1987-03-12

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the report of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, also known as the Deschenes Commission report.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-623, 332-644, 332-792 to 332-821 inclusive, 332-872 to 332-878 inclusive, 332-893 to 332-916 inclusive, 332-924 to 332-933 inclusive, 332-987 to 332-992 inclusive and 332-999 to 332-1005.



WAR CRIMINALS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address an
issue of great importance, the report of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals.

At the outset, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the government and all Canadians to express our sincere appreciation for the important contribution that has been made by the Commission. Because of the dedication and efforts of the honourable Justice Deschenes and those who assisted him in his work, the resolution of the difficult problem of war criminals has been brought much closer.
The problem of war criminals has been of serious concern to Canadians, and to the entire world from the time when it first became clear during World War II that crimes of unprecedented scope had been perpetrated. In order to ensure that those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity were tried and punished, the Nuremberg war crimes trials were held. As a result many major war criminals were tried, convicted and promptly punished.

It should be remembered that under its War Crimes Act, Canada also conducted war crimes trials from 1946 to 1948. One hundred and seventy-one cases of crimes against members of the Canadian Armed Forces were investigated and seven individuals were found guilty of war crimes.
In the 1950s, as individuals and nations decided to put the trauma and horror of World War II behind them, the active pursuit of war criminals became much less of a priority in many countries.
Strong public attention did not focus on this problem again until the 1970s when suggestions emerged that not all war criminals had been identified and convicted by earlier processes. That alleged war criminals might have found refuge here became clear with the arrest and extradition of Helmut Rauca from Canada to West Germany.
Reports during the early 1980s suggested that the number of war criminals in Canada was in the area of 2,000 to 3,000 and could reach as high as 6,000. There were claims made that Josef Mengele, notorious for brutal and inhuman medical experiments, had come or attempted to come to Canada. As these accounts persisted, it became increasingly apparent that the Canadian Government should take action to resolve old uncertainties and to see that the interests of justice were served. However, the absence of clear information on the scope of the problem and any consensus among legal authorities on appropriate remedies were impediments to decisive action. It is a substantial accomplishment of this Government that, despite

March 12, 1987
Statement by Ministers
the difficulties, it has taken the required action to address this problem which has cast its shadow on Canada for far too long.
To ensure that any war criminals who might be found in Canada were brought to justice, the precise scope of the problem had to be measured and an appropriate approach to its resolution developed. On February 7, 1985, the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, with the Hon. Mr. Justice Jules Deschenes as commissioner, was established with a mandate to address these questions. The report on the commission of inquiry was transmitted to the Government on December 30, 1986. It was my privilege to have tabled that portion of the report recommended for publication by the commission. That part of the report discusses generally the scope and nature of the problem of war criminals in Canada and sets out the findings and recommendations of the commission. It also contains general outlines of the commission's treatment of 822 individual cases.
[DOT] <mo)
There is an additional part of the report in which the commission discusses 29 cases. The commission originally felt that the seriousness of the allegations and the possible availability of evidence merited special attention. The commission recommended that this part of its report entitled "Part II, Confidential", not be released. We agree with this recommendation.
Before turning to the findings and recommendations of the commission, there is one preliminary matter which is important to note. When the commission's report was submitted to the Government, it was apparent that the level of detail set out in the portion of the proposed public report which deals with individual cases might allow the identification of many of the individuals concerned. Because the commission found the allegations against most of the individuals to be unfounded and in other cases recommended further investigation, the Government decided that changes were necessary to protect the privacy and reputations of all the individuals concerned. This concern was discussed with Mr. Justice Deschenes. Following this consultation, many specific place names, dates and some details in this portion of the report were made more general in order to protect against the identification of individuals. Mr. Justice Deschenes has expressed his agreement that the changes made in no way affect the substance or the integrity of the report. He has also provided an explanatory note to this effect which has been included in the report.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the findings of the report. I am pleased to say that the report represents a substantial clearing of the air with respect to war criminals. We are no longer confronted with an undefined problem with no solution in sight. Rather, it is now apparent that the problem of war criminals is not as extensive as had been feared. Nevertheless, it is apparent that action is required and that a resolution of this problem can be found within our system of justice.
The work of the commission of inquiry has cleared away much of the mystery and speculation which has characterized previous discussions of war criminals in Canada. It has provided a basis upon which the Government can act to carry out necessary investigations and resolve specific legal issues. While the commission's work has identified a number of instances in which individuals suspected of war crimes are or have been in Canada, it appears that the scope of this problem has been considerably exaggerated by some. There are and have been far fewer suspected war criminals in Canada than suggested. Many persons against whom suspicions were voiced are no longer living. There is no evidence that Dr. Josef Mengele ever entered or applied to enter Canada. The charges of war crimes against the so-called Galicia Division said to have committed atrocities were found not to be substantiated, and allegations against many, many individuals have been found groundless or otherwise dismissed.
While pointing out that the history of Canada's approach to the question could have been more active and aggressive, the report indicates that Canadian actions with respect to the pursuit of war criminals in the period following World War II were not substantially different from those of other western countries. There is little doubt that the practices over the past 40 years could have been even more effective in preventing the entry of suspected war criminals into Canada and their attaining of citizenship here. However, it is also clear from the report that there was no action or policy on the part of the Government of Canada or of Canadian officials to aid or assist known or suspected war criminals in entering Canada nor to conceal or protect their presence in any way.
Of approximately 880 individuals investigated by the commission, the large majority of cases have been found to be unsubstantiated. The commission recommends that over 600 cases be closed immediately. The commission did find that 21 persons suspected of possible complicity in war crimes were in Canada but left for another country and 86 such persons died in Canada. Three hundred and forty-one individuals on the suspect list never came to Canada. In 154 cases, the commission could find no prima facie evidence of war crimes.
The number of individuals in Canada against whom there remain outstanding allegations of possible involvement in war crimes has, as a consequence of the commission's efforts, declined very substantially from the previously suggested thousands to far smaller numbers.

However, in the time available to him, Mr. Justice Deschenes was not able to complete his investigations in every case. Consequently, some cases remain open. Of these cases, almost all require further investigation before any decision concerning possible action can be taken. Some of the cases involve possible fraud or non-disclosure of an individual's background at the time of entry into Canada or when applying for citizenship. In turn, some of these reveal no evidence of personal participation in criminal acts directly harmful to others.
March 12, 1987



In its recommendations, the commission recognizes that there are difficulties with the capacity of Canada's current laws to deal with war criminals. In particular, the recommendations of the commission indicate a need for further legislative amendment before proceeding beyond the investigative phase. Amendments to present laws are suggested with respect to three possible approaches to dealing with war criminals. These are extradition, criminal prosecution and denaturalization or removal of citizenship with or without deportation. The commission also recommended changes to immigration and citizenship laws and prospective changes to immigration practices to ensure that future entry into Canada by war criminals is prevented.
Specifically, the commission's recommendations are as follows. With respect to extradition, the commission suggests an expansion of Canada's traditional laws and practices to make the extradition from Canada of individuals accused of war crimes easier to accomplish. This would involve amendments to the Extradition Act and specific bilateral treaties to allow war criminals to be extradited to other countries willing to undertake prosecution.
The commission's recommended approach with respect to the use of Canada's criminal law would see a specific amendment to the Criminal Code to allow it to be used as a vehicle for the prosecution in Canada of war criminals. To permit this, the report recommends amendments to the Criminal Code to define war crimes and crimes against humanity. It recommends that Canadian courts should then be given jurisdiction to try individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity even if their crimes were committed outside Canada if the acts in question would have amounted to crimes if committed in Canada.
With respect to revocation of citizenship, denaturalization and deportation, the commission recommends that denaturalization and deportation procedures should be streamlined and consolidated, at least in cases of suspected Nazi war criminals. It also recommends that the denaturalization phase should proceed first and that the resultant findings of fact should be held conclusive in the deportation phase of proceedings. In addition, the report suggests that judicial appeals of decisions on denaturalization and deportation should be denied or restricted to a single appeal.
The report includes other recommendations and findings with respect to the grounds for deportation and denaturalization and the legal principles applicable thereto directed at clearly establishing that war criminals should be denied entry into Canada or Canadian citizenship if their status was obtained on the basis of fraud or by withholding evidence. These changes would be prospective as well as affecting those whose alleged offences occurred during World War II.
With a view to the strengthening of the immigration and citizenship processes to ensure that future entry of war criminals into Canada is made as difficult as possible, the
Statement by Ministers
commission made a number of other specific recommendations. In order to strengthen the Immigration Act and immigration procedures, the commission recommended that:
(a)	The immigration screening process and interview procedure should be tightened so that a minimum set of questions on military, political and other past activities of applicants are asked, reduced to writing and signed;
(b)	Immigration application forms should be kept until the applicant is no longer alive;
(c)	Express exclusions should be made in the convention relating to the status of refugees and the Immigration Act to make them expressly inapplicable to war criminals;
(d)	Section 127 of the Immigration Act, whose purpose is to provide protection for individuals with an established Canadian domicile, should be amended to ensure that its guarantee expressly does not apply to those involved in war crimes;
(e)	To allow individuals to be deported to jurisdictions where they will be subject to judicial process, their current right to choose where they will go on being deported ought to be limited by expressly amending the Immigration Act.
With respect to the Citizenship Act the commission recommended:
(a)	That the Citizenship Act should be amended to make it a bar to obtaining citizenship to have been involved in war crimes;
(b)	That the Citizenship Act should be amended to make participation in war crimes a specific ground for revocation of citizenship;
(c)	That Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which provides for removal of citizenship by order because of false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, should be amended to make it expressly applicable to situations arising under former laws on citizenship and immigration in order to ensure that it applies to past misrepresentations or offences of this nature.
The commission also considered certain evidentiary problems which presented themselves. It is apparent that in conducting further investigations serious evidentiary difficulties would be encountered. The passage of 40 years and the national, political and linguistic differences that must be addressed in endeavouring to collect the necessary evidence are formidable. In quite a number of the remaining cases the pursuit of investigations must involve at least one Eastern bloc country. The commission concluded that Eastern bloc evidence should be sought but only under specific conditions. The commission recommended that Canada should seek evidence in foreign countries in situations where there are already serious grounds to believe that an individual has committed war crimes, provided that the country agrees to the six specific conditions which the commission recommended in order to

March 12, 1987
Statement by Ministers
ensure that Canadian standards of evidence and justice are met.
Finally, the report recommends that the legal changes recommended by the commission and the investigation of individual cases required, should be carried out either by the commission itself or by the Government utilizing resources within the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The commission did not recommend an organization similar to the United States Office of Special Investigations.
Since receiving the report the Government has reflected carefully on the nature of the issues which prompted this inquiry and the need for the Government to address the problem of war criminals. Although the commission found that the number of war criminals in Canada has been greatly exaggerated, it is clear that Canadians are not and will not be satisfied with the notion that individuals guilty of war crimes during the course of World War II should find in Canada a safe haven from the processes of justice. The Government must be concerned if even one individual guilty of war crimes has found a refuge from justice here.
It has long been a principle of our law that individuals guilty of serious crimes must be sought out and punished with regard to any statute of limitations. At the same time the Government realizes that the preservation of individual rights is a fundamental component of the administration of justice.
It is clear that Canadians value highly the legal rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the other protections of our system of justice. The Government has therefore approached its initial assessment of the recommendations of this commission recognizing the need to develop a response appropriate to our own society in the context of our own system of justice. The guiding principle is simply this: The problem of war criminals should, wherever possible, be dealt with here in Canada and every case must be resolved in a manner consistent with Canadian standards of law and evidence.
Within this framework it is clear that an unequivocal affirmation of Canada's commitment not to be a haven for those who would seek to avoid punishment for crimes committed in time of war is necessary. The Government is, therefore, prepared to amend the Criminal Code to give Canadian courts jurisdiction to try in Canada war crimes or crimes against humanity where the conduct in question would amount to a criminal offence in Canada. Such proceedings, mindful of the need to preserve the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons in Canada, would be undertaken according to Canadian rules of evidence and in accordance with the overriding principles established by our own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such jurisdiction will of course allow the trial within Canada of individuals accused of war crimes in modern conflicts and will not be restricted to addressing past crimes. It will also be necessary to define what war crimes will be subject to criminal sanctions. To ensure that the required amendment effectively addresses past and future war crimes, careful
attention is being directed to the development of the precise standards and definitions to be utilized in the proposed Criminal Code provisions.
Mr. Justice Deschenes pointed out that much more remains to be done in completing the recommended investigations. He felt, however, that a determined effort could achieve the necessary results within the framework of existing Canadian institutions, specifically the RCMP and the Department of Justice. He pointed out that sufficient resources would be required by these institutions to pursue the investigative process and take the necessary action warranted by the available evidence. As already noted, he recommended against the creation of an organization similar to the Office of Special Investigations in Washington. With all of this the Government agrees.
If Canada is to contemplate seriously the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings in Canada concerning events which happened in Europe it is clear that evidence will have to be gathered wherever it may be found. That is nothing new, of course. Traditionally Canadian courts have, where appropriate, sought and utilized the capacity to seek evidence in foreign countries by way of commission. As well, Canadian police have on many occasions carried their investigations into foreign lands with the aid of local authorities. For example, significant and reliable evidence was obtained in several countries, including the Soviet Union, in the proceedings leading to the extradition of Helmut Rauca to West Germany for war crimes.
The individual cases in which Mr. Justice Deschenes has recommended that consideration be given to seeking Eastern European evidence will be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Any gathering of evidence abroad will be restricted to those cases where, in the opinion of Canadian authorities, there are specific, credible and serious allegations of war crimes requiring further investigation.
In such cases Mr. Justice Deschenes recommended that six conditions be observed. These were: One, the protection of reputations through confidentiality; two, the use of independent interpreters; three, access to original documents where relevant; four, access to witnesses' previous statements; five, freedom of examination of witnesses in accordance with Canadian rules of evidence; six, the videotaping of such examination. The Government believes that obtaining evidence in accordance with Canadian procedures and the additional safeguards of the six special conditions recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes for use in Canadian courts under the scrutiny of Canadian judges and in accordance with Canadian rules relating to the admissibility and probity of evidence should guarantee fairness and justice to all concerned.
The need to tighten up Canada's practices with respect to the entry into Canada and the processes of obtaining Canadian citizenship to ensure that Canada will not be thought of as a place of refuge for individuals who have participated in war crimes, crimes against humanity, is also clear. The Government will proceed with the measures recommended by the
March 12, 1987

Deschenes Commission to ensure that in the future, immigration into Canada and Canadian citizenship are not available to those who have participated in war crimes in other countries. The immigration screening process and interview procedure will be tightened up as recommended. Other protections of the Immigration Act and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees will be made expressly inapplicable to war criminals.
In future, Canadian citizenship will be denied to those who have participated in war crimes. This will be done by amending the Citizenship Act to make complicity in war crimes as defined in the amended Criminal Code a bar to Canadian citizenship.

With respect to those who already have become Canadian citizens, the Government does not wish to change the law retroactively. Hence, it will proceed under existing laws and practices to address the problem of individuals whose citizenship has been obtained through demonstrable fraud.
Certain of the commission's recommendations suggested changes to Canada's extradition laws to increase the extent to which extradition would be available to remove those suspected of war crimes from this country. The Government's current extradition policies represent a carefully developed balance of the considerations which must apply before Canadian residents are sent outside Canada for trial elsewhere. Because we seek solutions consistent with the Government's goal of ensuring that this problem is, to the maximum possible extent, addressed here in Canada, no change in current law or practice with respect to extradition will be made to address the situation of war criminals specifically. That is not to say that extradition will not be carried out in any circumstances. It is intended, as in the past, to consider extradition requests in a manner consistent with existing law and traditional arrangements and practice.
The commission also makes a number of recommendations suggesting the streamlining and consolidation of Canada's legal processes with respect to the revocation of citizenship and deportation. As recognized by the commission, the proposed changes raise difficult questions which must be carefully reviewed and assessed. It is not proposed to make these changes. The Government believes that by applying current law and practice, together with the other changes already proposed, the underlying problems will be effectively addressed.
Canadians expect their Government to demonstrate leadership in addressing this important question. Canadians also expect that no matter how difficult the problem, the fundamental principles of fairness and equity must apply. It is not appropriate to seek to delay its resolution, nor to seek to export our responsibility to other countries. I believe that the Government's commitment, which I have outlined today, will
Committee Reports
be effective, fair, and in keeping with the best tradition of Canadian justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be possible, in view of certain other arrangements, for me to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance? It would take just a moment and I understand that the opposition speakers will want to speak extensively in reply to this statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It would be helpful and I would appreciate the House's indulgence.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) indicate approval or disapproval?


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member requires unanimous consent. For my part, I have no objection.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to the definition of scientific research development. At this time the Income Tax Act allows for a tax credit for those engaged in scientific research on behalf of business in the natural sciences and engineering sciences. This report recommends an extension of the income tax allowance to the humanities.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



WAR CRIMINALS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Minister for giving us notice of his statement and for the opportunity this morning to spend two hours examining both the report, which numbers about 1,000 pages and the statement he just made. I am of course very grateful, but I think all Members will agree that since we are looking at 1,000 pages, it would be difficult for us to respond today with the same degree of precision as the Minister. I intend to look at the details and to respond specifically to each proposals in the days to come.

March 12, 1987
Committee Reports
Today, however, I can only respond in a very general way, and I trust the Minister will understand.

When the Deschenes Commission was launched I had the opportunity, on behalf of my Party, to indicate our position. I want to remind the House of the degree of approval which I indicated for the choice of Mr. Justice Deschenes to head this commission. Without having read the report from cover to cover, I believe that what I did see in it shows a degree of workmanship, a degree of commitment which lasted years beyond his original undertaking, a willingness to examine all issues raised, and a willingness to pursue all suspects identified, which deserve the commendation of this House. As I said at the outset, I would like to indicate once again how felicitous the choice of Mr. Justice Deschenes was for this project and how well he has redeemed the confidence which was shown in him when he was asked to undertake this assignment.
At the same time as I expressed confidence in Mr. Justice Deschenes I expressed two reservations, and I want to refer to those briefly now as well. I expressed the reservation that the Government would do nothing on the prosecution of war criminals for the entire time that the commission sat. I expected then that it would be a relatively short period of time. It has turned out to be a long period of time and, regrettably, the concern which I expressed was validated by events. During the entire process, although there were cases under investigation as indicated and referred to in the House by the Minister of Justice of the day, nothing was done during this very, very long period. I regret that during that long process the projects which the Deschenes Commission recognized as having been commenced by the former Government were not pursued by the present Government.
The other concern which I expressed, to which I want to refer again, was a concern that the fabric of Canadian society could be affected by a process in which there would be allegations, not related to particular individuals who would be charged, but which might find a reference to communities, allegations which could disturb the harmony of the Canadian society. Regrettably, and through no fault of Mr. Justice Deschenes, in my opinion, there have been tensions during the period that the Deschenes Commission conducted its work.
However, those are behind us now and the report is before us. It is incumbent upon the Liberal Party, and it is our desire, to look to the future, to look to the degree to which this report will settle issues of public concern and the degree to which the Government will respond to it. It is to those issues that I want to turn now.
However much the fabric of Canadian unity may have been affected by the report, there is a full opportunity for national unity to be strengthened, for the understanding among Canadian communities to be enhanced, and for the report and the action of the Government to be an experience which will enrich Canadian society and reinforce our commitment to fundamental justice, which surely includes the inability of a
democratic society to accept among it the presence of those who have committed some of the worst crimes in world history and have remained unpunished.
The formula for a very good ending exists. I had an opportunity to read the Minister's statement beforehand and I want to say that I think the Government is indicating that it will be on the right track. It will have the support of this Party to carry out the program that the Minister has indicated.
I want to examine some of the important issues that are raised in the report. Again, I think Canadians can find reassurance from some of the conclusions on serious key issues with which the Deschenes Commission dealt.
The first question I want to examine is: why has it taken so long for Nazi war criminals to be addressed and brought to justice? The report deals with that issue and finds, I hope to the relief of all Canadians, that there has been no conspiracy to harbour war criminals in Canada, that no one was providing cover or protection for war criminals, and that no one encouraged them to come to Canada. The report finds that the number who got here, regrettable as it is, came here through the same kinds of circumstances in which they got to other countries. While Canada's record is not satisfactory, it is no worse if no better than the record of a number of other western countries which were similarly countries of refuge for those fleeing the war, including a number of war criminals. That should be a relief to Canadians. I hope it will be generally accepted and will provide more cement for good relations among the communities that live in this wonderful country.
A second finding that I believe is valuable and important as well as reassuring is the finding that the number of war criminals who are here is small. One is too many, and I am glad the Minister addressed that theme in his remarks. If there is one among us who can be brought to justice, that individual should be brought to justice. However, I am reassured, as I hope other Canadians are reassured, to learn that there are not 6,000 or 3,000 but a number small enough that there should be no more excuses for not taking the necessary steps to bring them all to justice so that Canadians can feel, when this process is completed, that the problem has been dealt with and we are not a country which offered asylum and did nothing about war criminals who in one way or another-fortunately not through complicity or support-managed to make Canada their hiding place for so many decades. That is reassuring.
Finally, I want to refer to one example because the report makes a great deal of it. It is the example of the Galicia Division in Ukraine. I am Jewish. I grew up in the Jewish community. It has always been thought and said that that division represented a symbol of evil. While I want to read his examination fully, I am prepared and I want to accept the examination by Mr. Justice Deschenes in which he tells us that that division is made up of individuals, some of whom are clearly not guilty of any war crimes, not only in the opinion of
March 12, 1987

Mr. Justice Deschenes but in the opinion of others on whom he relied and whom he cites at great length in his report.
In other words, in relation to this division, I would like to think of the Deschenes Commission as being a clearing of the air and a sign that no ethnic group can be taken as a whole to be responsible for the commission of war crimes. War crimes were committed by individuals of a variety of nationalities, and in the Galicia Division, as in other groups, each case must be considered on its merits and each individual must be dealt with as an individual. According to Mr. Justice Deschenes, the vast majority of them are innocent of any war crimes.
We must remember that the Niirnberg trials were not a trial of the German people. They were not a trial of World War II. They were a trial of a series of individuals, each charged with personal responsibility for the commission of war crimes. That is how we must look at the question of war criminals in Canada. It is a matter of individual responsibility.
I am pleased that Mr. Justice Deschenes went to the length he did in connection with the Galicia Division to establish that approach. It is an approach that I hope Canadians will make part of their consideration in seeing that war criminals are brought to justice and that the matter is dealt with in a way that is fair.
I said that the Government promises action and that Deschenes recommended action. Let me turn to the action that is recommended and what the Government proposes to do about it. Deschenes made three recommendations. The Government is only proposing to act upon one recommendation. First, Deschenes recommended that the Criminal Code be amended so that a made-in-Canada approach can be taken so that prosecutions can be held in our country and evidence can be brought in subject to strict Canadian rules and applied against war criminals here. It deals with some issues that have been difficulties in the past such as the question of retroactivity, and comes to the conclusion, based on what looks like sound legal argument, that the Criminal Code can be amended and war criminals can be prosecuted here.
The second recommendation is the revision of the extradition laws and the treaties to facilitate trying war criminals in foreign countries if those countries ask for their return.
Third, the process of denaturalization is examined. Deschenes recommended all three proposals and the Government is proposing to deal with the Criminal Code approach. I will have much more to say about the details of the Government's proposal, but one point I want to make now is that there is no doubt that the Criminal Code approach is much better than the other two. Taking away someone's citizenship depends on very special circumstances in individual cases which may or may not be there for the individual. I suspect that there are war criminals in Canada who could pass the denaturalization test by the circumstances under which they came. Therefore, it would not work for them in any event.
Extradition is similarly limited. Not every request for extradition can be honoured. In my opinion, if we had a war
Committee Reports
criminal in Canada who was wanted in some country where he had already been tried and condemned to death in front of a firing squad in absentia, we would not be able to condone an extradition under circumstances like that. Therefore, the two methods which the Government has put aside are less broad and less useful than the third method which it has endorsed and is proposing to follow. Our Party will accept that.
We will be satisfied, I suggest, for the time being to see the Government proceed with the Criminal Code amendment and show us the kind of good faith which has not been forthcoming generally from the Government in many other areas. I must say that the Government has not kept its promise in other areas, but in this case in taking the promise we are prepared to give the Government the opportunity and our support for the concentration on the one method of the three which could touch every war criminal and which ought to be the most useful device with the most safeguards. After all, taking away citizenship does not deal with the reasonable balance of proof of guilt of a serious crime. Extradition puts the individuals in the hands of another country, however much we might respect that particular country.
So let us have the amendments, and let us have them quickly. The Government has also made a commitment to allocate resources so that war criminals can be dealt with expeditiously. It has had the report for three months but we have not yet heard of anything. I hope the Minister was able to tell the media today how many Counties, how many lawyers, how many historians and how many interpreters have been allocated, because in three months, if the Government is acting in good faith on the solution it has endorsed, I think it should have been able to come up with something substantial. We in our Party will be pressing for that.
I think the Government as well ought to act on 21 particular cases referred to in this report. The Deschenes Commission finds that 21 highly suspected war criminals have left Canada. I do not think it is good enough for us to close the books on them just because they have left Canada, and I would expect the Government to do what we have been asking other countries to do. We have asked them to help us bring war criminals to justice in our own country. I would hope that in each of those cases an initiative will be taken by the Government to alert the country concerned that there is a fugitive in that country who ought to be brought to justice and that all possible assistance will be offered by the Government so that that can be done.
I have two other points that I would like to put before you, Mr. Speaker, at this time. The first point is the concern expressed by the public in some quarters while all this has been going on that while the Nazi holocaust certainly occurred and requires that its perpetrators, if found in Canada, be brought to justice, there are other victims in this country who have suffered from other international atrocities in other places in the world. While the Government has focused on the holocaust

March 12, 1987
Committee Reports
in Europe during World War II, there have been calls for a focusing on other victims and other victimization and on the fact that in other parts of the world, in Asia, Africa, Afghanistan, Angola, Viet Nam, horrible tragedies and brutalities have been committed, and that possibly there may be perpetrators of those crimes among us. There is, indeed, the Communist invasion following World War II. After the defeat of the Nazis, an additional series of atrocities were committed as the Communists took control of country after country. Something should be done about these facts as well. While I approve and support on behalf of my Party the amendment of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act so that from now on there will be a very good filter system, I am not satisfied that the past has been sufficiently addressed. I would urge the Government to deal with that problem as well.
I want to suggest even that if a royal commission has done us such a service in connection with war criminals from World War II, a royal commission could be the solution and other Canadians who were victims of foreign atrocities could bring their case against suspects in our country and receive the same attention and investigation which has been given to the case of the Nazi war criminal.
My final thought was that the report, and it is really the point I made at the outset, is a great opportunity and that the Government's response is also a great opportunity for a healing process to take place in our country, a healing process which is needed because of tensions among some communities in Canadian society which became regrettably worse during the process of the Deschenes Commission. This is an opportunity to strengthen national unity and to reinforce our commitment to fundamental justice for all crimes which must be punished, as the commission of war crimes must be punished.
I want to lend my support to the Government in this purpose and to warn that, having made a commitment to action and Criminal Code amendments, a commitment to supply RCMP officers and officials from the Department of Justice, three months is enough time for us to have a report and not simply a statement, if it is the case that the Government is still looking into it. I am pleased on behalf of my Party to offer these preliminary comments.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond on behalf of my Party and my caucus to the announcement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) today with respect to the Government's response to the recommendations of the Deschenes Commission. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in February of 1985, the former Minister of Justice of the Government of the day announced the establishment of the Deschenes Commission. I welcomed that announcement and commended the Government for taking the first real and concrete action to deal with the concerns of Canadians with respect to the possible presence in our community of Nazi war criminals. We welcomed the announcement of this commission to be chaired by such a distinguished judge as Judge Deschenes in February, 1985, and I believe it is appropriate now to say that Judge Deschenes
has done an excellent job. He has approached his daunting task with care and diligence.
It is not insignificant that it was also in 1985, some 40 years after the conclusion of World War II, that there was a historic gathering here in Ottawa of Jewish holocaust survivors and their children. I had the privilege and honour to attend that gathering. Certainly, for those of us who were present, it was a profoundly moving event. I remember Elie Wiesel, who addressed so eloquently that gathering of the Jewish survivors of the holocaust. He spoke of the importance of not forgetting. He said:
The fear of forgetting remains the main obsession of all those who have passed through the universe of the damned. The enemy counted on people's incredulity and forgetfulness. How could one foil this plot?
And if memory grew hollow, empty of substance, what would happen to all we had accumulated along the way? Remember, said the farmer to his son, and the son to his friend. Gather the names, the faces, the tears. We had all taken an oath: "If, by some miracle, I emerge alive, I will devote my life to testifying on behalf of those whose shadow will fall on mine forever and ever."
Those words spoken by Elie Wiesel must surely guide us in our response to the presence in our communities of those who allegedly participated in these atrocities. I want to commend particularly those in our community in Canada who have particularly taken the time and energy to draw to the attention of the Government our historical responsibilities in this area, whether it be the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the B'nai Brith, and many others. As we know, and as has been clearly documented, Canada has a history of shameful inaction in this area. As Judge Deschenes pointed out, unfortunately, we were not alone in this inaction.

Before the war not only did the Government close the doors to Jews who were seeking to flee persecution from Nazi Germany, but afterward those doors were opened. Those doors were opened to far too many people who, in fact, were perpetrators of the atrocities that the Jews were attempting to flee. Canada had one of the worst records in admitting Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust from 1940 to 1945, and a tragic record of keeping survivors out in the three years after the Holocaust. Surely, this imposes upon us even greater obligations at this time to reach out and take whatever steps are necessary in our community to bring to justice those who were responsible for the obscenity of the Holocaust.
This is particularly important as well in view of some recent attempts to deny the reality of the Holocaust. We have seen the obscenity of people who would refuse this reality, the reality of the murder of millions at the hands of the Nazis, millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and others. We must not be blinded to the horrors of the Holocaust. We must not continue what Irwin Cotier has described so eloquently as the bureaucratization of horror. He said:
Rather, what one finds throughout is the reduction of the Holocaust to a footnote and the concomitant bureaucratization of horror into a technical rationalization of why nothing can be done-a bureaucratization of evil that emerges as a blueprint for government inaction.
March 12, 1987

We all remember the decision that was taken in 1962, for example, when the Government said that because nothing could be done with respect to alleged Nazi war criminals the RCMP should not pursue these questions. That was wrong. It is tragic that there has been but a single attempt to move in this area, and that was with respect to the extradition of Helmut Rauca in 1982.
The Minister has touched upon the question of the tensions which have been raised between ethnic communities in Canada following the establishment of this commission. My colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), has discussed the same issue. We share these concerns. Indeed, my colleague from Thunder Bay has spoken out eloquently as our official spokesperson in the area of multiculturalism on this question and the essential importance of focusing not on ethnic communities but on individuals. We must make it very clear that we are not singling out any ethnic community. There can be no collective indictments. There can be no collective guilt in this area.
At the same time we must reject one of the arguments made by these bureaucrats to whom Irwin Cotier referred, the argument of retroactivity. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice has dealt with that argument in his response and has rejected it. Murder is murder. The passage of time cannot in any way diminish the significance of these crimes. To suggest otherwise would surely betray not only those who perished in the Holocaust and those Canadians who fought the Nazis, but it would betray those who survived, as well as the families of those who died. Also, it would be a betrayal of our obligations, our international obligations, such as those undertaken in the General Assembly in 1973 where we agreed, and I would like to quote now from the Convention:
War crimes and crimes against humanity, wherever they are committed, shall be subject to investigation and the persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed such crimes shall be subject to tracing, arrest, trial and, if found guilty, to punishment.
That is our obligation, solemnly undertaken at the United Nations. It is an obligation which we must respect. It is an obligation which has been recognized by the adoption of the provisions of the Charter of Rights allowing for the trial, in Canada, of crimes against humanity.
I might say that it is particularly offensive, in the context of the discussion of retroactivity, to hear individuals within the Department of Justice in submissions to the Government suggest, as they did in 1982, that retroactivity applied to persons whose demeanour while in Canada over a lengthy period may have been exemplary might be quite controversial. That was the suggestion made by the person who chaired the interdepartmental committee looking into this question. So it is no wonder that no action was taken with respect to this question.
We know, for example, that one woman, Hermine Ryan, was recently sentenced by a West German court to life in prison for murdering at least 1,100 prisoners in Poland's Maidenek concentration camp during the Second World War.
Committee Reports
For a while she lived in Canada. Had she not later moved to the United States, from where she was extradicted in 1983, she might never have been prosecuted for these murders and for the kicks that earned her the nickname "The Mare" among prisoners.
We must not allow that to continue in Canada. There must be a forum for those who suggest that the numbers differ from those which were established by Judge Deschenes. There must be a forum for these people who bring forward evidence, a forum within the Department of Justice and the RCMP. All must be brought to justice.
We welcome the announcement of the Government that all relevant evidence will be used because, indeed, survivors are living today not only in Canada but in Europe and in the U.S.S.R. Provided evidence is taken, subject to the safeguards which were established by the Deschenes Commission, obviously, that evidence must be taken wherever it may be.
Very importantly, we welcome the announcement of the Government to amend Canadian legislation, to amend the Criminal Code to allow the bringing to justice, in Canada, with trials in Canada subject to Canadian judicial standards, of individuals who are alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, those who have participated in war crimes. I might note that this option is one which was explicitly rejected by the previous Government. I regret that very much. It was a former Minister of Justice, Jean Chretien, who stated:
I don't think we should start prosecution in Canada for crimes committed in European countries 35 years ago ... 1 don't see how it would be possible to do so in Canada for crimes committed in other countries.
I am pleased that the Government has recognized that, indeed, we can move forward under the appropriately amended provisions of the Criminal Code to take action here in Canada to deal with these individuals. Indeed, it is important-in fact essential-that the Government move forward quickly in this area. Members of the New Democratic Party, and I speak on behalf of my caucus, will co-operate fully with the Government in speedy passage of legislation to allow for the trial in Canada of alleged Nazi war criminals.
It has been pointed out that the biological clock is ticking, the biological clock is running out on Nazi war criminals. As Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre pointed out:
-the record of history should not read that those who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity had the final victory by depriving justice of its due course.
We will fully co-operate with legislation that will allow for the trial in Canada of these individuals. It is important that the necessary resources be made available to the RCMP and to the Department of Justice to carry out their task with dispatch. I was most concerned to learn that apparently as yet there have been no additional personnel attached to the Department of Justice and no new personnel hired by the Ministry to respond to the report of the Deschenes Commission. As yet, we know of

March 12, 1987
Committee Reports
no individuals who have been hired by the RCMP to augment the unit within the RCMP that is conducting investigations. If the good words and the noble intentions of the Government are to be a reality, it must move forward now to put in place the necessary resources, both in the hands of the Department of Justice and the RCMP to allow for the prosecution of these individuals.
I would note the comments in this regard in the report of the Deschenes Commission. The Deschenes Commission states that should this not be done, should the necessary resources not be made available on a priority basis, there would appear to be no other alternative but to close the whole matter of war criminals altogether.
We wish to see legislation very quickly as promised by the Government. But we also want to see action now to ensure that the legislation which is in place can in fact be used and that individuals can be brought to justice. There could be no greater betrayal than to bring forward legislation but at the same time for the Government not to put in place the resources to allow for the necessary prosecutions under that legislation.
The Government has rejected two of the three major recommendations of the Deschenes Commission. The Government has rejected the suggestion that there should be changes in Canada's extradition laws and proceedings to facilitate the extradition of individuals who may be guilty of crimes against humanity. The Government has also rejected any changes to laws governing denaturalization and deportation with respect to these individuals.
With respect, I would suggest that while we fully support the decision of the Government to move forward in the area of trials in Canada, indeed we have called for that action to be taken for some time, we would not close the door, as the Minister has done, on the other options which have been suggested by the Deschenes Commission. I would suggest that these other options be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General in order that that committee might conduct with dispatch a careful study to ensure that indeed these options should not be pursued.
For example, we know of the barriers in the present extradition laws that have prevented the extradition of Jacob Luitjens which has been requested by the Dutch Government. Luitjens was convicted of crimes involving the murder of two innocent people, and also of assisting the German occupiers. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for that criminal offence. Today he is present in our community. The Dutch Government has asked for him to be returned to Holland. Our Government has said that that is not possible because the extradition treaty does not allow it. Surely we must ask ourselves whether there should be some changes to those extradition treaties.
We also must examine with care the question raised by the Deschenes Commission with respect to flaws in the Canada-Israel extradition treaty, and the fact that this treaty is
prospective only. Indeed, the commission states that abrogating this amendment in that treaty should be the first task of those who are interested in bringing war criminals to justice.
We do not agree that the Minister should close the door, as he has done apparently irrevocably, to any possible changes in the law in the area of extradition, denaturalization, or deportation.
I wish to conclude by again assuring the Government of our support for speedy passage of legislation to allow for the trial of those individuals who are living within Canada who are accused of crimes against humanity. I call upon the Government to bring that legislation forward quickly, and particularly not to betray the hopes of the survivors by delaying action in terms of adequate resources for the Department of Justice and the RCMP.
As I previously stated, the biological clock is ticking. Those who are accused are getting older; the witnesses are getting older, and many have died. We must move quickly in this area, particularly given Canada's shameful history of inaction in this area.
I wish to close by referring to a story that is told by Simon Wiesenthal of an incident that took place shortly after World War 11. He was told that thousands of Jewish prayer books had been found in a cellar of a 16th century castle in Austria. He went to investigate. In the cellar there were thousands upon thousands of books brought from Jewish homes and houses of worship all over Europe. The Nazis planned to distribute these books among libraries as historical curiosities. A young man who was with Wiesenthal picked up one book after another. Finally, in one of the books, on the first page he found, in the handwriting of his own sister, these words:
They've just come into our town. In a few minutes, they will be in our house. If someone finds this prayer book, please notify my dear brother. Do not forget us. Do not forget our murderers.
We must heed that cry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Presenting reports from committees.


Philip Derek Lewis: I wish to request that the presentation of reports from committees be allowed to stand for a minute or two. There is a committee report which has to be presented. If we could go through the other items in Routine Proceedings, we will be in a position to do that at the end of Routine Proceedings.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Do I have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 12, 1987


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a number of constituents who are concerned about the Government's present proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. The petitioners feel that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers. They believe it will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. Therefore, the petitioners are asking the Government to reject these proposals before it imposes what they believe could be an additional drug cost as high as $650 million a year.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present a petition signed by residents of Richmond, Surrey, Delta, Port Hardy, Vancouver, Nanaimo, and Langley in British Columbia. In July, 1985, 1,093 fishermen were collecting unemployment insurance. By February, 1986, that number had jumped to 29,847. The petitioners point out that fishermen fear that the Government is contemplating their right to collect unemployment insurance. Furthermore, they point out that unemployment insurance must be improved to better serve the needs of fishermen. In fact, the petition calls upon the House to give the assurance that fishermen's benefits under the Unemployment Insurance, 1971 Act will not be removed or tampered with.
Madam Speaker, I have petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Kingston, Napanee, Sydenham, Nepean, Ontario; Calgary, Alberta and Gatineau, Quebec. The petitioners point out that if the Forget Commission of Inquiry recommendations were put into effect it would take $1 billion in income transfers out of Quebec, $660 million out of the Atlantic, and $670 million out of the West. It also points out that it would reduce the provision for annualization and would reduce UI benefits to the unemployed by an over-all percentage of 31 per cent.
The petitioners call upon Parliament and this Government to ensure that the provisions of the Forget Commission, namely, annualization, removal of regional extended benefits and the removal of fishermen's special benefits from the UI be cancelled or removed from the Forget Commission.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions under the provisions of Standing Order 106 in which the petitioners, mostly parents of children attending day-care centres, say in
Order Paper Questions
connection with the changes to the Patent Act provided for in Bill C-22 that whereas the proposed measure will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis; and whereas the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial Government drug plans; and whereas the proposed changes are another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in free trade negotiations, therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me to present the report at this time. I have the honour to present the fifteenth report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN FIFTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

["I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 71 minutes beginning at 1 o'clock p.m. today.", 'March 12, 1987\nBorrowing Authority']
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I should like at this time to move concurrence in the fifteenth report of the Striking Committee presented earlier this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 71 minutes beginning at 1 o'clock p.m. today.

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I am quite pleased to have this chance to say a few words in today's debate on the borrowing authority. I want to remind the House that we are being requested to approve borrowing authority for $24.3 billion as set out, as you know, in Part II of the Bill, and for an additional $3.6 billion set out in the other part of the Bill. We are discussing $27 billion plus worth of borrowing authority. For that reason, we felt it was certainly appropriate to spend some time to point out some of the concerns that we have.
I refer now to an interesting speech which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave just last week to the Macdonald-Cartier Club in Calgary. Let me quote three or four phrases because I know you will be interested in them, Madam Speaker. At the conclusion of his speech he said:
In my remarks today, I have stressed the fact that the Government you elected-has carried out your program, your desires for fiscal rejuvenation, your principles of a market- driven economy and your commitment to stimulating the private sector.
In other words, the Minister went on to say that the government program as promised presumably had been delivered. Yet I seem to recall that part of the major thrust of the Government's program when it was seeking a mandate from the Government of Canada was about jobs, jobs, jobs. It was said that the Government would intend to create jobs and put Canadians back to work, but there seems to have been some transgression against that commitment. When you look at the facts and the unemployment figures as they exist in Canada today, you will find that in provinces such as Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the unemployment levels today are actually higher than they were in September, 1984 when the present Government took over.
I think if you look at the unemployment levels during the very serious recession in which Canada found itself in 1981-82, I say quite frankly that they exist today in seven out of the ten provinces, Madam Speaker. The Government, through this borrowing authority, is asking us to give permission to continue on as it has over the last two and a half years, to stay the course, as the Minister of Finance calls it. I say it would be quite inappropriate. Last year, Statistics Canada labour statistics indicated clearly that 137,000 new jobs were created in Canada. The interesting thing about that is that out of those 137,000 new jobs, 132,000 were created in one province, the Province of Ontario, and even there the jobs were not widely dispersed but were, by and large, confined to the greater
Toronto area or, as it is commonly referred to, the Golden Horseshoe. In other words, 96 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada last year were created within sight of the CN Tower in downtown Toronto and only 4 per cent of the new jobs were dispersed across the rest of Canada. That is unacceptable. That is not something with which we ought to feel pleased, yet the Government is saying that it will simply continue on taking this particular tack and will stay the course. The Government will hold the line because this is the strategy with which it feels comfortable and it is asking us to accept. We do not accept that and we cannot accept it.
The Minister of Finance tells us that he has carried out our program and our commitment to stimulating the private sector. That brings little comfort to single parents looking for work, to hard-pressed farmers and ranchers, to fishermen on the two coasts and the interior lake systems or to the small businesses that are struggling. It does not bring any comfort when the Minister of Finance says that he has in fact carried out our program. That was not our program.
I believe that if we were to carry out a survey of small businesses across Canada, we would find that life for them is not particularly encouraging. I recently toured my constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap and asked business people there how they are doing and what their projections for the forthcoming year are. While they maintain a stiff upper lip and a hopeful, positive attitude, the facts are quite to the contrary. In fact, by and large, the businesses are not healthy. There are always a few exceptions to that for a variety of reasons, but over-all, business prospects in most of the country are not particularly encouraging.


An Hon. Member:: Gloom and doom.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend across the aisle says: "Gloom and doom". I am not suggesting that we need to practise gloom and doom but we do have to admit the truth. Before a person with a drinking problem can solve the problem, he has to admit that he has a problem. Once he has admitted he has a problem, he can set out a particular course to resolve the problem.
Government Members are saying that everything is fine. The Minister of Finance is saying that we will simply hold the course. It is time they stopped saying that because things are not fine in most of Canada. They are not fine in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada and in northern Canada. The forest, mining, agricultural and fishing sectors are not fine. I am not suggesting that we get depressed about all this, but we must admit that there are serious problems in the economy and then start putting into place programs to resolve these difficulties. That is all we are asking. Yet in the Budget Speech of a few days ago, I did not hear about any new programs or initiatives the Government planned to take. When I pored through the Estimates item by item, I did not find any new initiatives. I suggest this is the reason Canadians are disillusioned and disappointed with the Government.
March 12, 1987

When Canadians gave the Conservatives such an overwhelming mandate, they wanted them to do something different from that which was done under successive Liberal administrations. Canadians wanted a new direction and to feel some change in the economy after a few months. Canadians are now saying that after two and a half years, something should have begun to happen in western Canada. The small business sector should be becoming more active than it was two and a half years ago, but that is not the case.
The economic projections for western Canada are relatively bleak. We are hoping for some growth and improvement but, based or. our best indicators, we are not particularly hopeful and optimistic. All this means that the future does not look particularly bright under present government policy. If the Government were to behave in different ways, we would see a tremendous change. We would see unemployment rates go down.
Again, before we can begin to create the perception that the Government is really serious about unemployment, it would be realistic to expect the Government to say: "Our goal is full employment, a job for every able-bodied man and woman in Canada. That is our goal and this is how we plan to achieve that goal". Then people would think that the Government is serious.
A great many people are asking seriously what can be done and what are some of the options. I would like to take a moment or two to deal specifically with what the Government could be doing if it really intended to reduce levels of unemployment, particularly in the regions of Canada, and if it were really serious about revving up the economy so that it will be like the economy we knew a few years ago. I will begin with agriculture.
At the top of the list for agriculture, the Government should introduce agri-bonds. The Standing Committees on Finance and Agriculture and special subcommittees have looked into that concept and have unanimously recommended to the Government that action be taken on agri-bonds. The experts, public servants, farmers and parliamentarians interested in agriculture have examined it and have recommended the introduction of agri-bonds in one form or another. Agri-bonds would provide the farmers and ranchers of Canada relatively low-interest money over a long period of time and they could then begin to plan years ahead knowing what interest costs on their loans would be. Other jurisdictions have forms of agribonds. They have been developed in the United States, and European countries have various forms of agri-bonds. That is a specific suggestion for what the Government could do this week if it really were concerned about the agricultural sector.
These days, the mayors of Canadian cities are meeting to discuss mutual concerns. A few years ago when the mayors met in Toronto, the then Mayor of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt, proposed that we return to the system that existed a few years ago whereby the federal Government, in co-operation with the provincial and local Governments, shared one-third, one-third, one-third in the development of municipal infrastructures,
Borrowing Authority
including new water systems, upgraded sewage treatment facilities, improved roads and highways, and improved recreational and cultural facilities.
The infrastructure required by a city benefits not only the city but also benefits the province and the country. Therefore, the suggestion was made that the funding of those projects should be shared. It is not a new concept. Other countries around the world do it and Canada used to do it a few years ago. If we were prepared to launch such a program, literally tens of thousands of Canadians would be put to work directly on those projects or indirectly by serving those projects through the manufacturing sector and the various professional sectors. That is another proposal that has been before the Government for some time now.
Let us look at some of the hard-pressed resource areas, and first at the forestry sector. As a result of the softwood lumber tax, the Government imposed some $600 million in new taxes. The Government should reinvest that money and develop silviculture and reforestation programs for our forests. I do not have to remind you or any Member of this House how woefully inadequate our silviculture programs have been and still are. There is much to be done. If we were to introduce more programs covering tree planting, thinning, spacing, fertilizing, disease, pest and fire control, as well as research into new product uses and new techniques for forest growth, we could put hundreds of thousands of Canadians to work in that one sector alone. I am not exaggerating. The provincial foresters who work in my constituency have said to me that in my riding alone 10,000 people could be put to work for many years in husbanding the forest as we should be doing. Yet, no, we say we cannot afford it.
We know it costs the Canadian taxpayers, one way or another, directly and indirectly, $1 billion a month for unemployment insurance. It costs them another $1 billion a month for welfare, not to mention all the other costs that unemployment creates. I do not understand why we would rather pay out literally billions of dollars in unemployment insurance and welfare rather than invest that money in the forest and fishery sectors, or in upgrading small business and manufacturing. We could put people to work for that money instead of paying them welfare or unemployment insurance or other forms of support.
We can talk about the fishery on both the East Coast and the West Coast, not to mention our lakes. Work can be done to improve and enhance the fishery sector through bank stabilization, hatchery assistance, fish farming and even fish ranching programs. All sorts of investments could be made to make Canada more productive and competitive in international markets. Yet, again, we say we do not have the money to invest. However, it is an old business adage that to make money you have to invest money. To expand your business you have to invest. Perhaps you have to borrow or find equity. The same thing applies to Canada. The Government has not an

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority
exclusive role to play but it has some role to play if we want Canada to grow and develop. If we want to increase our world trade then we have to invest in our country.
The saddest figures I have heard were those we got the other day about the amount of money invested in factories and mines and shops in Canada. Canadians are investing more money outside of Canada than inside. As well, very little money was being invested in Canada from outside. There was a net loss of investment of more than $10 billion in 1985-86, money that was invested in hard economies elsewhere. I understand that the purpose of many of the Government's initiatives was to attract money. We were told that if we privatized Crown corporations and laid off all these public servants, cut back on various programs, for some reason people would come into the country and invest vast sums of money. That was a hoax. I do not know if the Government knew it was going to be a hoax or if it actually hoped it would happen. I suspect that this is the case. However, the fact is that it has not happened. Not only has money not come into Canada for investment in those hard aspects of the economy, but the lion's share has been leaving the country more than ever before. Investment outside Canada is reaching historic highs, and it is a very serious issue.
If we are going to expand our economy we have to start investing. For that reason I think it is time the Government, in co-operation with the private sector, started to take some major initiatives to show the people of Canada that it is serious about expanding and developing the economy, not only in Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe but in the rest of Canada.
It is for that reason that I hope the Government has recognized that its program to date has not been successful in attracting investment or in creating jobs. Further initiatives must be taken far beyond anything we have seen to date, particularly in the regions of Canada.


Mr. Grondin:: Madam Speaker, after hearing the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I wonder how and where other than in the areas he mentioned, the Government should invest to provide for increased economic development in Canada. He mentioned quite a few, but I am wondering whether it would not be a good idea for the Government to invest more money in youth and research, to help young people become better educated, which eventually will have a positive impact on this country's economy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for a good question. Obviously in a short speech one is unable to list all of the initiatives possible. However, he has touched on one which is perhaps the most crucial of all. If we were to identify a Canadian resource which needs to be developed, it would be the people of Canada, particularly the young people of Canada. We are falling behind many countries in the support we give to our people to develop their skills, whether it be vocational, technical or professional training. Anyone looking at the future will realize that our future will be
knowledge-based. We saw from briefings this morning that Japan is moving its economy in the direction of a knowledge-based economy. That requires a well-trained and educated workforce. When you look at our educational system and the opportunities young people have relative to many other countries, it is not that encouraging. I noticed the other day that Mr. Ken Dryden issued his report on the participation levels of young people in post-secondary education. I believe all of us were astounded to find that such a small number of people graduate from post-secondary institutions in Canada. In my own province it is less than 5 per cent. This should be creating a great deal of concern. While the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) is really a nice fellow, he does not seem to have done very much in providing equal access to postsecondary education for Canadians regardless of where they live.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Madam Speaker, I always look forward to listening to the Hon. Member because he is usually the voice of reason. However, with respect, I was not as impressed today because there were moments when I thought the NDP House Leader was sounding like a disciple of Reaganomics. He was urging the Government to spend more, whether or not it had the money. According to him the answer to the problems he outlined is to stimulate and inflate the economy. I know he did not intend it the way it sounds. We have seen what happens to an economy when it follows that route. It results in a more and more top-heavy deficit from which we are trying to gain liberation.
If we wanted only to be partisan, it would be very simple to respond to the Hon. Member's critique of the Government's alleged lack of concern about regional disparities by pointing to the extraordinarily impressive number of projects that the Government has undertaken in recent months. It has issued a contract for an ice-breaker in Vancouver. It has given $1 billion in funding for grain growers across the country. It has provided for the continuation of the steel industry in Nova Scotia. It expedited the frigate contract in the Maritimes and Quebec. The list is long.
However, I would like the Hon. Member and me to avoid the usually futile partisan exchange and face this: The problem he has rightly identified is not to be solved by the solution he put before this House. It may not be solved by the one the Government is following, but let us put that to one side for the moment. The Member and the House should recognize that the kind of problem which he has identified, namely, the concentration of population and economic strength in one part of the country in contrast to others, is not peculiar to Canada. It is to be found around the world.
We should not be criticizing one another and being defensive, but asking ourselves what are the basic reasons which explain that. What can we do to change that in this great country? The Member does not want to see that, living in
March 12, 1987

British Columbia as he does, and I do not want to see it living in Metro Toronto. However, I do not think the answer is to throw more and more money here and there. We have tried that and it has not worked yet. I hope that at some point the result of the intervention which he has made in this debate will be to force this House to debate one of the critical and economic social problems of our age.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague who outlined the problem. There is a myth that the United States is a great free enterprise country. I suspect that when one looks at the stimulation of that economy through the defence budget, one will see that there is not a single major community in the United States which does not receive direct financial stimulation every year. I just want to clear the record with regard to federal initiative to expand that economy.
I want to be very specific. The fact that much of the concentration of economic power happens to be in southern Ontario is largely result of the market-place, in other words, the national gravitation of economic forces to where the action is. Let us look at Norway as an example of a country which has tried a different approach. I happen to be familiar with Norway which is headed by the equivalent of a New Democratic government. The unemployment rate there today is 1.9 per cent, the lowest in the world. I checked that figure before I came in today.
In Norway they realize that if it is left to the market-place all the economic activity will take place in and around the City of Oslo. They believe that it is important that people in the various regions of Norway have economic opportunities. Therefore, if one wants to build a factory to make shirts in Sandefjord, a small community, the Government will assist with the cost of transporting raw materials and transporting the finished product to the port to equalize the cost of manufacturing the shirts there rather than in Oslo which has a port facility.
In other words, if you want to locate your factory in a small rural area, the Government will assist you to ensure that you are able to compete without being penalized because of your geographic distance from the port. One could say that that involves government intervention. Yes, it does. However, the unemployment rate in Norway today is 1.9 per cent, virtually full employment. There will always be some people between jobs.
Therefore, if we do not want all of the economic activity in the future to be concentrated in the Golden Horseshoe of Canada, the Government must take steps to ensure that reasonable enterprises elsewhere have support to enable them to compete. I offer my colleague that as a possible way to encourage economic development in the provinces other than southern Ontario.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a Bill
Borrowing Authority
whose purpose is to authorize the Government to borrow billions of dollars. If the money was supposed to help low- and middle-income Canadians, I think I would congratulate the Government, sit down, and we could vote on the Budget, so that these measures could be implemented immediately. Unfortunately, the borrowing authority the Government is seeking is certainly not for money that will help people on middle- or low-incomes or people who live in poverty in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and other urban centres.
I think we should remember that this is the international year of the homeless. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the money the Government wants to borrow will certainly not be used to help this group of citizens but to help the Government's friends, the people who contributed $60,000 and more in the case of the bank failures. Although the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and most Government Members would have us believe that all's well with the world, I would like to recall a study whose findings were published in the newspaper La Presse about a month ago, which showed that poverty still exists in Quebec and the Montreal area and Canada, despite the self-congratulatory stance of this Conservative Government.
First the headlines: More and more people are queuing up for our soup kitchens, an institution that had disappeared altogether and that we had to bring back. Soup kitchens were a creation of the Depression, in the '30s, and in Montreal the only vestige of that time was the Bonneau shelter that was able to help the needy of the entire Montreal area. Unfortunately, non-profit organizations all over Montreal and all over this country are having to set up these soup kitchens.
According to the same study, there are over 500,000 poor people in the greater Montreal area alone, at a time when much is made of the fact that the volume of shares traded on the Montreal Stock Exchange has increased in six years from 3.8 billion to 15.9 billion. I think we should remember that the number of people on welfare has also considerably increased over the last five years. The words inequality and injustice come to mind. When we look at our national unemployment statistics, it does not seem so bad, but when we take a closer look, without getting into greatly detailed analysis, we find that any gains that were made in the economy and job creation were made in Ontario, in the Toronto area, while in regions like the Atlantic Provinces, the West and even in some parts of Ontario and Quebec, in Montreal East and in remote areas, the results have been negative and instead of job creation we have had a reduction in the number of jobs.
Madam Speaker, I have no idea whether the Government Members are fully aware of the three budgets presented by their Government, its attitude and behaviour with respect to senior citizens, its decisions concerning both youth and consumer programs. My colleague behind me happens to be the official critic when it comes to youth programs, and I must

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority
say we have witnessed a truly sad performance in this field, nothing but cut-backs and more cut-backs. Yet there is a group of people in Canada who are growing richer, but unfortunately they are always the same people. A moment ago the Conservative Member referred to deficit reduction.
We all agree on that, but why is the Government telling us in the same breath that we have to vote for this measure to borrow more money? Yet at the same time, when dealing with family allowances, the Government saw fit to de-index the first slice of the 3 per cent due to inflation, supposedly to give mothers an opportunity to do their share towards deficit reduction, but this did not stop it from giving wealthier people a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption, a move which will drain $800 million from the public treasury in 1987, from the pockets of all Canadian taxpayers, men and women alike.
I referred earlier to the bankruptcy of financial institutions which cost $1.6 billion to Canadian consumers. Then there was the Prime Minister's stupid decision to transfer a penitentiary from Drummondville to Port-Cartier, a project of $41 million which would have been better spent to help Canadian families or young people who cannot find jobs and could have benefit-ted from programs specially designed for them. Talk about doubling to $15.1 million the expenditures of the Prime Minister's staff. Think about the $2.6 million wasted on organizing the March 1985 Reagan-Mulroney superparty. Remember the trips of the Prime Minister, over $1 million to travel first class all the way at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Had he acted as a responsible man he would have been the first to set the example instead of urging people to tighten their belts and do without the good things in life. Not this man: he asked others to do what he was not prepared to do himself and, worse still, the Prime Minister and his Government went on a spending spree with the savings of Canadians.
That is something the people simply cannot forgive, and the polls tell the story: 76 per cent have lost faith in this Government. Voters' preferences expressed in polls are particularly significant in Quebec, and the Conservatives can thank their lucky star that the polling firm chose not to put the Rhinoceros Party on the list because they would have gone down ten more points, behind the Rhinos. It is true that the Rhinoceros Party . . . Concerning the Prime Minister, the scandals and everything else that has happened under this Government, 1 think the Rhinos would have been hard put to come up with funnier jokes, because you got to have an imaginative mind to be able to come up with so many scandals and whatever else the Government has experienced lately. The problem is that Canadians end up paying for the mistakes and blunders of this Government.
I might recall that on Monday this week I attended the seminar of the Federation de I'age d'or du Quebec which includes all senior citizens' groups from each and every provincial riding. The elderly people who were there, men and women president of associations of senior citizens, reminded
me about the famous July 26 promises made by the Conservative Government in the riding of Sherbrooke. All the Conservative Members were there. We all remember that at the time, during the electoral campaign, the Prime Minister and all his colleagues made all sorts of promises. Everyone remembers that, at the time-and I have here the press release of the Conservative Party, which shows that I am not making this up-the first priority was to re-establish full cost of living indexation of old age security pensions as of January 1, 1985. This was just a lie because, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all their Conservative colleagues tried to de-index the first 3 percent of old age security pensions.
Hon. Members will recall what would have happened without the determination, tenacity and energy of senior citizens who said: "Just a minute, Charlie Brown, we have something to tell you; you had better keep your promises." The Prime Minister was forced to admit that he had made a serious mistake and the Conservative Members who had told everyone in their constituencies that the cutbacks were justified realized how wrong they had been, because acting like sheep is never a good idea.
Let us go back to the commitment made on July 26, 1984, in Sherbrooke during the electoral campaign, under Item 4. I can still see the tape showing the Prime Minister with his hand over his heart to show his sincerity and the truth of what he was saying. Item 4 says that the Conservative Government is committed to maintaining the New Horizons Program and to allocating sufficient funds to this program.
That is the promise which the people who were present at the seminar of the Federation de I'age d'or recalled for me. Then, Mrs. Denis, who took the Prime Minister to task on Parliament Hill about the de-indexation of old age security pensions, showed me, with the facts to prove it, that once more, for the umpteenth time, this Prime Minister and this Government had misled senior citizens. After saying that they would allocate sufficient funds, they cut back $4.5 million from the budget of the New Horizons Program.
I trust that the Conservative Members who are here now and all senior citizens clubs in every constituency in Canada, and there is one in each, will remember this deception and the fact that the budget of this program was reduced to $12,127,000 in 1985-86, to $10 million in 1986-87 and to $8.8 million in 1987-88. This adds up to a cutback of $4.5 million after a solemn promise made by all Conservative Members and this Prime Minister to our senior citizens.
I can assure you that people will remember these cutbacks and this behaviour. People will remember. During the next electoral campaign, you will knock on their doors and say: "How are you, I am Mr. so and so, I was your Conservative Member of Parliament". They will reply: "Thank you, but no. You did nothing about the de-indexation of old age security pensions. You were not there to defend our rights when we needed money to organize our cultural, social, recreational or educational activities. You refused to do it and you misled us."
March 12, 1987

They will say: "As for us, we shall not follow the example of the Prime Minister; we shall not mislead you; we can tell you to your face that we shall vote against you." This is the attitude of the public. This is how people are reacting. I have the opportunity to travel to many constituencies in Quebec and the rest of Canada and this has been the reaction of the Canadian population, whether we are speaking about senior citizens, young people, workers or even employers' associations. They are totally dissatisfied with this Government, especially because of its lack of honesty and its failure to achieve anything or to put together a coherent policy to meet the needs of Canadians.
I would also like to touch upon another matter that directly affects Quebecers, and again we know what commitment the Prime Minister and this Government made during the last elections and in the Speeches from the Throne that were delivered here. In all cases it was the same scenario-with one hand on his heart and the other on the Bible, the Prime Minister said he was going to do all that was needed for Quebec to agree to the Canadian Constitution in an honourable and dignified way. So much for the rhetoric. But what are the facts? The proposals put on the table by this Government, Madam Speaker, intended to take away existing rights, important powers that confirm Quebec's distinctive nature and specificity- that of selecting immigrants and managing human resources, immigration-wise.
That was the first time the proposal was put on the table, this Government's proposal not to enshrine in the Constitution, as proposed by the Liberal Party, the Cullen-Couture Agreement which granted powers to Quebec and the right of veto in respect of immigrant selection. But the same may be said about spending powers-the relevant legislation is of great concern to us-borrowing, spending powers. Again this Government, contrary to its commitments, has laid on the table a proposal such that the Quebec Government has not only to turn it down but also to refuse to take part in further constitutional negotiations, including those on native people that will be held over the coming weeks, because the Government will not recognize financial compensation for new social programs.
Here again we have another example of this Prime Minister's and this Government's attitude towards our senior citizens, the sick with respect to whom all Hon. Members will remember the 10 per cent tax on drugs, the young who had some of their programs slashed without added monies to help youth, workers, Quebecers-this Government acted contrary to its commitments, let alone honouring them.
With respect to Quebec matters, I have before me two letters sent to all Members here by the Hon. Marc-Yvan Cote, the Quebec Minister of Transport, concerning those bills. Concerning those two bills, my colleague the transportation critic, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), has tried to convince this Tory Government and make it aware, to wake
Borrowing Authority
up the caucus of Quebec Tory Member and tell them that those bills will have a negative impact on Quebec as a whole, whether in the area of rail transportation, air transportation or trucking, those proposals ... And I am convinced the Tory Members again will not respond to that invitation from the Quebec Minister of Transport.
In Quebec, and I will conclude on that, Madam Speaker, there are 17 unsettled issues either because there has been no response or the response has not been satisfactory.
Now let me list them to conclude: the Montreal East end issues, the shipyards, the Matane pulp and paper mill, the Desbiens plant, the GM plant in Boisbriand, the Melchers' employees, the banking centre, the aerospace agency, equalization payments, grants, immigration assistance, the refugees, the rail system in Quebec, the footwear, textile and clothing industries, also the question of discrimination against potato producers and the denial of grants to help Quebec clean up the St. Lawrence River. And I could go on, Madam Speaker. My time has expired, but it is my hope, because I do not despair, that some day we will find at least one-I am not asking for 10 or 40, but at least one-Tory Member from Quebec who will wake up and roll up his sleeves, before he looses his seat, and save Quebec's interests.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) has the floor.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Thank you. I should like to comment briefly on the remarks made by my colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I wonder if he is afraid, Madam Speaker, for he is leaving . . . May I begin by saying that good management is good government. And to govern means-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie rises on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, it is to tell the stupid Member who has just risen that he cannot mention whether someone is absent or present. But just to prove to him that I am not afraid of a nincompoop, I will stay and listen to his nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) did not really mean to use these epithets in the case of the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent). I am sure he is sorry and apologizes to the House. The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) has the floor.


Pierre H. Vincent: Is he apologizing, Madam Speaker?


Mr. Della  Noce@: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) has the floor.


Mr. Della  Noce@: I am afraid my hon. friend misunderstood the question. He is very busy with his notes and I suggest that he probably does not remember using as usual such highly colourful terms. However, I too should like to ask the House whether the Hon. Member should not be called to order because I do not think he should use such language when addressing one of his colleague, whether a Conservative, a Liberal or an NDP-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair suggests that there have been procedural infringements on both sides. I do not think it was in order for the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) to mention the presence or absence of one of his colleagues in the House, nor was it in order for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to use unparliamentary language when addressing one of his colleagues. I think that now we should simply continue with the debate. The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent).


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, you are an outstanding politician and a great Speaker. We will gladly abide by your decision.
I should like to begin by quoting a phrase: Good management makes for good government which means that the Government, instead of being part of the economic problem, is now part of its solution. In this context, Madam Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie who stated that the funds sought today through this borrowing authority legislation will be spent to help the affluent, that I am quite disappointed with him. I thought he knew how the Parliament of this country worked, Madam Speaker. I was under the impression that, having sat here from 1979-80 to 1987, he would know about the workings of the Canadian Parliament. Unfortunately, I find out that he does not. The reason may be that before 1984, he did not rise in the House too often-


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Two years from now, we will not see you here any longer either.


Pierre H. Vincent: -and did not participate in debates quite as often as he does now.
You know, Madam Speaker, that the authority granted under the legislation enables the Government to borrow, but you also know that the authority to spend those funds requires that another legislation be passed by this Parliament. Now, when I am told that this borrowing authority enables the Government to spend for the rich, it fails to make any sense, Madam Speaker, and I know that you understand that as well as my colleagues on this side of the House. This information will help the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) understand the Canadian parliamentary system.
Then, unfortunately, he was dishonest to some extent when he dealt with the problem of Western banks and said again that the money was paid out to the rich. You know quite well, Madam Speaker, that the serious problem experienced by some Western banks had an impact at the national and international levels and we had to show that our Canadian banking system was sound as is widely recognized. You know that the depositors were credit unions, municipalities, hospitals and charitable organizations. Those were the kinds of institutions which could not afford to incur such losses and which afterwards would have applied for assistance to the provincial governments. The latter would then have turned to the federal Government which would have been forced to help those organizations. I think that on the one hand, we have shown that the Canadian banking system was sound and on the other hand, that the Government of Canada has taken up its responsibilities.
If there are people talking about immoderate spending, about mismanagement of the affairs of the state, as the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie has suggested, I would have liked him to recall the scientific research tax credit that was established in 1984, and because of which billions of dollars-not a few bucks, not thousands of bucks, not millions, and I see the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (M. Tardif) is laughing. He laughs at their spending billions of dollars to help rich companies on the backs-


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: On the backs of the poor!


Pierre H. Vincent: -not only the poor, as the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) is suggesting, but on the backs of our Canadian researchers, who did not get that money. They have nothing, and we have to stand by with empty coffers in 1984, in 1985, in 1986, in 1987. And why empty coffers? Because this Hon. Member, who was there before 1984 and who today is laughing about those billions of dollars, that Hon. Member voted so that companies could make passes, pick up research tax credits and put the money in their pockets. And this Hon. Member who laughs at it today-on top of that, Madam Speaker, he finds courage to laugh at it. I would be ashamed, I would rather be eating sandwiches rather than laugh in this House where you voted and supported that.
Madam Speaker, you are right, that same Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie talks about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came here in 1984 and immediately cut his own salary, the salaries of his Ministers . . .


An Hon. Member:: Because they have envelopes!


Pierre H. Vincent: There are no envelopes, and that you know, Madam Speaker. He cut his own salary three years in a row. It is interesting to know that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has refused to have his salary cut.


Alain Tardif: There are no envelopes on this side of the House.
March 12, 1987


Pierre H. Vincent: He refused that, and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition enjoys benefits that are just as large and interesting financially as those of the Ministers. If the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe wants to be honest he will recognize that the leader of the Opposition refused to have his salary cut. That is interesting, Madam Speaker. There has been no mention of this.
He referred to surveys. I would have liked him to have been here, too bad he has gone. But anyway we will see him comes the next election, and I am inviting him to come to the constituency of Trois-Rivieres and have a look around, either now or later. We will see him when he does his door-to-door calls.
Allow me, Madam Speaker, to quote a few newspaper headlines: "Business and labour are disappointed". "The nonbudget". "The budget... opens the door to another recession". And the last one, Madam Speaker: "Lalonde forgets the unemployed". These headlines appeared in La Presse and Le Droit on February 16, 1984, the day after Mr. Lalonde's budget speech.
Today, they are trying to take us to task, arguing that our management of the country is not sound. If I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to quote another headline: "Inversely proportional to the Government's popularity" "Canadian economy doing quite well, thank you!" These, Madam Speaker, appeared on the front page of the February 17, 1987, issue of Le Devoir. And this article appears under the byline of the noted Michel Vastel, a newpaperman friend of ours whom you know quite well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You should go out West.


Pierre H. Vincent: If I may, I should like to quote a few excerpts ... I should like to indicate to my hon. friend that I had the opportunity to visit Nanaimo and Victoria last weekend, Sunday and Monday, and that I was very warmly received in that region where the standing of the Conservative Party is excellent.
Let me read an excerpt from this article:
But businessmen have been living a true honeymoon with the Government for the past two years. Three weeks ago, in Paris, Tomas d'Aquino, the President of the Business Council on National Issues stated: "The Mulroney Government is progressing slowly but surely in its reduction of the Government's deficit. As a whole . ..
Here, Madam Speaker, is the important part.
-and compared with other members of the OECD, Canada's economic
situation can be said to be relatively good."
And he added:
"One week later, Mr. Antony Pell, the Chairman and Managing Director of Dominion Securities told his shareholders: "We are more optimistic about the general climate for investment and business then we had been over the past ten years. This is due to a large extent to the major political initiatives taken by the Federal Government over the past two years." And the very serious Financial Times noted that the Canadian dollar, which exchange dealers considered a year ago as the "peso of the North", is becoming a refuge currency for speculators." The Canadian dollar closed at 74.83 cents U.S. yesterday in Toronto.
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the Conservative Government promised in 1984. We had promised to create jobs and I have some figures here. The Opposition quoted some figures to us and it is now my turn to do so. In Quebec, in
Borrowing Authority
December, 1982, there was 14.7 per cent unemployment. In August, 1982, the rate was 15.5 per cent. You know, Madam Speaker, we are now in Ottawa and we are bilingual. In September, 1984, unemployment in Quebec was 12.9 per cent. In January, 1987, it was 10.8 per cent. I could give you the figures for every province in Canada. Unemployment is going down. Since September, 1984, 675,000 jobs have been created. Why is this? Because business people in your constituency, in Trois-Rivieres, have confidence in the economic policies of the Conservative Government. They voted for us and they understand that Canada is not a welfare state, that it is the private sector which creates jobs and that the Canadian Government is only the rudder which helps businesses to invest and to create jobs. This is what Canadians voted for in 1984. Since then, we have delivered the goods.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the deficit is being reduced. Inflation is now at 4 per cent, which is very reasonable and acceptable. Canada now has the second best real economic growth in the world. Only Japan has done better. These are facts, Madam Speaker. This is how we are keeping the electoral promises made in 1984. Interest rates have reached their lowest level in ten years. In 1982, Madam Speaker, and I remember this because I had just opened my law office in Trois-Rivieres-


Alain Tardif: You will be going back to it.


Pierre H. Vincent: -interest rates were going up. Who says that I shall go back? I can tell the Hon. Member that he can certainly purchase his own one-way ticket to Richmond- Wolfe.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, we now have the lowest interest rates in ten years. People in Trois-Rivieres and Richmond-Wolfe are now paying $1,500 less each year on a $50,000 mortgage. Maybe you can understand that. The people understand because they have more money in their pockets. Small businessmen understand that they are paying $1,000 less each year in interests. People understand this in Trois-Rivieres and they are proud of what this Conservative Government is doing, as are the people of Richmond-Wolfe. This is the problem.


Alain Tardif: The polls make it clear.


Pierre H. Vincent: You should take polls in Trois-Rivieres. Come whenever you want. Come to Trois-Rivieres and look at the polls. I am not embarrassed or nervous. I can give you the results of my own polls.
Housing starts have increased by 25 per cent. This is the highest rate in ten years. Someone was speaking about the poor a while ago. It is true that there are poor people and we recognize it. However, we are working on that problem. I hope that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) knows at least that the number of families under the poverty line has gone down in 1986 for the first time in five years.

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Della  Noce@: Ele did not say so.


Pierre H. Vincent: Perhaps he did not say so because he did not know, but one thing for sure is that he did not say anything about it. So this can only mean one thing, Madam Speaker, that indeed we have dealt with this issue. Family income in Canada is going up for the first time in six years. Madam Speaker, this is 1987, we were elected in 1984, three years ago. In three years we have managed to turn around the slumping economy which the media commented about in these terms back in 1984: "Lalonde's Budget is paving the way for a new recessison in 1985". These are not my words, Madam Speaker.
Let them tell me about Quebec specifically, the F-18 contract. We have not heard anything about that. 1 can tell you that in Trois-Rivieres ... I went to Val-d'Or, 1 went to the riding of Bellechasse, I went to the riding of Champlain, I went to the riding of my colleague from Duvernay who is here.


Alain Tardif: You sure get around.


Pierre H. Vincent: Everywhere I went people were talking about the CF-18s. They are proud of the decision made by the Conservative Government and they said: Strange that you in the Quebec Conservative caucus took position on that and got the contract. Strange, because when the Liberals were in office the Quebec caucus would not take position.


Michel Champagne: There were 74 of them.


Pierre H. Vincent: Indeed, 74 and they did not take position. There are other contracts we should have had in Quebec, but we did not. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) is not saying much, yet the Hyundai plant is not all that far from his region.


Alain Tardif: Domtar.


Pierre H. Vincent: Domtar, sure. The case was mishandled, I suppose, you are unhappy about the way it turned out. Next you will be telling me that you settled the matter, that the Member for Richmond-Wolfe settled the matter.


Alain Tardif: And the mapping centre, is that going to be in the Eastern Townships?


Pierre H. Vincent: Let's talk about agriculture, Madam Speaker.


Alain Tardif: And about mapping.


Pierre H. Vincent: One billion and a half in 1985, over five years. And for five years, Quebec's dairy farmers had been waiting for this measure. Madam Speaker, you yourself come from a riding with a number of excellent dairy farms. They had been waiting for this measure for five years. And we did it. More federal-provincial agreements have been signed with Quebec and the other provinces than ever before. These agreements are sound and they have made a difference. Madam Speaker,
that is what we have accomplished so far and I am of course referring to this Government.
I would like to spend a few moments on the Budget, because it is of course directly-


Mr. Gagliano:: What Budget?


Pierre H. Vincent: -the 1987 Budget which is of course directly connected with the Bill before the House today.


Alfonso Gagliano: That is a Budget?


Pierre H. Vincent: It is really too bad, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member opposite is supposed to be a chartered accountant and know about figures, and it is really too bad he is criticizing Canada's fiscal plan-


Alfonso Gagliano: Just what is a Budget? Tell us.


Pierre H. Vincent: He should know what a Budget is. A Budget consists of the country's financial statements on a given date. Let them tell us what happened in the past, what the present situation is and what the future holds.


Alfonso Gagliano: It contains nothing. And what is a financial statement? There is nothing at all there.


Pierre H. Vincent: Let me tell you what happened before: In 1983-84, a deficit of $32.3; in 1984-85, a deficit of $38.3.


Alfonso Gagliano: How much in 1986-87?


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, what happened to the $6 billion during election year? In September 1984, we battened down the hatches. Which means that they spent $6 billion just before the election, because the deficit increased by $6 billion and we didn't do it. And if we didn't, it was the previous Government. And who knows how they spent it? In any case, all of a sudden it jumped to $6 billion. We were given a deficit of $38 billion and in 1985-86 we cut it back to $34 billion; in 1986-87 to $32 billion and this year, 1987-88, to $29.3 billion. This means a reduction of 23 per cent over three years.
For the first time in 30 years, the federal Government has reduced its deficit for the third consecutive year. Have we mismanaged the country, Madam Speaker, when we created jobs, reduced the inflation rate, promoted economic expansion and became the second best country in the world at the economic level? However, Madam Speaker, when one hears such statements, one wonders whether those Members are entirely honest, if they do not play around with the truth.


Michel Champagne: They do not know how to count.


Pierre H. Vincent: We know that. They were in power for 20 years and we have seen that they have never known how to count.
The 1987 Budget, Madam Speaker, is an exercice in continuity: first we had the economic statement of November
March 12, 1987

1984, then the May 1985 Budget, the February 1986 Budget and now the February 1987 Budget.
Let me also recall what I would consider large figures in the Budget. They are important for the understanding of what this Government has been doing: $10.5 billion for the unemployment insurance program in this year's budget; $13.5 billion for old age security, and those are billions, Madam Speaker; $6.6 billion for tax transfers; $6.5 billion for the public assistance and family allowance plans; $8.9 billion for established program funding for a total of $48.3 billion. For our national debt-their national debt, the money they borrowed and which we have to pay back-$27.3 billion in interest payments this year. The total shows that 50 per cent of our expenditures are going to social programs, and 25 per cent to interest payments. We manage to administer the country, the departments, the House of Commons, and extend grants with 25 per cent of government expenditures. That, Madam Speaker, is called sound administration. You are signalling that my time has almost expired. Thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions,
comments. The Hon. Member for Kamploops-Shuswap (M. Riis)


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have two questions for my hon. friend. He began his speech by talking about the excellent management that he alleges the Government has provided.
The Prime Minister's Office is very symbolic to Canadians in terms of what the Government believes in. Does the Hon. Member think it is a good idea that the Prime Minister's Office was expanded from a staff of 60, under Prime Minister Trudeau, to 120, under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?
The Hon. Member will know that the 10 per cent tariff on English language books brought into the federal Government $11 million from such countries as the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, West Germany, Switzerland, France, Ireland, and many others. Does the Hon. Member believe that it was an example of good management to impose this tax, and then to remove it a few months later?


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, my heartfelt thanks to the Hon. Member for allowing me to clarify a few points. On the one hand, I have no idea of the number of people who were in the previous Prime Minister's office. I must admit that there were not very many of my friends there. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, regarding our Prime Minister who is doing a tremendous job and who, as I said, has cutback his own salary for several consecutive years, I think he proved to Canadians the importance of good management. In the 1986 budget, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister imposed a $1 000 salary reduction to each and every Member of this House. We
Borrowing Authority
were unable to impose the reduction to the Leader of the Opposition, so we did it through the Members' account.
As far as tarifs are concerned, I had the opportunity last year, following their imposition, to meet with representatives of the Western Publishers Association during their convention in Lake Louise, and I explained to them what we had done. When they understood the context of the decision, they supported it. They were not happy about it, but they agreed with it. And the rationale was that, as the Canadian Government, we had to send a clear and definite message to the United States about what they had done. Neither the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) nor the Government were to blame, but when we looked at the list of things on which a tarif could be imposed under the GATT agreement negotiated by the former administration, the choice was limited. Once the signal had been sent and this tarif had been imposed, I think that, in view of the fact that the free trade negotiations are progressing rather well, the Minister of Finance was justified in removing this tarif; however it was important to let the United States know that we were not going to let them walk all over us. That was the message, Madam Speaker.


Alain Tardif: Having listened with a great deal of attention to the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent), Madam Speaker, I can summarize his remarks in this way: Inflation is down, and so are interest rates. In my opinion, however, Canadian people understand that if such is the situation, it is the result of the very good policies implemented in 1983-84; however, since the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres loves quoting major newspapers to brag about this Government's so-called good and healthy administration, I will quote from an article which appeared this morning in the newspaper Le Droit. I will dispense with excerpts and limit myself to the conclusion:
All those scandals that have shaken the Cabinet seem to have persuaded the people that the "boss" has no control over the "business". That is why we must ask ourselves today whether marketing experts can confer on a politician an intellectual dimension which does not seem to fit his real nature.
The article concludes with those words, Madam Speaker:
In short, Prime Minister Mulroney may change political advisers as often as he wants, he may reshuffle his Cabinet to his heart's content, but will the real Brian Mulroney not always remain the man the people-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to relate the comments of the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) to the bill now under discussion. The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) might still want to reply.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, once again, I commend you for your judgment. It is saddening to hear a Member talk about scandals when commenting on the good and healthy economy of Canada. Even more so, Madam Speaker, when we know there have not been that many scandals, in the sense of what Canadians mean by scandals. Presumptions, allegations of scandals by that party. True, Madam Speaker, there have been a lot of those. It is regrettable, and I think even the Hon.

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority
Member's leader would be disappointed because he himself recognized it was time to stop talking about those things.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I just want to point out to the Hon. Member that in fact he carried on in exactly the same vein. His comments were therefore no more acceptable than those of the other Hon. Member.


Mr. Binns:: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) in this debate. He pointed out the tremendous recovery being made in Canada because of the fiscal measures of the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where?


Patrick George Binns: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) asks where. Let me point out quickly that, for example, last year in my Province of Prince Edward Island housing starts were up by 77 per cent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unemployment is up.


Patrick George Binns: Madam Speaker, I should qualify the point just raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. He has suggested that unemployment is up. That is not the whole story. In Prince Edward Island this year over last year we had 5,000 more jobs. That is an increase in the number of people working of about 10 per cent to 12 per cent.
The Member used selective information in his remarks. Let me ask the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres how he would interpret that. The Member for Kamloops-Shuswap suggested that the unemployment rate in the province was up over a year ago. That is true, but it is very selective. If the Member had used the figures for September, 1986 versus September, 1984 he would find that the unemployment rate actually dropped by 1.5 percentage points. The unemployment rate is decreasing. More people are in the workforce, and generally conditions have improved. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres could give his opinion of how the selective information provided by the Opposition differs from mine.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Island knows probably the rates of unemployment better that any Member from another province, and they are, indeed, the right figures.
I would like to stress that in Prince Edward Island, as in any other province, there is a feeling that the economy is improving, that things are going well, that we are progressing, that Hon. Members from all provinces are doing an excellent job, and that the Prime Minister and the ministers are dealing equitably with each region in the country.
By the way, I want to underline the excellent work done by my colleague in that regard.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my colleague from Trois-Rivieres. Since we are speaking of good management by his Government, I would like to refer to the Budget Papers. On page 28, we note that between 1984-85 and 1985-86 there is an increase in personal income tax of $3.7 billion, as well as an increase in federal sales tax, also paid by individuals, of $2.4 billion, for a total of about $6 billion.
If we look at the deficit, we see that it was $32 billion in 1983-84, and also $32 billion in 1986-87. There was no increase in the deficit, but no decrease either despite an extra $6 billion in taxes paid by individuals alone.
Where is the good management? Do you reduce the deficit by overloading people with taxes? That is in your own document.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres has 30 seconds to answer.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, it would take at least two years to explain that to him. He does not understand. I have been trying to explain for two years and he still does not understand.


Alfonso Gagliano: That is your own paper.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, 50 per cent of the money spent by the Government is returned to Canadians in social programs. It is a lot more than the increase of billions of dollars which the Hon. Member is referring to.
And I want to ask him this: Where did the $6 billion go which were spent immediately before the election campaign? Where did those $6 billion of deficit increase go? I would like an answer about this, Madam Speaker.


Alain Tardif: You sent them to the banks.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority. Bill C-40 is a very thin Bill. It is like the policy of the present Government in that it is very thin and contains lots of promises but no action. The Bill asks the House to give to the Tories across the way $3,600 million as may be required for public works and general purposes. Money and plenty of it is looking more and more like the key to everything the Conservative Government hopes to do to recover its popularity.
How can we in the Official Opposition support this Bill when its purpose is to enable the Government to borrow money in order to have the Government carry out its budgetary and general economic policies? As the months go by, it is becoming increasingly and painfully obvious what is wrong with these policies. During the last general election campaign, the Conservatives made a number of promises and in fact over 347
March 12, 1987

carefully articulated promises containing lots of bombast. These promises were made to win the support of Canadians.
The Economic Statement of November, 1984 and the three subsequent Budgets have not in any positive way reflected the promises made by the Conservatives in order to win the support of Canadians. For example, during the last election campaign, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made an explicit commitment not to increase income taxes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pledged to reform the personal income tax system and said he wanted to make it fairer, more progressive and more productive. I could use the mellifluous tones and the exaggerated and elaborated phrases the Prime Minister used. Elowever, I would suggest that he read the very important admonition of Thomas Paine who said: "Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice".
It is clear that in spite of the promises made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, middle and lower-income Canadians have become the victims of the most unfair, regressive and economically stifling tax increases on record brought about by the Budgets of 1985, 1986 and 1987. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) spoke most forcefully, as did our finance critic, in the debate just a few weeks ago. They highlighted a number of issues. They said that the third Budget represents phase 3 of an all-out attack on low and middle-income Canadians. It widens the gap between rich and poor and between the have and the have not regions of the country. These three Budgets with their economic approach to Government gave us the largest tax increase in modern Canadian history. They have gouged $22.8 billion more out of individual taxpayers. This is an average of $2,000 per taxpayer during the tenure of the Government. Compared to that, over the same period of time, corporations are being taxed $2 billion less than they were when the Government took office. Is that what the Minister calls fiscal fairness?
I would like to deal particularly with the cultural sector. It would appear as though the cultural sector has been reaping benefits over the past few months, but when one examines more closely the record of the Government one finds that the picture is not quite so bright. I suggest that we have been duped by the triptych effect that has been used. It has been a real trompe-l'oeil. The masters have been at work creating the kinds of illusions that would make us feel that we have had a great buffet at the arts and cultural table.
Yes, moneys have been allocated to culture from the Department of Communications as they should be since it is the responsibility and role of the Department to build on what has occurred in the past. Let us look to see what exactly has happened and let us examine the dramatic impact the cultural sector has had upon the Canadian economy.
I call to the attention of the House the words of Henry Robertson Luce who said: "The business of business is to take part in the great society", and if I may add, the great Canadian society as long as it will last. Are we being allowed to take part in that great society to the extent that we can and should,
Borrowing Authority
particularly when we are being threatened by the Americanization of Canadian society as we live next door to our allpervasive friends on the American side of the border?
In attempting to measure the contributions of culture to the economy, we must naturally rely on pragmatic definitions of culture. Unfortunately, this ignores all the intangible characteristics which define us as a people. When we think of culture, we often forget to include its economic contributions. We must measure the economic impact of cultural industries on our economy in terms of employment, wages paid, revenues generated and some of the other economic variables. Then we must compare this cultural aggregate with a similar total for the entire economy.
According to the analysis of Statistics Canada, the direct impact of the arts and cultural sector as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, the value of production arising within the geographical boundaries of Canada, was valued at $5.2 billion or 1.7 per cent of the GDP of the entire economy in 1981. It has grown rapidly since then. Arts industry revenues increased by 64 per cent at an average annual rate of 13 per cent between 1977 and 1981. Revenues went from $4.7 billion to $7.7 billion. I point out that it was under a Liberal Government that Canadians flourished and grew in this vital sector of the economy.
With the rapid changes in technology, cultural industries have been able to impact on our lives in considerable measure and with increasing force over the past years. A census of manufacturers' comparison of the 20 largest Canadian manufacturing industries and the arts industry in 1981 revealed that the arts industry was the largest, with employment of 234,280; the sixth largest with salaries and wages of $2.5 billion; and the eleventh largest with revenues of $7.7 billion, equal to the Canadian telecommunications industry.
Let us also look at the impact of certain actions which were taken. Bill C-58 provided revenues of $58 million for Canadian t.v. broadcasters. This has allowed the field of television and broadcasting to grow and benefit. There is a very important program of substituting Canadian advertising for American advertising. For example, when one turns on either an American channel or a Canadian channel showing the same program at 8 p.m. any evening, one sees Canadian advertising. That kind of protection represents 40 per cent of the revenues of a t.v. station. It is very important that that money is staying in Canada. This has been effective in enabling us to be good corporate citizens while at the same time allowing us to promote our own industries.
I could go on and on about the things that have been done to enable the Canadian Gross Domestic Product to grow substantially through the arts and cultural industries. In the Budget of February, 1986, the Minister of Finance announced an allocation of $75 million per year for the next five years for a number of cultural initiatives. Madam Speaker, do you wish me to continue later?

March 12, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being 2 o'clock and pursuant to our Standing Orders, the House must proceed to other business. The remaining eleven minutes of extended time due to the Minister's statement will be added to Government Orders today. Consequently, the hour provided for Private Members' Business will begin at 5.11 p.m.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, loaded with raw sewage and toxic chemicals, the St. Lawrence is a river gasping to survive. An indicator of that is the beluga whale, the numbers of which have dropped from 5,000 to 500 in the last 80 years. The milk of the mother beluga contains so many toxic chemicals that the babies are being poisoned as they nurse, zoologists inform us. The Quebec Minister of the Environment has said: "Like spoiled brats we ignored it, abused it, raped it, poured acid and human wastes into it".
Having realized the error of past practices the Quebec Government promised in November, 1986, to spend $6 billion building over 400 sewage treatment plants in communities along the St. Lawrence River. Can Quebec cope with this problem alone? Some of the poisons dumped in the Great Lakes end up in the St. Lawrence. Ottawa has some responsibilities upstream. Therefore the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) would do well to help restore this magnificent and historic river by matching his words with tangible help instead of just pointing his finger at polluters.



JOB PLANNING


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Since March 6 last, Mr. Speaker, the Senneterre region has been receiving federal assistance under one of the six employment programs of the Community Development Program.
The purpose of this program is to help the residents of Senneterre and neighbouring regions cope with massive layoffs resulting from the closure of the radar base and other layoffs by the CN.
A committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Senneterre municipal councillor Jean Roy.
I attended several meetings with the residents of Senneterre to give them a hand, and I want to underscore the competence of Department of Employment and Immigration Alain Darveau of Hull whose professional advice was of great help, and of Minister Benoit Bouchard who showed willingness to listen to the people.
The committee may recommend one or several options available under the program with a view to helping workers create their own company, acquire new skills, and get $200,000 over the next two years to carry out a realistic study on local economy development and diversification future prospects.
Mr. Speaker, the Senneterre region has real potential for economic recovery.



TAX REFORM


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have become very skeptical about the Government's intention to change Canada's tax laws because they fear tax reform will not be in their interests since the Government is the only one in the world to allow capital gains from any source to be totally tax-free. Canadians also remember their federal taxes have increased by $1,350 per family per year as a result of taxes imposed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
We now hear the federal Government intends to impose a food tax on Canadian families. Yes, the Government, through the business transfer tax, a hidden sales tax, will be taxing milk, bread, eggs, vegetables, fruit, indeed all groceries. No wonder Canadians are skeptical. What kind of Government would tax the food on our kitchen table? Only a Government that cares not a whit about the people of Canada. Any Government that imposes such a punitive, regressive, and hidden tax on food will be a Government removed from office as soon as the voters have a chance.



EARLY BLUE JAYS CATCH IRE OF CINCINNATI CITY COUNCIL

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, America feels threatened. We know many Americans have faced the danger of invasion from Nicaragua for several years, but now we discover others fear their national identity is threatened because major league baseball will open outside their country for the first time in history. The first major league baseball game this year will open in Toronto, one hour
March 12, 1987

before the first game in Cincinnati. No one has yet alerted the Marines, but the Cincinnati City Council has called Washington.
I can understand why the Burghers of Cincinnati have seen red, but these good neighbours will just have to get used to Canada showing continental leadership, be it in baseball or trade. The Blue Jays will be first at the start of the season and first at the end. 1 hope all Members will join me in foreseeing a time when the World Series will be played entirely in Toronto, Montreal, and other cities of this great land.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, what will it take for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to do something about the absolute chaos at Pearson International Airport when hundreds of tired vacationers arrive late at night all at the same time? Indeed, anyone who has had to experience the cramped arrivals area at Toronto Terminal 1 late at night now knows how ineffective is the Government. Hundreds of people suffer, some waiting as long as 90 minutes, unable to find transportation to their homes.
That, in fact, is the key to the problem. Indeed, as late charters land it becomes obvious that the number of taxis and limousines serving the terminal is terribly inadequate. A recent Toronto Star article quotes airport operation manager, Jim Mattock, as saying that airport officials have been aware of the problem for at least two years. Mr. Mattick goes on to say that it may take several months before a solution is in place. This is unacceptable. The Minister of Transport must immediately address a situation which is intolerable for travellers and a disgrace to Canadian airports.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I once again want to raise a matter in this House on behalf of those Canadians, including many retired servicemen who, since January 5, 1986, have had their UIC benefits drastically reduced or eliminated altogether because they had to declare as income their pensions from previous employment.
On December 5, 1986, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said that those who found subsequent employment and were laid off would be reimbursed
for lost benefits. For almost a year before that statement, those people were told to wait for the report of the Forget Commission. We have had this report but people have still been kept waiting. These people are fed up with waiting for the Government to act. No one at the Employment Centres can tell them when they will receive their money. The Government's treatment of these people is unfair and intolerable.
I call upon the Minister to act now to ensure that those citizens receive their rightful benefits which should never have been taken from them in the first place.



PUBLISHING INDUSTRY


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in July, 1985, the previous Minister of Communications announced a policy of Canadianization of our bookpublishing industry, a policy welcomed across the country. The Government, in particular decisions regarding publishing takeovers, has not enforced its own policy. The most spectacular exemption permitted was the Prentice Hall acquisition by Gulf and Western, the company with the scorched earth policy. The Conservative Government excused its dereliction of duty on the grounds that it could not implement its new policy retroactively. Or perhaps the Government was scared of forest fires.
It has now been nearly two years since the policy was announced. One case, GLC, has been under review at Investment Canada for over a year. In another sorry example, Gulf and Western was ordered to sell Ginn and Company to Canadian owners which it has not done. It is time the Government threw some cold water on Gulf and Western's scorched earth policy. It should implement its Canadianization policy beginning with disallowing the GLC takeover by Gulf and Western.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the signing of a federal-Ontario agreement this last week is a real breakthrough in our national battle against acid rain. This latest agreement will provide funding of up to $85 million from each level of government to assist in Ontario's Countdown Acid Rain Program and reinforce Canada's commitment to cut our sulphur dioxide emissions in half by 1994.
This acid rain agreement, along with the Niagara River clean-up declaration signed earlier this year, demonstrates the

March 12, 1987
federal Government's "get on with it" approach to cleaning up the environment. More progress has been made by this Government in attacking the problems of the environment within the last two and one-half years than was made in a decade of Liberal administration. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) should be commended accordingly.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, some Canadians are asking what aboriginal rights are and why they should be recognized. Simply put, aboriginal rights are all those rights held by Indians, Inuit, and Metis which they possessed and exercised for centuries in this land before the Europeans came to this continent.
Aboriginal rights include not only certain lands and resources, but also social and cultural institutions, laws, and forms of self-government. If these rights existed before the Europeans came and they were never given up by the aboriginal peoples, then they still exist and, in justice, they must be recognized by all of us. The First Ministers' Conference scheduled for March 26 must also recognize these rights and entrench them in the Canadian Constitution.

O)

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, last evening's meeting of First Ministers about the trade talks with the United States was an important step forward in this historic process, and an outstanding example of how our Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) efforts at consultation and cooperation are bringing about a new era of national reconciliation.
As the Premiers become more involved and aware of the benefits that such an agreement will bring to each region of the country, the safeguards to be included, and the tremendous opportunities and encouragement it will provide for Canada to become world class in the provision of goods and services, they will surely see and share the positive attitude of British Columbia's Premier Bill Vander Zalm.
As Mr. Vander Zalm said last night, he thought the talks were coming along extremely well, and that our chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, was very forthright and fantastic.
Bill, I agree wholeheartedly with you that we will get an agreement by the end of the year and that it will be great for Canada. You can count on the support of British Columbia Members of Parliament to ensure that it will be particularly great for British Columbia. And, Bill, you are fantastic too.



GIRL GUIDES' ANTI-WAR PLEA

Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, recently I received 30 letters from the Sixty-Sixth Girl Guide Group in Regina. I received pictures of smiling suns and flowers. 1 received pictures of bombs with large Xs through them, on which was written: "No more war. Peace, please". The children were asking me not to drop a bomb on them and not to start a war.
The message is very clear. The children of our country want to live in peace. They do not want Governments to endanger their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
On their behalf I urge the Government not to be timid in the pursuit of peace and to seize this historic opportunity to initiate an independent policy that gives peace a chance. They want to live their lives in a world of peace. I urge the Government to take heed of the voices of the children not only of this country but of the world. Indeed, give peace a chance.



MEDICAL CARE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am holding a copy of Bill 14 from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta which is an insidious attempt to break down medicare. I want the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who is in the House today to send a direct message to the Minister of Health in Alberta telling him that we will not sell out our medicare system.
Bill 14 violates the principle of universality and the principle of comprehensiveness, the principles that the previous Liberal Government fought for to make sure that the Canada Health Act was available to all Canadians. Every medical procedure should be available for every Canadian at no cost, with no private insurance.
I urge the Minister to send a very clear message to the Legislature of Alberta that Bill 14 is a violation of the Canada Health Act and must be withdrawn immediately, or there should be penalties against the Province of Alberta.
March 12, 1987



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, an issue of primary concern to my constituents in Manitoba is the disposal of nuclear waste. With the approval of the provincial Government, a research project has been going on in Manitoba for several years. It is being carried out by Atomic Energy Canada Limited with financial support from its American counterparts. The end result will hopefully be the discovery of ways to store nuclear waste safely. This research will benefit not only Manitobans but all Canadians and North Americans.
However, my position, and what I believe the position of the Government of Canada should be, is that any nuclear waste not generated within the borders of Manitoba should not be disposed of in Manitoba. By extension, I believe any province or area that receives the benefits of nuclear power should be responsible for disposal of its own nuclear waste within its own boundaries.
No one denies that the research being undertaken is beneficial, but we must make it clear that once the research is completed Manitoba will not become Canada's dumping ground for nuclear waste.



RAILWAYS


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, once again we see evidence that the Government is willing to sacrifice public safety, jobs, and the interests of the poorer regions on the altar of fiscal responsibility. In the past two months six trains have gone off CN tracks in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, raising concerns about public safety on our railways. Yesterday a railway spokesperson blamed most of these problems on bad winter weather. However, his explanation is not convincing.
A recent task force report on CN operations indicated that CN tracks are steadily deteriorating. Furthermore, I have been informed that in the town of Capreol in my riding, certified car inspectors will no longer be doing roll-by train inspections as of April 6, 1987. Instead, they will be handled by Department of Transport employees who do not have the proper training or expertise.
It is simply unacceptable that the CNR and the Government compromise the safety of Canadians by cutting financial corners. Moreover, given that two of these recent derailments cut Nova Scotia's only rail link with the rest of Canada, it is irresponsible for the Government to neglect a crucial part of
the Atlantic region's economic and transportation infrastructure.
I demand that the-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the good productive soil given to us here in Canada by an omnipotent God is a sacred trust. We have a responsibility to ensure it is here to grow food for future generations. For too long we have been carelessly placing subdivisions, factories, army bases, and so on, on productive land. If we continue, we will leave a barren Canada for our children. That is why the hundreds of people in the area of the OH Ranch in the Kananaskis country are opposed to the army acquiring prime agricultural land for military purposes, especially when there is an alternative only an hour and half out of Calgary.
Prime agricultural land, a provincial park, the eastern slopes of the Rockies, a habitat for birds and animals, a quiet spot for hundreds of tourists to meditate amidst a beautiful countryside, are all reasons why the Government should refuse even to negotiate for this land.
If the Government is still considering this proposition, I suggest that the Minister refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that witnesses may show in no uncertain way that this beautiful area should be retained for ranching, tourism, and recreation.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few months Canadians have become aware of the plans of the National Capital Commission to improve certain streets in the downtown area of Ottawa and to convert this area into a ceremonial route. This project will cost some $15 million and, of course, includes $3 million worth of major repairs to the Alexandria Bridge between Ottawa and Hull.
Canadians have always been proud of the national capital of our country. If we want to continue with this pride, we must continue to invest in our capital. We must do our very best. My purpose in making this statement today is to support the initiatives of the National Capital Commission and its

March 12, 1987
Oral Questions
Chairman, Mrs. Jean Pigott, in establishing a ceremonial route for our capital in consultation with the local community.
I have not always agreed with Mrs. Pigott in the past. We have disagreed on such issues as the Mile Circle Park and many others. However, on this issue she certainly has my support.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to pose a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Contrary to previous commitments, last night the Prime Minister in his meeting with the provincial Premiers refused to put forward any meaningful ratification process for the Canada-U.S. free trade deal, even though, as we well know, the provinces constitutionally are not required to accept any requirement under the international treaty which affects their own jurisdictions. How can the Government continue to negotiate with Americans on matters affecting provincial jurisdictions when it does not have in place a proper ratification scheme affecting those jurisdictions? How can one, in effect, negotiate away something when one has not even received it yet?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: think the Hon. Member is overlooking the fact that the success of last night's meeting showed that the process we have in place is working and there is no need to try to find an alternative mechanism at this time. The subject was discussed, but the fact is that many of the Premiers said the system was working well, that it was a way of drawing out consensus, and no one could think of any way of doing it which would achieve any better results.
1 might also point out that during the negotiation of the Auto Pact, when the Hon. Leader of the Opposition sat on this side of the House, that Auto Pact was negotiated without any reference at all to the province most concerned, Ontario.


REQUEST THAT PROVINCES HAVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we know the Hon. Minister has a somewhat curious definition of what success is. After the meeting last night eight of the ten Premiers said that the Prime Minister had failed to live up to his pledge, and that the Government must have a ratification scheme in place before the negotiations continue. Because of the importance of those types of commitments, what steps is the Government taking at the present time to ensure that the provinces will have total and complete approval
of any measures taken under a free trade deal that affect their jurisdiction?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the steps the Government is taking are with respect to involving the provinces in the most extensive consultative process that the country has ever seen. This is the fourth time that the First Ministers have met. I was present at the meeting. It was very amiable. All these subjects were discussed at length in very amiable terms. The general consensus was that the process is working. I do not know whether the Hon. Member is simply reading The Toronto Star again or not, but the Ministers around the table were united in the position that the consultative process is working. If the deal which emerges is not satisfactory to all concerned then there will be no deal, as the Prime Minister has said.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CHAIRMAN OF CANADIAN RADIOTELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a third question of the Minister. This morning the Chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, a federal agency, stated very clearly in proceedings before a committee that the questions concerning Bill C-58, simulcasting, income tax rules and copyright are essential to the integrity of the Canadian cultural industries. Considering the importance that the chief regulator of Canadian culture puts on these matters, will the Minister guarantee us now that these very specific items will not be included as part of any free trade deal with the United States?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, no one has expressed more clearly than has the Prime Minister that Canada's cultural identity and the instruments of achieving it are not the subject of discussion in the free trade talks. I do not know why the Hon. Member and the Liberal Party keep dragging culture, the Auto Pact, and marketing boards on to the negotiating table. The Conservative Government is not discussing those subjects at the negotiating table.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs back from his trip to Washington. In light of polls which indicate that 60 per cent of Canadians see acid rain as the number one issue between Canada and the U.S., can the Minister give the House an
March 12, 1987

assurance that as a result of his trip to Washington transboundary emission levels will be reduced at the upcoming summit?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our hope and our expectation that transboundary emissions will be reduced as a result of actions taken by the Government of the United States and pressure brought by this Government.
I must comment that it is an unusual commentary on party discipline that the two lead questioners for the Liberal Party today were the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Hon. Member for Davenport.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Keep up the statesmanlike approach, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is an interesting question as to who speaks for the Liberals.


Mr. Caccia:: It goes to show that the Liberal Party is liberal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Something you wouldn't understand, Joe.


André Ouellet: That is why he was not Prime Minister for very long.


NEED FOR UNITED STATES COMMITMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is my supplementary question. On the eve of the third acid rain summit under the new administration of the Government elected in 1984 does the Secretary of State for External Affairs agree that unless the Prime Minister gets a commitment with respect to specific emission cuts Canada will have lost three valuable years by pursuing research instead of emission cuts?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what it shows is that the Liberal Party is all over the lot. It is divided on the Cruise, divided on trade, and probably divided on acid rain.


André Ouellet: Answer the question!


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is Turner today?


Mr. Nunziata:: Joe, your caucus was behind you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Who lost his job, Joe?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Hon. Members will certainly agree that the issue being raised by the Hon. Member for Davenport is a serious one on which there is a great deal of unanimity in the Chamber. I am sure that Hon. Members would wish to hear the answer of the Minister.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: In Washington I had the opportunity to speak to administration officials, and to make clear our expectation that there will be progress on the United States' side that results in a reduction in transboundary acid rain emissions. I also had the opportunity to speak to several members of both Parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. All of them interested in acid rain, whatever their Party, unanimously made the point that the position that has been taken by the Government of Canada-particularly because under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, Canada has put its own house in order-is far more compelling than it was in former times. Consequently, our chances of making progress are better. We will wait and see if the Americans respond as we hope they will.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister has told the House that at the meeting last night no one could suggest a better way to proceed. In fact is it not true that various Premiers suggested that a subcommittee be established to work out an agreement process, and this was rejected? Therefore, will the Minister confirm that no approval process exists because of the decision of her Government to turn that proposal down flat?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the point that I made, and the point that I am making, is that while the subject was discussed in very reasonable tones, no one could suggest a better way to proceed than the one which we presently have of extensive consultation. There were some suggestions made by some of the Premiers, but they did not enjoy the support of other Premiers. The only system that enjoyed the support of every Premier, and every participant in the room-and I was there, the Hon. Member wasn't-was the fact that this process that we have in place of consultation, discussion, and the identification of regional and national concerns, is working. I do not understand why the NDP continues to knock a consultative process which is working, and which will produce a free trade deal that is in the interest of all Canadians in all parts of the country.


PREMIERS' POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: The Minister keeps trying to tell us that everything is proceeding wonderfully, just as in the softwood lumber case, and we know what happened there.
Will the Minister admit that last night maritime Premiers expressed grave concern about the constraints on regional development efforts, which an agreement would include, and

March 12, 1987
Oral Questions
about proposals to block off future supply-management agreements for our farmers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that First Ministers' meetings are held behind closed doors without even a recording secretary. They are supposed to be confidential. The only people present were the First Ministers, the Prime Minister, myself, and for parts of the meeting, Simon Reisman. I can only suggest that the Hon. Member is receiving this material from the NDP Premier of Manitoba. There is no one else who would breach that type of security.
To answer the question of the Hon. Member, I have already stated that the meeting discussed how we can maintain our goal of regional development, which is not on the table, within the framework of a free trade agreement. The meeting discussed agriculture, and the concerns of agriculture. The meeting discussed employment, jobs, economic growth, and the potential for the country. There was general consensus that the manner in which we are proceeding will lead to a good trade deal with the United States. The meeting also concluded, and the Prime Minister is the leading exponent of this, that if it is not a good deal, there will be no deal.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if this Government had taken an open, honest approach with the Canadian people right from the start, there would be no need for sleazy accusations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Argumentative questions lead to argumentative answers. I would ask the Hon. Member to put the question.


INVESTMENT RULES QUERY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also admit, contrary to her answer yesterday, that the Prime Minister has now expanded the mandate of these talks to include investment rules with the United States and that the whole picture coming clear to Canadians is one sell-out after another as the talks go on?


Mr. McCurdy:: Down the river.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the only picture becoming clear to Canadians is the fact that the Government's free trade initiative is working and is going to lead to a job creating, economic growth-creating trade treaty with the U.S. at a time of mounting protectionism. I am sorry the Hon. Member cannot understand that.
In terms of his comments about open approaches, the Minister of Agriculture and I just left a meeting this morning with representatives of all the agricultural and food processing industries in Canada in which we discussed at length the measures of our agreement that impact on them. This has been the most extensive consultative system ever seen in the history of the country.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. I welcome his decision yesterday to allow three Chilean women refugees and their children to come to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: The Minister will also know that a Montreal delegation of yet unresolved refugee claimants is in Ottawa seeking an audience with the Minister. Given that he was prepared to exercise a sense of compassion in family reunification to the three families yesterday, will the Minister meet with the delegation and assure this House that he will extend that same expression of humanitarianism to the other 85 women and children who are waiting to meet their families in Canada and who are seeking the compassion of this Government?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I explained at length that my decision regarding three women and children who were coming to join their families here in Canada was a very special decision made on compassionate grounds. Today I received a report on the people who are still in Buenos Aires from our officials down there. Each case was very carefully assessed. A representative of the Quebec Government is now in Argentina, and today I can inform the House that none of the cases that were assessed in Argentina could in Canada be considered a refugee case. In the circumstances, if these people wish to apply for admission to Canada, they will have to go through the same channels as everybody else, according to the law of the land. This means they will have to do so with a view to obtaining immigrant status, and their application will have to be considered on the same basis as all other applications of this kind. However, if the representative-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Benoît Bouchard: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is very important. If the representative for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who has yet to comment on this question, were to recommend that our Government consider a certain number of cases, we would be delighted to do so. Meanwhile, we intend to act according to the laws of this country.


EFFECT OF REGULATION CHANGE ON PERSONS IN TRANSIT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refused to answer the question as to whether he will today at least give them the time of day. I have a supplementary question for the Minister.
March 12, 1987



I would like to know, considering the fact that these families were held in transit when the changes were made on February 20, and also considering that a period of grace was not allowed and that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees declared them to be bona fide refugees, why wouldn't the Minister be prepared to make up for the Prime Minister's announcement and authorize these people to enter Canada and join their families?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have just answered the Member's question. I said on February 20, and I repeat it, that we have to apply regulations. That is what we did.
People from around the world who want to come to Canada have to respect the regulations and the laws of Canada. People have a chance to apply as immigrants. If they want to do that, we will consider their applications. There are a lot of people in Canada who want to be reunited with their families. They are waiting for decisions under the Immigration Act. We apply the Immigration Act to all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED DUMPING OF STEEL IMPORTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade. In light of the recent imposition of import restrictions on steel in the United States, the Western Canada Steel plant in Richmond, British Columbia, is being forced to compete with cheap foreign steel that is being dumped in Canada.
Due to the seriousness of this situation, why does the Minister refuse to meet with the joint union-management committee which is working hard to avoid a job disaster for Canadian steelworkers? Why will she not meet with this committee and protect the jobs of Canadian workers?


Pat Carney: Possibly the reason I have not met with this committee is that I have not personally received an invitation to meet with them, Mr. Speaker.
I can only assure the Hon. Member that we are developing a steel policy to deal with the question of imports. Should the company feel that steel is being dumped in its market, it is perfectly free to take an anti-dumping action against the offender.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's office has received repeated requests for a meeting which she has refused completely.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position has been undercut by unscrupulous brokers who ship cheap offshore steel into Canada and then re-export it to the United States, thus escaping American quotas. When will the Minister introduce strong measures to stop this offshore steel from being dumped into the U.S. via Canada and help save the jobs not just of Western Canada Steel but other steel producers in Canada, including those in the Hamilton region?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I cannot refuse an invitation that I was unaware I received. I will certainly try to meet with this committee on my next visit to Vancouver. In terms of our steel policy, it will be announced at the appropriate time.

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS THE CONSTITUTION-IMMIGRATION AND FINANCIAL COMPENSATION-INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT TABLED PROPOSALS UNACCEPTABLE TO QUEBEC
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to put my question to the Minister responsible for the Constitution but he is sitting in the other place, or to the Prime Minister who is not in the House. My question is therefore directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the constitutional talks with Quebec, aimed at enabling this province to ratify the Canadian Constitution with honour and enthusiasm, to quote the Prime Minister.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House why his Government put on the table a number of proposals that are clearly unacceptable to Quebec, since what it is offering in terms of immigration and financial compensation in the case of new programs represents a step backwards for Quebec and Quebecers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the federal Government did not table a counter-offer to Quebec's proposals during last week's federal-provincial officials' meeting.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILLING TO INCLUDE CULLEN-COUTURE AGREEMENT IN CONSTITUTION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. According to my information that is not so, and we all know how truthful this Government is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 12, 1987
Oral Questions


Jean-Claude Malépart: Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment that his Government will provide for enshrining in the Constitution the Cullen-Couture agreement which gives Quebec authority over the selection and administration of immigrants within its territory? Is he prepared to commit himself to tabling that formula?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member should abide by the strict rules of conduct that were issued by his Leader which say that before you ask a question or make an allegation you should know the facts- point number one.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. What has the Government done to formalize our recent commitment to ensure excellence in the area of science and technology?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is always gratifying to hear important questions asked in the House. Of course, I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's question. I am sure she knows that the Prime Minister has placed a very great emphasis on science and technology.
Just recently an advisory board on science and technology, composed of distinguished Canadians, has been put together to provide advice on how the $4 billion the federal Government provides in research and development funds can be used to improve competitiveness. Secondly, just today, my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, signed in Vancouver with his provincial counterparts the first ever Canadian national science policy.


AIDS DISEASE-BROADCASTING OF PUBLIC SERVICE ADVERTISEMENTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
Health and Welfare. What is the Government's response to the latest outrageous asininity of the CTC which just rejected public service advertisements to be used in the battle against AIDS, advertisements which would save lives, but has now approved paid condom ads from American condom companies that cannot even advertise in the United States, on the basis that those condoms will not be used for casual sex?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member mentioned the CTC, I take it he was talking about the Canadian Telecast Committee. If that is the case, I would say to the Hon. Member, as I said in the House yesterday, that I hope second opinion would prevail and that people will reconsider the positions they have taken. The first television station that said it would accept those ads was MTX in Brandon, Manitoba, and they have been accepted by CJOH here in Ottawa. I understand that the CBC has given verbal approval but I do not know if all the conditions have been finalized yet. I also understand that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is taking this issue before its next meeting.
I think people who have had to reconsider the entire public response to the AIDS question are doing so. I am of the mind that I will let them form that opinion themselves as they look at the issue more carefully.


URGENCY OF SITUATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, is it not about time that the Government recognized that this kind of response to the anti-AIDS program is at least in large measure a result of an overly casual, cautious, halfhearted, under-funded and poorly co-ordinated program which lacks the kind of urgency we see in Australia and Great Britain? The need for such urgency was recognized by the House committee which demanded a far more intensive and better funded program than the one we have now. Is it not time the Government recognized the urgency of the AIDS situation and behaved accordingly?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we have recognized the AIDS crisis in Canada. We have put money into it, we have an advertising program, and we have a national advisory committee composed of health care workers from all the provinces. We will be hosting the conference this week to which the Hon. Member has referred. We are involved internationally with the World Health Organization. We are doing research and supporting AIDS support groups in various cities. I know you will not give me the time to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I could go on. Obviously we are not casual about the issue.
March 12, 1987


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week farmers learned that grain prices would be 20 per cent lower in the upcoming crop year. Farm groups like the Southern Alberta Agriculture Stability Action Committee say that farmers will not be able even to get credit to plant a crop this year unless the Government acts. Will the Minister give a commitment today that farmers will get at least the same returns this year as they got in the past crop year so that they may plant a crop, stay on the land, and keep their families together?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member was in the House yesterday or not but that very same question was posed to me by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert. To save the time of the House, 1 will refer my hon. friend to my answer of yesterday.


REQUEST FOR AGRI-BOND PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Minister is not giving a commitment in this regard. The Minister boasts of his $46 million program designed to take farmers off the land. I wonder if the Minister can say when he will bring in a low-interest rate agri-bond program designed to keep farmers on the land like the one the Prime Minister promised during the last General Election campaign. I wonder if the Minister could do that before he lifts the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, at no time did I ever boast about the Canadian Rural Transition Program. The Government simply responded as it has in the past to the wishes and needs of Canadian farmers. I think the program is working extremely well and I think we can take some satisfaction in the fact that the number of applications is much lower, perhaps even 50 per cent lower at this time than was expected.
As to interest rates, I would remind the Hon. Member that when he sat on this side of the House, the Government of which he was a part allowed interest rates to go from 9 per cent to 24 per cent and added an additional 2 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is aware that the scope of business decisions farmers can take to manage their agricultural resources properly is constrained by
Oral Questions
the long-term debt they carry. The Farm Credit Corporation has been studying for two years now the possibility of equity financing as one solution to this problem. Would the Minister indicate to the House whether or not the Farm Credit Corporation, by itself or with another institution, will offer equity financing as one solution to farmers' long-term debt problems?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and I would like to acknowledge it. I fully understand and appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in the farm finance problem. In addition to what we have already done, I am sure the Hon. Member will take some satisfaction in the fact that a federal, provincial and FCC task force is directing its attention to the very option of equity financing. It is my information that this task force will report to me by the end of this month. Personally, I would like to see that information made available not only to the farm leaders but also to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, 19 years ago Canada signed the United Nations Convention for Protection of Refugees, binding Canada to protect any person who comes to Canada claiming to be a refugee, and after we have examined him and found that he is a refugee, we must not cause him to be returned to the country he has fled, directly or indirectly. How then can the Minister justify the decision of the cabinet committee on social development that met on January 21 to amend the Immigration Act so that when a refugee comes to Canada he will be sent away without a chance to state his refugee claim?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to Cabinet documents and decisions. I do not think I have to respond because these are hypothetical questions.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the signed report of that cabinet committee meeting, which I have in my hand, is not hypothetical. It is a recommendation by the Minister to that cabinet meeting.


ALLEGED CABINET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since that cabinet committee recommended removing those people in order to deny them access to the refugee claims system, and those are

March 12, 1987
Oral Questions
the words of the January 21 committee decision, how does the Minister dare put forward a law which also violates a Supreme Court of Canada ruling two years ago that anyone in Canada has a right to a fair hearing in Canada of his claim to be a refugee?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said before in this House and elsewhere that I would introduce a Bill on the revision of refugee status at the appropriate time. I would urge the Hon. Member to wait until the Bill is introduced.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the ridiculous RCMP policy concerning married couples in the Force. We learned today that the RCMP allowed an officer who is the daughter of a former Conservative cabinet Minister to be transferred closer to her husband while at the same time refusing similar transfer requests from five other female RCMP officers. Can the Minister explain this apparent double standard?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 am advised that Constable Temple, along with five other members of the RCMP, was transferred to headquarters financial duties to meet an urgent operational need. Coincidentally, Constable Temple and one other female member's marriage plans were accommodated in meeting this situation and 1 am advised that this is fully consistent with RCMP guidelines.


REQUEST THAT POLICY BE CHANGED
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 hate to disagree with the Minister but, according to the RCMP, the daughter of the former cabinet Minister was transferred to Ottawa in conjunction with her forthcoming marriage. We agree with the decision to allow the wife of another officer to live with her husband. It was the right decision. What we disagree with is the fact that the same consideration of fairness and compassion was not applied to the other individuals involved.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister instruct the RCMP Commissioner to change its internal policy concerning married couples to ensure that fairness applies to all officers so as to ensure that where a request is made for married couples to live in the same locale, the request is met?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the specific incident the Hon. Member has raised I think I have answered that on the basis of the information provided to me by the RCMP. When the question was put to the Government the other day the President of the Treasury Board undertook to look into that particular policy issue and he is doing so. The Solicitor General is out of the country at the present time. I am sure that, consistent with the views of the Hon. Member, it will be looked at very seriously in that light.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Today the Bank of Canada set the prime rate at 7.28 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: That is exactly 5 per cent lower than it was when the Government took office.


Some Hon. Members:: More!


David Orlikow: Holders of department store credit cards are required to pay interest on their unpaid balance at a rate in excess of 28 per cent. Holders of gasoline credit cards are required to pay interest on their unpaid balance at a rate of 21 per cent. Will the Minister call in the management of these companies and instruct them it is time to stop ripping off their customers and reduce interest rates as their own interest rates have been reduced?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and remind the House that this is the lowest interest rate since 1974.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member raises an important point concerning credit card interest rates. We are looking forward to the standing committee report. I also raised this question today with members of the Canadian Bankers Association and they will be responding shortly.


INTERVENTION BY ILLINOIS STATE TREASURER
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 point out to the Minister that the interest rates I have talked about are still unacceptably high. Will he look at the action taken by the Treasurer of the State of Illinois who, in January, was able to get interest rates on VISA and MasterCard dropped from 19 per cent to less than 14 per cent by threatening to remove state funds from banks which were overcharging on credit
March 12, 1987

cards? Will the Minister consider taking similar action with our banks which are overcharging their customers?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I gather that is one of many suggestions which the standing committee is looking at and I will respond when the committee reports.


TRANSPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As he knows, there is now before the U.S. Senate a Bill which will allow the President to restrict operations of Canadian trucking firms in the U.S. This is an incredible action at a time when the Conservative Government has introduced Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 which will give U.S. truckers favourable entry to and operating privileges in the Canadian market. What does the Minister intend to do to redress this most prejudicial situation for Canadian trucking firms?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have no power to control what legislation is introduced into the U.S. Congress. That is a matter for members of the U.S. Congress, either Representatives in the House of Representatives or Senators in the Senate. They can introduce what legislation they like. However, we would naturally oppose, and put forward strong arguments to the U.S. administration asking them to oppose, any such legislation because we expect to have reciprocal rights there. We would then send into action our Secretary of State for External Affairs if that became necessary. I would even accompany him myself if I thought that might be of any help, and I hope it would.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you want the answer to this question or not? In the meantime I wrote-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will-


John Carnell Crosbie: I will just tell you about my letter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau.


CANADA-U.S. MOTOR CARRIER CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the answer that the Government should have done its homework before introducing Bill C-18 and Bill C-19 to make sure that the U.S. Congress did not introduce that kind of legislation. The Government did not do its job.
Oral Questions
I can suggest a solution. Is the Minister ready to upgrade the role of the Canada-U.S. Motor Carrier Consultative Committee to that of a body which could formally make policy recommendations to both national Governments as well as the states and provinces?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that suggestion under advisement, as well as any other suggestions the Hon. Member has which will be helpful. I would certainly be pleased to have them. Surprised but pleased.
I have already written Mrs. Dole, the Transportation Secretary, in connection with legislation which 1 think was introduced in the Senate with an amendment which has to do with trucking fees which they are attempting to increase. I made a strong protest. She has protested to those in charge of the Bill. I hope that provision will be changed.
However, if the United States of America does not treat our truckers in a manner that we consider fair and equitable, we will do unto them as they have done to us, plus.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In a recent judgment regarding Meares Island, Mr. Justice Peter Seaton concluded that there are few imaginable aboriginal rights left in an area that is clear-cut. Would the Minister, who is the only Minister in this House with direct responsibility, tell the House what steps he is now prepared to take in support of the Haida people in their quest for recognition and affirmation of their aboriginal title and rights to Lyell Island?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the rights have been recognized. The comprehensive claim of the people has been recognized. We cannot, as the Hon. Member is fully aware, act unilaterally in providing those rights unless we have the Province of British Columbia with us. I hope, through discussions which I and my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, have had, to assist in the Lyell Island and Meares Island issue. However, we cannot act unilaterally. There is a recognized claim, but it cannot be fulfilled by the Canadian Government alone.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO STOP LOGGING OPERATION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister is aware, the Prime Minister personally contacted Premier Vander Zalm in recent days and requested an end to the

March 12, 1987
Oral Questions
dispute on Lyell Island. Since the only way that this can come about is for Ottawa and Victoria jointly to support a buy-out of the present logging interests, will the Minister commit himself today to use the tools at his disposal to stop the violation of the rights of the Haida nation on Lyell Island?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has had discussions with the Province of British Columbia. I have pursued discussions with the former Minister responsible for the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. If the Province of British Columbia is interested and will participate with the federal Government, we will certainly sit down.


James Ross Fulton: All we want is some money.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member says that all they want is money. We hope that the Province of British Columbia would make an appropriate contribution to the purchase because it is also a responsibility of the provincial Government.


PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to mapping and the possible privatization of certain federal services. In a release made public by Lavalin we learn that the president-indeed he confirms this in a release, and I quote-has begun discussions with Treasury Board and Bell officials to examine the terms under which certain federal services might be privatized. Yet the Government issued a press release last night denying any intention of privitazing the mapping services. Could the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines tell us what federal services of the Ministry of Forestry and Mines will be privatized?

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, starting last Friday and with a media release last night we have made it very, very clear that none of those three agencies of the Government are for sale. They have not been for sale and they will not be put up for sale.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Privatization. Will the Minister of State stand in her place today and tell the House clearly that the Surveys and Mapping Services, the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, and the Canadian Hydrographic Survey are not on her agenda,
that they are no longer on her department's agenda Department, and that there is no intention to privatize them?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the division referred to was never on my agenda or that of the Government.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for privatization. If the federal Government is determined to privatize Fisheries Products International, why does it not do something innovative instead of simply dumping the company in the laps of people who want to make a quick buck? Will the Government consider innovative methods by which ownership and control of this company could be put in the hands of the fisheries workers and the fishing communities of Newfoundland, the people who are most interested in having stability in that industry?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the ancient ideology which we hear from across the House. That is exactly what we have done. We have put this into the hands of the private sector. It is being offered to individuals. There is an employee share ownership plan within the context of the offering. The people of Newfoundland are quite welcome to participate in this issue. That is exactly why we did it this way.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Minister of the Environment had a meeting this morning with the Premier of Nova Scotia with regard to acid rain and the commitment of that province. How successful was he?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, my meeting with Premier Buchanan was full and frank. I am glad to report to the Hon. Member and to the House as a whole that the Premier indicated to me a very strong predisposition on the part of his province to sign an agreement on acid rain with the federal Government. There are some technical ways in which he would hope the federal Government might assist the province to achieve its objectives. With that in mind, I will be working with my colleagues in the Cabinet in hopes that a resolution can be found.
March 12, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question in Question Period. A senior Member has asked for the right to have the floor. I recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A senior Member?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence. Does the Hon. Minister have anything to report on the matter of the Canadian Army and the O/H ranch land in the Kananaskis country west of Longview?


Sheila Maureen Copps: What is this about senior Members?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He has 37 years of service to the Canadian people as an elected Member, Sheila.


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before Question Period a statement was issued jointly by the owners of the O/H Ranch and the Canadian Forces Base in Calgary announcing that they had discontinued their discussions on the acquisition of that ranch and thanking the people who had come forward. However, they announced that they are looking for 8,000 to 10,000 acres in a 50-mile radius of Calgary so that the Canadian Forces Base will have some place to train in the future. They do not want to have to pull out of Calgary.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to give us a statement of the business the Government intends to propose to the House during Government Orders for the coming week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly do that. Consistent with the meetings of the House Leaders and the agreement that was reached, we will proceed with Bill C-40 and Bill C-3 to be completed in all stages, as per the order.
On Monday we will have the trade debate. Next week we will have three opposition days and one government day. There have been some discussions with House Leaders with respect to the timing of the government order. However, I understand that we will be meeting this afternoon when we can perhaps firm up that order of business.
Borrowing Authority POINTS OF ORDER


CORRECTION OF EARLIER STATEMENT
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like to correct something I said. In referring to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) I said he had served the Canadian people for 37 years as an elected Member. I believe it has been from 1940 to 1987. I apologize for my inaccuracy.


WORDS OF THANKS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and to thank the Army for withdrawing from Kananaskis. It is wonderful to belong to a Government that listens to the people.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a real point of order. This is an abuse of the rules of the House. It is strictly an abuse of the rules of the House. I object to that. That is just baloney.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) had ten minutes remaining in her speech.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I had outlined a number of initiatives which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced in the Budget. There is an allocation of $75 million per year for the next five years for cultural industries. I and the cultural industries were very pleased with these initiatives because they support policies and programs that we considered important.
However, these increases do not make up for the cuts made in 1985-86. These cut-backs include $75 million in the CBC; $10 million in CBC high-tech equipment; $1.5 million to the National Film Board; $1 million to the National Arts Centre; and $3.5 million for the Canada Council. Budgetary cut-backs for different cultural projects and programs amounted to $7 million. There are increased radio licence fees and other charges amounting to $22 million. These cut-backs total $121.5 million.

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority
In addition, in 1987-88, the Government will place licence fees on telecommunications carriers through the CRTC. As well, in 1987-88, the Government will levy radio frequency fees on government agencies at the federal, provincial and eventually the municipal level. We are told that the Government expects to obtain $10 million from the latter and $6 million from the former. This has left the cultural and communications industry in Canada with losses of $137.5 million.
Let us examine the task force studies, the book tariff and the Budget for 1987. I was quite surprised that the Budget began with the elimination of the book tariff and the Christmas tree tax. A number of task forces and papers were initiated by the former Minister of Communications. They include the Task Force on Broadcasting at a cost of $2.8 million; the Task Force on the National Museums at a cost of $425,000; the Task Force on Funding of the Arts at a cost of $833,000; the Task Force on the Film Industry at a cost of $134,000; the Task Force on the National Arts Centre for $319,000; the Task Force on the Status of the Artist at a cost of $50,000. After we, the taxpayers, have laid out in excess of $4.5 million for all these task forces, what is the result? There has been no action. Added to these expenditures were the millions of dollars spent by the Nielsen task force which, according to the cultural community, were ineffectively, inefficiently and poorly spent. The very meagre consultative process that took place was a non-credible effort.
As well, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has tabled its studies and recommendations on federal museum policy and taxation and the arts. That committee recently had its forty-sixth meeting since November.
After spending that $4.5 million and using the committee's time, there has been absolutely no action taken from all of these studies, recommendations and consultations. There is nothing in the Budget of the Minister of Finance respecting the cultural industry. He even failed to indicate that there were representations on the upcoming tax reform. Why were these reports ignored by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech? The Government does not believe in delivering on its promises.
Let us examine the book tariff. On June 6, 1986, a customs duty on certain English language books was imposed. Consequently, novels, works of fiction, some periodicals, publications to encourage enrolment in educational institutions outside Canada, and books of printed music reverted to being subject to the legislated duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under the most favoured nation tariff and the United Kingdom and Ireland tariff.
The amount of duty collected from June 6, 1986, to November 30, 1986, which is the date of the latest available statistics, was $11,142 million. Of the $11 million collected in duty, $9,741 million was collected from the United States; $979,000 was collected from the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with shakes and shingles; $109,000 from Hong Kong; $85,000 from Japan; $47,000 from Italy, $44,000 from
Belgium and Luxembourg; $37,000 from Spain; $14,000 from West Germany; $14,000 from Switzerland; $2,000 from France; and $1,000 from Ireland. The remaining $69,000 was collected from other countries. This shows the effectiveness of the reprisal against the American action on shakes and shingles.
Finally, after nine months and losses of up to $15 million to the fragile Canadian book publishing industry, the Tories have recognized the errors of their ways and in his February Budget the Minister of Finance removed the ill-conceived, regressive tax on reading. Certainly, the credit for the removal of this tariff must go to Canadian publishers, book sellers and readers who protested long and hard for the tariffs removal. I want to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of Canadians who wrote petitions to me and the House concerning this issue. I want to thank my colleagues for standing up day after day and reading those petitions into the record. The Minister finally saw the light, and I sincerely hope that the removal of this tariff is a clear message by the Government that Canadian cultural industries are not at risk in free trade negotiations.
It is interesting to consider what the Minister will do with the $11 million in new-found money? I am sure he expects to reduce his deficit, but I suggest that he find a way to repay the publishing industry and those who suffered as a result of this ill-conceived measure.
The Minister also found another $1.2 million in his Budget as a result of changing the procedure in reporting the taxes. The new requirement imposed by the Budget for businesses to remit source deductions on a twice-monthly basis will have a negative impact upon large theatres, museums, dance companies, orchestras, and publishing houses. This results in very poor business practice, with more administrative hassles for business, causing much more paperwork. In addition, this measure will squeeze some cultural industries which have uneven or seasonal revenue.
Let us consider the 1987 Estimates. The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), in a news release on March 2, 1987, set out the increased amounts of resources to cultural agencies funded by the Government of Canada. The Minister demonstrated creative sleight of hand as the figures she uses are not limited to increases in parliamentary appropriations but include anticipated operating revenues of the individual cultural agencies, leading to the perception of great largess going to these key Canadian cultural agencies. The fact is that most will not even be covered by the inflation rate. It will mean cuts in staff and programs for many.
Let us examine the situation. The Minister's stated amount of increase for the CBC is $50 million, but the actual parliamentary appropriation is $11.6 million. The stated amount of increase for the Canada Council is $5 million, but the actual appropriation is $3.1 million. The stated amount of increase for Telefilm Canada is $3 million, but the actual parliamentary appropriation is $1,522 million. The stated amount of increase for the CRTC is $2 million, but the actual appropriation shows an increase to $2,276 million. The stated amount of
March 12, 1987

increase for the National Film Board is $1 million, but the actual appropriation is $307,000. The stated amount of increase for the National Library is $1 million, but the actual appropriation is $159,000. The stated increase for the National Museums is $19 million, but the actual appropriation is $16,588 million. There was a stated increase of $2 million for the National Arts Centre, but there was actually a loss of $73,000 in the appropriations. The stated amount of increase for the Public Archives is $1 million, but the actual appropriation is $624,000. I hope the Minister found a new abacus to work out these figures.
I believe these figures show the reality of what the cultural agencies will receive.
Since you have signalled that my time has almost expired, let me conclude by saying that I have the deepest conviction that Canadians want to enjoy their environment and express themselves as Canadians. We have lots to say to the rest of the world through our own cultural and creative experiences. I would hope that we would find a way to ensure that those cultural industries would not be put in jeopardy by any action of the House, and every measure taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to add to the increased protection and growth of these agencies, will be well received by all.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, under which the Government is seeking an additional $3.6 billion borrowing authority for the 1986-87 budget and $24.3 billion for fiscal year 1988-89.
The first comment I want to make is that, thanks to our sound and well-advised administration, we did manage to reduce the Government's annual need to borrow. When the 1984-85 Budget was tabled the deficit stood at $38.3 billion. I refer you to page 19 of the February Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The following year, 1985-86, again as a result of our sound administration, the annual deficit dropped from $38.3 billion to $34.4 billion. With the Budget closing at the end of this month we will again post a deficit, but this time down to $32 billion. Next year, due to the elimination of a number of useless expenditures rather than through huge tax increases, we expect to table a Budget of $29.3 billion. A comparison indicates that the financial requirements of the Government over the four years ending in 1987-88 have declined sharply. By financial requirements I mean borrowing needs which are not necessarily the same figures and which do not tally with the deficit figures because the Government has access to certain pension funds and collects money which was
Borrowing Authority
owing. This accounts for the gap between the financial requirements and the deficit of the Government.
The financial requirements amounted to $29.8 billion in 1984-85, and to $30.3 billion the following year. In 1986-87, the year about to end, the financial requirements were reduced by $6 billion through sound administration, and we expect they will continue to decline next year, down to $21.3 billion, the lowest level of Government financial requirements in the past six years.
Canadian taxpayers must be made to understand that the effect of Government decreasing financial requirements is a significant drop in interest levels, to the extent that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has acknowledged this achievement by the Government which every Canadian man or woman who has to borrow can appreciate. Earlier this afternoon the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North told the House that the Bank of Canada prime rate was down to 7.28 per cent, lowest ever since 1974. I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North because, even though he is a socialist, in some cases he can read figures when they are not too complicated.
Madam Speaker, for the benefit of all Canadians, it might be a good idea to explain what we intend to do with the borrowed money. This morning the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) raked us over the coals about the use of these funds. Out of budgetary appropriations totalling $122 billion, $57 billion of the expenditures will be in the form of small cut-backs for poorer Canadians. We are going to allocate $57 billion to social affairs, unemployment insurance, youth, the elderly, and needy Canadians. And another, in fact the greater part of our Budget, thanks to the poor management of the previous Liberal Government, will be allocated, all $28 billion, to servicing the national debt, a cumulative deficit of about $300 billion.
Meanwhile, Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party's big guns have been criticizing our fiscal policy and the message we gave Canadians in February, and today they are criticizing our borrowing requirements. One minute they ask us to send cheques to the neediest in this country and the next, they are up in arms about our borrowing authority Bill and the $24 billion involved.
I was listening to the Official Opposition's finance critic, a colleague from Quebec, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I would like to ask him why his assessment of our Budget is so different from the standards he should be applying, as a former director and president of one of Quebec's major banks. It seems to me that he of all people should be far more perceptive in his reactions to the Budget and Budget speech. He is clearly reacting in a very partisan manner. That seems to be his style since he came back to politics. The Hon. Member was always very good at making a profit for his employers when he was in the private sector, but when he entered politics and became a member of provincial and federal cabinets, he became an expert at making deficits. We saw this when he was with the Quebec Government and we

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority
see it today. He has been consistently negative about this Budget.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member, since he is criticizing our message, why, as a Quebecer, he did not rise in the House when we debated the plan to set up an international banking centre in Montreal? I was sitting on the same committee as the Hon. Member, and I did not see him intervene in any significant way to urge that an international banking centre be established in Montreal. His silence was heard across the country. Perhaps his political ambition extends beyond the job of lieutenant to the present Leader of the Liberal Party. Who knows, Madam Speaker.
I also would like to know why the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides was so careful to say nothing about the F-18, a one-billion-dollar contract that is to be administered in the province of Quebec. We never got a clear and straightforward statement from him on this question.
And since he is such a good critic of our Budget, 1 would also like to ask him why, except when he had some specific question in mind, he never referred to our policy to provide, on a long-term basis, for a viable shipbuilding industry in the province of Quebec.
Notwithstanding a number of problems which many experts thought it would be impossible to resolve, our Government has been able to revive the shipbuilding industry in the province of Quebec and I am referring to the shipyards of Versatile Vickers, those in Sorel and those in my own riding in Lauzon, the former Davie shipyards now being managed by Marine Industries. Why did we never hear the Hon. Member from Laval-des-Rapides on a project that is having an economic impact worth over one billion dollars on the three shipyards I referred to?
I would have liked to have heard the Hon. Member comment on the appropriateness of the Government's decision to award a $135 billion contract to Marine Industries for the construction of a second ferry, to award two contracts for refitting some of our destroyers and to award a $196 billion contract to Lauzon for building one and a half frigates, which adds up to $471 billion in federal contracts for Quebec. I would have liked to have heard him voice his support for the two additional $70-billion contracts for repairs to two other Canadian Navy ships. I would have liked to have heard him give his opinion also on the recent financial implication, to the tune of $35 million, of the Canadian Government, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, to allow for the transaction between Marine Industries and the Levis shipyards. I would also have liked to have heard his comments on the approval by the Canadian Government of a $50-million dollar investment, $30 million for the development of additional capital investments and $20 million for specialization. Also, $50 million were given by the Quebec Government to modernize the three shipyards I just mentioned.
I would also have liked to have heard him express concern for the finalization of the transaction between Marine Industries and the Government of Canada and the former
Versatile shipyards, for which the two governments, Quebec and Ottawa, decided to guarantee $50 million each with respect to the deficit over the next two years.
And, finally, I would have liked him to get involved on the awarding of another $ 196-million contract for an additional frigate and a half to the Sorel yards, for a grand total of $1.22 billion. But the senior Liberal spokesman for the Province of Quebec never showed any concern for those matters.
I would also have liked the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) to share his views with us, since he can hardly express the views of his party, because he would have had one opinion, that of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who is against bilateral talks with the United States. He would also have had another opinion, that of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), who is for bilateral talks with the Americans, while the critic, who sits to the right of the Leader of the Liberal Party, has not yet committed himself on a matter of such significance for this country and for the Province of Quebec. I say for this country because we export $95 billion worth of goods to the United States, Madam Speaker. This accounts for 30 per cent of our jobs. And the talks are aimed, first at keeping that market, and second at developing it so that we can sell more Canadian goods and services to those 240 million Americans. We have not heard him. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides has remained silent on that matter.
I will hurry. I would have liked to have heard him, Madam Speaker, on the lumber issue. He remained silent.
I would have liked to have heard him about Bill C-22, which deals with the drug industry and the location in Montreal of high-technology industries, industries that create plenty of jobs, industries that, since the announcement of our Bill, have decided to invest $700 million in the City of Montreal, Madam Speaker. Fifty per cent of the pharmaceutical companies' new investments will be in the City of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, but we never heard anything from the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, who is currently dabbling at launching the Quebec federal organization for the next election. He would do better to make representations here in this House and do his share to improve the lot of Canadians.
Madam Speaker, I will also add a few comments on the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps even on his statements. It is not by accident that I began with the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to voice a few comments on the budget speech and our borrowing needs. I should say to the Liberal Leader that before taking position on a budget of so many billions, that is $122 billion, and before giving us some advice on the matter, I wonder if it would not be advisable for him to look after the $5 million deficit which his party is unable to pay back week after week, month after month. I think that would be more important. And when the Liberal Leader is telling us that we are overburdening Canadian taxpayers, he should realize he is living in a democratic system and ask
March 12, 1987

himself how it will be if ever he returns to power 40 years from now? What would be the situation if we listened to his philosophy because today, two years or maybe two years and a half before the next federal election, he is already bearing down on his candidates asking them to collect funds and send 50 per cent to the national organization, something which has never been done before within the Liberal Party. If he is now taxing his own candidates, how will he be taxing the Canadian people later?
Finally, before I hear him give us some further advice, he who was elected to this House in 1962 and appointed minister in 1965, I am still referring to the current leader of the Liberal Party, who was a member of a Government responsible for the $240 billion debt with which Canadian are faced, I will tell him that it is to pay this debt and the interests on this debt that today we have to adopt a legislation calling for $24 billion in borrowing authority. This is partly due to the incompetence of this Liberal Leader who sat in the House for 20 years and did absolutely nothing except increase our indebtedness year after year.
Finally, Madam Speaker, before listening to the negative comments of the Leader of the Liberal Party on our legislation, I think he would be well advised to check the position of the rank and file of his own Party concerning the cruise missile issue and the stand taken at its last convention in November 1986. At that convention, his Party proposed an extraordinary child care project which would cost Canadian taxpayers $11.2 billion a year, Madam Speaker.
Before he starts commenting on our budget, I should like him to tell us how he is planning to finance his own Party's proposal of a child care system which would cost Canadians $11.2 billion a year; I should like him also to explain to the House how he is planning to set up a guaranteed income program for all Canadians. Such programs are good- socialists are experts at that-but I think it is a good idea first to find out how much they will cost. I should like, therefore, the Leader of the Liberal Party to explain to us how he is planning to finance this new guaranteed income concept. 1 should like him to tell us in his masterly fashion what costs are associated with the recommendations made at the November 1986 Liberal convention.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I should like to comment on some of the statements made by the Leader of the Socialist Party concerning our legislative program and our economic message of February 1987. First of all, before speaking of a country's finance, the leader of the Socialist Party should explain to us why the financing of his own Party is questioned in a decision rendered in July 1986 by Hon. Justice John White, of the Supreme Court of Ontario, indicating that the fund obtained by the unions under the Rand Formula-the Rand Formula compels employers to collect money every week from the pay cheques of unionized and non-unionized employees alike. But all these contributions received from the union are used to enrich the Socialist Party. But Mr. Justice White ruled that the union could not use for purposes other than those of the
Borrowing Authority
union the amounts thus collected by the unions by payroll deductions of non-unionized employees.
I mentioned this in the House on a number of occasions, Madam Speaker, and Socialists sitting on opposite benches should listen to me first and tell me where they stand on this particular issue, and if they want to enlighten us about the budget of our Government, they should explain first to the Canadian public why they use these funds illegally obtained to finance their own Party.
Since they keep bragging about the honesty and the openness of their Party, I should like them to tell me why- and here I quote the Minister of Justice who directed in vain this question to the Leader of the Socialist Party-they are using stamps provided by Parliament, meaning Canadian taxpayers' money, to send their political literature to the St-John-East Riding in Newfoundland. On this issue, again, the Leader of the Socialist Party did not know what to say. Therefore, before he starts questioning our budget, I should like him to explain his position on this issue.
Finally, I would like to say something to socialists throughout the world and ask them whether they are aware of the fact that the leader of the socialist party in this House gets $101,700 a year and that he has not only refused to accept the pay cut agreed to by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Cabinet Ministers of this Conservative Government but he has also negotiated for a chauffeur and a car.
Before trying to tell us what to do, and I understand that my time is running short, Madam Speaker, they should think about those matters and about how they use Government services improperly. They are very silent today, which is surprising. They should explain their position to us and think about the White ruling and about Professor Lavigne, who discovered the NDP financing scandal. Then, they can comment on our budget. For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, 1 hope that the Members of this House will support this borrowing authority bill so that the neediest people in Canada, whom we are always trying to protect, will be able to receive their money in good time.


David Orlikow: I wish to correct an impression which the Hon. Member may have left with anybody who happens to read a copy of his speech. The decision of Mr. Justice White that the Member talks about was not a decision regarding the use of union dues for political contributions, it was a decision which strikes at the ability of unions to do almost anything for their members. If that decision is carried to its logical conclusion, unions would be precluded from urging their members to support a better pension plan, or from urging their members to defend the universal medicare or hospital insurance plan. That is what that decision would result in. The unions are appealing that decision. They are quite hopeful, as are we, that if the

March 12, 1987
Radio Act
decision reaches the Supreme Court, it will reject that decision.
Insofar as unions contributing to political Parties are concerned, whether it be our Party or any other, I wish to make it clear to the Hon. Member, in case he is not aware, that every union which makes a contribution on the part of its members to the New Democratic Party gives every member the opportunity to notify the treasurer of the union that he or she does not wish a contribution made to our Party on his or her behalf. That is a great deal more than offered the shareholders of banks, insurance companies, or any of the large corporations which contribute to the Liberal or Conservative Parties. They do not ask their shareholders whether they wish to make a contribution, they just do it. If the Hon. Member wishes to look for justice, that is where he should look.
I rose because during the course of his speech, the Hon. Member referred to a question I asked the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) during Question Period. I pointed out, and I would not wish to hide it even if I could, that the prime rate of interest as established by the Bank of Canada has come down 5 percentage points from the day that this Government took office until today.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Someone says "hear, hear", and I think it is great. I hope that the Hon. Member who spoke would join with me in asking the Minister to call in the management of the department stores that are charging their customers over 28 per cent interest on the unpaid balance of their credit cards, and to call in the management of the gasoline companies-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member may wish to leave the 30 seconds that are left to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) to conclude.


Gabriel Fontaine: Madam Speaker, first, I must congratulate my colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for his intervention as concerns the cost of credit for Canadian consumers. He has shown a lot of interest in this matter. Indeed, it is one of his few successes, but we have to give him credit for it. I would like to congratulate him for having recognized a second time in this House that, under our Government, since September, 1984, interest rates have gone down by 5 per cent. Third, I also want to congratulate him on being the first Member of the socialist party to speak publicly in this House of the ruling made by Judge White about the use of payroll deductions under the Rand formula for employees who are not members of a union, and I did say to the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I very much regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being 3:45 p.m., pursuant to the order made Tuesday, March 10, 1987, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the matter now before the House.
The debate on Bill C-40 is therefore adjourned.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Disasters-Chernobyl nuclear accident-(a) Effect on caribou in Labrador and Quebec (b) Ability to monitor radioactive contamination; the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-(a) Request that Minister be more precise (b) Future of public servants and families; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-The administration-(a) Public tenders-Opportunity to amend law and regulations to eliminate possible conflict of interest and corruption-Government position (b) Canada Elections Act- Request for amendments to ban corporate donations to political parties.


RADIO ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act, be read a third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that Bill C-3 would come to an end at this time and that there would be an opportunity later this day to call for a vote. I want it to be clear that there will be a vote on this Bill today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member is correct. The question will be put at 4.45 p.m. on Bill C-40, and on Bill C-3, as per unanimous consent earlier this week.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise for the third time to address Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act. I have attempted to bring to the attention of the House some of the serious concerns that are found in this not too well conceived piece of legislation.
To return to the issue and reset the stage, it would be useful to set the context of the administrative actions which take place under the Radio Act and relate to this amendment. We are talking about an amendment to the question of charging fees for radio licences, that is, the licences which are authorized and given to users of various types of radio and dispatch services for police, ambulance, fire, taxis, cement trucks, et cetera. It also includes paging services, cellular radio,
March 12, 1987

microwave radio, that is, transmission of data and broadcasting information from city to city, satellites, and radio locations. In other words, radar, and all those things.
Mr. Gordon of the Department of Communications outlined to the Senate committee the issues covered by this particular Bill. He notes that the costs of spectrum management are recovered from users through licence fees.
In 1984, and subsequently in the spring of 1985, the Government announced that it intended that the cost of these services be recovered from the licence users. Accordingly, in the fall of 1984, the fees for licences were significantly increased, and they are now at a level where they cover all of the costs including departmental overhead for these activities of the spectrum. It is important to note that all the activities presently are covered. There is no cost to the Government. Therefore, what we are looking at is a new way to tax the users of radio services, and to find offsetting funds that go to the general consolidated revenues of the Government. It is another way for the Minister to take tax money out of the pockets of users of this service, who for many years have not had to pay this fee.
There is one concern, with which I would agree, in the thinking of the ministry and the Minister in the placing of this tax, and that is with respect to competition in the private sector. By placing private users and Government users on the same footing, Bill C-3 will reduce one advantage previously enjoyed by Government, namely, the exemption from radio licence fees. For example, when a Crown corporation like Petro-Canada communicates through radio frequencies with its drilling rigs, the corporation will not be assessed licence fees on the same basis as would a private oil company, such as Texaco or Shell. I think that is only fair. Our legislative committee was told by Cantel Inc. that the Crown corporation known as AGT, Alberta Government Telephones, has been exempt to date from paying licence fees with respect to its cellular telephone operation. Yet private firms competing with the Alberta Government Telephones in the same cellular telephone market have been paying radio licence fees. Bill C-3 will eliminate this particular cost advantage enjoyed by Crown companies like AGT. I think that is significant.
The other aspect is that there are no caps on the fees to be charged. As I said, we have just found a new way to tax and pay off the deficit. I do not think this is the fairest way of doing that. The Government tells us that the purpose of Bill C-3 is to allow full recovery of the costs incurred by the Department of Communications in monitoring the spectrum. There is nothing in this Bill which provides that the Government is limited to the recovery of those costs, and no more. Given the track record of this Government for charging fees at every opportunity, it remains to be seen if this Bill will prove to be more than a cost recovery vehicle.
Further, although the Government indicates that the fees to be charged Government users under this Bill will be calculated
Radio Act
on the same basis as the fees already assessed to private users, I wish to point out that Bill C-3 does not so provide. Rather, the drafters of Bill C-3 seem content to allow the regulations to stipulate that the fee assessment will be the same. This means that even if Bill C-3 is passed, there is no absolute assurance that Government and private sector users of the spectrum will be assessed licence fees calculated on the same basis, for the Government could still amend the regulations to require one class of user, be it Government or private sector, to pay higher fees. I think that is a real conundrum. Shame. I can only hope, therefore, that the Government will ensure that the regulations are consistent to ensure this equality of treatment of which it is so proud. The Government seems also, to want to use this as a theory for the Bill.
Let us see what the provincial Governments have to say. We are talking about a Government that has wonderful relations with all the provinces, with a new wonderful dialogue going. Do provincial Governments agree with the federal Government on this cost recovery equal payment procedure? I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister is listening so carefully. Maybe she would like to propose an amendment before I get through.


Mrs. Mailly:: I cannot speak again.


Sheila Finestone: Listen carefully to what provincial counterparts have had to say. Of the provinces which have written to the legislative committee on Bill C-3, virtually all are opposed to the enactment of this Bill. They are opposed. They do not like it and they do not think the Government should do this. By way of an example, permit me to quote from a letter dated January 29, 1987-I think that is a recent enough date to shake Hon. Members' memories-forwarded by the Hon. Richard French, Minister of Communications of Quebec, my own province. Mr. French makes known his objection to Bill C-3 in the following terms. He writes to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).

"Dear Madam:
This is further to my letter of September 19 of this year in which I acknowledged your letter stating your Government's intention to recover the cost of spectrum management by imposing fees on all licence holders. 1 would now like to inform you of my position on this question.
To Quebec, the proposed legislation means basically a transfer of the federal tax burden to the provinces, without any improvement in the services offered to users. The Quebec Minister of Communications estimates that radio licence fees will cost Government agencies and Hydro-Quebec approximately one million dollars.
For this reason we ask that the status quo be maintained and that the provinces remain exempted from radio licence fees.
I remain, Yours very truly,..."
The letter is signed by the Minister, Mr. French.
It is a fact that licence fees will have quite a substantial impact on Quebec, and I think all Quebecers should be aware that this new legislation will impose an additional tax burden on the people of that province. For Government departments such as the Department of Public Works, the cost will be

March 12, 1987
Radio Act
$7,000; for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, $119,666; for the Department of the Environment, $12,691; for Hydro-Quebec, $437,352; for the Department of Justice, $100,000; for the Department of Recreation, Fish and Game, $80,913; for the Department of Communications, $15,000; for the Civil Defence Board,-and isn't that an essential service, Madam Speaker?-$103,710; the Highways Board, $5,600; the Department of Transport, $77,000; the Olympic Facilities Board, $8,000; the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, $9,000; the Montreal Convention Centre Corporation, $2,200, and others, $3,666, which adds up to a little under one million dollars. Don't you think that is a bit much? And it means they will have to find a way to get the money out of their own budget. With the cutbacks in transfer payments and all other kinds of restrictions, I think it is going to be very hard for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard-D. Levesque, to make ends meet. But what can we do? It is a federal decision.

The Province of Saskatchewan objects to the passage of Bill C-3 on the grounds that it would amount to the federal Government taxing the provincial Governments. In a letter to the current Minister of Communications for Canada dated November 3, 1986, the Hon. Gary Lane, Minister of Communications for Saskatchewan wrote:
Dear Ms. MacDonald:
I am writing in response to your letter of August 13, 1986, in which you confirm the intention to eliminate radio license fee exemptions for Provincial Governments and Crown agents.
While I do appreciate advance notice of your Department's intention, I must respond by stating that the Government of Saskatchewan is opposed to such a gesture by the Federal Government, a gesture which nets approximately $1 million from Saskatchewan.
Isn't the province having some financial problems? This will certainly help.
As you are aware, Saskatchewan is not a participant in the Reciprocal Taxation Agreements. Our non-participation stems from the debate surrounding the taxation of Governments by other Governments. While radio license fees are not taxes, similar arguments about Governments charging fees to each other can be invoked.
I hope the Government resolves that problem when it talks to the province.
While deficit reduction is an important endeavour, shifting the deficit onto a different level of Government is not a true solution to the problem. This is especially true when the intended solution will likely lead to an increased administrative effort for both levels of Government. Surely it would be better to reduce the bureaucracy in this country rather than find yet another way to add to it.
I would like to say that your Department's intention seems contrary to the spirit that has led to many instances of the provinces and the federal Government working in harmony together. Removing the established Provincial fee exemptions is hardly in keeping with the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation.
With this letter, 1 wish to put the Government of Saskatchewan on record as being opposed to your stated intentions on this matter.
I cannot lend support nor comply with any plan to collect radio licence fees from this or any other province.
Let us see what the figures are, and I would hope that there has been no over-expectation reflected in the Minister's calculations for Saskatchewan. I would say that the Minister's figures are in line because the major amounts will be collected from the department of northern Saskatchewan which will pay $2,705. The Departments of Parks, Tourism and Renewal Resources will pay $142,728, Energy and Mines will pay $1,606, Highways and Transportation will pay $60,944; the Department of Education will pay $7,262 and Government Services will pay $1,661. I see that the Department of Education will be paying as well. Today's youth have so many problems that we need every cent possible for education at the provincial level. I do not like to see additional moneys taken from the educational envelope of any Government. The Department of Justice will pay $4,282, the Highway Traffic Board will pay $4,155; Supply and Services will pay $1,012; Communications will pay $1,276 and others will pay $4,690 for a grand total of $232,321. The Saskatchewan Power Corporation will pay $59,445; forest products will pay $1,662 and the telecommunications network will pay $645,522. I hope the people of Saskatchewan will not have their rates raised but it looks like they will.
Let us go on to see what Prince Edward Island had to say. Everyone from coast to coast loves the Tories. The Minister responsible for communications for the Province of Prince Edward Island made the same point in his letter of December 16, 1986, to Mr. Andre Reny, Clerk of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications. The letter reads:
Your telex to Premier Ghiz regarding provincial representation on Bill C-3 "An Act to Amend the Radio Act" has been passed to me for reply.
The provincial government will not be making representation in person to the Standing Committee; however, I wish to place on record the contents of a letter I earlier sent to the Minister of Communications, Hon. Flora MacDonald, on the proposal of the Government of Canada to remove radio license fee exemptions for provincial governments and Crown Agencies and the preferential fee treatment currently afforded municipalities.
We have now heard the word "municipalities" for the first time. I know the Minister has promised faithfully that municipalities will not be charged for now. The letter to which the Minister referred reads as follows:
"I am in receipt of your letter dated August 13, 1986, advising me of your government's intention to remove the radio license fee exemptions for provincial government and Crown Agencies and the preferential fee treatment currently afforded municipalities effective April 1, 1987.
Since receiving your letter, officials in my Department have held discussions with both their counterparts in the other Atlantic Provinces and officials in your Department in an attempt to determine the full impact to this Province and Region of this proposed action by your government. The financial impact of the policy change on this Province appears to be substantial-i.e. $22,874 for Provincial Government departments and $2,169 for Municipalities annually.
I suppose they do not know that municipalities will not be taxed, according to the Minister.


Claudy Mailly: They are being taxed, though, they just won't be increased.
March 12, 1987


Sheila Finestone: There will be no increases? I see. They still fall under preferential treatment. The letter goes on:
I appreciate the desire of the Federal Government to introduce deficit reducing measures; however, control of the frequency spectrum is clearly a federal responsibility and the costs of managing it are a federal responsibility as well.
The Federal Government chose to exempt provincial governments for paying fees and municipal governments from paying full fees and, in so doing, it accepted those costs as its responsibility. As Minister Responsible for Communications, I object to the federal proposal to impose them now on provincial and municipal tax payers.
1 accept the need for licensing; however, provincial and municipal governments provide an essential service to their respective citizens through the radio communications systems. I do not accept, therefore, that the proposed fees should be imposed thus transferring a financial burden from the Federal Government to provincial and municipal governments.
On behalf of the Government of Prince Edward Island, 1 urge you to reconsider your proposal respecting radio license fees."
In conclusion, I want to stress in the strongest terms the concern of the Government of Prince Edward Island over this latest intention of the Government of Canada to transfer financial burden from the federal government to the Regions or Provinces.
I think that theme is consistent across the land.
1 have here another letter, from the Government of Newfoundland which has added its objection to the passage of Bill C-3. It is dated December 12. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has stated the following:
While we do not wish to appear before the Committee, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland 1 wish to express my objection, in principle, to Bill C-3, "An Act to Amend the Radio Act".
By itself this initiative has relatively little financial impact on our Province. However, coupled with other Federal initiatives which have also transferred some degree of financial burden to the Province, the impact is significant.
That letter is signed by James Russell, a Minister in the Government of Newfoundland.
In both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the impact of this Bill will be important because these are the regions of Canada with economic and unemployment problems. The Government's promise of jobs, jobs, jobs has not been kept in that part of our land. It is strange that our actions do not always follow the intent of our words.
In the Province of Newfoundland, the Department of Justice will be paying $12,498; the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be paying $15,036; the Department of Education will be paying $1,064; Transportation will be paying $10,026; Mines and Energy will be paying $2,217; Culture and Recreation will be paying $6,458 and others will be paying $606, for a total of $47,905. The hydro company will pay an additional cost of $25,296. We are talking about a fair amount of money.
In Prince Edward Island, the Department of Highways and Public Works will be paying $9,484; Community Affairs will be paying $2,008; the Department of Agriculture will be paying $2,720 and the Department of Education will be paying $7,000. I would like to know why that fee is so high. I would strongly recommend that the Minister of Education in Prince Edward Island re-check that figure. It seems to be way out of line compared to all the other charges to provincial education
Radio Act
departments. I alert the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government of Prince Edward Island to that figure and would ask them to check it out.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation of the Province of New Brunswick appeared before the House legislative committee on Bill C-3 with a very interesting and different complaint. The Hon. Robert McCready, Minister of Communications for New Brunswick, appeared before the Senate Committee on the same matter. New Brunswick advised that it has recently constructed a province-wide communications network which would be in part used for emergency communications. This was done at the federal Government's suggestion and the federal Government made significant capital contributions to its construction. Bill C-3 would require New Brunswick to pay radio licence fees to operate this service. New Brunswick views this as being a penalty for having responded to the important federal initiative of setting up emergency-measure operations. It is strange that when the Government asked them to set these operations up it did not indicate that it would tax them in this way.
New Brunswick also makes the point that the greatest part of the radio licences required by the province are used to ensure the safety and well-being of its residents. New Brunswick advises that radio licences used by its Department of Justice are for the provincial highway patrol. Its Department of Transportation uses radio frequencies for highway construction and maintenance. Its Department of Natural Resources needs radio frequencies for the maintenance of forests and wildlife.
The point is that the Province of New Brunswick, as an entity, is not the user which benefits from the use of radio frequencies. It is the residents of the province who are the beneficiaries. Those people already pay taxes and the cost of the radio spectrum management is already covered in those taxes. This is their major complaint. They say this is a shift of the tax burden from the federal Government to the provincial Government and it is unacceptable. They are echoing once again what I have read into the record from all other provinces.
They say the co-operation of the Department of Communications in providing detailed information is appreciated. The Minister of Communications confirmed the Government's intentions concerning this matter in a letter to the provincial Minister. That Minister is very concerned with the increasing trend by Government towards cost recovery as a budget control measure. He feels this is governed in general by the rationale that if a service exists for the benefit of a particular user, then the appropriateness of having that user pay in part or in whole for the cost of providing the service can be considered. If a particular user cannot be identified, efforts are directed towards controlling increases in the cost of providing the service. It is at times difficult to determine the particular user for whom a service exists, therefore you cannot target

March 12, 1987
Radio Act
where the fee is going. That Minister feels very strongly that we should not be asking his province to pay a licence fee.
The federal Department of Communications apparently identified the provincial Government as the user of the service represented by the radio licence. However, the greatest part of the radio licences required by the province are used to ensure the safety and well-being of its residents. He refers to emergency systems which are in the interests of all Canadians. He feels the imposition of a user-fee reflecting this rationale amounts to an unacceptable tax transfer from the federal Government to the provincial Government. The province feels this is unfair and it cannot support Bill C-3. The provincial Government urges the Minister to exercise every effort to have this Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Caldwell:: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the Hon. Member's speech but she is reading from a lot of letters and I know she is running out of time. I hope she has the opportunity to read into the record letters from CNCP, Bell Canada, and the radio operators. I was afraid she might run out of time before she got to those.


Sheila Finestone: I would like to assure my hon. friend that I intend to refer to the joy of the private sector over this particular Bill. I just thought I should point to the contrast between the federal and provincial Governments, given the great friendship which is manifested between them.
1 would like to point out why I am going to read these figures into the record. In the course of our debate on this Bill there has been some question concerning the figures and the fact that they are different depending on their source. Once the figures are available they can be quickly and easily verified in this public forum of Parliament. The figures for New Brunswick are as follows. The Department of Natural Resources, $35,000; the Department of Transportation, $119,440; Department of Agriculture, $3,400; Tourism, $3,787; Health, $12,805; Justice, $24,016; Municipal Affairs, $6,027; Supply and Services, $1,138; and "Other", $838, for a total of $206,785. In addition, the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission will pay $26,108, for a grand total of $232,888.
The same holds true for the other provinces. The passage of Bill C-3 will result in almost $1 million in extra expense for the Province of Quebec. The provincial Minister of Justice will be assessed $100,000. Asking provincial taxpayers to pay for radio licence fees is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The federal Government is simply shifting the tax burden to the provinces, but it is the taxpayer who will pay the burden of the new fee.
I would like to look at Ontario. The Hon. Ed Fulton, Minister of Communications, also opposes passage of the Bill. He wrote his federal counterpart on February 9, 1987, and said that he urges the Government to reconsider removal of the radio licence fee exemption for provincial Governments and Crown agencies. He says if the Bill is passed in its present form steps should be taken to minimize its adverse effect on public services. While he understands the Government's desire
to place such services on a user-pay basis, the use of the radio spectrum by Ontario government users is not revenue-producing. It is used to provide essential services to the public, including emergency services. The reasoning which has led the Government to support the exemption of municipalities from the fee requirement is fully applicable to those similar services provided by provincial Governments. He recognizes there is a need to address the anomalies created when operations in one jurisdiction pay for services while similar operations in another do not, when Crown corporations offering services in competition with the private sector are exempt from fees paid by their competitors. Even Ontario feels that where there is competition it is not a bad idea, which is what I said earlier. I felt that was fair in that instance. Mr. Fulton points out that it should be possible to deal with those few major anomalies without affecting the whole spectrum of public service.
The proposed fees will have a substantial impact on the telecommunication budgets of provincial government programs providing important services. In some cases this will amount to 10 per cent of the budget. Total cost to the Government of Ontario is expected to amount to nearly $1.4 million. If the Bill is passed in its present form he urges ministry officials to meet with their opposite numbers in the provinces to discuss issues raised by the current fee structure and consider alterations. He also urges that implementation of the Act be delayed until such discussions have taken place. We are not doing that because we do not need any more dialogue. We have had plenty. However, Mr. Fulton feels that federal-provincial cooperation should serve to minimize the impact of these changes to the public benefit if that dialogue is entered into.


James Eber Caldwell: 


Sheila Finestone: I did it and you were not here.


James Eber Caldwell: No, you did not.


Sheila Finestone: I did not do that? Well, they are in here somewhere, Jim, don't worry.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, I simply want to say to the Hon. Member that pay as you go is not such a bad idea.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, that is a good point. Thank you.
And now for the Government of Manitoba.

Is it not nice? We are going right across the country and no one agrees with the Government. That is normal.
In a letter dated February 10, 1987, that Government pointed out it is concerned with the public emergency support
March 12, 1987

services, such as those related to fire fighting and emergency preparations, and that it is required to restrict access to the radio spectrum or strain its limited budgets in order to pay the new radio licence fees. That is very serious. If they are going to put people's lives in jeopardy or cause serious concerns, I suggest that a good look and more conversation might be in order.
According to the Manitoba Government, Canada will be less well prepared in times of need if agents of Her Majesty, which are using the radio spectrum for safety, emergency preparedness or rescue services, are charged licence fees on the same basis as commercial undertakings.
I have a fairly lengthy letter to Russell MacLellan, M.P., Chairman of the Legislative Committee, from the Hon. Gary Doer. It reads:
I would like to bring to your attention this Government's concerns with respect to the amendment to the Radio Act proposed in Bill C-3.
This Bill will have the effect of imposing new costs on taxpayers and telecommunications users in this Province. We estimate the total impact to be in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of a million dollars, based on current rate schedules.
There has been no consultation with provincial governments before tabling this bill, even though its purpose is to effect a cost transfer to provincial agencies for services previously provided cost-free by the federal Department of Communications.
The imposition of radio license fees on Crown agencies will create financial barriers to the installation of the most effective and flexible communications facilities for public services operated by government departments and Crown agencies.
The safety of any number of public services could be compromised by the need to limit the use of radio services in order to keep expenditures for access to the radio spectrum within budgetary limits. Of greatest concern is the fact that public emergency support services, particularly those related to fire fighting and emergency preparedness will be required to restrict access to the radio spectrum and/or tax their limited budgets to pay license fees.
The federal Minister of Communications has made temporary commitments to limit the application of license fee regulations to municipal services.
However, this exemption is not permanent, and does not cover a number of public safety and emergency services such as fire and rescue services operated by northern communities too small to have municipal status, forest fire fighting equipment operated by provincial departments of Natural Resources, or services used by provincial Emergency Measures Organizations. Canada will be less well prepared in times of need if agents of Her Majesty which are using the radio spectrum for safety, emergency preparedness, or rescue services are charged license fees on the same basis as commercial undertakings.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek clarification. With all due respect to my colleague, the House Leaders had an understanding that, because there is a very restrictive time period for debate on this Bill, the time would be shared. I am watching the clock and notice that we only have 21 minutes left. The Hon. Member is making an excellent speech, but has gone on quite beyond the understanding with regard to time. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Member to co-operate in terms of the arrangement we had agreed upon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As you can well appreciate, the Chair cannot interrupt the Member for Mount
Radio Act
Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who, according to the rules, has unlimited time. However, now that you have reminded the Hon. Member of the understanding among the Parties, I am sure that at the first possible opportunity she will give the floor to her colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to raise a point of information or point of order. I have some additional information I wish to put before the House. This is a debate. If I use all the time allocated, does that not mean that this Bill will come back before the House for further debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There was an understanding on Tuesday, March 10, that both Bill C-40 and Bill C-3 would be put through all stages today. Therefore, at 4.45 p.m. the question will be put on both Bills.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I will, therefore, be pleased to accommodate. I will just note a few other points and then will relinquish the floor.
The Government of Manitoba is very concerned and I think we should take its concerns very seriously. I think the Minister should meet with that provincial Minister for Telecommunications. I would like to have read the complete letter but, as time is pressing, I will not.
I have a letter as well from the Minister of Transportation of Nova Scotia, Maxine Cochran, which takes great exception to this Bill for the same reasons.
During the hearings conducted by the House legislative committee the Government was pressed for exemptions. There will be increased fees to major government users which I think is too bad. I believe it would have been much better to have found a way to have the fee paid by those who are in competition in the private sector. I believe that that would have been fair. As one of the Ministers pointed out, although it might be a bit cumbersome, there certainly should have been a way for the Government to find the mechanism to tax only those who are in competition in the private sector and to have left the provincial and municipal governments out of it. The potential effect on the municipalities, which have only had a promise for the coming year, is just not fair.
In conclusion, I am not supporting this Bill which I believe is incorrectly conceived and a poor piece of legislation.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak at third reading stage of Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act. This Bill will enable the Government to collect roughly $10 million more a year for the regulation of the radio spectrum. Fees are already being collected from municipalities. This will enable the Government to collect fees from provinces and provincial Crown agencies as well. Municipalities are not covered because they are already being charged fees, albeit lower than those charged commercial enterprises. Those fees are increasing and municipalities will be concerned that they will be in for further fee increases

March 12, 1987
Radio Act
when this Bill is passed. Last year the fees charged to municipalities for radio spectrum were more than doubled from $400,000 to $900,000. We are told that if the full fees were charged they would amount to $3.3 million. There are 3,200 municipalities which pay and have to be worried about what they will be charged in the future.
There is one good argument for this Bill that private corporations which came before us pointed out. There are some instances in which they are competing with a service provided through a provincial Crown agency which is exempt from radio fees. The radio fees are not a significant amount of their business expenses but, nevertheless, one can understand the worry of unfair competition when one company providing a service has to pay a fee which another company does not have to pay. However, I remind the House that these are very, very small exceptions. In the vast majority of cases in which the Government intends to charge these fees, they are not for commercial enterprises but, instead, for a service being provided by a provincial government or provincial Crown agencies which are, in some cases, extremely essential services.
This is a proposition for the federal Crown to impose a tax on the provincial Crown. In the end the taxpayer pays. The amount of money saved by the federal taxpayer will have to be paid by someone, which means that the provincial governments will have to increase the taxes they charge. They, of course, have at least as many financial difficulties as has the federal Government. The poor ordinary taxpayer wonders what we are up to. While the Government is making a very laudatory attempt to collect $10 million more in order to bring spending under reasonable control, it means that taxes must be increased at the provincial level. We are hardly any further ahead.
In some of these cases the services provided are very essential and the amounts involved in some jurisdictions are not great. For example, in Yukon, it is $27,000 for government departments and $2,000 for government agencies. In the Northwest Territories it is $42,000. However, when we consider other provinces, the amounts are very substantial. In British Columbia it is $800,000 for government departments and $220,000 for the agencies. In Alberta it is $508,000 and more than $1 million for the agencies, which effectively represent substantial tax increases. In Saskatchewan, it is $232,000 for the departments and over $700,000 for the agencies. In Ontario it is $1.2 million for departments and an insignificant amount for government agencies. In Manitoba it is $220,000 for government departments and nearly $600,000 for government agencies. In Quebec it is $983,000 for government departments. In Nova Scotia it is $94,000 for government departments and $43,000 for agencies. In New Brunswick it is $200,000 for government departments and $26,000 for agencies. There are substantial amounts for small provinces. While it is $22,000 in Prince Edward Island, I can
assure the House that they are objecting to that. In Newfoundland it is $47,000 and $27,000 respectively. Federal departments are nearly $3 million and government agencies are $300,000. We are seeing one government department charging another government department within the same jurisdiction.
The provinces know that they will have to pay these increased fees and have responded to this proposition. Let me quote some of the objections that were brought to the committee by the various departments. I will begin with the Hon. Gary Dewar of Manitoba who says:
This Bill will have the effect of imposing new costs on taxpayers and telecommunications users in this Province. We estimate the total impact to be in the neighbourhood of three quarters of a million dollars-
There has been no consultation with provincial governments before tabling this bill, even though its purpose is to effect a cost transfer to provincial agencies for services previously provided cost-free by the federal Department of Communications.
The imposition of radio licence fees on Crown agencies will create financial barriers to the installation of the most effective and flexible communications facilities for public services operated by government departments and Crown agencies.
The safety of any number of public services could be compromised by the need to limit the use of radio services in order to keep expenditures for access to the radio spectrum within budgetary limits.
Certainly, we do not want to see that. He goes on:
Of greatest concern is the fact that public emergency support services, particularly those related to fire fighting and emergency preparedness will be required to restrict access to the radio spectrum and/or tax their limited budgets to pay licence fees.
The federal Minister of Communications has made temporary commitments to limit the application of licence fee regulations to municipal services. However, this exemption is not permanent, and does not cover a number of public safety and emergency services such as fire and rescue services operated by northern communities too small to have municipal status, forest fire fighting equipment operated by provincial departments of Natural Resources, or services used by provincial Emergency Measures Organizations.
Canada will be less well prepared in times of need if agents of Her Majesty which are using the radio spectrum for safety, emergency preparedness, or rescue services are charged licence fees on the same basis as commercial undertakings.
The Minister urges reconsideration of this Bill.
There are similar letters raising similar concerns about emergency services from across the country. British Columbia noted that it is not in favour of applying the licence fees broadly across the board to government departments, agencies or municipalities where they are being used for government services or for services to the general public. They say very clearly that the fees should not apply.
Saskatchewan is also very clear on this point. They point out that subsidization in the case of telephone communications in the sparsely populated northern parts of that province will be a terrific burden in the provision of radio services.
The Associate Deputy Minister in Saskatchewan points out that while deficit reduction is an important endeavour, shifting the federal deficit onto a different level of government is not a true solution to the problem. This is particularly true when the intended solution will increase the administrative effort of both Governments. That undoubtedly will be the case.
March 12, 1987

Mr. Russell, the Minister from Newfoundland and Labrador stated:
While the financial impact of the proposed legislative amendment appears relatively small at present, I anticipate that the cost of radio licences to the Provincial Government will increase, for whatever reason, in the future.
He stated that the over-all impact of the amendment means an increased financial burden to the province.
Prince Edward Island rejects the suggestion that any part of this responsibility should be transferred to provincial Governments. They state:
The desire of the Government of Canada to reduce its deficit is understandable and fully appreciated. However, the current trend of the central government to attempt to burden the provincial governments with its financial responsibilities, whether it be through the process of rail line abandonment, innovative airport management schemes, or others, is alarming and unacceptable.
Representatives from New Brunswick appeared before the committee to state a number of concerns. They state in their brief:
The increasing trend by governments toward cost recovery of a service as a budget control measure is, in general, governed by the rationale that if a service exists for the benefit of a particular user, then the appropriateness of having that user pay in part or in whole for the cost of providing the service can be considered.
However, they point out that the user is not the Government but the people of the province, who are also taxpayers federally-
They go on to state:
In asking the province to pay radio licence fees, the federal Department of Communications has apparently identified the Government as the user of the service-
However, the greatest part of the radio licences required by the province are used to ensure the safety and well-being of its residents.
They go on to give examples of radio licences used by provincial highway patrol, the Department of Transport for highway construction and maintenance, for emergency measures and for the maintenance of forests and wildlife. They state that the Province of New Brunswick as an entity is not the particular user who benefits from the services; the residents of New Brunswick are the beneficiaries. I believe that argument is eminently reasonable.
There is strong opposition to this from my Province of Ontario. The Minister from that province states:
While I understand the government's desire to place such services on a user-pay basis, the use of radio spectrum by Ontario government users is not revenue producing. It is used to provide essential services to the public, including emergency services. The reasoning which has led you to support the exemption of municipalities from the fee requirement is fully applicable to the case of similar services provided by provincial governments.
However, they will also be in trouble because the municipal exemption is only partial and is also slipping away. He goes on to say that if the Bill is passed in its present form he would urge meetings to discuss the issues raised by the current fee schedule. He asks for delays.
In the committee I proposed an amendment which would at least partially alleviate the problems posed by this Bill. The
Radio Act
amendment I moved but was not accepted stated that there be an amendment to the Bill, that notwithstanding subsection (2):
Nothing herein provided shall be deemed to impose or authorize the imposition by regulation of a fee for any licence or certificate issued to public safety or emergency response services within Canada.
Such a provision would have lessened the impact of the Bill by saying that there would be a fee for certain of these crucial emergency services. Regrettably, however, that amendment which I believe was reasonable was ruled out of order. Therefore, the full impact of this Bill will be felt by the provinces and provincial Crown agencies.
I want to deal with what the Government will do with the extra $10 million it wishes to collect if and when this Bill is passed. If I thought the money would be used for improving post-secondary education, public broadcasting, research and development or job-creation, I suppose I might be more in favour of a tax increase, which this is essentially. However, we see that money is being spent so that companies will make profits. There is an elaborate prison for the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding. Other examples such as that mean we cannot expect that any additional money collected through this new tax will be put to good use for the country.
The Government has a majority and undoubtedly Bill C-3 will pass. I regret that. It means an increased burden on the provinces and, of course, no relief to the taxpayer. The $10 million the federal taxpayer does not have to pay will have to be paid by those same people who are provincial and municipal taxpayers, suggest that finding new revenues of this order and in this fashion are not, in any event, going to solve the real problems of revenue collection and the deficit. Without significant tax reform, this sort of measure is very small and is not going to remotely have the kind of impact we need. I think the Government should get on with the real problems of government. We need fair taxes and prudent use of resources for the best long-term interests of the country.
This Bill is another example of poor government and my colleagues and I intend to vote against it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. colleague. I wonder if she would be kind enough to simply elaborate a moment or two on her last point in terms of our taxation system. It seems to be an appropriate point on which to say a few more words.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, this is indeed the crux of the issue and I am very pleased to be asked to elaborate on this question. We have a very fundamental question, increased revenues for the Government, and we are all in favour of increased revenues for the Government, providing those funds will be spent wisely.
Somewhat earlier in the day in debate on the Borrowing Authority Bill we addressed the question of how money ought to be raised and how it ought to be spent. The Government is increasing its revenue collection by increasing taxes on

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority
individuals and families. There is an enormous increase. There is an increase of billions of dollars.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if the Chair would be able to assist the House and advise us as to whether or not there are any questions or comments on third reading?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member was the first person to speak for the 20 minutes. After the 20 minute speech, there is a 10-minute question and comment period.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, in what is just about one minute remaining, I would like to attempt to answer the rather complex question raised by my colleague.
The question as to the wisest use of our resources is a very fundamental question. As I said earlier, I do not have confidence that these increased revenues to be collected under Bill C-3 are going to be put to very good use. We have a Government committed to increasing revenues from many sources, such as personal income tax, sales tax and from all sorts of hidden taxes. This is a most unfortunate approach to tax reform, if one can even honour it with the name of "tax reform". We need a fundamental change in the taxation system, one which will be fair and will mean greater collection of direct taxes. We should not be relying on these hidden taxes, taxes for services, sales taxes, customs and excise taxes, and these sorts of taxes which consumers and taxpayers do not know they are paying. These taxes fall on all users regardless of ability to pay. That is an unfair approach to tax reform. That, so far, is all we have received from the Government.
We have a Government committed to increasing its revenues but it is doing it in the wrong way. In this particular Bill, the Government is increasing taxes, although not by a very large amount given the enormous number of loopholes and escape hatches for corporations which result in massive tax losses. We are going to collect $10 million more from the taxpayers of the provinces when in fact billions and billions of dollars escape because of the 79,000 profitable corporations which do not pay a dime in taxes. I say the Government has its priorities wrong and for that reason I intend to vote against this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, March 10, 1987, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings now before the House and to put every question necessary to dispose of all stages of Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, and Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows:


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1986-87 (NO. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion agreed to.
Bill read the second time.
Borrowing Authority


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 78, 1 do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing	authority-Mr.	Wilson (Etobicoke
Centre)-Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you would seek the views of the House, you might find a disposition to have the vote taken on second reading of this Bill apply to third reading.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, perhaps the name of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) should be added.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: Well, that is normal.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do appreciate the help of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I would imagine the Hon. Minister can speak for himself should he decide to do so.


Benoît Bouchard: I would like my name to be added for the second vote, Madam Speaker.

March 12, 1987
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Valcourt:: I too would like to have my name appear for the second vote, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was absent for the first vote, but I certainly I want to be included with the vote for my Party in opposing the motion on this vote.


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Madam speaker, I was not here for the previous vote. I would like to have my vote included with those of my party for this one.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to arrive here for the first vote. I would like to be included with my colleagues in opposition to the Bill on the second vote.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on
the following division
Binns
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Carney
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cochrane Collins Comeau Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Dantzer Daubney de Cotret Della Noce Dorin Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Allmand
Althouse
(Division No. 71)
 YEAS Members
Fontaine
Forrestall
Friesen
Gass
Girard
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
Hamilton
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Horner
Jacques
James
Kempling
Lesick
Lewis
MacKay
Mailly
Marin
Martin
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McCuish
McKnight
McMillan
Minaker
Moore
Nowlan
O'Neil
Peterson
++NAYS
Members
Axworthy
Baker
Pietz
Plourde
Ravis
Reid
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Weiner Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Winegard Wise-91
Benjamin
Blaikie
Boudria	Henderson	OrlikowCaccia	Hopkins	OuelletCopps	Hovdebo	Pepinde Jong	Killens	Prud'hommeEpp	Langdon	Riis(Thunder Bay-	Manly	RobichaudNipigon)	McCurdy	RodriguezFinestone	McDonald	RossiFulton	(Broadview-	Young -35Gauthier	Greenwood)	Gray	Nicholson	(Windsor West)	(Trinity)	Grondin	Nunziata	
Bill read the third time and passed.


RADIO ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, if you would seek the views of the House you might find a disposition to apply to the vote on third reading of this Bill the vote that was taken on third reading on Bill C-40, the borrowing authority Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5.18 p.m.,
the House will	now proceed to the consideration of Private	
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.		
Organized Crime


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ORGANIZED CRIME ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
Miss Nicholson (Trinity) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
1.	the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada, particularly in such activities as drug trafficking and loan-sharking;
2.	the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of Canadian society;
3.	action taken by the government of other countries to investigate and curtail organized crime activity;
4.	legislation to enable the government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime;
5.	effective and appropriate punishment in instances of organized crime murder conspiracy; and
6.	possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses against organized crime.
She said: Madam Speaker, organized crime has been defined as:
Two or more persons consorting together on a continuing basis to participate in illegal activities, either directly or indirectly for gain.
This deliberate collaboration for illegal gain can develop into a self-perpetuating conspiracy that continues, despite what may happen to its original members, and that uses force and fear in its operations.
Organized crime has no ethnicity. It exists, it is pervasive, it is international in scope, and whether we know it or not, it is a fact of life. There is organized crime activity in loan-sharking, drug trafficking, robbery and extortion, activities that victimize innocent citizens. Organized crime does not exist as a separate subculture. It extends into our daily lives and the institutions of our society. The extent to which it does so is not known, and that is one of the reasons for my motion which proposes a Royal commission to investigate organized crime in Canada.
There has never been a national inquiry of this kind in Canada. There have, however, been provincial investigations. In Ontario in 1974, Judge Harry Waisberg's Royal Commission into certain sectors of the construction industry made some eye-opening revelations about the degree of corruption and organized crime involvement in Ontario's construction industry. Also in the 1970s, the reports of the Quebec crime probes extensively documented organized crime activity in that province.
The obvious conclusion, as I have said, is that organized crime is a fact of life, a force of corruption and a threat to our society. By its intrusion into other aspects of our lives, it is a threat to democracy. The issues it raises are national ones,

March 12, 1987
Organized Crime
which is why in my opinion a national investigation is called for.
Since organized crime exists to make money and buy power for those involved, it is clear that there is a good deal of money involved, many say billions, acquired illegally and outside the mainstream economy. Criminal organizations use modern financial services to conceal the illegal nature of their funds, to launder their money in other words. The increasing sophistication and the internationalization of the financial services industry make it extremely difficult to distinguish legal from illegal funds as transactions are processed in minutes through international financial networks.
In the United States in 1984, the interim report of the President's Commission on Organized Crime noted that the existence of modern financial institutions contributed to the frightening financial successes of organized crime in recent years. Without the means to launder money, organized crime could not flourish as it now does. Canadian financial institutions with their international operations are not exempt from this laundering activity. Since a great deal of the financial services industry is regulated federally, one of the questions that might be studied by a federal Royal commission would be how to remove the financial rewards of organized crime.
For example, Italian law allows for the arrest and imprisonment of organized crime conspirators as well as the confiscation of their assets. In 1970, the United States enacted the so-called RICO statute, the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, which also allows for state confiscation of the proceeds of organized crime. As a result of this law, American authorities have been able to lay charges against entire groups of organized crime conspirators as well as leaders and members of ongoing criminal conspiracies.
Last year in the United Kingdom, the British Parliament passed tough new laws to deprive convicted drug traffickers of the benefits of their illegal activities. Earlier court cases had shown that the law as it stood had no capacity to deprive offenders of the massive profits of their crimes. In 1984, the United Kingdom's Hodgson committee completed a study entitled "The Profits of Crime and Their Recovery" and recommended that the power of confiscation be made available. These are all things that a Canadian Royal commission could study to see how they might be applied in Canada.
Since organized crime operates outside the law and outside the mainstream of society, it does not welcome publicity. A Royal commission holding hearings and gathering information would create that unwelcome publicity which could possibly check the growth of organized crime, or at least prevent its operating at full capacity.
The police may become concerned that the publicity generated by a Royal commission could jeopardize their own ongoing investigations. This may be a legitimate concern which must be accommodated, but without public knowledge and support and without the necessary legislative backing, our
law enforcement authorities face an uphill battle against organized crime.
Another area of inquiry for a Royal commission might be the treatment of witnesses against organized crime. The United States has an established witness protection program to deal with these individuals who are often themselves criminals but who put themselves at risk to provide information on organized crime operations. I take seriously the argument that law enforcement authorities should not make deals with criminals. Nevertheless, since police rely on informers, we must have an examination of the matter of the ethical and legal considerations and some guidelines about how to proceed.
Another question that might be explored by a Royal commission is the question of the individual who sits at his desk and orders a murder. At this time, the House is very concerned about capital punishment and other kinds of punishment for the persons who actually commit murders but we have not been very successful in finding the kind of conspirator who is in a position to order a murder.
Perhaps the most important and valuable function of a Royal commission on organized crime would be to highlight the extent to which it has pervaded the institutions of our society and to expose its connections to the business community, the political arena, the judiciary and so on. Organized crime grows and prospers through its connections with and corruption of individuals at all levels of society, not just the wealthy and powerful. I believe that a Royal commission can make an assault on organized crime merely by exposing these connections.
The studies undertaken in Canada so far have given hints of what lies below the surface. We know there is organized crime in Canada and we know it is growing. It is a force of corruption, acting completely outside the law, interested only in expanding its own profit-making capacity at the expense of law-abiding citizens. It is a situation that cannot properly be addressed with ad hoc solutions. I believe it requires a coordinated approach on several fronts. That is why I recommend the formation of a Royal commission which would itself be part of a national response to the problem of organized crime in Canada.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak to the motion of my hon. colleague and friend opposite. I am always surprised and impressed by the breadth of her interest in the various topics that come before the House. As Hon. Members know, the Hon. Member is a recognized expert in financial affairs and I know of her interests in the area of criminal law. The motion she has laid before the House shows her to be thoughtful and is of much credit to her.
There is no doubt that international crime is a very serious problem. Solutions are being addressed at a global level but the question is whether we are doing enough, and whether or
March 12, 1987

not Parliament should authorize a royal commission. I am looking forward to the debate to learn the advantages and disadvantages. I know several of my colleagues have speeches they want to make on the topic. Under our rules this is fortunately a votable motion after five hours of debate. Parliament will take a collective decision. Therefore I want to commend my friend for bringing the motion forward. I regret the delay in starting today but there will be at least another four days for debate.
1 want to say a word or two about what the Government has done and is doing concerning illegal drug trafficking and organized crime. In 1985 the previous Solicitor General led the Canadian delegation to the Seventh UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan, Italy. I was fortunate to have been part of that delegation. For the first time in my life I had an opportunity to speak with elected officials and police officers from other countries in order to get a real feel for the extent of the problem. It is a bit like AIDS in that it is far more serious than people realize and has the capacity to explode exponentially. We have to do something and in fact certain things are being done.
Members of this House, and Canadians in general, will be pleased to know that Canada is in the forefront in the development of measures to attack international drug trafficking. We have also played an active role in supporting UN initiatives, including the preparation of a new convention on illicit drug trafficking. As well, we are collaborating with other economic summit countries to combat drug abuse. The Canadian delegation in Milan did an absolutely first-class job and I am sure Members will be very thankful for that contribution.
In April of 1986, Canada ratified a drug control agreement with France, the U.S. and Italy. The agreement grew out of the work done since 1970 by the quadripartite conference involving representatives of the French national police, the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the RCMP. On March 4, 1986, Canada became a full participant with Italy in the agreement to prevent and suppress trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs. The agreement is in effect for five years. I think the House will applaud the fact that Canada will be hosting the next conference to be held here in Ottawa next month.
I mentioned the development of a draft UN convention on illicit drug trafficking. At the thirty-ninth session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs held in February, 1985, Canada co-sponsored a resolution entitled "Initiation of the Preparation of a Draft Convention for Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances". This new convention is viewed as both a necessary and effective mechanism for implementing new initiatives to deal with illicit drug trafficking. A Canadian delegation, including representatives of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), attended a special session of the UNCND in February, 1986, where significant progress was made in identifying the specific subjects for inclusion in the draft convention. With the exception of certain
Organized Crime
concerns relating to control of vessels and extradition, Canada generally supports the proposed measures.
A top priority for Canada for inclusion in the draft convention is a provision which would permit each member state to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. Canada will be introducing domestic legislation which will strengthen our ability to effectively seize and forfeit the proceeds of crime, particularly those from illicit drug trafficking. To my mind that would be an incredible step forward in controlling drug traffickers. Seizing the proceeds of crime will in itself cause the practice to dry up quickly.
Another provision providing international control of the principal precursors for the manufacture of illicit drugs, for example, those which permit the extraction of heroin from opium and cocaine from coca, would constitute a primary defence in controlling the manufacture of illicit drugs. Still another provision deals with controlled deliveries which involve the transportation of illicit drugs under controlled conditions with the knowledge and consent of the police. The main objective is to allow the offence to continue, permitting the apprehension and successful prosecution of the key principals involved rather than mere seizure of the drugs and apprehension of the couriers. Controlled deliveries represent an efficient technique which, when successful, effectively identifies major conspirators and sources at the highest level of the international drug trade.
With regard to mutual legal assistance, considerable progress has been made in the international exchange of information to combat the illicit drug trade. Emphasis will now focus on the exchange of evidence and information as it relates to the proceeds of drug trafficking. Illegally acquired assets remain virtually untouched due to inconsistencies in international and national legal systems. The UN Division on Narcotic Drugs has decided to examine possible measures to counter bank security which encourages the apparently legitimate accumulation of these illicit assets in so-called tax haven countries. Canada, meanwhile, has ratified a mutual legal assistance treaty with the U.S., and is actively negotiating similar agreements with Switzerland, the Bahamas, and other Commonwealth countries.
A further provision of the proposed convention deals with illicit traffic via commercial carriers. In most cases air carriers and shipping lines are not held accountable for baggage cargo which is being used to secretly conceal illicit drugs for shipment, or for passengers who conceal drugs. However, when it becomes evident that employees or crew are either directly involved in such activities or, because of laxness of security, allow such activity to occur, the onus must rest with the carrier.
Yet another provision deals with co-operation across frontiers. Canada agrees that international intelligence and information support is a vital activity which must be intensified in the coming years, especially concerning the international drug traffic and the conversion of profits to apparently legitimate business enterprises. Enhanced co-operation

March 12, 1987
Organized Crime
between the producing, transit and consumer nation is a priority for this Government.
The UN International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking will be held in Vienna in June of this year. Members may already be aware that a Canadian, Mrs. Tamar Oppenheimer, head of the UN Division on Narcotic Drugs, is the Secretary-General of the conference. Furthermore, as an indication of the priority this Government gives to the issue, Canada will have ministerial representation at the conference. This multi-disciplinary gathering will consider such matters as the prevention and reduction of the demand for drugs, crop substitution, use of narcotics for medical purposes, forfeiture of illegal drug proceeds, the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, and the enhancement of enforcement resources.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the efforts of the RCMP and other provincial and municipal police forces. The RCMP provides training to police officers for many countries every year at the Canadian police college and sends specialists to assist Commonwealth and other countries develop enforcement skills.
I see my time has expired, Madam Speaker. I will close by saying that Canada and the international community are doing much with regard to this problem. That is not to say that my friend opposite does not have a good idea. We will follow the debate with interest. A Royal commission certainly has a lot of financial and time implications and we need to hear more from Members. Perhaps the Parties would even have a position that would be helpful in coming to a decision. I thank the Hon. Member for her motion and I look forward to hearing the rest of the speakers.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, when we look at the question of organized crime and how the newspapers deal with it, we see some very startling headlines. For example, "Metro's crime gangs battle for supremacy. A three-month probe reveals organized crime in Ontario is a $2 billion industry". "Organized gangs preparing for war in bitter fight for billion-dollar turf'. "Staggering profits". "Organized crime under attack". The amounts of money suggested are really staggering. Officials say that costs limit prosecutions and the police are not able to deal with the intricacies and complexities, the number of stages of laundering, in order to deal with organized crime. Another headline reads, "Unreported tax costing billions". These are unreported taxes from elicit enterprises run by organized crime. Other headlines read, "White collar rings stay out of sight" and "Gross national rip-off". The public is the loser from the failure to pay taxes, to the intimidation of citizens, to all the direct criminal activities. Of course, the proceeds from these activities get into the grey area of so-called legal businesses which are funded and owned by organized criminals.
These are the reasons why I very much support the resolution of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), that we have at the federal level a Royal commission to inquire into
organized crime. There have been Royal commissions and inquiries of various sorts at the provincial level on a much more limited basis. The Americans are much more actively promoting investigations of organized crime in that country. We would be smug and naive indeed to think that this problem was confined to our friends south of the border, that these activities do not take place in Canada as well. Although we are not paying as much attention to them, I believe we have a 10 per cent prorated reason to be as concerned as they are.
I come to this subject with a certain bit of a bad conscience as a sociologist. I used to study various kinds of criminal behaviour as a sociologist and academic. My own profession never paid a great deal of attention to organized crime. It is not easy to study. You cannot go out with tape recorders and questionnaires. It is not amenable to the usual academic kinds of studies. There have been the occasional book and article, usually from a journalistic approach rather than an academic one. Academics have shied away, not because they are afraid of organized crime, although perhaps we would all have a certain amount of fear if we knew the consequences. However, organized crime is obviously very successfully kept hidden. No criminal advertises in an active sense, but organized crime is kept far more hidden and is much harder to study. Even among those who have been convicted there are not large numbers of subjects for studies in the conventional sense.
Therefore, professional sociologists, psychologists, social historians and so forth have concentrated on other forms of crime. Indeed, those other forms of crime are not nearly as significant in terms of the amount of money they cost society, and probably not as significant in terms of the risk to lives of people who are intimidated and killed for not paying what is required of them in certain forms of organized crime. The fear and intimidation in organized crime is very, very serious. This is an extremely significant part of criminal life which is not being dealt with by the people who normally do conduct studies and alert the public-Parliament, and parliamentary committees-of existing problems. That source of information is not available to us. For that reason, it is even more important that we have a Royal commission which can hire some academics and very high level people who are above reproach. They will probably not be knowledgeable about organized crime, because we do not have many experts on that. Nevertheless, we could hire responsible people who would know how to conduct a commission and hire responsible staff to do the work which would put us in a much better position to address this question.
I would now like to refer to the specific proposals in the motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
1.	the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada,
particularly in such activities as drug trafficking and loan-sharking;
2.	the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of
Canadian society;
March 12, 1987

3.	action taken by the governments of other countries to investigate and curtail organized crime activity;
4.	legislation to enable the government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime;
5.	effective and appropriate punishment in instances of organized crime murder conspiracy; and
6.	possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses against organized crime.
I would like to highlight the second point, "the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of Canadian society", which is one of the things we do know. It is certainly clear in other countries that organized criminals like to get protection by infiltrating other social institutions. They move their money into illicit enterprises. Tracing these connections will, of course, be difficult, but it is extremely important to do this.
With regard to measures to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime, some of these have already been mentioned. One suggestion that has been raised as a possible way of preventing some of the laundering of proceeds from organized crime is to make it an offence to hold a numbered bank account in another country. We would assume that anyone who did not want their money traced might be up to no good. Such a measure ought to be considered as a possibility.
The previous speaker referred a great deal to illicit drug trafficking. That is, of course, an important matter. However, I think we would be remiss in our duties if we thought that was even the largest part of organized crime. It is the myriad of activity and a movement into legal businesses which is perhaps the most devastating in terms of its impact on Canadian society.
With regard to possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses, this is a long-standing problem whenever there is an inquiry or a police case involving major figures from organized crime. The witnesses may indeed be criminals themselves and we are put in the moral dilemma of whether we want to make a deal to relieve them of their responsibility for their crimes in order to get information which may lead to more important members of the organized conspiracy. Providing adequate protection for witnesses is a very fundamental question if we are to proceed in a serious way in dealing with this issue.
In conclusion, I believe that this is an eminently sensible resolution. I urge Hon. Members in all Parties to give it support. I was pleased that the first Conservative spokesperson on this subject is at least open to the question. I hope all government Members will be open to this. More enthusiastic support may have been desirable. There is no doubt that Royal commissions are expensive. However, when we consider the enormity of the problem, the billions and billions of dollars at stake, and the number of lives which are affected by this, it seems to me that even the cost of a Royal commission could be money very well spent. I urge the Government to consider, aside from the cost of a Royal commission, the cost of not dealing with this extremely important social question. I think
Organized Crime
we must address those issues. I believe that the right thing to do is to support this resolution to establish a Royal commission to investigate organized crime.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Madam Speaker, I want to comment briefly on that part of motion M-44 under which it is proposed that the House consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to investigate and make recommendations on the effective and appropriate punishment in instances of organized crime murder conspiracy.
First I should like to commend the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for her interest in this matter. Surely all Hon. Members understand just how important it is for society that our laws provide appropriate sanctions with a view to punishing those who attack their fellow citizens and preventing them from committing more crimes.
As many Members of the House will know, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1985, Bill C-18, contains an amendment to Section 423(1) of the Criminal Code, the effect of which is to increase the punishment for conspiracy to commit murder from one of imprisonment of 14 years to imprisonment for life. This term of imprisonment is subject to the normal rules with regard to parole eligibility.

Madam Speaker, there can hardly be a more serious infraction than conspiring to commit murder. To show that they acknowledged the seriousness of such a crime, parliamentarians thought that it should call for the same punishment given those found guilty of manslaughter, robbery, hostage taking, extortion.
In view of this, Madam Speaker, and although I share the sentiments of the Hon. Member for Trinity, I respectfully submit that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code concerning conspiracy to commit murder are appropriate. The longest prison term applicable, that is imprisonment for life, properly reflects the way this crime is perceived by the honest people and lets the courts take into consideration, when passing judgment, the extenuating circumstances such as change of heart and co-operation with police in order to bring to justice the other parties to the conspiracy.
Madam Speaker, as many Members know, the Law Reform Commission of Canada in its final report entitled "Recodifying criminal law", published recently, suggests in the third part of the Criminal Code draft contained in that report that in matters of conspiracy a simple rule be applied: That a guilty plea should carry only half the sentence prescribed for the crime as such.
Madam Speaker, that suggestion concerns me. Personally, 1 would not want such a clause to apply to conspiracy to commit murder, especially when organized crime is involved. As I

March 12, 1987
Organized Crime
have already said, in my opinion the present punishment seems appropriate for such an odious crime, since it is possible to take into account the degree of involvement in the crime and the extenuating or aggravating circumstances.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I repeat that, in my opinion, the actual wording of the Criminal Code, which prescribes the most severe punishment possible, imprisonment for life, is effective and appropriate to deal with such an odious crime as conspiracy to commit murder, whether the conspiracy is by a large criminal organization or a small group.
1 thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for her interest in matters relating to the administration of justice, especially dealing with organized crime in Canada. I believe we have seen an increase in this regard which has taken place essentially since the end of World War II. It should also be pointed out that many of us do not realize that we are dealing with organized crime very innocently when many of the things we purchase today may have resulted from organized crime. Certainly it is obvious that young people who today are involved with drugs and other things are very much contributing to the increase of organized crime.
I want to take a few minutes to discuss the specific aspect of the Member's motion which relates to the development of legislation to enable the Government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of crime. There is no question that the financial rewards from criminal activity, especially drug trafficking, are substantial. Because of the underground nature of the activity, it is difficult to estimate the exact dollar figure with any degree of accuracy. A Member who spoke previously suggested that the figure is possibly $2 billion in Ontario. No one can guess for sure the exact amount involved in organized crime, but it is certainly substantial.
In addition to the profit, there is the added social cost of law enforcement and health and education programs related to drug abuse. There is also the hidden cost of lost productivity on the job due to drug use. Anyone who visits a criminal court will certainly see the effect that drugs are having on our community, leading to such things as theft, prostitution and even murder.
A few years ago I had an opportunity to participate in a jury trial in which drugs were involved in a murder. When one begins to delve into those matters, one can see the effect that organized crime is having on our society. The costs to the community are as substantial as the profits from crime. These profits, which represent a tragic cost to Canadian society, are then used to fund other criminal activities such as graft, theft, pornography and prostitution. There is also the laundering effects of these profits into real estate or other businesses.
If the police are able to make a case that results in the imposition of a jail sentence for one of these offenders, the
criminal empire continues to flourish in the hands of his associates who await his eventual release from prison. He only has to wait the situation out before he is back on the street and already set up in business. The deterrent aspect of the sentence is completely lost when the offender knows that upon his being released he can continue that opulent life style that his criminal career has created for him.
In partnership with the provinces, a detailed analysis of organized crime was completed in June, 1983. Included in the recommendations of that report was a legislative scheme to trace, seize and confiscate the fruits of crime. Because there is also a need to reduce the demand for illicit drugs, it is obvious that a program of education is required in conjunction with an attack on the criminal element supplying the product.
In direct response to this problem, the Government announced in the Throne Speech the need to take effective action against the traffic in illicit drugs, as well as to develop a national drug strategy. Virtually all other western countries have legislation providing for the confiscation of the fruits of crime. No country is immune from this monstrous problem. I would anticipate from the words of the Speech from the Throne that the Government will be dealing with this specific aspect of the Member's motion.
Experience has shown that there is a need to freeze assets at the pre-trial stage, so that they will be available for confiscation upon conviction. This may be done by means of a court authorized system of seizure or restraint orders, with the option to appoint an interim manager, if required. Third party interests could be protected by a system of court procedures to determine any innocent interest that should be exempted from the confiscation scheme. What would be expected is a workable mechanism to confiscate criminal assets without sacrificing any innocent parties and always reflecting due process.
The previous Government attempted to pass legislation relating to both the proceeds of crime and instruments of crime. The inclusion of instruments such as businesses that were only minimally tainted by the infusion of criminal funds was perceived as Draconian and I would expect that any initiative entertained by this Government would be limited to only the proceeds of crime.
There is no question that the motivation of the Hon. Member in relation to the presentation of this motion is completely based on very good faith. However, in light of the clear commitment of the Government, as detailed in the Speech from the Throne, it is clear that action in this area will be forthcoming, and that is obvious from other initiatives that have been presented to the House in fulfilment of our promises to the Canadian people.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, before commenting the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), I would like to congratulate her for drawing the attention of this House to the issue of organized crime.
March 12, 1987

However, I fear that a Royal Commission of Inquiry on this matter would have the opposite effect to that desired. Some Canadians, probably influenced by the American medias, have greatly exagerated ideas about the extent of organized crime in Canada and its presence in our social, economic and political institutions.
I am certainly not trying to minimize the threat of organized crime in Canada, especially in the illegal drug traffic. However, I am convinced that the action taken by all levels of government in Canada to repress organized crime are increasingly effective, and I am happy to note that there is no indication that organized crime is endemic in Canadian institutions.
In my opinion, there is really no need to ask a royal commission to examine this matter.
Royal commissions are very costly, and since their rules of evidence are not as stringent as those of the Canadian courts and the evidence brought before them cannot be used in criminal proceedings, it is not very useful for law enforcement purposes.
In addition, Madam Speaker, creating a royal commission would probably worry Canadians needlessly by giving the impression that our police forces and courts are not fighting properly against organized crime.
Moreover, I fear that a royal commission would divert attention and resources from existing initiatives in the area of information and law enforcement and eventually delay investigations and legal proceedings in serious cases.
Madam Speaker, the royal commission which is proposed would run the risk of delaying initiatives at the national and international level in the fight against organized crime.
As I have mentioned before, federal, provincial and municipal authorities are already committed to this task. The existing national intelligence systems are upgraded continuously and police forces pool their knowledge, experience and ability in joint operations aimed at the big names in organized crime.
Important institutions such as Canadian banks are seeking the best possible means to protect themselves from laundered money.
As for the Federal and Provincial Governments, they are looking ever more seriously at legislation other than the Criminal Code which could help prevent or fight organized crime.
Both at the federal and provincial levels, police officers are being better trained and given the knowledge and skills required to detect organized criminal activity and to gather the necessary evidence for successful prosecution in important
cases.
However, these efforts generally go unseen and the media make no mention of them. In Canada, particularly, we have a
Organized Crime
tendency to say little about what we do and to be more discreet than our American neighbours.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the law enforcement methods used by the Canadian authorities in their fight against organized crime are highly efficient. Efforts and resources are coordinated and the various jurisdictions cooperate to prevent and expose illegal activities, to conduct investigations and to prosecute offenders. In other respects, Canadian authorities share a particular concern for the rights of people who unknowingly become accomplices.
Enforcement policies and activities are aimed at maintaining the confidence of Canadians in the integrity of our social, political and economic institutions, which are the main forces that stand against the corruption generated by organized crime.
Police authorities, the courts and other Canadian enforcement agencies are the watchdogs of that integrity, representing as they do our first line of defence against organized crime.
It has been said that the importance of the underworld in a society is an indication of the integrity and ethics of its Government and business institutions. We must therefore support policies and programs ensuring that Canada never will be a country where the underworld can take root. And that goal requires that the various governments and enforcement agencies be on a constant watch.
The Government appreciates the genuine concern of the Hon. Member about organized crime. However, the Government of Canada is co-operating with the provinces in intensifying enforcement efforts, and a royal commission of inquiry would add very little to the tools already in place or being developed.
Preferably, Madam Speaker, this House should support and encourage the Canadian Government and the provinces in their enforcement initiatives, and enact rapidly any legislation aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the law against organized crime.
I am aware, Madam Speaker, that the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Trinity reflects a serious concern about the extent of organized crimes in Canada and the weakness of measures to promote enforcement. But I want to assure her that members of the police forces and other dedicated experts in the area of penal justice are showing a high degree of competence in addressing this problem. The Government is relying on them, and they deserve the support of all Hon. Members and Canadians in general.
I do not feel therefore that the setting up of a royal commission would be in the interests of Canadians or would help our fight against organized crime.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased indeed for this opportunity to speak to the

March 12, 1987
Adjournment Debate
motion, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for drawing to the attention of the House this very important matter. My Government is very much aware of the problems of organized crime. My colleagues have already discussed many of the initiatives the Government has taken to combat organized crime in terms of improved legislation, enhanced resources, improved systems of collecting, analysing and disseminating intelligence on organized crime and, indeed, with new arrangements with foreign governments to help solve this very pressing problem.
In presenting this motion, the Hon. Member proposed that one of the matters the Royal commission would investigate is the matter of witnesses against organized crime. In this connection, I am pleased to report that the matter is currently being examined by the Ministry of the Solicitor General in collaboration with provincial Ministers and other federal Ministers concerned with law enforcement. I believe we would all agree that witness protection is part and parcel of a serious commitment on the part of the Government and law enforcement agencies to forcefully pursue organized criminal activities.
Some Hon. Members may be aware that in the United States the federal Government instituted a witness protection program aimed at organized crime which is administered by the U.S. Marshalls Service. The need for a wide ranging formal program in the United States is, of course, based on the magnitude of the organized crime problem there. Fortunately, we are not yet faced with a problem of similar magnitude in Canada. As Members are aware, the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. As a consequence, the majority of witnesses requiring protection, relocation and a new identity are the responsibility of provincial authorities. The federal Government, through the RCMP and other federal departments, does however provide assistance to provincial officials in the form of documentation required for the witness to establish a new identity, usually in a new location in a new town. The RCMP also assists other police forces in other aspects of witness protection.
These flexible arrangements which provide for witness protection has worked in a generally satisfactory way at meeting the Canadian needs over the years.
Madam Speaker, I see that we are approaching the witching hour. May I call it 6.11 p.m.?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), this Order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



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

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to pursue a question I asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on December 3, as well as my follow-up letter to him on January 22, relating to the impact of the Chernobyl nuclear accident on Canada.
On December 3 I asked the Minister to make public information on what monitoring took place in Canada following Chernobyl, where the monitoring took place, what was monitored and what the result was in terms of radioactive contamination. In response to my question the Minister indicated a willingness to make a statement to this House, or otherwise provide the House and the Canadian public with further information on the impact of Chernobyl on Canada.
On December 11 the Minister tabled a document entitled "The Impact of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident on Canada". Unfortunately, this document fell far short of the type of detailed information I was seeking when I asked my question on December 3. As a result, I wrote to the Minister on January 22 expressing my dissatisfaction with the report and again asking him to table a comprehensive statement on the radioactive contamination of the Canadian environment in the days and weeks after Chernobyl. To date, the Minister has yet to respond to my request. I would like to take this opportunity to again put on the record why I feel it is so important that the Government provide the House and all Canadians with the type of detailed information I requested.
To begin, the document the Minister tabled on December 11 states that 28 monitoring stations at airports across Canada were activated shortly after the Chernobyl nuclear accident. I point out to the Government that this network is far less comprehensive than the 33 monitoring stations activated in Sweden, a country 22 times smaller than Canada. In addition, the document the Minister tabled in December leads one to conclude that only air and precipitation samples were collected at the 28 monitoring stations in question at or near ground level, whereas Sweden, for example, also collected air samples at different altitudes through the use of aircraft, as well as plant samples. The report also fails to give any indication of the sophistication of the equipment the Government uses to monitor radioactive fall-out or whether the Government availed itself of the sophisticated monitoring equipment that exists at several Canadian universities and private facilities.
Most important, the report tabled by the Minister does not indicate what isotopes the Canadian monitoring stations were
March 12, 1987

looking for, what they discovered, where, and in what quantities. For example, the report refers to radiation doses in microsieverts but fails to identify the individual isotope levels detected or the methodology used to calculate the doses quoted in the report.
The Government's estimates of the long-term effects of Chernobyl are equally suspect because the report again fails to identify the individual isotope levels detected, and also fails to detail which cumulative dose commitments and which international standards were employed to calculate the risk assessment outlined in the report, thereby seriously undermining the credibility of the Government's projection that there will be less than one Canadian cancer fatality as a result of Chernobyl. As a case in point, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, last year's winner of the Alternate Nobel Peace Prize, estimates that the number of Canadian cancers that could be expected as a result of Chernobyl may actually be anywhere from 1 to 24, with 3 to 9 cancers being the most probable.
Dr. Bertell also noted that the Government has not published projections on the reproductive problems that might be expected from Chernobyl, such as genetic diseases, embryonic, foetal, or infant losses, mild mutations, lower birth weights or growth retardation, which she estimates could be anywhere from 25 to 169 cases.
Similarly, the Government's claim that only 12 of 300 samples of imported food were rejected after Chernobyl is somewhat meaningless without detailed information on what isotopes the inspectors were looking for, what monitoring techniques, or what doses were judged to be acceptable or unacceptable.
I could go on, Madam Speaker, but I hope that I have made my point that it is essential that Canadians be provided with all known information on Chernobyl in order to analyse and reflect on the true impact of the accident on ourselves and on our environment.
This information is important for another reason. It now appears probable that some of the radiation detected over Canada in the wake of the Chernobyl accident did not come from Chernobyl, but rather from the venting of radiation trapped underground as a result of the "Mighty Oak" nuclear bomb blast that took place at the Nevada nuclear test sites on April 10, 1986, 16 days prior to the incident at Chernobyl. Both the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have confirmed that venting of radiation trapped underground as a result of this test occurred shortly before, and in particular, after Chernobyl. Appropriate monitoring equipment can differentiate between radiation from a bomb blast and radiation from a nuclear reactor accident. But again the Government's failure to release the full results of its post-Chernobyl monitoring prevent adequate public analysis and reflection on the true risks of Chernobyl, or the apparently never-ending string of
Adjournment Debate
nuclear tests being conducted by the United States in our shared North American environment.
I should also point out that if some of the fall-out detected in Canada after Chernobyl did come from the "Mighty Oak" bomb blast in the United States, that bomb blast-not to mention many others before it-would be in direct violation of the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which forbids any nuclear weapons tests that would impact on any territory outside of the jurisdiction of the country conducting the test.
As you may know, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and myself, are currently travelling across the country to listen to ordinary Canadians and experts alike as part of the NDP inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada. These hearings have been most productive to date, and we hope to publish a report some time during the fall of this year. During our hearings, considerable concern has been raised about Canada's ability to monitor radioactive fall-out.
We have also heard a lot about excessive secrecy when it comes to nuclear issues in Canada. One could argue that the report that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled on December 11, and the Government's apparent continued unwillingness to release further details on the impact of Chernobyl on Canada, merely confirm both these concerns. Or are we to believe, which might even be more distressing, that the Government does not have this type of information? Therefore, Canadians ought to be doubly concerned about what the Government was doing, or not doing, in the days and weeks following the Chernobyl accident.
I see that the Minister is in the House, presumably to answer my question, and I wish to say I am happy that the Minister has chosen to respond to my statement this afternoon. I hope he will be more forthcoming in what he has to say to the House at this time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the first point I wish to make to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and all Canadians is that all information that Canada has and that the Radiation Centre has that has been available from universities and private laboratories I have been willing to make public, both immediately after Chernobyl and during the following months when there was great interest in Chernobyl as well as the present.
I wish to convey very directly that there is nothing that we are hiding in terms of information. As I have previously stated, if there is additional information that can be made available, I will make that available.
Second, I wish to discuss the matter of Canadian standards relative to international standards. We have checked that very carefully with various international agencies and as recently as during the parliamentary break, on my visit to Vienna I met with representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency, namely, Dr. Blix from Sweden and Professor Konstin-tinov from the Soviet Union. We looked at what took place at

March 12, 1987
Adjournment Debate
the meetings in Vienna relative to the information that came forward from Chernobyl. The Soviets, as we know, had been very secretive about the information initially. That information came forward to some degree at the hearings in Vienna during the special convention of the IAEA. That information is available as well, Madam Speaker. Because of this issue being so sensitive, it is important to stress that we have made all information available that is known to us, both nationally and internationally. If there is more information, we will also make that available.
As to the second part of the question relating to the effect of Chernobyl on the food cycle, the caribou-human food chain, I want to tell Members and Canadians that we have been looking at that matter very seriously. A few weeks ago I had an opportunity to discuss this with health officials at Frobisher Bay. By all measurements the radioactivity measured in the Arctic, post-Chernobyl, was considerably lower than any radiation that, for example, had been measured in the 1960s at the height of the atomic blasts at that time-I am not using it as a standard that we are better off than in the 1960s and therefore everything is fine, but we have to take comparisons here-and the chance of death from radioactivity of even one caribou is so small as to be virtually zero.
As well, we have received reports from Scandinavian countries on the contamination of reindeer herds and their being unfit for human consumption. It should be noted that there are no reports of death of caribou even though their exposure to radiation was higher than that received in Canada. However, to protect northern residents, meat samples from at least 30 caribou from the main herds in the Territories have been collected by the Canadian Wildlife Service. We are doing that in co-operation with Health and Welfare in co-operation with Health and Welfare. This sampling program will be repeated this spring. The departments will make these samples available along with all information. According to all information we have, both the caribou, that is the food chain, and Canadians in the North and elsewhere have been fully protected and fully informed on everything flowing from Chernobyl, and we will continue that action.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-(A) REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE MORE PRECISE (B) FUTURE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS AND FAMILIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to shed some light on a question that has aroused the concern of some 1,300 federal public servants at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who work for the Surveys and Mapping Branch and the Centre for Remote Sensing, and also at the Canadian Hydrographic Service of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Madam Speaker, this Government which was supposed to be straightforward in its dealings has managed to scare everyone
through sheer incompetence. If we look back on what happened five or six days ago, we get a very clear picture of how this Government managed to complicate a situation that should have been very straightforward.
Last Friday on March 5, the employees' union at Energy, Mines and Resources issued a press release announcing that mapping, remote sensing and hydrographic services would be turned over, privatized if you prefer, to Lavalin, a world-class engineering firm.
The press release tells us that various Ministers were consulted and gave contradictory versions of the story. This was not surprising, nor was it particularly reassuring for the employees. The press release also tells us that the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) would deny these rumours in the House very shortly. When we ask the Minister of State for privatization (Mrs. McDougall) to make a few comments on this possibility of privatization she denies it but goes on to say that negotiations are under way. For his part, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) says there were no real negotiations, but here are his own words as reported on page 3953 of Hansard:
Quite frankly, we had some purely exploratory talks-
Good. Last Friday the Minister of Mines told me it was not in the strict sense of the word privatization.
But as always with this Government they all have something to say, but not to one another, with the result that people become confused and concerned. They play with the sentiments and security of people.
Madam Speaker, what do you think is the reaction of an employee who does not know whether he will be privatized, whether his service and his job will still be there? Will he have to move? Madam Speaker, it is difficult to explain the anguish felt by certain employees faced with such a possibility. This is a serious matter, we are not talking about just any company. Lavalin, a major international firm, and Bell Canada, one of our largest companies, are invited by Treasury Board officials to get together to discuss the proposed privatization of what we consider to be essential services-mapping, remote sensing and hydrography.
Morale among public servants is low, and I can understand why. Because Government representatives seem to be talking at cross purposes, public servants have no idea what to expect next and they are very, very confused.
Faced with such confusion, on Monday March 6 the President of the Treasury Board in turn issues a press release to shed light on the whole situation.
On page 3953 of Hansard for March 9, we find the reply given by the Minister to the effect that the Government was having exploratory talks with several companies to discuss the make or buy policy. There have been no negotiations or contracts or any attempts in this respect. There have never been any attempts to engage in an exercise of this kind, as stated in the Minister's press release.
March 12, 1987

This is even more confusing, Madam Speaker. On one hand, there are negotiations and talks. Three meetings were held, in October, November and December, but I repeat that, according to the Minister, there have been no negotiations. My God, what are those people doing? If they are talking, it must be about something interesting. Either they are speaking about the possibility of having serious exchanges, or else they are talking just for the fun of it. I do not think that Lavalin would want to waste its time with public servants or departmental officials who do not know what they have to offer.
On Monday, Lavalin published a press release in which its president, Mr. Lamarre, confirmed the facts as follows:
"In accordance with its make or buy policy, the Treasury Board had initiated discussions with its firm and Bell Canada-" and this is textual "-to explore the terms for privatizing certain Government services in the field of cartography."
That is quite clear. Lavalin says that there have been negotiations. On the other hand, the Minister says that there have been no negotiations and wonders why the Opposition and the public servants are so excited. The facts are quite clear. The Government does not know where it is going.
In the same press release, Lavalin said: "It is already a known fact that Lavalin and Bel! Canada have recently joined forces to put together a business specialized in the management of mapping-related information, including surveying and cartography. By uniting the efforts of this new business to those of federal agencies which already operate competently in this field, Canada could play a frontline role in the development of geomatics".
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, Lavalin is a serious business which does not generally find it amusing to take the public for a ride just for publicity purposes. It does not need it. Mr. Lamarre is a serious man who has no need to advertise or to publish press releases making silly statements. Today, the Ministers have confirmed in the House that the Surveys and Mapping Branch, the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and the Canadian Hydrographic Service are not for sale. I think that was definitely the conclusion we could draw from the answers given by the Minister of State responsible for privatization and by the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines. Those are the facts, and in that case, Lavalin has been wasting its time. It is high time this Government made up its mind where it is going, and I hope that the Hon. Member or the Minister is going to tell me the matter is closed and mapping will not be privatized.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, thank goodness we are getting to the end of the adjournment debate, because if we listen to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) when he starts talking about where the Government is going, I think we could also ask him where his party is going. We had a good example of this yesterday. He should listen to
Adjournment Debate
what I have to say and maybe he won't have to ask those questions anymore.
The example that occurred to me was the vote on the Cruise missile. They can't even agree in their own caucus, and in that case I wonder why he feels he is in a position to judge whether we can or cannot agree.
Madam Speaker, I think it is obvious, and I recall what was said by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier, that exploring possibilities does not mean one is going to sell. People who don't understand that are certainly lacking in judgment. I think that looking at our institutions and our departments and seeing whether we could not make their operations more efficient is one of the obligations we have as a responsible Government. Madam Speaker, bearing that in mind, I think we can look to the future with optimism and consider setting up mechanisms that will benefit all Canadians. That is what we are looking at, that is what we want to achieve, and that is what the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) have said.
Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why the Opposition insists on making words say what they are not supposed to say, because there is a big difference between exploring and selling. We can make projections, we can analyze certain things, but that does not mean at all that we are going to sell. It means that we want to make certain improvements, look at the situation as it is now and perhaps as it should have been if the Liberals had lived up to their election promises to locate the cartography sector in Sherbrooke. Madam Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on this issue in two or three elections and failed to do anything, but now that they are on the Opposition benches they still have no idea where they are going yet are quite prepared to tell us how we should be managing public affairs. Madam Speaker, they should look at the way we reduced the deficit, they should look at the way we revived the economy over the past three years. They should realize that this Government can give Canadians an opportunity to rejoin the labour force, to have confidence in the economy, to look forward to a bright future. Once they have done that we will be in a position to respond to sensible questions from another Party, like the Opposition Party.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to say that both the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines), who is responsible for the Surveys and Mapping Branch, and the President of the Treasury Board have said that there is no plan to sell or privatize the branch, the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing or the Canadian Hydrographic Service, and any statement to the contrary would simply be false.
Madam Speaker, I hope these few comments are sufficiently clear and specific.

March 12, 1987
Adjournment Debate


THE ADMINISTRATION-PUBLIC TENDERS-OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND LAW AND REGULATIONS TO ELIMINATE POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CORRUPTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) CANADA ELECTIONS ACT-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO BAN CORPORATE DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, Canadians are very tired of all the scandals, corruption, hints of conflict of interest, resignations and investigations. Whether it be government contracts, legal services, or renting buildings, Canadians want to see a clean system and a Government they can be proud of.
I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) if he would set up a fair system of public tendering. I do not think many Canadians realize how many loopholes there are in our public tendering system. People think there is an official process and companies which want to sell goods or services to the Government make an offer which is examined impartially by civil servants and the lowest bidder which fulfils the necessary qualifications gets the work. Of course, many contracts are not covered in that fashion. We have government contract regulations and then a vast assortment of exceptions where the Minister can proceed without going through the tendering system.
When I raised this issue with the Prime Minister, he denied there was a problem. All he said was if I had a specific case then I should complain about that. That is not what I was talking about. No doubt the police can deal with a specific case or a specific crime. What I am talking about is the need to have a system that Canadians know is fair.
I think it is scandalous to hear that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mrs. Vezina) lets certain MPs know about contracts which are coming up so that the MP can go around to friends or companies, possibly those who gave the MP financial contributions in the last election, and suggest there is a chance they can get some government business. I do not think MPs should be in that business. That is what we have a Public Service for. We should have impartial officials dealing with these contracts for everything other than purely trivial amounts. We do not want to call for a public tender every time we buy a pencil or eraser, but for any serious amount of contracting there should be a fair system so people will know where they stand and so the decisions will be made by public servants. We do not have that.
One constructive proposal which I made, because I think Canadians want constructive solutions to this, is that we try to stem the incentive which corporations have to use improper methods of getting contracts by stopping corporate donations to political parties. This is a serious suggestion. It was pooh-poohed by the Prime Minister. He did not want to consider it
at all. The answer we get to that is that the NDP gets donations from unions and is it not, therefore, in the same boat as the Liberals and Conservatives. We are not in the same boat at all. Unions are not out to get government contracts. They are not selling goods and services and trying to make a profit for their shareholders. It is quite a different situation. The opportunity for corruption just is not there.
In Quebec unions, as corporations, are not permitted to make campaign donations. It is one of the legacies of Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois that they have cleaned up that system in Quebec. They ought to be very proud of that. I only hope that we will follow suit at the federal level and ensure that we have at least as good a system for federal donations.
In fact, both the Conservatives and Liberals get enormous amounts of money from private corporations. In 1984, our last election year, the Conservatives raised S22 million; the Liberals, $11.8 million; and the NDP was a little behind that at $10.5 million. Half of the funds raised by the Conservatives and Liberals came from corporations. That is a substantial amount of money. In short, the Conservative Party raised more money from corporations than the New Democratic Party raised from individuals and unions combined.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) is misleading people when he says that the New Democratic Party gets most of its money from unions. That is simply not true. We get between 10 and 20 per cent depending upon the year and the jurisdiction. We depend overwhelmingly on individual donations. I am sure people would be prepared to consider whether unions should be making contributions. I do not think they are in the same boat as corporations because they are not out to make profits, but in order to have a decent system that is something which could be considered.
As well as corporate donations going to political Parties at the national level, they also go to local candidates in the Conservative and Liberal Parties. In the case of the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, who became the Prime Minister after the election, corporate donations to his riding association in that election year amounted to $58,0000. That was far beyond the spending limit. In the case of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) corporate donations in 1984 were $64,000 although his spending limit was $24,000. It is clear that corporations think they are betting on the winner and that it will do them some good.
I do not think Canadians want that kind of system. I think Canadians were glad to see the end of the bad old days when voters were paid a bottle of rum for their vote and every time there was an election the civil servants from the previous government were thrown out and replaced with people from the Party in power. I am proud of the role that Tommy Douglas and the CCF in Saskatchewan played in cleaning that province up from political corruption and patronage. They instituted a merit principle in the civil service and a public tendering system which did not grant contracts to friends or contributors to the Party in power. They did not take corporate
March 12, 1987

donations so there was no incentive for corporations to try to buy influence by making political donations. That system worked. They got very good value for their money. They cleaned up the system. We know that they even managed to reduce the deficit while providing excellent services. I do think it possible, Madam Speaker, and I would hope that we could have a system in Canada which is fair and clean. That is what Canadians want.
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to talk about the federal Government contract award system.
In recent weeks, Madam Speaker, Members of the Opposition have been saying just about anything on this question without even going to the trouble of seeking a minimum of information on the subject, and especially without taking time to think about it.
Let us be frank. Every year my Department awards in excess of 350,000 contracts for goods and services worth $7 billion. For the whole federal administration, we are talking about roughly 400,000 contracts a year. So how many of these have caused problems? A minimum number, Madam Speaker.
Early in January, the Opposition tried to embarrass the Government with what has been dubbed the Oerlikon Affair. 1 would like my colleague to show some objectivity.
When he was informed of certain disturbing aspects of a land purchase by the Oerlikon company, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asked for the resignation of a Cabinet Minister and for an investigation by the RCMP. This decision clearly demonstrates that he has no intention of making allowances as far as the confidential nature of Government transactions is concerned.
As for the bidding process and the evaluation of the bids received, to my knowledge, no one has questioned the integrity of this process. The contract for the low altitude defence system has indeed been granted to the most deserving supplier. If my colleague has any information to the contrary, I invite
Adjournment Debate
her, as the Prime Minister has already done, to communicate this information to the House.
Madam Speaker, our contracting system is highly regulated, for the very purpose of avoiding any irregularity. All purchasing agents of my department have on their shelves a dozen volumes of regulations and procedures to be followed for each type of acquisition. These books, which are quite heavy, represent all the institutional wisdom accumulated by my Department in its 18 years of existence and by the Department of Defence Production during the 40 years before that. These volumes reflect our constant efforts to act fairly and impartially in our relations with Government suppliers.
One final remark, as Minister of Supply and Services. I am convinced that the State is not a purchaser like any other. As a Government, we must see to it that our purchasing policies are absolutely consistent with our social and economic objectives. Would my hon. colleague who is greatly aware of the need to advance the status of women blame me, for instance, for having ordered a new call for tenders because some companies had disregarded our job equity program?
Madam Speaker, I will see to it that our purchasing policies are consistent with our national goals. If my hon. friend considers this approach as a form of political interference, I deeply regret it.
The Hon. Member has recommended that the Government ban corporate donations to political parties. In this regard, the Prime Minister was most clear in his reply. He said that the Government would consider the Hon. Member's suggestion.
This being said, I sincerely deplore her statement that contributions to political party foster corruption. Again, I urge her to provide us with one single example so we can make sure that justice is done.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being now 6.44 p. m., pursuant to an Order adopted on Tuesday, March 12, 1987, the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 16, 1987, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 31.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Monday, March 16, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers