotiated. Does the Prime Minister agree with both those assertions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that the $2 billion Oshawa investment heightened my hon. friend's appreciation for the private sector and the attractiveness and beauty of foreign investment in Canada.
The trade talks will only try to ensure that that prosperity that we see in Oshawa is now shared across the country.


John Edward Broadbent: There are many provinces affected by this, and the people whose jobs are dependent on the automotive industry will not be reassured by the answer.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want the Prime Minister to deal with the question. The Automotive Agreement is not a free trade agreement. The head of the largest corporation in Canada has said that it should not be on the negotiating table. Furthermore, the agreement protects jobs in Canada and we could lose jobs if it is lost.
Considering these facts, will the Prime Minister say to the House that the Auto Pact is not up for negotiation and that it is important to keep it for jobs in Ontario and the Province of Quebec?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member was absent when this question was raised some months ago. At that time I indicated that there was a very satisfactory arrangement in place with regard to the Auto Pact that we saw no reason to change and have no intention of changing.
The point I think should be made to the House is that there are workers in Oshawa and elsewhere in Ontario, members of
the United Auto Workers, who are the direct beneficiaries of an arrangement on trade between Canada and the United States. The advantages of that arrangement should not be confined to members of the United Auto Workers. It should be extended across the country, through other negotiations to which we are looking forward.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps one day the Minister will understand that that kind of an arrangement is not free trade, and we support that kind of arrangement because it protects jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Maybe he will learn that one day.


WORKERS AT SAINTE-THERESE-GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR OBTAINING NEW INVESTMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Auto Pact guarantees a certain level of investment in Canada. General Motors now has 35 per cent of the Quebec market.
What is the Government doing now to obtain new investment in Quebec for the benefit of the workers in Sainte-Therese?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member shouldn't be upset, since I just came back from Oshawa, in his riding, where $2 billion have been invested to promote-


John Edward Broadbent: Not by the Government-


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says: "not by the Government". No, not by the Government but by the private sector which we attracted to Canada. That is the difference.
A Liberal always thinks in terms of government funding. We think in terms of permanent jobs created by the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I again spoke personally to the President of General Motors about Sainte-Therese and investment across this country. There will be further meetings between him and the Government, with a view to persuading all companies to invest in high technology sectors on a more nationwide basis.


SITUATION OF GENERAL MOTORS WORKERS AT SAINTE-THERESE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and again it relates to the situation at Sainte-Therese. He has just made a commitment
March 25, 1986

concerning the workers at Sainte-Therese and we appreciate that.
However I would remind him that he made a commitment 16 months ago in an answer to a question of the Leader of the Opposition in the House on November 7, 1984. He said at the time that he would take up the matter with the management of GM. How is it that after 16 months we are still at the same point, the workers at Sainte-Therese are worried about losing their jobs, and the investments are being made elsewhere?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party members should get their act together. Either they are in favour of investments in Canada-in Ontario, in British Columbia-or they are not. I can say as a Canadian that I am pleased to see that kind of investment in Canada, the largest ever in the history of the automobile industry, if I am not mistaken. So they chose Oshawa, well good for them! It does not prevent me from speaking directly to the president of General Motors, as I have done before, to urge him to invest more and soon in Quebec.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE REPORT TO THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the Prime Minister whether he would promise to report to the House within a month on the progress of negotiations, because the people of Sainte-Therese are quite concerned and want to know what is going to happen.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the people of Sainte-Therese are getting tired. Except for this investment, nothing has been done in the automobile industry in the past 20 years. Finally a new Government takes over and we have this investment. Hopefully there will be others in co-operation with the union and General Motors so as to give a better break to the company workers.


SITUATION OF GENERAL MOTORS WORKERS AT SAINTE-THERESE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since not a single job will be created in Sainte-Therese as a result of Hyundai's investments in Bromont, could the Prime Minister inform the House what specific measures the Government intends to take to protect the jobs of 4,000 General Motors employees at Sainte-Therese, which adds up to three times the number of jobs that will be created in Bromont?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I said it before and I am delighted to repeat that we have already started a very serious dialogue with the management of General Motors and other automobile manufacturers, to urge them to invest more in Canada and to spread out their
Oral Questions
investments so as to enhance regional development, including Quebec.


PROSPECT OF QUEBEC PLANT CLOSURE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Prime Minister not aware of the fact that the General Motors plant at Sainte-Therese is due to close in July of 1987 because no further product has been planned for it after that time? If the Government was prepared to put such heavy measures into attracting Hyundai into Bromont, Quebec, what specific measure is it prepared to take to protect those 4,000 jobs and ensure that those automobile workers at Sainte-Therese can stay on the job?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the best thing we can do for General Motors or anyone else is to continue what we are doing with interest rates going down, employment going up, and 580,000 new jobs created. That is what it is all about, a healthy private sector and a growing Canada.


KAT1MAV1K PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, during this season of reflection and reconciliation, and as a way to be fair to the concerns of all those involved, is the Prime Minister willing to consider fulfilling the original commitment of the Government of Canada to the board and staff of Katimavik until June, 1987, allowing time for an arbitration committee to assess the value of Katimavik and, based on that assessment, if it is of value, to explore possible funding from provincial, municipal, and private sector sources?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on December 18, 1975, the former President of the Treasury Board, a member of the Liberal Government, stated, as reported at page 10157 of Hansard:
1 therefore must announce that there will be no Opportunities for Youth Program next summer-
He also said that the LIP program would be discontinued and:
The government will stop providing financial support to the Company of Young Canadians-
What the Government was doing was discontinuing certain programs pursuant to new economic realities, as any democratically elected Government-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That was 11 years ago!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Eleven years do not change the principle of a democratically elected Government called upon to make those decisions. We made a decision in regard to Katimavik. That

March 25, 1986
Oral Questions
decision remains. We will bring in appropriate programs in due course.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM EXTENSION
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. Perhaps he would again consider my question. If the mechanics of a new youth program are not yet in place-and understandably it will take time to prepare such a program-is the Prime Minister willing to consider leaving this program in place, at least as a bridge?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the best programs that we can have for youth are found in a headline in The Toronto Star today which states: "Student Job Outlook Best Since '81, Experts Say".


ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAM
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who ought to know that telling the House that the Tories are no better than the Liberals, or that jobs are better in Toronto, does not help the youth of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Will the Prime Minister resolve the contradiction and confusion which emanate from his Government by telling us who is right, the Secretary of State who says there will be a program in May, maybe, or maybe never, or before the end of March as he has said on a couple of occasions? Will we have a program as promised by the Prime Minister, or is this a sacred trust?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my statements are on the record. I hope my hon. friend would not do us the disservice of ever comparing us with the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: They lost 285,000 youth jobs in their last mandate. In 18 months we have created 50,000 new ones. The Hon. Member should have the decency to stand up and applaud that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions. Will the Government, as he promised, introduce a program for youth before the end of March, or maybe May, or never, as the Secretary of State has said?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have already allocated $732 million for youth programs.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the promise?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Contrary to our Liberal friends, who lost
285,000	jobs for our young people, we have created 50,000 more jobs-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You promised!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Louder, louder! We are going to create more. The best way we can do that is by having a sound economy and a growing Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Last Friday, on March 21, 1986, and not 1975, in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Windsor West regarding new job programs for youth, the Prime Minister stated that the Government would be announcing its plans toward the end of the financial year. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this statement still reflects his Government's policy.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can refer to more than Friday's statement. He could refer to a statement I made on March 3, well before the incident in the other place, when I said the following:

Our first obligation towards youth is to keep creating permanent jobs and this is exactly what we are doing. But have no fear concerning youth. This will be linked in due time not only with other programs, but with very important initiatives that will create more jobs for our young people.
At an appropriate time, and in a helpful manner, further action will be announced.


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


INQUIRY IF MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE MADE BEFORE EASTER RECESS
David Berger: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister prepared to promise, on behalf of his Government, that a ministerial statement will be made here in this House, either today or tomorrow, before the House adjourns for Easter?
March 25, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was alluding to last Friday, March 21. I answered a number of questions, and here is my reply-

Mr. Speaker, I indicated on March 3 and March 11 in the House and in other circumstances to the press that at an appropriate time, at or about the end of the fiscal year, and in appropriate fashion the Government-
What 1 said on Friday still applies.


WORLD OIL PRICES-IMPACT ON ALBERTA
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister will know that the OPEC meeting in Geneva has now broken up in disarray with no agreement having been reached. She is also aware of the extremely desperate economic situation in the Province of Alberta. Oil prices today at $12.15 a barrel simply demand that the situation will get worse. Is the Minister prepared to stop monitoring the situation and start doing something now to preserve the jobs of ordinary Albertans?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's colleague is in Alberta offering a floor price as the NDP's solution to the dilemma faced by the industry. I wish he would elaborate how having an artificial price for oil will help all Canadians who, on balance, benefit from lower energy prices.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the situation in Alberta is getting extremely desperate. What do she and her Government plan to do to bring some relief to the troubled oil industry in western Canada and to bring some security to the Province of Alberta? What is she doing? What does she have against Albertans?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have nothing against Albertans. Clearly they do not think that I do, since they say that, on behalf of the Government, I have brought in the best energy policy ever introduced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LLOYDMINSTER HEAVY OIL UPGRADER PROJECT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are talks still ongoing regarding the Husky upgrader? Will the federal Government participate in the building of the Husky upgrader at Lloydminster?
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that is a subject currently under discussion between the federal Government and the provinces.


John V. Nunziata: Do you guys believe in commitment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see if the Government will clarify its position on the important question of trade with respect to the Auto Pact. My question is for the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he sees no reason to negotiate, while the trade representative for the United States said that everything is on the table. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether or not in his meetings last week with President Reagan he clearly expressed that, as far as Canada is concerned, the Auto-Pact will not be part of the negotiations? If so, did the President agree with that assertion?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two responses.


Mr. Crosbie:: He's getting coached by Ed there, look.


Charles Joseph Clark: The first is that the question did not need to come up because the position of Canada is well known. The second is that 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


John Carnell Crosbie: The Oshawa wizard.


Charles Joseph Clark: -will welcome as much as I do the conversion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who has now said that he is in favour of a trading arrangement with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would prefer to ask the Secretary of State if he has now changed his position. He stated that he would like to apply the moral of the Auto Pact to other sectors. Does that mean that the goal of the Government of Canada in these negotiations is to have a managed trade arrangement in various sectors, with guarantees and safeguards on both sides of the border? Is that the trade goal the Government is now pursuing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 25, 1986
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: You got your clap there, Lloyd.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. Before we hear the answer, could everyone on both sides of the House remember that when the mikes are on, they are on?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not changed my position. I leave that to the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the insidious mobilization of corporate concentration which may destroy competition, and mean exploitation of the average consumer. When will Canada have effective competition and anti-combines laws to curb the voracious appetites of giants such as Gulf Canada, Imasco, and Petro-Canada, companies which, ironically, use the deposits of average Canadians to borrow billions of dollars to achieve these takeovers?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there is a new piece of legislation before the House and, as he probably knows as well, this new Bill does contain a provision that will allow the Government to review proposed mergers before they take place. Since there is unanimous consensus among Canadian businesses and the different consumers' associations, I urge all Parties to give quick passage to this legislation for the benefit of all.


AGRICULTURE
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since last fall Prince Edward Island farmers have been asking the Government for stabilization payments to cover their losses for the 1984-85 year and the 1985-86 year. As we head into the spring planting season, there is still no answer. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why Island farmers have not received an answer to this point and what is holding up the decision?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government realizes that there is a serious situation in the Maritimes and the matter that the Hon. Member raises is presently under discussion. I
will make sure that the Minister of Agriculture is made aware of it upon his return to the House.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, time is running out for farmers in Atlantic Canada. If they are going to get a crop in, they have to have some assistance immediately. Will the Minister tell the House specifically when assistance will be forthcoming? We have to know, and we have to know right away.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer and I realize full well that assistance has to be made known before the farmers plant. We very much realize the situation in Prince Edward Island and will make sure that any announcement is made in time for it to be of some assistance to farmers prior to spring planting.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN JOBS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the United States last imposed protectionist laws against Canada in 1971, Canada passed an Act called the Employment Support Act which safeguarded 22,000 jobs against U.S. import surcharges. Did the Prime Minister tell Mr. Reagan and Congress last week that this Act will again be used to counter any U.S. legislation which is passed against our lumber exports?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President, and indeed discussions that I had earlier with Secretary Shultz, and discussions other Ministers have had with representatives of the United States administration, have covered a wide range of issues. We did not see it necessary to go down there in a threatening mode.
If the Hon. Member is raising this question, he should certainly rest assured that the Government of Canada is not only going to protect the interests of Canadian job holders but it will continue upon an economic policy which has been far more effective than any range of threats or protective measures, an economic policy of stimulating the private sector so that we can have the record performance in job creation in Canada that has marked the last 18 months.


EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there are 160,000 jobs at risk here and I would ask the Secretary of State specifically if he is in fact aware of this piece of legislation, if he has brought it to the attention of the
March 25, 1986

United States, and if the Government is prepared to use it as an effective vehicle to protect our workers and exports.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of the law of Canada. I am also aware of the fact that the way to secure growth and jobs for this country is not to strike out at our friends, and not simply to seek refuge in protectionist measures. Our future lies in stronger trade and stronger job creation. That is the way of the future. Members of the NDP continue to lie wallowing in the past. We are quite prepared to leave them there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the tremendous debt burden of the developing countries, particularly the poorest ones in Africa, and in light of the Government's recent decision to extend all further aid as grants rather than loans, is the Government considering action to forgive the outstanding aid debt to Canada of these poorer countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that the Government is preoccupied with the human tragedy in Africa and developing countries elsewhere. We are now seriously considering means of easing or eliminating the burden of past aid loans, particularly on those countries which have shown the courage and the determination to try to bring about fundamental reforms in their own economic systems.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE PAID FOR REAL ESTATE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A Peterborough company involved in the business of importing sunglasses purchased a property in my riding and resold it two days later to Petro-Canada, thus making a $70,000 profit. Can the Minister explain to the House how Petro-Canada got rooked to the tune of $70,000 in this real estate deal?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have advised the House on many occasions that I do not get involved in the day-to-day operations of Petro-Canada. I suggest that the Hon. Member address this issue to Petro-Canada.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister who is responsible to the House in answering for the Crown corporation called Petro-Canada. Will the Minister table in the House all appraisals and all documents relating to this unusual real estate deal-yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member is apparently not willing to pass his question on to Petro-Canada, perhaps. Sir, I will.


Don Boudria: In other words, no.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence who must certainly be aware of the fact that the majority of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean residents are opposed to his Department's project to establish a shooting range for F-18 fighter aircraft near Bagotville. Keeping in mind the fact that polls reveal that two out of three residents are strongly opposed to this shooting range, not to mention 14 municipalities and seven school boards, when will the Minister shelve that project?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the Department of National Defence are working with officials of the Government of the Province of Quebec, and are discussing these matters with the affected Members of Parliament as well as the affected communities. I have confidence that they will work out an amiable solution.
[ Translation]


POSSIBLE CLOSURE OF BAGOTVILLE MILITARY BASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Minister unequivocally dissociate himself from the threatening statement of his colleague the Secretary of State to the effect that, if local residents reject the proposed firing range, the Minister of National Defence might close the Bagotville military base?
11862

March 25, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PROMOTION OF FRENCH SONGS-EXPANSION OF RECORD INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. He is probably aware that lowering the quota for songs in French has raised a wave of protest in Quebec.
My question is as follows: How does the Minister intend to promote French songs and help the record industry if the Government lets the CRTC lower French content from 65 per cent to 55 per cent in broadcasts from radio stations in Quebec?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some people disagree with the CRTC's decision in this respect. By law, they can appeal to Cabinet which will then decide on the matter at the appropriate time.
Furthermore, under the last Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, funding was approved for a new policy that will help the radio and record industries, and in a few weeks we will be ready to announce this new policy.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ISSUE DIRECTIVE REVERSING COMMISSION'S DECISION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the situation is very serious.
Would the Minister agree right now to issue a directive reversing a disastrous decision that will prejudice the interests of Francophone creative artists and even jeopardize Quebec's Canadian and cultural interests?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to make a judgment before an appeal is made. I believe that logically, we must let these people appeal to Cabinet and when they do, I will report on the Department's position.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the November, 1984, economic statement, the Minister clearly stated that tax relief for termination benefits would be offered in "communities where alternative employment opportunities are limited or simply do not exist". Will the Minister tell the House why he is breaking his promise to the laid-off workers of the Griffith Mine in the Ear Falls area of northwestern Ontario?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not breaking my promise. The criteria which have been established for this type of assistance have not been met by the Ear Falls case, and that is the reason for the decision.


APPLICATION OF DEPARTMENTAL CRITERIA
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to the House in what way the Griffith Mine lay-off does not meet the criteria established by his Department?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the affected employees live in a number of communities.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, come on!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are also a number of employers in that region.


An Hon. Member:: You are out to lunch.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It must be outside Ottawa!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If Hon. Members wish to listen to the answer, I will give them an answer. The simple facts are that there are other major employers in the area.


An Hon. Member:: Name one.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Campbell Red Lake Mine is one.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, come off the pot.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Hon. Member does not want to listen to the answer. If he wants to speak to me after, I will be happy to talk with him.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the
March 25, 1986

serious farm debt crisis facing some 40,000 Canadian farmers today. Is the Minister aware of the criticisms of his commodity based mortgage program which was in the Budget, as being misleading, diceptive, and so seriously flawed that responsible farm organizations are advising their members not to take out those mortgages and are planning to take the unprecedented action of obtaining a court injunction to stop the program from going ahead? Is the Minister aware of that, and what will he do about it?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any groups suggesting that they should take court action. I am aware that the Government committed up to $700 million to assist farmers in financial difficulty. That loan money is to be matched with interest reductions in the amount of almost $200 million over two years. It seems to me that is a substantial amount of money to help at least some of the Farm Credit Corporation clients who are having financial difficulty. I am aware of the help we have provided.


REQUEST FOR ALTERATION OF PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Clearly the program is not acceptable to Canadian farmers. Is he prepared to alter the program drastically to make it acceptable and effective in assisting farmers who are facing this serious, unprecedented farm debt crisis?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this is a new approach for the Farm Credit Corporation. There is some money there to back it up. If there are some concerns and the program is not working, certainly we are willing to look at making it work. We all realize the serious financial difficulties which farmers face. We have put up money to ensure that it is there for assistance. Certainly we are interested in seeing that it works and, if the Hon. Member has some suggestions, we would be happy to hear them.


DEPO-PROVERA CONTRACEPTIVE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gilbert Chartrand: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Women in my constituency advised me not long ago of their concern about an injectable contraceptive called Depo-Provera. Despite its negative effects, the manufacturer is now trying to get the drug approved by the Minister for marketing in Canada, although permission has been denied in the United States.
Could the Minister give this group from the Verdun Women's Centre the assurance that the contraceptive will not
Oral Questions
be approved if it represents the slightest risk for the health of Canadian women?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question which has been asked previously. I have not received a recommendation for acceptance or rejection from the Health Protection branch. As the Hon. Member knows, it is a regulatory process and one in which I do not interfere. However, I have said to health groups and to women's groups that, before any approval would be given, if in fact a recommendation where made along that line, I would want to be satisfied totally on the safety side of the issue.


INDUSTRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence and concerns Fleet Industries. Will the Minister confirm that his Department's investigation substantiated the allegations made by the former quality assurance supervisor that there were serious problems in Fleet's inspection procedures and records, and that personnel performing critical work were not adequately qualified? Will he also confirm that the result of this is that no product from the company is currently being allowed to leave the plant?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member may know, this question could be subject to litigation between the parties. I do not know whether I want to affirm the accusations made by the Hon. Member, but let me say that my Department is working closely with Fleet Industries. We have found that procedures were improper, and they are being improved. We have not found any faulty materials, yet.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRODUCT INSPECTION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell us whether his Department's investigation has examined the products being supplied to other customers such as Spar Aerospace, de Havilland, and Sikorsky? If not, could he tell us whose responsibility it is to ensure that that material is not defective and does not jeopardize public safety?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, each customer supplies its own inspector in this regard. I am informed that faulty materials have not been discovered to our knowledge by any of the inspectors. It is a question of the procedures and paperwork, which were not up to snuff, and it is being remedied through co-operation between the customers and the company.

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act PENITENTIARIES


PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION OF PRISON IN MAN1COUAGAN CONSTITUENCY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that the Nielsen task force recommended that prison construction stop, and that would apply to the prison which he is proposing to build in his own riding.
In view of the reference of the Nielsen report to a committee for parliamentary review, is the Prime Minister willing to see that construction stop, to have the committee review it and decide whether this additional prison is required in the Province of Quebec and, indeed, in the whole correctional system of Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, 1 would like to reply on behalf of the Government that the Nielsen task force, as the hon. gentleman knows, presents a series of options that can be considered by standing committees of this House, which were never asked to consider anything by the former regime. After the relevant committee has looked at the report and the justice system, I am sure it will make recommendations to the Government which we will then consider. At the present time there is no change in plans.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 11570).
Mr. Speaker:: Before giving the floor to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who had the floor before the luncheon recess, the House might want to clear. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry ought to have the right to speak to a House that is not in motion. Order, please. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has one minute remaining.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, just to conclude the remarks I was making before lunch, the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was unable to gain any kind of recognition of the serious problem faced by western farmers because of the U.S. farm Bill, and because he
did not come with any amendment or any change that would ensure that the western grain economy will not fall flat on its face, creates very serious economic problems for the country. We hope in the consideration of how the Government will spend all that money it wants to borrow that it will pay proper attention to the needs of the western farmers.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on the borrowing authority Bill. In the Bill the Government has asked Parliament to authorize the borrowing of $22.6 billion to finance its programs. We as parliamentarians must examine very carefully the direction being set by the Government before granting it the authority to borrow.
Upon what must we base our judgments, Mr. Speaker? Clearly, the most obvious statement of the Government's intentions flows from the recent Budget, and it is that document we must examine in determining whether to grant the Government the borrowing authority it is seeking.
What are the most noteworthy features of the Finance Minister's Budget? First, it increases taxes on average Canadians, just as the May Budget did and the November economic statement before it. At the same time as it eliminates the 5 per cent surtax on the wealthy, it imposes a 3 per cent tax across the board on all Canadians. Effectively what this does is to apply a tax cut for high income earners who, last year, paid a 5 per cent surtax, and an increase of $170 in tax a year as a result of the 3 per cent surtax to the average family income tax earner in 1987, which is on top of all the other taxes piled on by the Conservative Government since it came to power in September, 1984.
The second major feature of the economic direction of the Government is to cut back on a number of important government programs. Finally, the Budget does nothing whatever with respect to the overriding and essential priority of Canadians at this time, that is, jobs, job creation and new employment for Canadians.
All of us remember the promise made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign of jobs, jobs, jobs. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a lost generation, half a million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who want to work and who cannot find jobs. For them that promise is but a bitter memory of the past.
This Budget is unfair and it is a failure. It is unfair because its tax increases fall heaviest on those in our society least able to pay. It is a failure because it will not provide the stimulus the economy so badly needs to deal with the crisis, not just the economic crisis but the personal crisis of 1.4 million Canadians who are out of work and the personal crisis of the 4.5 million Canadians who live below the poverty line. The Government will effectively choke off economic recovery in Canada. Why has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) imposed a new round of taxes and cut-backs which will have the effect of taking money out of the hands of consumers and out of local communities?
March 25, 1986

Today, in my riding of Burnaby, as a result of the combined impact of Tory economic policies since September, 1984, average families have $1,304 less to spend on the goods and services they need to live. In turn, this has a devastating impact on local communities throughout the lower mainland and the rest of British Columbia. This money, instead of creating new wealth and new opportunity in Burnaby and elsewhere, will be siphoned back to Ottawa because of the Finance Minister's obsession with the deficit.
At the same time as the Finance Minister purports to be attempting to cut the deficit, what does he do? He gives a bonanza to the rich of a half a million dollar capital gains tax exemption while cutting back on the standard of living of the middle class and the poor. We as New Democrats want to know why, if the Minister is so committed to raising revenue and to reducing the deficit, is he doing it in this unfair and regressive way? Why is he not asking corporations, wealthy Canadians and the banks to shoulder their fair share of the burden?
The tax probe of the New Democratic Party which travelled across Canada suggested that the Government should eliminate tax breaks to corporations which, in many cases, do not generate jobs or give average Canadians a chance to spend more and thereby increase the over-all level of demand in the economy.
Let us look at some of the reasons for the request of $22.6 in the Bill before the House flowing from the specific features of the Budget. Direct job creation has been cut by $100 million. What an unconscionable signal to send to the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, half a million of whom are young people, to cut spending on job creation.
Over the next four years, substantial cuts will be made in the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Agriculture, Health and Welfare, Transport, and the list goes on.
The Government as well has cut back in its support to the poorest in the global community, namely, foreign aid. Canada has a proud tradition of distinguished service in international development to assist the less advantaged people of the world. The Conservatives have turned their backs on this record, and what is worse, at the same time they are cutting back on the funds for the poor and the starving of the world they have increased funding for that sacred cow of military spending. It is less money for co-operative international development and more money for arms and the military.
What about my own province of British Columbia? With an unemployment rate of 12.3 per cent, higher in many regions of the province, surely the Government would address this crisis. Instead of putting money into creating jobs for young people, the Government has eliminated all funding for the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne). Some of us might argue that, given the proposed priorities of the Minister of State for Youth who suggested that federal Government funds should be going to fund PC youth federations, it is just as well she does not have any federal Government funds and that she was cut off.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mrs. Champagne:: How can you say that?


Svend Johannes Robinson: We know the priorities of this Government. We know the Minister of State for Youth suggested that she wanted to fund PC youth federations out of public funds. The record speaks for itself. Many of us are pleased she did not get her hands on the pursestrings of the nation. God knows what she would have done coast to coast with those funds.
The Budget does nothing for British Columbia. Job creation has been cut back. This will particularly hurt the province of B.C. which is already reeling under the impact of a provincial Social Credit Government. There is no mention in the Budget for the forest and fisheries industries. There is no mention of the long standing call for direct job creation measures through the resource enhancement program. There is no mention whatever of additional funding to municipalities to help them create jobs by improving their infrastructures. One really wonders what the B.C. Tories have been doing these last few months. Atlantic Canada is suffering and it receives special attention in the Budget, but not a penny for British Columbia. There is no recognition of the fact that women tend to suffer adversely in times of economic downturn. There are no measures to deal with equality in the workplace. There is no mention of child care despite the excellent recommendation of the Cooke task force.
In the face of all this evidence we in the NDP clearly say no, we are not prepared to allow this Government to proceed with its agenda by giving it the borrowing authority it seeks. Average Canadians from coast to coast are being asked to foot the bill for this Government's economic incompetence. It is hypocrisy, it is unfair, and it will not address the very serious economic crisis facing this country. Canadians deserve far better economic leadership than this Government has thus far provided. It is time for a real change in this country. It is time for an NDP Government in Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, and on the amendment that the Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
In the few minutes at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer to this famous borrowing authority and explain how the Government will spend that money borrowed directly from Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Region which I represent in the Ottawa-Vanier riding has been hit very hard by the Conservative Budget and the Government's policies. It has been the target of the Conservatives ever since they took over. In my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, for example, the federal public administration accounts for 28 per cent of all economic activities, so it is important to us to know what kind of human

March 25, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
resources management policy the Government follows and, more particularly, what kind of future we have as residents of Ottawa and the region with a Conservative Government which shows little mercy in its attempts to blame public servants for all its problems.
As you may recall, in May 1985 the Government announced that 15,000 public service jobs would be eliminated and, out of these 15,000 jobs that will disappear, we can reasonably expect that roughly one third of those will be in the national capital. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Government happens to be the main employer in the National Capital Region. Its presence is very significant because, from an economic standpoint, each Government job has a job-creating factor of about 1.5, which means that each federal Government job creates one job and a half in the service industry, in the private sector. Well, Mr. Speaker, again recently when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made his Budget speech and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) told us about his plan to reduce Government programs by $500 million, it was announced that there was a hiring freeze and that Government expenditures would also be cut back to the tune of some $500 million. Now one can readily relate the impact of that decision to the quality of life of the people in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier and the entire National Capital Region. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget the Conservative Government decided to cut $500 million. It is a decision it made and which I respect because this Government was elected with a mandate, on its commitment to make cuts in the Public Service. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. I did not vote for this Government, I can assure you. But when we are told that this Government wants to save money or reduce the deficit at the expense of public servants, well, Heaven knows we are sick and tired of hearing the old refrain that public servants are to blame for the Government's deficit!
Mr. Speaker, in my comments at the second reading stage, I referred to the deficit. I talked about interest rates. I talked about the national debt. I talked about everything that had any connection with the issue. However, I repeat that federal public servants are not to blame for today's high federal deficit. The international economic situation is to blame, and probably a number of factors beyond the control of this country.
Between November 1985 and February 1986, the number of unemployed in Ottawa-Carleton rose by 10,000. In 1985 the unemployment rate was 6.7 per cent. It is now 8.8 per cent. Those figures do not include the Public Service cuts that will become effective on April 1, at the beginning of the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, the cumulative effect of the two Budgets plus the announced cuts in Government spending will have a very serious negative impact on the National Capital Region.
In the time remaining, I would like to talk about the Government's policy to cut the size of the Public Service, and I
would like to make a few comments. The Government intends to reduce the size and cost of the Public Service by increasing productivity, privatizing certain federal activities and, if economically feasible, by contracting out certain other activities. This means that first of all, the Government increases productivity, and second, it tries to reduce federal activities by privatizing them without really explaining how it is going to be done, and by entering into service contracts with the private sector for services formerly provided from within the Public Service.
Some time ago I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) what was the Government policy on privatization, for instance, and he told me: There are documents and they will be made public. The Hon. Member will see for himself what the objectives and criteria are. Well, I never did get any document, and the Minister's officials even denied the existence of documents on the privatization policy announced by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, it might be useful if at last the Ministers of this Government were to come clean with respect to information. If they have a specific policy for privatizing certain services such as translation or the general maintenance of buildings they should spell out the cost-benefit of that privatization, tell us exactly what savings the Government is trying to make, and what economies of scale are involved.
It is utterly impossible for anyone to understand that policy aimed at reducing personnel and blaming public servants on one hand, and on the other at proclaiming: We are going to privatize. So they eliminate public service jobs and then brag about having created jobs in the private sector. Can you imagine! Mr. Speaker, the number of translators was cut down, so what does the Government do now? Close to $5 million for translation have been added to the budget of the Secretary of State. Where will it be done? Outside the Government, in the private sector. I am wondering what common sense and what kind of reason they can use now to make us believe that it will save money. No savings there. And there is no job creation either because they eliminate a public service job, they lay off a public servant and tell him: You are surplus, we no longer need you. Then they say they have created a job in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I wonder just where the logic is in that: eliminate a public service job, supposedly to create one in the private sector. It does not create jobs. It does not maintain a rising level of job creation. All it does is to maintain a Department service, a translation service.
For instance, 136 Secretary of State employees, including 116 francophones and 100 women, have been told they are surplus employees. They incluse 82 translators, men and women, who average eight years of seniority. This Government policy is contrary to the personnel policy of the Treasury Board. Indeed, I looked it up in the Management Manual- Personnel Management, Volume 4-and it reads:
March 25, 1986

5.1 The Departments must:
5.1.1 plan human resources efficiently so as to minimize the repercussions of
personnel shifts on public employees appointed for an indefinite term, on the
Department, and on the Public Service;
5.1.2. review the way they use the services of employees appointed for a
definite term and the markets of services-
Mr. Speaker, we must put an end to this policy whereby public servants with eight, ten and sometimes fifteen years of seniority are laid off, just so the same services, the same translation, can be done outside by sub-contractors. Mr. Speaker, it does not make any more sense than to say that the sun will not rise tomorrow morning.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have indicated that my time has almost expired. I would have liked to talk about cut-backs in public works, the impact on ordinary workers, on the average family in my riding which is now forced to pay and bear the brunt of these additional taxes levied by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this borrowing measure because it is bad for the region I represent and I would ask . . . You are cutting me off. I cannot continue, of course, but I would ask for an opportunity to speak on third reading, if possible.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be now read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee. And on the amendment of Mr. Deans, seconded by Mr. Prud'homme, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "That" and substituting the following therefore:
"Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
Is the House ready for the main question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is the	following one. Mrs.
McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill		
C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the		
11868_______________________________________COMMON!
Borrowing Authority Act
second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House of adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), I take it, is indicating a desire that consent be sought that the vote be applied in reverse on this question? I take it that there is unanimous consent to apply the vote in reverse-


Lynn McDonald: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -with the addition of the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not present for the vote on the previous motion but I do want to vote on this one.


Mr. Speaker:: For clarity, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood wishes her vote recorded in the negative. The Hon. Member for Trinity wishes her vote recorded in the negative. The Hon. Secretary of State wishes his vote recorded in the affirmative.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
(Division No. 216)
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Bradley	ChartrandAttewell	Brightwell	ClarkBernier	Brisco	(Yellowhead)Bertrand	Cadieux	ClarkBissonnettc	Caldwell	(Brandon-Souris)Blais	Cardiff	CoatesBlais-Grenier	Champagne	CollinsBlenkarn	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	CookBouchard	Champagne	CossittBourgaull	(Champlain)	CoteBoyer	Charest	(Langelier)


ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT AND RELATED ACTS
Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
March 25, 1986

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be presenting this legislation which, I think we will all agree, brings forward measures which will be good for the veterans of this country and for their dependents. Bill C-100 represents the second time I have been privileged to present a significant piece of veterans' legislation to the House in just over a year.
Hon. Members will recall that Bill C-28 received passage through all stages on Valentine's Day last year. Tens of thousands of veterans and their families have since benefited from that legislation. Bill C-100, like it predecessor, is a direct result of the encouragement and support 1 have received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), my cabinet colleagues and my colleagues in caucus. The Government believes that veterans are very special Canadians and that is why additional money has been freed up at this time of fiscal restraint.
Some of the measures I am proposing today will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Others will cost little or nothing but will remove irksome and unnecessary obstacles in our legislation. Every single amendment, however, represents the Government's willingness to listen to veterans and veterans' organizations and to act. I take particular pleasure in asking the House to support the measures in Bill C-100 which increase compensation for hundreds of former prisoners of war. The first amendment will assist veterans who were both prisoners of war and badly disabled.
Let me explain the present situation, Mr. Speaker. A disability pension is based on the degree of disability sustained by a veteran and is expressed in percentage terms, total disability being assessed at 100 per cent. In addition, certain former prisoners of war receive a fixed percentage of the maximum pension benefit to compensate them for their confinement. Hong Kong prisoners of war, for instance, receive 50 per cent of the full pension rate.
Section VIII of the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act limits the total compensation to 100 per cent of the pension rate, thus penalizing many prisoners of war who also have pensionable disabilities. It is time simple justice prevailed over administrative neatness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: This legislation proposes that former prisoners of war receive the aggregate of their awards under the two programs. This change will benefit 544 veterans at an annual cost of nearly $2.6 million.
As I indicated, Hong Kong veterans will be the principal beneficiaries. They are a most deserving group. They were the first soldiers to fight and the last to be freed from imprisonment. They were imprisoned under the most terrible conditions but their spirits were unconfined. As someone who had the honour of joining them in Hong Kong last year, I will just add that I think that they are entitled to every last cent we can offer them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts


George Harris Hees: I am also proposing increased compensation for a significant number of veterans who were mainly detained as prisoners of war in Europe. Hon. Members might know that persons detained by a power other than Japan for a period of more than 30 months are entitled to a pension at the rate of 20 per cent. Solomon, armed with the most up-to-date computer, would be hard pressed to provide the ideal formula blending the time spent in a prisoner-of-war camp with financial compensation. Whatever the difficulty in rating the severity of prisoner-of-war life, there is no doubt in my mind that a 20 per cent pension is not sufficient. This is why 1 am proposing an increase to 25 per cent. This will cost $1.28 million annually and will benefit 1,550 veterans and their widows. The bulk of those who will receive these increased benefits are veterans who were taken prisoner at Dieppe. I am very pleased, indeed, to propose this additional compensation for the hardships they endured.
There are 12 amendments in this Bill, all designed to assist veterans and their dependants live a better life. I have detailed two already, and I just want to outline briefly some of the other changes. I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to the proposals affecting the children of veterans.
Under both the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, a benefit can be paid in respect of a child until that child reaches the age of 17. I now want to bring these Acts into line with other social legislation which views a child as a dependant until the age of 18. At the same time we want to expand our Department's educational assistance program.
Eligible children can now receive assistance in the form of a monthly living allowance and a tuition grant only if they graduate from high school. Experience has shown that this disqualifies teenagers who have no desire to pursue lengthy academic goals. Their career ambitions are best encouraged in trade and technical schools, and Veterans Affairs cannot assist them to meet these ambitions. 1 suggest it is high time that we assisted those young people who elect to follow a technical training program. In addition, I am proposing that we recognize the spiralling cost of tuition by increasing the maximum grant from $800 to $1,500 per academic year.
The sixth amendment I encourage Hon. Members to approve deals with the Veterans Land Act and the rights of spouses. The proposed change will permit veterans to include the spouse as an owner of the family home on the agreement of sale. This will eliminate the need to probate a deceased veteran's will, thus saving expensive legal costs.
We are also making life easier for spouses through a proposed change to the Pension Act. This particular item will allow the wife or child to follow through with an appeal against a pension assessment even though the veteran pensioner has died since the original papers were filed.
The eighth amendment I wish to highlight also concerns the Pension Act. The survivor of a deceased veteran is currently ineligible for a pension unless he or she can demonstrate that the veteran should have been receiving a pension of 48 per cent

Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts or more. Survivors of veterans who would have received pensions of 47 per cent or less had they applied are therefore denied benefits under the Pension Act. Bill C-100 will correct this injustice by allowing the Canadian Pension Commission to rule as if the veterans had applied.
I am proud of this legislation. Every amendment will help veterans and their families, and each amendment confirms the Government's commitment to veterans and to social justice. I say again that veterans are fully deserving of our very best efforts. Today this House is again making a best effort on their behalf.


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


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as Veterans Affairs critic for the Official Opposition, I am truly delighted with this opportunity to comment briefly on the subject of Bill C-100, tabled in this House by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), a Bill that is primarily aimed at improving the lot of veterans who are former prisoners of war.
The Bill also increases the amount and improves the availability of pension benefits for spouses, extends the age limit for dependent children and also increases the amount and expands the range of financial assistance for students who are orphans, legally.
Mr. Speaker, I see the Bill as a tribute the Minister of Veterans Affairs is paying today to those who were among the most severely affected by World War II. I would like to comment more specifically on those who were made prisoners of war in Hong Kong in 1941 and at Dieppe in 1942.
Mr. Speaker, you have to talk to those veterans who were prisoners of war to understand how much they suffered, the torture and hunger and the terrible solitary confinement, as well as the whole range of physiological deficiencies they suffered as a result.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of former prisoners of war, perhaps I may recall the former Deputy Minister of National Health and Welfare, Dr. Crawford, who, in private moments, with tears in his eyes, and always with a great deal of emotion, would tell us about the suffering he and his men had endured. He would recall sadly how his soldiers died of the most ordinary infections, due to cold and damp conditions, malnutrition and a lack of the most elementary medical care.
This medical officer I just mentioned, who is someone I remember fondly, was himself severely affected by various kinds of irreversible damage to the spine as a result of his imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, he, like many others, was haunted by the memory of this experience for the remainder of his life.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may recall how many of your friends and mine went through the slaughter at Dieppe, those who were taken prisoner and tortured for months on end. Perhaps it would be better not to recall the nightmares that unfortunately
March 25, 1986
continue to go through the minds of those courageous and intrepid soldiers who were taken prisoner.
In adding these major improvements to the legislation, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is following the example of one of his predecessors, that brave veteran and war amputee, the Hon. Daniel Joseph MacDonald, who left Prince Edward Island and Canada a monument to the memory of all these veterans when he, as Minister, helped to smooth the sharp edges of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the two men I just mentioned may be said to belong to that host of heroic and generous men whom generations will remember for what they did for their comrades in arms.
I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs has adequately explained to the House the twelve amendments to the legislation especially those applying to certain classifications of veterans, namely the Hong Kong prisoners of war and the Dieppe prisoners. I believe the amendments correct a situation where, as the Minister pointed out quite clearly, the 100 per cent disability could not be exceeded, even if Hong Kong prisoners of war were entitled to a compensatory benefit of 50 per cent.
I am therefore very pleased that the Minister was able to remedy a situation that was terribly unjust, considering what these prisoners of war had done for their country.
Redress was also provided for Dieppe prisoners of war, who still number 1,500. And there is of course the important question of the children's education. The terms have been considerably expanded and made more generous. According to another amendment, to be eligible for post-secondary education it is no longer necessary to finish high school per se and,-I am referring to dependent children,-they also have the option of going to a technical school. So this is already a vast improvement, and I think congratulations are in order for the Minister, who has brought in those very important amendments to the veterans legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to remember the bravery and valor of those who fought and fell on the battlefield, and of others who returned maimed but bearing the flaming torch of freedom which we must continue to nurture and protect.
Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) is not a Conservative. He is a generous former soldier who remembers his comrades in arms and knows the best way to improve the lives of those who served their country so well, from the horrors of death row in the dark and dank prisons of Hong Kong to the dreaded cells in Dieppe where prisoners languished in chains, suffering indescribable pain.
1 want to thank him again, on behalf of all of us, for having understood the problem and for proposing, as a Liberal in spirit, these twelve legislative measures which I would simply qualify as a much needed update, as equity and reparation,
March 25, 1986

and in recognition of the changes that are taking place during this last quarter of the twentieth century. And I wish he could be as successful as he was on the subject of veterans benefits, and persuade his Government to try and improve the lives of others, including his fellow ministers who are having to cope with regrettable cutbacks which will have a pauperizing effect on the least fortunate in our society. I wish he could persuade his colleagues that this has gone far enough and that with his vast parliamentary experience, he could convince the Government that what he did for his Department, his Cabinet colleagues should be able to do in a similar fashion in order to improve the situation of the average Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be much opposition to this Bill being adopted at all stages in the House today, and once again, I take pleasure in thanking the Minister for having introduced these important improvements for the benefit of those who served their country so well.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I participate in the debate today. When we are elected to this House, we come with our own ideology, our own beliefs and some of our own pet projects. This is one of mine, and 1 congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) on bringing forth the legislation. It was long overdue and I think it goes a long way to meeting the concerns of many our veterans in Canada.
One of the reasons I am here is the previous legislation. 1 am a son of a Dieppe prisoner of war. I went to school on a DVA scholarship. My brother did the same but went much further on his DVA scholarship. My mother was looked after by the DVA in terms of pension income for the 23 to 25 years that she lived after my father. Matters relating to compensation for prisoners of war are, therefore, very close to my heart.
1 want to set the stage in terms of the importance of this Bill and the importance of the improvements to one sector, that of the Dieppe prisoners of war. 1 would like to start by reading from a diary, that of private Albert Adam Angus, B Company, Queens Own Cameron Highlanders, Canada. He was a prisoner of war, taken at Dieppe and imprisoned at Stalag VIII B for 33 months. The diary starts:
Notes as a prisoner of war in Germany. I am starting this five weeks after being captured. I was taken about 11 a.m. on August 19, 1942, four kilometers inland from Dieppe. There were six of us together and an officer. Sergeant Thompson, was taken a few minutes later. We were treated quite decent. They were all young fellows. We spent most of the day bringing in our wounded, also theirs. They let us look after our own first. Late in the p.m. we were marched into Dieppe just in time to catch the rest of the prisoners as they were being marched off to the first night's camp about 15 miles away where we were given some tea and a loaf of bread.
The next p.m. we were loaded on a train in boxcars and travelled all night to another camp in France where we were searched and questioned. The eats were pretty scarce at first but the French Red Cross sent in some oatmeal and some fresh vegetables, which helped a lot.
We were kept there for about 10 days when we were again loaded into boxcars, (40 to a car) and rode four days to our permanent camp at Lansdorf, Germany.
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
We arrived at camp about 4.30 p.m. and were given some cabbage soup. After that we were given our first Red Cross parcel, one parcel between four men. "Were they good." We were just like a bunch of kids opening their parcels on Christmas morn. From then on we got a parcel on Monday and Friday with bulk issues on Wednesday, Thurs. and Sat. There was an epidemic of dysentry which broke out (I had it for five weeks). After a couple of weeks we were moved to another compound where things were a little better, more water and wood.
That is how my father spent those first weeks before things got rough. When I say things got rough, I would like to describe to you, Mr. Speaker, a bit of what those prisoners of war had to endure.
As I said before, they were prisoners for 33 months. Their hands were tied with ropes for the first 54 days, then replaced by chains for 13 months. The personal trauma experienced by these men while shackled remains in their minds to this day. Their personal hygiene and activities were restrained by the fact that they required the assistance of another human being in order to attend to their normal bodily functions. Nothing could degrade a man more than having to ask his friend to help him in that way.
In January, 1945, during the Russian army advance and in retaliation of bombardment inflicted upon them by the allies, the German authorities decided to march the prisoners. They marched until May, 1945, five months later, with very little food, improper clothing in all types of weather and at the same time being infested with lice. This march was later referred to as the Death March because so many of them did not survive the ordeal.
Over time, many briefs, as the Minister is aware, have been presented to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The DVA at that time requested a Dr. Herman to undertake research on the life of European prisoners of war. He found in his report that the Dieppe POWs suffered the worst maltreatment and should receive a compensation for their suffering. He also stated that the death rate of Dieppe POWs is the highest of all European theatre prisoners of war. At that time the Government brought in Bill C-92 creating the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. That Act determined the compensation each POW would receive. Someone who had been a POW for three months would receive the equivalent of a 10 per cent pension. For 18 months it would be 15 per cent. For 30 months or more it would be 20 per cent. Today the Minister is increasing the upper limit by 5 per cent and I thank him for making that modest improvement.
The feelings of POWs have been recorded in a number of ways over the years. Some made notes while in prison camps, others have their recollections, and others have writings on their behalf. I would like to quote three excerpts from my father's diary to give you his impressions:
Dec. 28, 1942
-we put in a pretty fair Xmas... the parcels were real good ... we were not chained up Xmas Day.
Jan. 7, 1943
What a hell hole this is now ... the snow tracks in and lays in puddles all over the floor... your feet are damp all the time and you can't keep warm. I have all the clothes I own on now, more than 1 ever wore in my life before.

March 25, 1986
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
Those are the words of a young farmer from Manitoba. He came from a rural community which relied on wood heating, where people had to work outside all year round. Cold was not abnormal. However, the impact on him of this incarceration was very, very severe. Finally, Christmas, 1944:
Christmas, 1944
-another Xmas gone by in this hole. I sure hope it will be the last.
The Minister indicated that there is a need for simple justice for these men. They not only fought on behalf of this country in the pursuit of freedom, they also spent time in the prison camps of the countries we were at war with. Let us look at the compensation for those who were captured at Dieppe and spent 33 months in a POW camp. Those who spent less than three months in confinement-perhaps they were captured towards the end of the war or were released early for some reason-now receive half as much as those who spent the full 33 months in confinement. The Minister is increasing that percentage to 25 and I thank him for that. However, I suggest it is not sufficient. It does not come anywhere near what Solomon and his computer would come up with.
We are not talking about a lot of money in comparison to our budget, but we are certainly talking about a significant amount for those who receive an increase. The 5 per cent increase for Dieppe POWs will cost the taxpayer $1.3 million a year. That is on top of the $5.2 million currently being spent. If we went to 30 per cent, all we would need to extract from Government coffers would be another $1.3 million. Going to 35 per cent would mean another $1.3 million. Going to 40 per cent would mean another $1.3 million. The total cost to the Treasury of meeting the request of the Dieppe Veterans and Prisoners Of War Association (Canada) for 40 per cent would be $10.4 million a year. I want to make it clear that I acknowledge the fact that the Minister has been working very hard to increase this amount. Whether it is 30 per cent, 35 per cent or 40 per cent, I know in heart he would like to see it increased. We all would.
So I suggest to Hon. Members, particularly the Minister's cabinet colleagues, that we should take another look at this issue. By all means let us pass this Bill. It is important that we get it through. We in this Party are prepared to expedite matters so as to have all three readings this afternoon, and send the Bill to the Senate for approval and implementation. However, let us remind the cabinet colleagues of the Minister of Veterans Affairs that it is important that we provide simple justice to those 1,550 men or their dependants. We can never repay them for the services they provided, but we can ensure that they have the money they need to live a full and happy life. We would simply be repaying in a small way our debt to them. I say to the Government: Open up those purse-strings a little bit. Let us see a Bill this spring or perhaps this fall which increases the support we provide these veterans.
I want to conclude this part with one more reading from the diary. This is the day before my father's release:
Wed. May 2.45
The end is in sight. Jerry troops have been pouring past here all day retreating from the front. At present the British and Canadian troops are 8 or 10 km away
and are just following up the retreating troops. The Jerries arc just as glad as we are and are just waiting for a chance to give themselves up. We arc at a kind of standto at present and will have lookouts posted all night to give us warning that they are coming so we can get into the bush out of its way.
Those were the final words my father wrote during a very long period of incarceration. He eventually passed away at the very young age of 52 because of the deterioration of his body resulting from his incarceration for those 33 months. One of the ironies of my entry in this House was that it was 25 years to the day of the Throne Speech in 1984 that my father had passed away.
Dealing with other aspects of the legislation, 1 want to compliment the Minister on the changes he makes. Some of them, as he says, are not expensive but they do make sense. They clean up some of the bureaucracy. May 1 say that that is the kind of regulatory reform we on this side of the House welcome. We are not dogmatic when it comes to regulations; they have to make sense, they have to work.
I also compliment him on increasing the amount for the DVA scholarship. As I mentioned earlier, I spent a couple of years in university with the DVA scholarship. I could not have done it otherwise; my mother did not have sufficient income to put me into university. She certainly could not have helped my brother who went on for a number of years to gain two Masters degrees. He would not have been in a position to that, and I know that there are sons and daughters of veterans out there who are in the same situation. We have a responsibility to ensure that they have access to education. It seems to me that that $800 figure was around when 1 was going to university, and so clearly past administrations have not done their jobs in moving that up.
I would like to say as well that I am very pleased with the changes in the areas that affect the Hong Kong vets. Very clearly the move the Government is making is very good and we support that.
Let me close by thanking the Minister once again for bringing forward these improvements. I know he will take the battle back to Cabinet to try to squeeze a few extra pennies out of those misers that he sits with.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise and congratulate the Minister on his initiative. We gained firsthand knowledge of the kind of poignant stories about many of our prisoners of war. The Minister who brought forward this initiative has displayed a great deal of sensitivity in this area. He has, in fact, shown leadership in that he has been prepared to move on amendments which will in many respects improve the lot faced by our war veterans, and in particular prisoners of war at Dieppe and Korea.
I have a couple of questions with respect to specific amendments. I am sure that the Minister may be able to respond to them. One is with respect to Clause 14, paragraphs 6.1(a)(i) and (b), which deal with the issue of what is considered to be income. I understand the reason for the introduction of these amendments was to clarify the consideration of income for the
March 25, 1986

purposes of collecting a pension in this particular initiative. 1 would like to find out from the Minister whether the inclusion of pensions paid to the person or the spouse from the flying accidents compensation regulations, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, the Penitentiary Act and the compensation regulations and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, constitutes a change in policy. For example, would former members of the RCMP who had also been prisoners of war, be prevented from receiving a pension? If that is the case then I think in that particular section we want to be very careful about how we define income.
We have seen in another area of government initiative with respect to war veterans as well as members who worked in the private and public sectors a regulation, not even a Bill, which changed the definition of income and had a very serious and detrimental impact on thousands of Canadians. 1 would not like to see the same thing happen in this particular Bill because we definitely see that in Clause 14 there is a change in the consideration of income for the purposes of receiving an allowance.
We are a bit skeptical on this side of the House about the Government's motives. I would like to give the Minister a chance to respond to that.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order. In an effort to be of assistance to the Member let me tell her that there have been informal discussions with both Parties with respect to moving this Bill into Committee of the Whole House at report stage and third reading. It would be our intention to bring the officials in for a clause-by-clause study in Committee of the Whole House. The Hon. Member makes a good point on the issues she has raised, and if she wished to enunciate any other points that she wants us to address during clause-by-clause study, we will be glad to have that taken care of.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am not sure that that was a point of order. It happens to be a good point, but I do not think it is a point of order. Nonetheless I draw that to the attention of the Government because I also have personal interest in this particular piece of legislation. My great grandfather was killed in the First World War, and my grandfather, as a result of numerous war injuries after serving in both wars literally lived out his last days through the help he had from the pension he received from the Department of Veterans Affairs. I know that there are many other Canadians who appreciate the sincerity of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). The Minister has shown sincerity both in opposition and in Government, and a willingness to fight for the rights of veterans. He showed that most recently when he went against his own Government's policy with respect to the redefinition of income when it comes to the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Unfortunately, while we can certainly wholeheartedly endorse the good sense and, indeed, the commitment of the Minister of Veterans Affairs on this particular Bill and the work that he is trying to accomplish on behalf of veterans, unfortunately the same cannot be said of the Government which he represents.
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
That is clear to Canadians when they see a Government that is prepared to ignore the wise advice and counsel of the Minister of Veterans Affairs when it comes to the issue of the definition of income for the purpose of unemployment insurance, when they see the same Government prepared to ignore the wise counsel and advice of a former Minister of National Defence, and when they see that same Government prepared not only to ignore advice from within its own ranks on the issue of pensions and how they are considered as income for the purposes of unemployment insurance, but also from the Department of National Defence which seems to me to be at loggerheads with the Department of Veterans Affairs on this issue.
While we can congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the work he is doing, we note that the one hand giveth and the other hand taketh away. The other hand taketh away because certainly those veterans of the Korean War who find themselves in receipt of pensions are now being told that if they are in a position to work they cannot collect unemployment insurance. They must pay into the fund and can never collect even when they find themselves without a job.
While the Minister of Veterans Affairs has shown great support in this area, on the other side of the fence we have the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) who have not only refused to listen to the pleas of veterans on this particular issue and who have refused to listen to the pleas of ordinary working people, but who have also suggested that those veterans, those pensioners, those former employees of Her Majesty's armed services who decide to fight for their rights, should be threatened with prosecution if they use the words "Canadian Armed Forces" in their circulars.
For the last two decades we have had the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association. We have had a loosely knit group of pensioners whose sole aim in life is to protect the rights of pensioners who gave good service to Her Majesty during the wars and between the wars, whether it be the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War. I do not think that anybody could impugn the motives of the men and women who have come together in the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association.
When they wrote to the Minister of National Defence on this issue, not only did they not get a supportive reply-as they received verbally and in writing from the Minister of Veterans Affairs-but the Associate Minister wrote to them citing a clause in which he has now made himself the Minister, because in the actual Act the Minister of National Defence is empowered, if he writes in his own hand to an individual or group, to force them to cease and desist from using the words "Canadian Armed Forces" in their information and publicity. No such right is attributed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. As usual, the Associate Minister of National Defence is the fall guy for the Minister of National Defence. The Associate Minister of National Defence took it upon himself to write to these men and women who were fighting for the rights of pensioners within the Armed Forces,

March 25, 1986
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts veterans of both world wars as well as veterans who were subjected to the indecencies and the inhumanities of prisoner of war camps. Unfortunately, the Government did not reflect the view of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Instead, it reflected the view of the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence. It is shocking that the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence would not fight for the men and women who represent and have represented this country in time of war and peace.
Not only is the Associate Minister unprepared to defend their rights, he and his colleagues have made it quite clear that any attempt on Armed Forces bases across the country to collect signatures in opposition to this cruel and unjust measure will be met with potential military sanctions. Unfortunately, the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence have not heeded the fine work that has been done by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is clear to all Canadians who have taken any interest in the Armed Forces that the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs evokes sympathy and respect among veterans and non-veterans alike. However, the same cannot be said for the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Defence who have refused, even when confronted by their colleagues, to protect the pension rights of former members of the Armed Forces.
At the very least, the Minister of National Defence, in concert with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), could have put an addendum to this excellent Bill saying that veterans and at least hose who served in the Korean War should not be caught in the trap that has been laid by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in the new definition of income. If the Government is prepared to wield that heavy hammer over all workers in Canada, it should, at the very least, exempt those who have represented our country in time of war. The Government has ignored the recommendations, the counsel and suggestions of the Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association and in fact suggested that if that association did not remove the name "Canadian Armed Forces" from its name it would be prosecuted. Imagine the spectacle of the Associate Minister of National Defence leading the veterans of this country into court because they had the responsibility and opportunity to use "Canadian Armed Forces" in the name of their organization.
Those of us who examine the intent of the legislation and regulations dealing with the Canadian Armed Forces and how it can properly be represented, recognize that the intention is to prevent private firms, corporations and other concerns from trying to make money off the Armed Forces by somehow representing themselves to be something else by use of the words "Canadian Armed Forces".
The Associate Minister of National Defence has chosen to take this regulation to the ridiculous extreme by suggesting to veterans and former employees of the Armed Forces that they
will be prosecuted by the Government and the Minister if they write a letter to the Minister of National Defence asking him to speak on their behalf in Cabinet and in the Government on the issue of pensions as they relate to income for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.
I suggest that the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence take a page from the book of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and recognize that their mandate as Privy Council representatives of the Armed Forces in Cabinet should be to protect and promote the interests of the Armed Forces in Canada rather than support the heavy-handed measures that have been taken by their colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is not afraid to speak out and introduce good legislation. He is not afraid to speak out in opposition to his own Government. He is prepared to call a spade a spade. He recognizes that his number one priority should be the defence and enhancement of the quality of life of veterans, particularly those veterans who have fought for this country and were imprisoned during the two world wars as well as the Korean War.
This Bill demonstrates that he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is and take steps to improve the situation not only for veterans but for their spouses, widows and children. I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be congratulated on his efforts.
I only wish that the good sense which has been demonstrated by the Minister in this particular issue would somehow filter over to the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence. They have clearly abandoned their responsibilities to veterans on the issue of pensions and the definition of income. In other words, they are toeing the Party line even though other Members on the Government side, including a former Minister of National Defence, have the guts to stand up and be counted.
Even organizations within their Party, such as the Oromocto Progressive Conservative Womens Association, are prepared to mobilize in opposition to the government policy. Those of us in political Parties know that women are the backbone of any political organization, and when the Progressive Conservative women's organization fights against a Government policy, the Government is losing the backbone of the organization which put it into office.
The Government should follow the example of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and introduce legislation that will support and improve the quality of life of our veterans rather than falling in line, lock-step, with the initiatives introduced by the Minister of Finance in November, 1984. Those measures were subsequently endorsed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and were implemented in two steps. The first step was taken last year with respect to severance pay and the second step was taken this year with respect to pensions.
I do not believe that the Government realizes that the current discontent among those on army bases across the country is only the tip of the iceberg. I encourage the Govern-
March 25, 1986

ment to pass the good Bill being introduced today by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and use it as a message to other Ministers who seem to believe they have no responsibility to their constituents.
The role of the Minister of National Defence and of the Associate Minister of National Defence is not only to protect the defences of this country but also to protect the rights of the men and women who fight and work so hard on our behalf. Unfortunately, those Ministers seem to have washed their hands of that responsibility and have indeed taken their own pompous sense of self-importance to the point where they are prepared to declare unilaterally, with no constitutional or regulatory base, that members or former members of the Armed Forces who use the words "Canadian Armed Forces" in their association will be subject to prosecution.
Do Government Members support the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his work or the Associate Minister of National Defence who would like to prosecute our veterans and former members of the Armed Forces, simply because they are trying to establish their rights and responsibilities with respect to pensions and superannuation?
Flaving just been inducted into the Canadian Legion Branch 58-the greatest branch of the Legion in Canada-1 suggest that most of the members on the Government side of the House prefer the Bill, the method and the quality of life ensured by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and disagree and categorically reject the position taken by the Associate Minister of National Defence. If they believe, as I do, that the Associate Minister of National Defence has bitten off more than he can chew when he suggests that he will prosecute former members of the Armed Forces for using the title "Canadian Forces Pensioners' Association", 1 suggest they contact the Associate Minister of National Defence and tell him to take a few lessons from his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister is a man and a Member of Parliament who is fighting for the rights of veterans, unlike his colleague who is doing nothing and is suggesting prosecution in an absolutely despicable way.


John V. Nunziata: Am I permitted the opportunity to speak?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, after I read the "Late Show" questions, we will have questions and comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Then we will continue debate.
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-External affairs-CIA funding of brainwashing experiment; the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) (a) Agriculture-Cash advance program (b) Committee referrals; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Youth-Job-creation programs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hees that Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question put to me by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: The Hon. Member was asking about Clause 14. I would like to give her the answer. Clause 14 deals with the harmonization of war veterans allowance income with the GIS. I am very happy to be able to advise the Hon. Member that there will be no loss of income whatsoever to war veterans allowance recipients in this regard.
1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for her very kind remarks. However, I feel I should at this moment say to her that in all matters brought forward by the Government, I myself and all Members of the Cabinet support the Government's position. I wish her to know that 1 do support the position of the Government with regard to members of our Armed Forces and the RCMP about whom she was speaking.

March 25, 1986
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that clarification. I also appreciate his clarification with respect to the treatment of income. I had been under the impression that the Minister did not support the Government's initiative with respect to unemployment insurance, specifically as it relates to veterans and those people who had been in the Armed Forces and who will not have an opportunity to collect unemployment insurance as a result of the Government's measures.
I do know that that was the position expressed by one of the former Ministers of National Defence, and perhaps I was confused there. I am sorry the Minister has taken this position because I believe he has a certain amount of political capital, shall we say, in the context of his Party. He is a man who has fought many wars politically in the House of Commons for a number of years. I do think that if the Minister were in a position to exercise his political muscle and capital with his colleagues, he might get the Government to back down on this most controversial and unfair measure.
I am sure the Minister cannot comment further in light of Government solidarity. I believe in my heart that the Minister does not agree with this measure, although he is bound by cabinet solidarity to tough it out. I would encourage him to continue to use his own influence within his Cabinet and his Party to have his Government change its position, because I believe the representations which are coming in from across the country from people who belong to all political Parties, Liberal, New Democratic and Conservative, show quite clearly that in this particular measure the Government has bitten off more than it can chew. I hope the Minister can convince his colleagues that at least to await the recommendation of the Forget Commission would be in his Party's own best interests.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very short submissions with respect to Bill C-100. My colleagues have already indicated that the Liberal Party is in full support of Bill C-100. 1 have a number of Legions in my riding and a great number of veterans who reside in York South-Weston. I know I speak for them when I congratulate the Minister and thank him for showing sensitivity, compassion and concern for veterans by bringing forward Bill C-100.
It is with a great degree of chagrin, however, that I say that other Ministers of the Crown, including the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) and the Association Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre), do not show the same sensitivity, compassion and concern for our veterans. I note that the Associate Minister of National Defence is in the House and listening very attentively. While the Minister of Veterans Affairs is doing all he can within his jurisdiction to improve the plight of veterans in Canada by increasing their pensions and ensuring that their standard of living is elevated, there are other Ministers of the Crown who are doing what they can to derogate from those very positive measures. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), pointed out, the Associate Minister of National Defence used a very heavy hand in threatening the Canadian Forces Pensions'
Committee with legal action because it uses the words "Canadian Forces" in its title.
I have a letter dated February 18, addressed to the Canadian Forces Pensioners' Committee. In that letter the Associate Minister of National Defence threatens this association, which represents thousands and thousands of veterans, with legal action. In the letter he requests, pursuant to Section 248 of the National Defence Act, that its use of the words "Canadian Forces" cease immediately and he enclosed a copy of Section 248 of the Act. Section 248 of the National Defence Act states:
(a) the words "Canadian Forces" or "Canadian Armed Forces*' or the name of any component, unit or other element thereof or any abbreviation thereof or any words or letters likely to be mistaken therefor.
If used by any person, that person or organization is subject to prosecution. They are guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. He is threatening legal action against this worth-while organization which has as its purpose, its raison d'etre, the improvement of the lot of veterans. Is that any way to treat Canadian veterans? That is an example of the insensitivity of certain Ministers of the Crown.
There are other Ministers, including the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), who bring in measures which have the effect of creating considerable hardship for the veterans of Canada. We have the Minister of Veterans Affairs, on the one hand, attempting to improve the lot of veterans and the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, on the other hand, doing what they can to derogate from the good that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is proposing. We all know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration introduced a measure which came into effect on January 5,
1986.	It states that if one is collecting unemployment insurance benefits, or receiving a pension, then that pension will be included as earned income. Thereby, it deprives a great number of pensioners and veterans from receiving UI benefits. It is obvious that the Minister of Employment and Immigration did not consider the effect that this particular regressive measure would have on the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who are receiving pensions, many of whom are veterans. The Minister simply did not have the sensitivity, compassion or understanding with respect to the impact of this terrible measure.
In closing, I simply wish to congratulate once again the Minister of Veterans Affairs for being a first class Minister. He shows a great deal of class in the House in his fight for veterans.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: We know that other Ministers who should be Fighting for veterans are not fighting for them. I am delighted to know that the veterans residing in my riding of York South-Weston are well served by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I know that as long as he is in Cabinet he will
March 25, 1986

continue to fight for the plight of veterans, unlike other Ministers of the Crown who have no sensitivity and no compassion for those who were prepared to fight for their country.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties. I think that if the Chair were to ask for unanimous consent, there would be a disposition to send the Bill to the Committee of the Whole House rather than a legislative committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the Pension Act, the Veterans' Land Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I was just told that at this stage a Member need not sit in his or her regular seat. Thus I have taken the opportunity to see what it is like to speak from the front benches. I want Hon. Members to know that it is a different feeling to speak from here. One is so close to the action, the Cabinet and the Minister.


George Harris Hees: I can tell you, the speeches do not sound any better from here.


John V. Nunziata: The Minister says that the speeches do not sound any better. The heckling from behind is disconcerting when one is speaking from the front benches. I will take this opportunity to sit in one of these front seats and ask a few questions with respect to Bill C-100.
First, with respect to Clause 1, it states:
Subsections 5(1) and (2) of the Army Benevolent Fund Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"5. (1) The Board shall establish a central committee for Canada and it
may constitute such other committees as it considers appropriate.
I would like to ask the Minister to explain the necessity of that particular amendment to the Army Benevolent Fund Act.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is that there used to be provincial committees. They no longer exist. Therefore, this new set-up is to take its place.


John V. Nunziata: What is the purpose of the Army Benevolent Fund Act? What exactly does this piece of legislation do?


George Harris Hees: The whole purpose of the Act is to provide benefits to veterans who are in various types of need. That is what it deals with.
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts


John V. Nunziata: Is there a means test to be applied under the terms of the Act? I am wondering how the Act works. Is a veteran required to come before a particular committee, as outlined in the Army Benevolent Fund Act, and must that particular veteran show need? What are the criteria? I would like to know how active this particular board is. How many cases does it consider on an annual or monthly basis?


George Harris Hees: The people who sit on the Board are chosen from the civilian population. They judge the matters which come before the board from the point of view of need, that is, whether certain things are needed or not. That is what the board does.


John V. Nunziata: It states that the board shall establish a central committee for Canada and that this central committee may constitute such other committees as it considers appropriate. Further, it states:
(2) Each committee shall consist of up to five members, one of whom shall be appointed by the Board and shall be the Chairman of the committee and the other members shall be appointed, after consultation with veterans organizations, by the Chairman of the committee with the approval of the Board.
How many veterans sit on the central committee? Is there any provision in the Act that would require that one or more members of either the central committee or the other committees should be veterans? It seems to me that in order to understand fully and to comprehend them and to have the sensitivity that the Minister has for veterans, it would be appropriate that there be a requirement in law that at least one or more members of this particular committee be veterans. Then the board would have that expertise in and understanding of the needs of veterans.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, all of the members of each of these committees are veterans. I quite agree with the Hon. Member that unless one is a veteran, it is difficult to understand the needs and feelings of veterans. Another very important aspect of this is that when adjudications are made by boards which are made up of veterans, the veterans have much more respect for and belief in rulings that are made by people who understand their problems in the same way they do.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I asked questions relating to the nature of the budget the committee would have. How much money is expended on an annual basis under the Army Benevolent Fund Act?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is that $350,000 covers the whole cost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister how he will proceed to appoint the members of that committee.
The Bill indicates that he will consult with veterans organizations. Will this be on-going consultation? Will there be a

March 25, 1986
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
special procedure for such consultation? Can the Minister tell us how he will proceed to appoint those members?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the people are recommended by the various veterans' organizations in proportion to the size of those organizations. As the Hon. Member knows very well, the Legion is the biggest such organization, and then there is the War Amps and the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans and various very excellent organizations right across the country. All of these nominate the members for these committees.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I understand that and I take it that the amendment that we are studying corrects somewhat something that has been going on for some time. Every province has a committee. We are trying to centralize these committees with this Bill, are we not?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, they have already been centralized and this simply legalizes what has been done.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank the Hon. Minister.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment, as the explanatory note points out, would require the board to establish a central committee. The explanatory note points out the following:
Subsections 5(1) and (2) at present read as follows:
"5.(1) The Board shall establish a committee for each province; one for the
United Kingdom and one for the United States;-
I note that in the proposed amendment, there is no reference to the United Kingdom nor is there a reference to a committee for the United States. Why in the proposed amendment is there no reference to the United Kingdom and the United States and why was there a need in the previous Act and not a need now for reference to the United Kingdom and the United States?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, after the end of the war, there was a tremendous number of cases to be examined and dealt with. At that time, there were these additional committees. Now it is not necessary to have those committees and they have been done away with. The whole thing is done here from Ottawa.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister. I would like to know whether in Clause 2-

On page 2, Clause 2 reads:
" 'educational institution' means a technical or vocational school,. . . approved by the Minister for the education or instruction of students pursuant to this Act;"-
Is the Minister going to make a list of those technical or vocational schools or institutions throughout Canada to which students could be admitted under this Act?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is that the Minister approves of all of these schools. The reason that the wording is inserted there is to give the Minister, at any time it might be necessary, the right for reason to disapprove of some particular school if it was considered that the actions of that school were not beneficial for our purposes.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, are there any training opportunities that are not covered by this clause? For example, could the son or daughter of a vet take an apprenticeship program given by the private sector and still be eligible for the assistance under this clause?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the Act provides for the tuition required for this kind of education, and I am advised that education of this kind in the private sector is not included. The education must be attained through a public educational facility.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that part of the apprenticeship programs that are entered into in the Province of Ontario require a certain amount of training in a recognized institution such as a community college. People from Thunder Bay go to Sault Ste Marie for this. The component of their study that is undertaken at the college would be eligible, is that correct?


George Harris Hees: The answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, is yes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I take it that when the Minister says yes, the amendment before us will allow the payment of assistance to orphans who have not completed high school. It used to be a prerequisite that the orphans had to complete high school before they were eligible for these grants, but now they do not have to. Except for children of veterans of the Korean War, I cannot think that there are many students today who would be eligible for this.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the number is 582 students.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister whether the students are over or under 18. Is there-

-a requirement in the Act that there be an age limit?
March 25, 1986


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, until now, only students up to and including 17 years of age could be included in the program. We have now extended the age limit to 18.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, what happens in the case of a person who is in the middle of working on a university degree? Is the assistance cut off automatically at the time the person reaches 18 years of age, or is there any provision in the Act which would allow for some discretion to ensure that any assistance or compensation provided under the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act would continue?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, common sense would prevail in every case. We cannot cut off a student's education half way through. In cases like that-and it is a good question-the education would be continued right to the end of the year. We are a Department with a heart.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Time Limit
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, without having the original Act before me, it is difficult to know what will happen. If someone finishes high school, takes two years in the workforce and then applies to university and to DVA, he or she would be ineligible because the 15-month time period has elapsed. What about the situation where students have met the first requirement, that is, have gone from high school to university, have decided that they need some time off, have perhaps taken a year or two and then returned? Are there procedures in place to allow them to interrupt their training per se and be reinstated in terms of the DVA scholarship?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this is a consequential amendment only. I do not think the Hon. Member understands that.


Iain Francis Angus: The Minister is right. I do not understand what that means in the context of my question. Perhaps he could obtain some additional assistance from his official and give us a more lengthy explanation.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the words "high school" always appeared in the original legislation. Now the words "vocational school" have been added to the qualifications.


Iain Francis Angus: Perhaps my question is more appropriate in terms of the over-all consequences of the Bill. I am looking for some assurance. We must keep in mind that in today's society many young people tend to take a break in their training. They decide to go out and obtain employment, perhaps because they are not comfortable with how they are doing in university or colleague. They obtain some work experience, have a better idea of where they want to head in terms of a career and return to school. I should like some assurance that under such circumstances the son or a daughter of a veteran who has started training, has broken it and has resumed it, will be
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
eligible upon resumption for the scholarship provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


George Harris Hees: The time allowed for a student to take a break in his or her education and then come back is 15 months. I quite agree with the Hon. Member that it is often very beneficial for students to take a break, go out in the real world, find out what it is all about and then come back to continue their education. They get a great deal more out of their education having learned what are the requirements of the real world. They are allowed to be out of school for 15 months and then come back.
I take it the Hon. Member feels that perhaps it should be a longer period of time than that. If that is so, we will have a look at it. At the present time it is 15 months; perhaps it could be extended to a longer period. I assure him that we will have a look at it.


Iain Francis Angus: I am assuming that the answer which the Minister gave is in reference to other aspects of the Bill, because the clause before us is very specific and says "before entering an educational institution".


George Harris Hees: The Hon. Member has raised a very good point, something which has not been considered before. I assure him that we will take note of what he has said and take it under advisement. Perhaps he has made a very good suggestion.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I have a general question about the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. I suspect from the title of the Act that the purpose of the legislation is to assist the children of those servicemen and women who are killed in times of war. Is it restricted to the children of those who are killed during the time of war, or would the Act apply to the child or children of servicemen and women killed on duty today?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this applies to the children of servicemen who are killed on duty at the present time.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps the Minister might consider at some point retitling this particular piece of legislation, because the title of the Act suggests that it is just for the children of the war dead. We are not in a state of war with any nation at this particular point of time. When the Minister has little on his plate, he might consider an amendment to change the name of the Act.


George Harris Hees: I think the Hon. Member has made a very good suggestion. Although there are very few times when this Minister finds that he has not much on his plate, he will certainly make a point of giving it very serious consideration. It is a good idea to bring the title of this Act up to date.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I just want to pursue the hiatus or the period of time which renders one ineligible for future consideration under this particular clause. The English text reads:

March 25, 1986
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
No allowance or costs shall be paid under this Act in respect of any student whose education has been interrupted by 15 months or more immediately before entering an educational institution.
I take it there is a ministerial discretion here. "Or more" could be read to mean more than 15 months. In the French text the following is indicated very clearly:

I will read Clause 4 in French:
... qui interrompt son education ou instruction pour plus de quinze mois...
So there is an indication that it must be more than Fifteen months. Is this left to ministerial discretion?

Does the Minister have that kind of discretion? If so, where do we find it in the Act? Is there a provision for that?


George Harris Hees: The answer is that it does not appear in the Act. I think the Hon. Member has made a suggestion which deserves consideration. If for some reason such as sickness or something of that kind it is impossible for a student to take advantage of this provision for longer than 15 months, I think the Minister should have ministerial leeway. I think I will recommend that we have that in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 5-
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister elaborate on the phrase "where he was an evader" and educate the House in terms of the meaning of that particular phrase in Clause 5?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, that was put in the Act to cover a prisoner of war who was smart enough to break out of a prisoner of war camp and be an evader for some period, the longer the better and hopefully get back to our own lines, and that time would be added to his prisoner of war time. He would not in any way be penalized for his ingenuity in being able to break out of a camp and be an evader.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, the Minister will remember that, during my participation on second reading of the Bill, I referred to the original Act which had the gradations, the 10 per cent, the 15 per cent and the 20 per cent, based on the length of time that one was in a prison camp. On the 10 per cent and 15 per cent gradations, do they currently have the same phrase about being an evader, or is it only in the section dealing with those who were incarcerated for more than 30 months?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, any period in which the prisoner was incarcerated applies to the evader section. No matter how long the man or woman was in a prisoner of war camp, that time plus the length of time he or she was an evader are added together no matter how long the times are.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, just for further clarification, I assume that the part in the original Bill that specifies the 10 per cent for three months, the 15 per cent for, I believe, 18
months, is still intact, that that has not been changed? The only thing we are changing here is compensation for those who were in prison in excess of 30 months.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, the proposal is to amend the compensation for former prisoners of war. I gather from the proposed amendment, depending on the war in which you were involved and the length of time you were a prisoner of war, that that would determine the amount of pension you would receive. Is that correct?


George Harris Hees: That is right, Mr. Chairman.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, what is the rationale behind differentiating between the various wars? I believe there was the Korean War and then I believe there were the Dieppe prisoners of war. Is that correct? While I am on my feet, can the Minister tell how many individuals we are now talking about with respect to this section?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, there are two classifications of prisoners of war. The first covers those who were in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Having visited that theatre of war in the last few months and having been brought face to face with a great many of the people who were in Japanese prisoner of war camps, I can assure the Hon. Member that what they went through is something that he would find very hard to believe. They went through unbelievable hardship and torture, everything you could imagine.
There are only two types of prisoners of war. One is the Japanese and the other are the Dieppe prisoners of war and any other prisoners of war. Those are the only two.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the Minister just ended his comments by saying "any other"-


George Harris Hees: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) asked me the numbers and I forgot to give him that answer. There are five hundred and forty-four who were Japanese prisoners of war and 1,550 other veteran POWs and widows who will benefit from this amendment.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter for clarification. The Minister said 1,500. Is that the total number of people eligible under this section or is that 1,500 plus the 400 that he mentioned?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, that is 1,550 veterans of the other class.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: All classes?


George Harris Hees: They are the Hong Kong veterans, the people who were in Japanese prisoner of war camps. The other category is all other prisoners of war, and there were 1,550 prisoners of war and widows. That is the total. The Japanese prisoners of war total is 544.
March 25, 1986


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. But there are prisoners of war from Hong Kong who were under the Japanese responsibility and there are also the Dieppe people, the number of which I take it was a guestimate. And "all others" means those from the Korean War or any others.


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the Army Benevolent Fund Act. The amendments being suggested affect Clause 1, subsections 5(1) and (2). Does the Army Benevolent Fund Act in this instance deal only with applications that may come from former prisoners of war or are these amendments applying to the general premises of the fund as a whole?


Marcel Danis: Is the Hon. Member asking a question on Clause 1?


Sheila Maureen Copps: No, Mr. Chairman, it was a general question about the Act. I was confused as to whether the Act was able to be used for former prisoners of war only in this Bill or whether it was for children and all other widows et cetera.


Marcel Danis: I regret to tell the Hon. Member but we are on Clause 5. Could she relate her question to Clause 5, please?


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 understand that, Mr. Chairman.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, could I assume that the Hon. Member has found some way to include her question in Clause 5, which I would like to answer? There is no restriction on applications. They come from all veterans, not just prisoners of war.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, with the benevolence of the Minister who has agreed to give me some clarification, I have some concerns dealing with a couple of specific instances where the fund was not able to be used. For example, in the case of a funeral of a suicide victim. Apparently this is contrary to army regulation potentially and the Army Benevolent Fund Act in some cases should have more involvement in the social service component of the Armed Forces.
What regulations are there? I had an instance and 1 was able to get it resolved, but a constituent who had committed suicide could not be buried by the army because of the suicide. It was deemed that the constituent had gone AWOL. What provisions are there in this Army Benevolent Fund Act?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the Army Benevolent Fund sets its own regulations. I do not. If there is need for clarification or the Hon. Member or any Hon. Members feel that any cases of any kind have not been fairly treated, perhaps they could get in touch with me, or send me a letter and I will look into them and see what we can do. I am just as keen as the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members, to see that these cases be dealt with fairly.
Clauses 5 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
George Harris Hees: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Harris Hees: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before the Bill passes I would like to thank members of the Opposition who have taken part in this debate for their very constructive, thoughtful and generous attitude. We have gained considerably from a number of good suggestions of theirs and I appreciate very much their attitude and the constructive help they have given me today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on some of the questions that the Minister was kind enough to entertain in Committee of the Whole on the Army Benevolent Fund Act. He said that if we have specific problems in this regard, we can appeal to him directly. The difficulty with that process, which we might consider changing by more specific regulations, is that in many cases the ordinary citizen is not aware of his or her right of appeal to the Minister. In the case I cited, luckily I was able to convince the authorities without having to go to the Minister. A constituent was suffering from a form of mental disorder which precipitated his going AWOL. He subsequently committed suicide. The government official I contacted said that his funeral would not be paid for because he had killed himself while AWOL. Through negotiations with the military, I was able to come to a specific resolution of this issue. However, it was necessary for me to phone a Major involved in the issue and suggest that he might not like to see it raised on the floor of the House of Commons.
Because the person involved was single, his mother had to pay for the funeral. She came to me about it some months later. Eventually the Army Benevolent Fund Act was in a position to pay for this funeral, but what would have happened had the mother not persisted and been advised to come and see me? Quite clearly there is still a policy with respect to individuals going AWOL. If they do, they lose all their benefits, even to the point where they would be refused the cost of burial. It is important that there be a right of appeal so that people like this deceased man's mother know they have recourse. Someone finally put her in touch with me and we were able to resolve the problem. However, in many instances the people concerned would not pursue it because obviously a suicide is a difficult thing for any family. There should be some automatic process of appeal in the Act and it should be better advertised.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has brought up a very good point. I commend her for taking the stand she did. It is the kind of thing I would have urged had it been brought to my attention. I am glad she had the initiative and was able to fight it through.

March 25, 1986
Army Benevolent Fund Act and Related Acts
Again I would like to use this opportunity of assuring all veterans and their widows that if they feel at any time that they are not getting a square deal, they can get in touch with me. I have no magic wand because I am limited by regulations of various kinds, but I will do everything I can to see that everything that can be done is done to straighten the matter out. Again, I commend the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) very highly for the fight she put up on behalf of this widow.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say some extremely brief words in connection with this Bill. I have six Legions in my riding, and indeed I am a member of the Legion myself. I am particularly aware of the plight of former prisoners of war in that a past President of the Hong Kong Veterans Association is a resident of my riding. As well, my former law partner served for many years as Colonel of the Royal Regiment of Canada. His associates were incarcerated along with the father of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) after the Dieppe raid. Given all that, 1 certainly endorse wholeheartedly the principles set out in this Bill, particularly with respect to the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. I would like to congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing an outstanding job with this Bill.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think the last word should be left to one of those prisoners of war, Private G. Oliphan of the Queens Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada from Winnipeg, Manitoba, as follows:
Did you ever hear of Dieppe, boys?
It's a little town in France,
The "Brass-hats" sent us in there To make the "Jerrys" dance.
It was our first taste of action As we waded in and fought,
But Jerry was expecting us And our fighting counted not.
We kept right on a going The blood and guts flew high.
We saw our comrades falling And had to let them die.
There must have been a reason For a slaughter such as this;
Surely someone will account for The faces that we miss?
So much for Dieppe, Boys For our plans that hit a snag.
While we Wait for the Armistice In a lousy old Stalag.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


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


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you may find a disposition for the House to call it six o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is such a disposition. We do not dispute that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1986, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) when the Government would release all the facts on the brainwashing experiments conducted at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal during the late 1950s, especially those facts surrounding CIA funding of these experiments. One of the Canadians who underwent these experiments was Mrs. Florence Langleben. Her son Wayne lives in my riding of Don Valley East. On February 8, 1986, Wayne Langleben wrote a letter to the editor of a Toronto paper about his mother's mistreatment. The letter states:
My mother was one of the nine Canadians who the CIA used as guinea pigs for the brainwashing experiments conducted at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. Why are Canadians so spineless when dealing with the United States Government? Can you imagine the outcry if Canada had conducted these experiments on innocent American citizens?
The only way these unfortunate victims will receive compensation is for our elected officials to demand a proper settlement. Of course that scenario is most unlikely.
My mother always said that the CIA was waiting for the victims to die off so they wouldn't have to pay. My mother passed away January 2, 1986.
It is too late for Florence Langleben to know the facts. However, her son would like to know, as would many concerned Canadians, what will be done about this totally unacceptable situation. I will give some background. Florence Langleben was admitted to the Allan Memorial Institute on February 8, 1957 on the referral of her personal physician as she was suffering from anxiety and chest pains. She was treated with LSD and other drugs by Dr. Ewen Cameron during her stay. She was discharged on April 3, 1957, and continued to be treated by Dr. Cameron in his office.
On August 20, 1959, Mrs. Langleben was readmitted to the Allan Memorial Institute, again under Dr. Cameron's care, to be treated for anxiety and chest pains. Between August 20, 1959 and November 6, 1959, Mrs. Langleben received 43 days of drug induced sleep, 15 electroshock treatments, 43 days of "psychic driving". That means being drugged and forced to
March 25, 1986

listen to taped messages for up to 16 hours per day. She was discharged from hospital on November 20, 1959.
At no time while she was a patient of Dr. Cameron's was Mrs. Langleben informed that she was participating in an experiment rather than therapy. Nor was she informed that these experiments were being financed by the CIA for nonmedical purposes. She was not informed that these experiments would be unlikely to yield therapeutic benefits or that the experiments involved the use of dangerous drugs and hazardous techniques that could result in permanent physical and psychological injury.
Mrs. Langleben suffered such symptoms for 30 years. In 1977, the involvement of the CIA in funding Dr. Cameron's research came to light. The facts surrounding the CIA's involvement and the involvement of the Canadian Government are confused and incomplete. The Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) stated in November of last year: "Certain facts are not in dispute. What is not in dispute is that Canadian citizens were subjects of experimental psychiatric treatment which adversely affected them."
In December, 1980 a group of Canadians who had been unwitting participants in these experiments filed a suit against the U.S. Government in an attempt to receive compensation for their suffering. In January, 1985 the CIA offered to settle out of court. They offered $25,000 per plaintiff. The lawyer acting for the nine Canadians, Mr. Joseph Rauh, was outraged by the inappropriateness of this offer.
In late 1985, a U.S. Federal Court judge ruled that he would not allow CIA station chiefs to testify at a pre-trial hearing about an apology they allegedly delivered to the Canadian Government in 1977. Mr. John Hadwen was the Canadian liaison officer who received the expression of regret from the American operatives when the CIA financing of some of Dr. Cameron's research came to light in 1977. Mr. Hadwen has submitted a written statement to this effect. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have given him permission to testify at the trial. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has raised the issue with the U.S. Secretary of State on three occasions. Ottawa has also been pressing Washington to make available documents relating to the case.
The Minister of Justice has appointed Mr. George Cooper as an independent counsel to determine whether the Canadian Government bears any responsibility for anything that occurred in connection with Doctor Cameron's research. Also, in early March of this year, the acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Law for the Department of Justice visited Washington to be briefed by U.S. Justice Department officials on the facts of the Canadian plaintiffs' case against the CIA as the U.S. sees them. I understand from recent press reports that a trial date has been set for July or August of this year in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
On the basis of the foregoing information I briefly summarized, it would appear that some progress has been made and
Adjournment Debate
that our Government has been assisting the victims where appropriate. However, much more needs to be done. Full disclosure of all the facts surrounding this tragic episode is urgently required. Too much time has passed already for those seeking justice. It is too late for Florence Langleben, but for the other victims, and for Wayne Langleben, these questions require answers.
I urge my colleagues to release Mr. Cooper's report when it is available, to continue to press the U.S. Government to release the informaton it has and to take action to ensure that this tragic and unacceptable incident is never repeated.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, no one in the House cannot be moved by the tragic set of circumstances with respect to the nine Canadians who were involved in this particular lawsuit. My colleague has indicated that Mr. George Cooper, who is a superb lawyer from Halifax, Nova Scotia, has been retained by the Canadian Government to prepare a report for the Cabinet to establish what gave rise to the facts of this case some 30 years ago. When those facts are established, they will be put before the Cabinet and a prompt decision will be made with respect thereto.


AGRICULTURE-CASH ADVANCE PROGRAM. (B) COMMITTEE REFERRALS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I raised a question in the House concerning the Nielsen task force report, particularly as it concerns agriculture in this country and such things as cash advances and the PFRA.
I have been to my constituency in Saskatchewan a couple of times since this report was tabled. I detect a lot of concern from local farmers about some of the recommendations by this task force, particularly as it concerns agriculture. What makes me very concerned and farmers very angry is that not one of the authors of this task force report on agriculture is a practising farmer. Not one is a farmer from western or eastern Canada.
There are eight study team members. The one who is closest to agriculture is Mr. A. M. Runciman, the former president of the United Grain Growers. He is now retired and lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Other task force members include a number of public servants. Others include Mr. Paul Stewart from the agriculture department of the Bank of Commerce and Mr. Stringham, who is Senior Vice-President of Ralston-Purina.
The study team does not include one practising farmer, yet when the Conservatives were in Opposition, they said that we needed more participation by ordinary people in the decision making of this country. There is not one farmer who is a member of this task force on agricultural problems. It is no wonder that it contains recommendations that go against the wishes of nearly every farmer in this country.

March 25. 1986
Adjournment Debate
I want the Government to tell us which of these recommendations are Government policy. I also want Conservative Members from Saskatchewan to give us their views on the recommendations in this report. Let me refer to a few of those recommendations. The report recommends changing the tax system for farmers from a cash basis to an accrual basis. This would amount to an additional federal tax of $100 million a year from the farmers of Canada.
The report also recommends eliminating the farm fuel rebates, which are worth some $130 million a year. This would increase the tax by $1 million a year on one hand and eliminate the farm fuel rebate by $130 million a year on the other. That amounts to approximately one quarter billion dollars of increased payments by the farmers of Canada.
Another recommendation in the task force report is to increase the crop insurance premiums. Another is to change the cash advance system as we know it. Currently, a farmer receives a cash advance interest free. The recommendation by this particular task force is that the farmer pay the going interest rate on a cash advance. That will hurt not only farmers in my riding, but farmers right across western Canada. The Government is also talking about phasing out the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which is, again, a popular and worth-while program. In a place like Indian Head where there are agricultural farms, eliminating this program will do tremendous damage, not just to the town and that community, but to a number of farmers in Saskatchewan.
Another recommendation is to prevent the creation of new marketing boards. Why this recommendation was made, I am not sure. Surely that decision should be made by the farmers of this country, not by some Government bureaucrats or private sector people who advise the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). Another recommendation is the unprecedented "rationalization" of prairie rail network, the introduction of variable freight rates and the removal of guarantees and phase out of rehabilitation of the branch lines which are so important to the prairies.
Another recommendation of the task force report is to privatize the Farm Credit Corporation. Farmers in my riding are concerned about that because they have enough problems already with the private banks, let alone privatizing the Farm Credit Corporation. Another recommendation which concerns farmers is the closing down of the Port of Churchill for the export of grain. I know you, Mr. Speaker, are a member from the Toronto area, but I am sure even you would be concerned about some of these recommendations becoming law. My purpose this afternoon is to draw attention to the recommendations made in the Nielsen task force report and to make an appeal to my fellow Members of Parliament from Saskatchewan who sit on the Government side to speak out on these issues. We need the cash advance system as it is today for our farmers. We need the PFRA. It serves a very useful purpose.
We need the farm fuel tax rebate of $130 million because of rising farm input costs and falling farm income. We need to
keep the tax system as it is rather than raising an extra $100 million from the farmers by changing the tax system. We do not want to privatize the Farm Credit Corporation. We do not want to close the Port of Churchill. These matters are very important to farmers in western Canada.
In the last 15 or 16 years, farmers in western Canada have seen three important task forces on agriculture. The first task force was in the early 1970s when the Hon. Otto Lang was Minister of Transport. That report recommended eventually phasing out about two thirds of the farms because they were, according to the experts, inefficient. The farmers of this country rallied forth and fought against the recommendations of that task force. Later on we had another task force which recommended abolishing the Crow rate, which was a very important rate for the movement of our grain to various ports in Canada. It was considered by many farmers in the West as part of our deal for coming into Confederation.
Now we have a third task force, which is again insensitive to the needs of the farmers of western Canada. It is written by a group of men-and they are all men-not one of whom is a farmer. They are all businessmen, bureaucrats or retired people who are not active farmers. I therefore call upon the Government to give us as soon as it can its response to the task force on agriculture because a lot of farmers are nervous about what is going to happen. They do not know that the future holds. They want to know where the Government of Canada stands. I appeal to the Government not to spread unnecessary panic among the farmers of Canada. If it disagrees with these recommendations, then tell us. If it agrees with some of them, then tell us in order that we can respond. That is all I am asking in this particular debate today.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), we are not considering the cancellation of the cash advance program to western grain farmers. Currently, departmental staff are reviewing the program in order to bring forward proposals to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. We plan to have the amendments in place prior to the commencement of the 1986-87 crop year.
Our long-term plans include a complete re-write of the Act. This will be accomplished by reviewing the basic principles and by assessing the future needs of the western grain industry. When completed, the new Act will be more responsive to the future development and requirements of the western grain industry.
As to the report mentioned by my colleague, the Government asked an independent committee to make recommendations. We have just received them, we will study them and seek advice. I would think that the hallmark of this Government has been to consult with Canadians on each legislative measure we have taken in the last 18 months. In that respect we have no lesson to take from anybody. We have done our work, we have done our duty.
March 25, 1986

What we have to do in the current economic context, particularly concerning the international trade sector, is to look to the future. What the New Democratic Party would have us do is to stand pat in the present, if not go back into the past. The only future they seem to envisage is inaccessible: extended services, increased public outlays, more grants, reduced taxes, fewer expenditures. It is impossible.
We are a responsible Government, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to study this report. Within the weeks and months to come we will decide what Government measures should be taken. We will not know that tomorrow morning, we have to study the report and, as we have always done, we will promote the interests of Canadian farmers.


YOUTH-JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on March 18 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) what programs, if any, her Department had in connection with youth. As well, 1 asked her to advise the House if there are in fact such programs. I asked her to advise us how many there are and how many young people are involved in them.
1 asked the question at the time because I believe that the majority of the people of Canada are under a false impression at the present time. I believe that they are under an impression which has been given them by the Opposition and by the media to the effect that the present Government does not have any programs for youth. I believe they are under the impression that the present Government has not committed any money for youth programs and that, in fact, there are no youth participating in programs put together and in place by the present Government.
Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that that is not the case. We know that there are programs in place. We know that the Government has put a great number of programs in place. However, I am under the impression from what 1 read in the press and from what I hear in my constituency and across the country that there are a substantial number of our fellow Canadians who do not realize what the Government has done. They do not seem to realize that the Government shares the concerns of all Canadians with respect to the problems of youth. They do not seem to realize, or they do not remember, that during the last federal election campaign, one of the main issues was the whole question of unemployment and the economy. A major part of those issues revolved around the issue of youth unemployment. A large portion of the public do not seem to know or realize that when the Government took office, it put into effect a review of all of these programs, programs for employment, for youth employment and youth training.
The main focus of that review was to make sure that the money being spent to benefit the youth of Canada was being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible and would
Adjournment Debate
ensure that the youth of Canada got the most out of the money that was being spent to help them. The review focused on youth employment and how to get more jobs for unemployed young people. As a result of that review, all of those programs were redesigned. New programs were put in place. One of the major new programs was called Canadian Jobs Strategy.
You and I are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in this current fiscal year, something like $734 million is being spent on youth training and job-creation programs. We are aware as well that in this current fiscal year, something like 222,600 young people are participating in all of these various new government programs. As well, we are aware that more money is being spent and more people are involved than were involved under all of the previous Liberal Government programs, including Katimavik. Even at the height of youth unemployment, which peaked in 1982 at something in excess of 21 per cent, the former Liberal Government did not have anywhere near the amount of money committed to youth employment and training programs that is now committed by the present Government under these new programs.
In the years between 1980 and 1984, during what has now come to be called the great recession, 142,000 young people lost their jobs. They lost their jobs at a time when the former Liberal Government was in power and claiming to be helping young people and interested in them. We are aware as well that since September 1984, when the present Government came to power, 75,000 new jobs for young people have been created and that has helped youth unemployment to fall.
I believe that most Canadians are not aware of these facts. 1 believe that they feel that Katimavik was the only program for youth employment that was in place. They know that it was established as a training program for youth and to give youth life training experiences. What 1 do not think they understand is that though Katimavik was created and established by a very honourable person, Senator Hebert, when one establishes any program, one becomes personally attached to it and feels that it is a very special program that should be not changed in any way or eliminated. We know that everything in life changes, and hopefully for the better. In fact, what has happened since the new Government put its programs in place is that youth unemployment has been falling. More and more young people have jobs and are getting jobs. Not enough young people have jobs, but still youth unemployment has been falling.
Tonight I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make those points to the Canadian people and will make the Canadian people aware of what the present Government has been doing as far as youth programs, employment and training are concerned. I hope as well that he will give us some real examples of the types of people who have been benefiting from the new programs that have been put in place by the Government since September 1984.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I could say that what the Hon. Member said is absolutely true. On behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), 1 would

March 25, 1986
Adjournment Debate
like to provide the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) with a more detailed reply to the question he put in the House concerning the number of programs for youth administered by Employment and Immigration Canada and the number of young people participating in these programs.
As the Minister has already informed the House, this year in excess of $700 million will be spent on job creation and training programs for young Canadians. As the Hon. Member indicated, in 1982, at the height of the recession, $100 million less was being spent. This $700 million expenditure for job creation and training falls into two main categories-programs specific to youth and programs not specific to youth but in which young Canadians may and do participate.
Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, Employment and Immigration Canada assisted youth through Challenge '85 and will do so this summer through Challenge '86. More than 101,000 young people benefited last summer. That is many young people.
Under the entry option of the Job Entry Program, young Canadians experiencing difficulty entering the labour force can obtain up to 52 weeks of skill training and practical work experience. Under the co-operative education option, institutions are able to offer students formally integrated periods of academic study and work experience. In 1985, 65 co-operative education applications were approved which will assist up to
40,000	students in the coming four years. Again that is many young people. We have to think about that; it is very important.

Besides being responsible for employment planning, the Employment and Immigration Commission helps young people through employment services, Canada Manpower Centres, university campus employment centres, and eleven specialized units for young people having a particularly hard time to find jobs. Extension programs, international exchanges and summer employment related to studies also help a number of young Canadians.
I could go on for a long time, Mr. Speaker, but I think the Hon. Member has clearly shown that we have done a lot for young people, and we will continue today, tomorrow and next week to work hard for them. Rather than singling out one specific program, I think we should consider the Government's over-all youth strategy.
We have assumed our responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to do so thanks to the kind of policies I have just mentioned.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 26, 1986