1988-03-11

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-76, an Act to provide for emergency preparedness and to make related amendments to the National Defence Act, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Henry Perrin Beatty: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on June 26 of last year the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) tabled Bill C-76 in the House and announced that the federal Government had withdrawn the Emergency Planning Order of 1981 and was introducing new federal emergencies legislation to replace it.
As events continually show, emergencies do not wait for any timetable; they can happen at any time anywhere in Canada. With the adoption of Bill C-76, Parliament will be moving a step closer to a highly effective emergency planning and response system.
The Auditor General's annual report for the fiscal year ending March 1, 1987, included a special examination of emergency preparedness arrangements. He specifically recommended that consideration be given to providing statutory authority for federal emergency planning, and for the Government to declare a national emergency in peacetime. More explicitly, Mr. Dye said, "Co-ordination and the testing of specific national emergency plans between federal entities and between the federal Government and the provinces should be made the responsibility of a designated federal agency.
Emergency Preparedness Canada, the agency responsible for co-ordinating this response, has never had its role, responsibilities and mandate set out in an Act of Parliament; it has been acting under a series of ad hoc authorities that were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
This Bill will go a long way toward meeting the Auditor General's concerns. On behalf of the Minister responsible for emergency preparedness, I wish to thank Members of the legislative committee who reviewed this Bill carefully. It is a tribute to their understanding of the importance for the federal Government to be able to act swiftly and decisively in emergencies that they moved Bill C-76 forward so quickly. I am sure that the other place will see fit to deal with Bill C-76 as expeditiously.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief and to the point. Bill C-76 is essentially a Bill that is administrative in nature to replace the Emergency Measures Organization. The Official Opposition has no difficulties with the Bill as it reports to the House. As we have indicated earlier, it simply establishes the rules under which provinces will be entitled to declare an emergency, and it utilizes all of the resources of the federal institutions to aid the provincial authorities in dealing with emergencies.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty with Bill C-76. 1 would imagine that the debate will lie in committee on Bill C-77 where there will be a clause-by-clause examination in the coming days and which will then report back to the House on Bill C-77.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that I breathed a sigh of relief this morning when the Government introduced its amendment.
The amendment was necessary because when the Bill was first introduced it sent a shudder through the country. As the House will recall, Clause 5(1) in part indicated the following:
The functions of Emergency Preparedness Canada with respect to the
development of civil emergency plans are ...
(f) to provide for the continuity of government during and after an emergency.
The Government was saying that if an emergency occurred, Emergency Preparedness Canada would become the Government of Canada. It would set aside our constitutional rights and our parliamentary rights. It would do away with the House of Commons and the other place-the whole institution of Parliament.

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
I hope that it was simply a drafting oversight, but it sent a shudder throughout the country. I think the Government was about to set up what would essentially be a dictatorial panel to run Canada.
However, that has been clarified this morning, thank goodness, through the amendment with which we have already dealt.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Are you for or against it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear my friend across the way from Ottawa- Carleton. He can bet that I am for it. We already have a Government which has lost some of its senses in terms of some of its powers, but to give it emergency powers into the future to do away with Parliament-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Nelson, that clause was their only hope, given the polls.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my hon. colleague indicates, given the polls, perhaps it was their only hope for staying in government for some time beyond the next few months.
However, setting that aside, I do not want to sound flippant as it is a very serious piece of legislation. Having made those comments with regard to Bill C-76, I want to applaud the Government for having brought it forward.
As we know, the previous Government was going to deal with emergency situations through Privy Council Order 1305, which was a very worrisome piece of legislation. For example, it allowed for such ridiculous things as the planning of civilian internment camps. In other words, it would give the Government, with no accountability whatsoever, the right to set up civilian internment camps around the country, presumably to herd Canadian into during a state of emergency. The previous Liberal Government had no mandate from Parliament or legislative authority for such action. Parliament would have had no way to monitor what was going on even after the fact.
While Bill C-76 is a housekeeping Bill in many respects, it is certainly very welcome and long overdue when we consider what the Liberals had introduced for their so-called emergency preparedness.
While we are fortunate to live in a peaceful and relatively prosperous country, we tend sometimes to take these conditions for granted. However, we have had reminders in the past little while, such as the Edmonton tornado, the very serious Mississauga train derailment, and the ongoing discussions on the West Coast about a possible earthquake and the damage and chaos which would result from such an event. Obviously we must be prepared. We need emergency planning to guarantee help for those people stricken by a disaster and to ensure a rapid return to normal circumstances. This has really been put off for too long, which basically means that Canada and Canadians have been put at risk.
Thank goodness that Privy Council Order 1305 has now been put aside. Bill C-76 changes all this. The Minister of
National Defence (Mr. Beatty) will be responsible to Parliament for emergency planning. Essentially he will become the lead Minister during a crisis in the country. However, as a result of the Bill, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinize government activities and government spending in the area of emergency planning to ensure that the plans are appropriate, protect Canadians, and do not threaten the rights of Canadians.
One component of the Liberal initiative a few years ago under Privy Council Order 1305 concerned many of us who pride ourselves on being parliamentarians. I am referring to the opportunity to set up civilian internment camps. At that time questions were asked in the House about why the Government felt it was necessary to set up such camps and why it was necessary to have this particular power as a result of the Privy Council Order. It caused a lot of concern for Canadians who remembered their previous experiences in other countries when Governments had the right to set up internment camps for civilian populations.
Obviously the amendment is welcome because it supports the principle of constitutional government. The amendment itself indicates that we will establish arrangements for ensuring the continuity of constitutional government during an emergency. This is what we struggled to have included, and I thank the Government for seeing the wisdom in doing just that. It will ensure that emergency planning will aim to restore Parliament as soon as possible. I think it is a very appropriate measure.
Once the Bill has passed, Parliament will have told the Government to ensure that necessary measures are taken to protect Canadians in an emergency. As Canadians, people have a right to expect peace, order, and good government. While they have the right to expect peace and order, I guess Canadians are wondering whether in fact they have good government. In principle that is something we certainly want to see in place. When the situation is disturbed by some unforeseen disaster like the Edmonton tornado, Canadians expect their Government to be prepared to come to their assistance quickly or expeditiously. They expect their Government to have a great deal of tentative planning in place to provide for such an emergency, and Bill C-76 gives the Government the proper mandate from the Parliament of Canada to plan for such protection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
March 11, 1988
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my weakened condition today, I should like to make some very brief remarks on Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
First I should like to thank very much members of the House of Commons finance committee for the expeditious way in which they have dealt with the Bill. Certainly their cooperation will assist the Government in moving ahead with the process of an orderly debt management program in dealing with the substantial cash requirements of the Government of Canada.
As a Government we have fulfilled our responsibilities following the budget process as I outlined in the discussion paper some three years ago. We said that we wanted to have a Budget, the Main Estimates, and that thereafter we would present a borrowing authority Bill and look for speedy passage in order to allow us to proceed with our financial program.
Also the finance committee has fulfilled its responsibilities by dealing with the Bill expeditiously in committee as part of the budget debate. I thank Hon. Members. It is a good example of Members of Parliament from all Parties showing how Parliament can work in a very effective manner.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commenting briefly on the Minister's statement that the opposition Parties had co-operated in speedy passage of this Bill. We in the Official Opposition did this because the Government must be able to carry on its business in an orderly way. While we may not always agree with the way in which that business is carried on, the Government does have a mandate from the Canadian people and we respect that and have not delayed the Bill unusually. But I must point out that when the Minister was in opposition, his Party generally kept the borrowing authority in the House for weeks.
I must also remind the House that when the borrowing authority Bill was introduced a couple of weeks ago, it was introduced after the presentation of an insubstantial, empty Budget, which was replete with self-congratulation. In fact, one newspaper commentator wondered if the Minister might have slipped a disc patting himself on the back. This approval we were initially asked to give on faith because we had not even seen the Estimates.
I listed my misgivings in my speech at second reading and during the Budget debate. This morning I wish to reiterate just a few crucial points and raise others concerning the financial management of the Government.
Borrowing Authority
For this particular Bill, the Government asks for authority to borrow $25.3 billion after a Budget which was long on selfcongratulation and short on substance. The Government really is asking to borrow too much money when one considers that it has not kept its promises, a key one being that taxes would not be raised and the deficit would be lowered.
We initially said we would not pass this Bill until we saw the Estimates. Indeed, having seen the Estimates did not inspire any great confidence either. There were a number of items the Government announced which were not covered in the Estimates, and obviously later in the year there will be Supplementary Estimates. There is also some money on reserve which has not been defined and, again, there is a mystery about how this money will be spent.
I want to talk a bit about the federal sales tax. In the February 10 Budget, the Minister spoke of new rules concerning the manufacturers' sales tax. This is a tax which has been described by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as a killer of jobs and is to be replaced sometime in the future by a new consumption sales tax. That date though is being put farther and farther back. Officials at the Department of Finance are now talking about a three to four year time frame for the new consumption sales tax, so that the increased use of the manufacturers' of sales tax, which was supposed to be an interim measure, will clearly be with us for some time. The Government is continuing to raise taxes, yet the public debt is not being reduced.
Here are some of the increases Canadians have experienced since 1984. There was an increase of 1 per cent in the sales tax in 1984, which brought $1 billion to the Government's Treasury. In 1986 there was a second increase of 1 per cent in the sales tax, bringing another $1 billion to the Government's Treasury. In 1986, we had a third increase of 1 per cent in sales tax, bringing in a further $1 billion. In 1985, we saw an increase of 2 cents a litre on gas, bringing in $930 million in revenue. In 1987, there was a second increase of 1 cent a litre on gas, bringing a further $450 million in revenue. In 1987, the equalization of sales tax on leaded and unleaded gasoline netted the Government $30 million. In 1985, we had the extension of sales tax on candy, soft drinks and pet food, netting the Government $400 million. In 1987, the extension of sales tax on snack foods brought the Government $60 million. In 1985, we saw the first increase in cigarette and tobacco taxes, amounting to $320 million in revenue to the Government.
In 1986, there was a second increase in tobacco and alcohol taxes, netting $150 million to the Government this time. In 1987, we had a third increase of 4 per cent in tobacco taxes, amounting to $70 million. In 1985, we saw the elimination of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Program, which captured for the Government $105 million in revenue. In 1986, there was the deindexation of the personal income tax system, which brought the Government $635 million. The elimination of the federal tax reduction in 1986 captured $650 million. Changes to marital exemptions in 1986 brought in $20 million.

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
The general 3 per cent surtax in 1986 netted $1,200 million, and that surtax is still there.
Many of the measures which I have described go on from year to year silently. They are no longer shown specifically in Budgets because they have been built into the system. While this Government raises and raises taxes, the public debt is not being reduced. We have also seen some creative accounting to indicate that the debt is lower than it is. I spoke on this point before and it has been commented on by external, more objective authorities perhaps, such as the Bank of Montreal and in Peat Marwick's tax letter.
Then we come to the question of fiscal transfers to the provinces. Not long after this Government came to power, it said a cap would be put on the growth of fiscal transfers to the Government. The Government did not like calling this a cut. It said it was limiting growth. That was the statement in Canada. However, in February, 1986, in a special glossy publication called The Canadian Budget in Perspective, which was distributed to our embassies overseas, the Government stated:
The rate of increase of federal transfers to provincial Governmehts for
health care and post-secondary education has been reduced.
This information was not in the 1986 Budget Speech, but the provinces are certainly aware of it and are feeling the effects now.
The Government has certainly made some absolutely enormous tax grabs. The question is, can the taxpayers be assured that the Government is practising sound financial management? Unfortunately, we cannot assure them of that. The amount required to finance the national debt has risen steadily since this Government came to power. In this, our sixth year of recovery after the recession, we are not likely to see the rapid growth that we experienced in pre-recession years. That is why the Government must be particularly responsible when managing its expenditures and managing the national debt.
In the past, Canada and other western democracies relied on increased economic growth to redress social disparities. We are not likely to see again the kind of very rapid growth that was experienced some years ago, but we still want to maintain our social programs and equality of opportunity in the workforce and in the educational system. Canadians should not have to come from wealthy families in order to obtain post-secondary education and equip themselves for satisfying careers. We also need to be aware of regional disparities, but all these services must be delivered effectively, efficiently and economically.
My Party and I have always regarded as an essential plank of Liberalism the goal of social betterment. Therefore, in consideration of future generations of Canadians and in consideration of having options to develop programs that make for real equality of opportunity, we must not compromise our future by anything less than prudent financial management.
Let us look at some of the frivolous expenses we have seen the Government approve. We have seen one plane following another when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) travels. We have seen a plane to carry video equipment. We have seen extraordinarily increased travel expenses.


Mr. Edwards:: Nonsense.


Aideen Nicholson: In these times-yes, the Conservative Member says, "nonsense". I absolutely agree with him. Indeed, it is nonsense to spend money frivolously when there are still Canadians who are living in poverty, there are still children who are living in poverty and who will not be able to achieve their full potential.
With those remarks, I would exhort the Government to make some real attempt to manage better, to spend money in the best interests of Canadians, to develop sound public policies, to limit the frivolous expenses and to stop this policy of tax more and spend more.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am less than happy to have the chance to make some remarks today about this borrowing Bill. I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is here, so I will say the good thing I have to say right off the top.
For many years, while the Liberals were in government, borrowing authority Bills would trickle in throughout the year. We would be asked to approve $5 billion here, $10 billion there and $6 billion there. This was done to try to give the impression that the Liberals were not borrowing very much. Estimates and Budgets were brought in at all times of the year in an attempt to destabilize the management of the country's finances.
At that time, we advocated that the Budget should be brought in at a particular time each year and that the borrowing requirements ought to be identified and the Estimates and tax expenditures provided all in one fell swoop. By and large, the Government is doing that. That is the good news, and I think we have made some progress in enabling parliamentarians to understand the nation's financial arrangements.
Today the Government is asking us to approve the borrowing of $25.3 billion. I do not think that we need to borrow $25.3 billion. I think it is unfortunate that so much of this is going to servicing a debt that keeps going up and up. While the deficit has stabilized somewhat, it is still too large.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of Finance does not rise later today, perhaps close to midday, to announce that he is concerned about the high interest rates that went up this week, as a matter of fact. They marginally increased again. There is a tremendous gap that exists between Canadian short-term interest rates and short-term interest rates in the United States.
If the Minister of Finance were to say that he was concerned about the deficit and the increasing debt and that one of the ways to deal with that quickly and efficiently would be to
March 11, 1988

reduce interest rates so that the cost of servicing the debt is reduced, that one decision could start reducing the debt of Canada by billions of dollars. I would hope that we would see some action on that front taken by the Minister of Finance shortly. That is to say nothing of the benefits that would accrue to many Canadians if there were to be another drop in the interest rates of 1 per cent or 2 per cent.
I was hoping that the Minister of Finance would use the opportunity today to explain what the $2.5-billion slush fund will be used for. In the Estimates, there is a very clear listing of $2.5 billion, with no indication of what government programs will be used for. Some of us call it a pre-election slush fund which gives the Government the ability to dish out a few million dollars here, a few million dollars there, for this project and that project, to try to enhance the Government's image. As the Gallup poll reminded us yesterday, that image still needs enhancing. At 28 per cent, the Government still has a long way to go.
Quite frankly, I am astounded by that figure, considering that the Government has 208 Members of Parliament going across the country selling their policies. They have unlimited government expenses to sell their policies, and still the people of Canada are able to see through all of this. They know that the Government does not represent the ordinary Canadian but represents instead a very select, small group of Canadians, a very influential, powerful, wealthy minority. That minority is represented well, but ordinary Canadian citizens must look to other Parties, and I suspect that they will probably look to the New Democratic Party the next time they go to the polls.
My hon. friend from Trinity started to outline the long list of silly expenditures of this Government. If we are interested ill reducing government spending, we could reduce interest rates, the most obvious initiative. The second most obvious initiative would be to eliminate the slush fund. A thifd initiative would be to do away with the silly spending the Government has done. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) indicated that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) feels that he has to lug an extra plane along filled with movie and video equipment in order to catch the few good things he does across Canada, presumably for election purposes. There is a long list of other such expenditures.
Some of the most powerful people in Canada built the West Edmonton Mall, and they came to the Government and asked for $5 million. The Minister of Finance said: "Right on, here is $5 million," wrote out a cheque and gave it to them. They did not need $5 million to build the West Edmonton Mall. Again, this is one of the richest families in Canada, one of the most influential business families, and the Government wrote them out a cheque for $5 million. Quite frankly, time does not permit me to go through the long list of peculiar government expenditures.
I noticed with interest today that the unemployment rates in parts of Canada have increased. Let me talk about the constituency that I represent. Back in September of 1984 when
Borrowing Authority
the present Government was elected, the unemployment rate in Kamloops-Shuswap was 16.3 per cent. This morning, the unemployment rate is at 20.9 per cent. In other words-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: An effective Member of Parliament.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is indicative as well of constituencies surrounding Kamloops-Shuswap including the Kootenays area and the northern part of British Columbia. I could list constituencies right across the country.
We appreciate that prosperity has returned to pockets in Ontario. However, that prosperity does not exist in other parts of Canada. In fact, since the Progressive Conservative Government took office, the unemployment statistics indicate that in Kamloops-Shuswap, there has been an increase in unemployment of over 4 per cent. In other words, when the question is put to people in the regions: Is your life better today than it was in September of 1984? The answer is clear: Absolutely not.


John Barry Turner: Absolutely yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If you ask that question in a select few centres in Ontario, the answer is yes. Not all of Ontario. With the big closure of Massey, thousands of people are going to be out of work. Thousands of other people who depend upon that industry will be out of work. Look at northern Ontario, northern Quebec, Atlantic Canada, the North, the West, including British Columbia. As you well know, the situation for most Canadians living in the regions is not better than it was back in September of 1984. That is the proof of the pudding. That is why I am puzzled that the Minister of Finance did not stand in his place today and say: We recognize this reality. We recognize that the economic prosperity we find in parts of Ontario does not exist in the regions. We, as a compassionate, concerned, caring Government, are going to take steps to overcome that. Yet, no, the Minister was mute on this issue.
When you add up the regional development expenditures of the Government you see there have been cuts in the percentage of money going to the regions. When you look at the funding of the western diversification fund you find there has been a reduction in relative terms in funds set aside for regional economic expansion in western Canada.
This is a very serious issue and there are so many initiatives the Government could take to assist the regions. I just want to go through two or three to help the Minister of Finance if he is looking for initiatives the Government can take to assist people in the regions. Let me suggest a few that would apply to one part of British Columbia.
There is a major dependency on the forest resource in that province. The resource needs to be improved. It needs to be nurtured, supported, developed, husbanded. The forest requires

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
thinning programs, spacing programs, fertilizing programs, disease and pest control programs, road building, research and development. Provincial foresters say there are thousands and thousands of jobs that need to be done to husband that resource; not could be done, but must be done if we are going to maintain the industry as we know it today, let alone expand it.
What about agriculture? When you look at the farms across the country you recognize that we are rapidly approaching what for many farmers can only be described as a debt crisis. The cost of growing food overshadows the revenue. Our farmers are in a very serious situation these days. What is the Government doing about it? Is it providing long-term low interest loans to farmers? No. Do the interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation make sense for the farm community? No. It is time that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues recognized that for the farm sector to survive, and it is quite capable of doing so given its human and natural resources, it has to have money at acceptable interest rates. That means around the 6 per cent level. That can be done. Other countries do it. Yet the Government of Canada refuses to take this step.
What about all of the other programs that could be put in place? For example, a decent child care program. We learned just the other day that over 60 per cent of the women of this country are in the workforce, yet decent child care facilities are just not in place. It disappoints me to have to say that my province is one of the worst offenders. There are tens of thousands of young children in inappropriate child care facilities because there are no alternatives. Their parents have to work to maintain the family. Yet there are very few adequate child care facilities in that province.
Why does the federal Government not take some steps to provide some leadership in child care so those hundreds of thousands of young children in inadequate child care facilities every day are properly cared for? One spin-off would be job creation. Another would be the peace of mind for the parents. Flere is an initiative which must be taken in a progressive country in the 1980s.
I wanted the Minister of Finance to indicate today that he had rethought his tax reform program. I think most Canadian families now know that since the Conservative Government took office in September of 1984, the average family, regardless of tax reform, will be paying at least $1,000 more in federal taxes. That means $1,000 out of the pockets and purses of every Canadian family. That money is just taken to Ottawa. It does not circulate in the Chicoutimis and Red Deers and Thunder Bays. The money should be distributed to where it can be used most appropriately and effectively and that is in the hands of Canadians. Stop gouging. Stop prying every cent out of families.
If you ask the question: How are these expenditures going to be made up? I will tell you how. Why, if we have a progressive country, would we permit a situation where, in spite of tax
reform, 60,000 profitable corporations will still be in a position to pay not a single penny in income tax? The Americans do not tolerate that. The U.S. looked around and saw that in 1986 there were hundreds of thousands of firms not paying one penny in income tax in spite of their profits. Those profits might be $100 million or $200 million or $300 million, yet they are still not paying a penny in federal taxes. Congress said that was not right, that was unfair, unjust and discriminatory. When those profitable corporations pay nothing, the average working person has to pay more than he or she should be paying.
Our Government does not take that attitude. I could not believe the Minister of Finance when he walked in a little while back and said we are going to introduce tax reform, and then opened up his book to explain what it was all about. He said we are still going to allow 60,000 profitable corporations to escape paying taxes. These are not your beauty salons or welding shops on the corner. They include Power Corporation, Argus Corporation, Cadillac-Fairview, the Royal Bank of Canada, Shell Oil, General Motors. In some years they do not pay a single penny in income tax. Can you imagine a tax system in the 1980s that allows a teller working for the Royal Bank or the Bank of Montreal to pay more income tax in some years than the entire Royal Bank or Bank of Montreal? Yet that is what our tax system permits and will continue to permit.


Mr. Crosby:: How come the shares are dropping?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear some bleating down in the corner about shares. Presumably the Hon. Member is justifying this system. The U.S. does not tolerate this for a minute.


Howard Edward Crosby: Tell us why the shares are dropping?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why should we tolerate it for a minute?
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) comes before Parliament, as he has done today, and asks for the authority to borrow $25.3 billion, I think it is only right for us to ask why we do not have an effective and fair tax system which collects billions of dollars more each year. Why do we not reduce interest rates so that the cost of servicing the debt would be significantly less, thereby saving billions of dollars? Why not stop some of the frivolous government spending which takes place, thereby saving hundreds of millions of dollars each year? Why do we have billion dollar slush funds for preelection purposes?
These are questions that Canadians are asking. These are questions which ought to be answered if the Minister of Finance believes that what he is doing is appropriate, right, fair, and honest.
Since the Minister refuses to answer these questions I can only assume that the Government is trying to play a smoke and
March 11, 1988

mirrors game, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. However, I do not think the Government can do it. I think Canadians realize that our tax system is unjust, unfair, discriminatory and biased, that it favours large corporations over small businesses and upper-income influential Canadians over the ordinary Canadian working man and woman.
These are the realities. I think that the Minister of Finance or other members of the Cabinet should stand today in this debate to explain to the people of Canada why the Government continues to keep this unjust system in place at the same time as he asks permission to borrow more than $25 billion.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain sense of regret that I participate in this debate. Canadians are indicating to the Government in a variety of ways, particularly through polls, that they are very preoccupied with the state of the environment. Yet the Government is not paying attention to that public preoccupation and has come forward in its budgetary provisions for this fiscal year with a budget for Environment Canada which increases the monetary allocation to that Department by 3.6 per cent. To put that in context, the over-all increase in government spending this year is 8 per cent. Inflation is 4.5 per cent. Therefore, in its 1988-89 budget, Environment Canada loses twice, first in relation to the over-all increase of the Government and, second, with an increase which is below the rate of inflation.
Once again, since 1984 the Department of the Environment is not able, with the money it is receiving from the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, to keep up with inflation, let alone make any further expansions or launching the programs which need to be launched in light of the environmental situation which is emerging, particularly in water and air, which demands a strong federal presence and strong initiative through federal programs.
While Environment Canada is receiving only a 3.6 per cent increase to its budget this year, other Departments of the Government are doing extremely well. For example, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has increased its budget by 30 per cent, the Department of Agriculture by 24 per cent, the Department of Transport by 7.5 per cent, National Defence by 8.3 per cent, the Department of Communications by 11 per cent, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by 11.5 per cent, the Department of Finance by 13.5 per cent, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by 23 per cent.
If you compare the budget of Environment Canada in 1984 with the budget of Environment Canada today you will find that in relation to inflation it is weaker by no less than 17 per cent. Environment Canada has lost 17 per cent of its purchasing power between 1984 and 1988. As a result of this weakening of purchasing power, 336 positions have been lost over these four years. Scientists, technicians, and support people had to be dismissed over the course of these years as a result of this weakening of the Department's role.
While this is going on, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has come forward in the House and elsewhere and made strong statements about the Government's commitment to the environment. I regret to say that that strong commitment is, unfortunately, not backed up by facts. When you look at the figures and the budgetary performance, you discover with dismay that those words are hollow.
Two days ago there was in the Toronto Star a letter by the Minister of the Environment rushing to his own defence after two non-governmental groups pointed out that Environment Canada was getting a percentage increase well below the average increase of all other Departments. The Minister wrote a lengthy letter in defence of his actions. He states, first, that the increase for Environment Canada is 3.6 per cent. That is accurate and it is one of the reasons that I am pointing out to the Government that the Department, with inflation ranging between 4 and 4.5 per cent, is losing ground in terms of its purchasing power.
Second, in order to enhance the impact of his letter, the Minister of the Environment went on to say that there is $150 million in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in an attempt to create the impression that that money is available to that Department to enhance environmental programs.
Shall we call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, there is celebration in British Columbia and across Canada. Wolves are not to be shot from aircraft by government biologists because, in the opinion of the British Columbia Supreme Court, doing so violates the Government's own hunting laws. It is a victory for wildlife and a defeat for the contention of the Government of British Columbia that wolves should be exterminated to ensure sufficient numbers of elk, caribou, moose and stone sheep for commercial hunting.
Since 1982 the Government has killed about 1,000 wolves in an attempt to increase the numbers of those trophy animals that attract hunters from around the world.
This ruling is a victory in recognition that wildlife should no longer be the objective of reckless exploitation. The message is that wildlife has a greater value than the economic value we

March 11, 1988
assign and that each species plays an important role in the balance of nature.
Those who want to kill elk, caribou, moose and stone sheep for entertainment and relaxation, or for the sake of a stuffed trophy on their walls, are invited to find another hobby. They could trade their high powered rifles for a pair of cross country skis.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, every port city has its special memories and the Port of Halifax is no exception. This week and throughout 1988 attention will be focused on Pier 21 and its 60 years of history as Canada's gateway.
From 1928 to the 1970s, Pier 21 was the portal through which 1.25 million persons immigrated to become new Canadians. Equally important was the return to Canada of
400,000	soldiers from the strife of World War II, and some were later to be joined by their war brides.
These families are today represented in virtually every Canadian community, including Parliament. But Halifax Harbour and Pier 21 provided their first view of Canada.
Our ocean ports are no longer the entrance way to Canada for those seeking a new life and new opportunities, but we should recognize the role played by our immigration facilities and the officials and volunteers who served in them as these events pass into Canadian history.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in celebrating International Women's Week, I take great pride in honouring the efforts of Canadian aboriginal women who are working for justice and equality. Unfortunately, while women in general have all too often suffered discrimination, aboriginal women have been hit even harder. These are women who are part of Canada's first nations, who have helped maintain cultural traditions and deserve our recognition.
First, let us honour those who worked tirelessly for legislation, which was eventually brought in in 1985, which brings the Indian Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and restores official recognition and federal services to thousands of native women and their children who lost their status by marrying non-status Indians.
We honour the women of the Tobique Band of New Brunswick, who marched in Ottawa in the late 1970s; Sandra Lovelace, who went to the United Nations on behalf of native women who had lost their status through marriage; Mary Two-Axe Early, who has been largely credited with the resulting change to the Indian Act in 1985; from the Yukon, Margaret Joe, the first aboriginal woman cabinet minister in Canada.
We honour also Mary Simon, president of the Ottawa based Inuit Circumpolar Conference; Maria Campbell, Metis author of Half Breed; Rosemarie Kuptana, president of the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation; Roberta Jamieson, a Mohawk lawyer and Indian Commissioner of Ontario; and Rhoda Innukshuk, president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. We applaud the fine work of these women.


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



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has shown consistency, has now demonstrated consistency by speaking out against human rights violations wherever they occur in whatever hemisphere, throughout the world.
Honest dialogue among friends and nations is seldom easy. Honest dialogue between friends can indeed be most difficult. While peace and security of all people, especially the people of Israel, is uppermost in the minds of Canadians, so, too, is our abhorrence of human rights violations by whomever, wherever.
I believe the Canadian position is now very clear. Canada cannot be loyal to friends in all things, if they cannot be true in all things to themselves.
To speak in this day and age of occupation-occupied land and occupied people-is a contradiction to the fundamental rights and freedoms which all people should be able to enjoy.
We would hope that we will now see some positive change to the attitudes and events of recent months in Palestine which have caused such dismay and anguish with all friends of Israel.



VIA RAIL


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, a number of young people have been complaining that VIA Rail
March 11, 1988

is acting just like the Tory Government. Indeed, like the Government, this corporation is laughing at them. With or without the complicity of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), it wanted to show its magnanimity towards young Canadians.
For some time, VIA Rail has been offering to young people, a 30 per cent discount on all normal rates on every day of the week. Is it an excessive reduction? No, Mr. Speaker, because such discount does not apply on Fridays and Sundays from noon to 6 p.m.! Now considering their status as student, it is precisely the two periods of the week when students can really travel by train. One could argue that such restriction ends at 6 p.m. and that students can travel by train later. But no, VIA Rail has anticipated such a move. There is no departure after 6 p.m. for the main places of destination where students are bound.
This is entirely unacceptable. Either VIA Rail shows that it really wants to help young people and offers an unrestricted discount or it continues to look ridiculous.
Who within the Tory Government will assume his responsibilities and solve that problem for young people? Since I have no confidence in the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest), I am directing my comment to the Minister of Transport.



HEALTH CARE SERVICES


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) announced this week that the federal and Ontario Governments will negotiate the transfer of the Rideau Veterans Home in Ottawa to the Perley Hospital and will open up 50 new chronic care-beds in a new jointly funded state of the art 450-bed geriatric facility to be built on the present National Defence Medical Centre Rideau Veterans Home site.
At present, 142 veterans are cared for at the Rideau Veterans Home and 50 veterans are in the care of the National Defence Medical Centre. In the new geriatric complex, 250 beds will become available for veterans. These additional beds will be a blessing for veterans who are waiting to get into the Rideau Veterans Home.
Furthermore, combining the Rideau Veterans Home and the National Defence Medical Centre would provide improved care for all veterans.
I am pleased that the federal Government will be working with the Ontario Government to bring about more and enhanced chronic care for both veterans and patients in a new geriatric facility. This is the work of a caring Government.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women across the country celebrated last March 8 International Women's Day by staging numerous activities throughout the week. They celebrated victories won in the last decades and reviewed the work that remains to be done. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the present Government did not keep the electoral promises it made to women. Its attitude on issues regarding the status of women was obvious this week.

On Tuesday, International Women's Day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was invited to take part in a panel discussion on the trade deal. He was unable to attend. Not one Conservative Member of Parliament could be found to address the concerns of the women of Ontario.
On Wednesday, a forum on women in federal politics was co-sponsored by the International Women's Week Committee, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and Canadian Women for Political Responsibility. Once more, the Conservatives could not find one Member to attend.
These absences call into question the Conservative Government's commitment to women despite the admirable promises we have heard in the House this week.



EMPLOYMENT


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party campaigned in the summer of 1984 on jobs, jobs, jobs.
In keeping with that theme, I am pleased to note the creation of a further 57,000 jobs in February of which 42,000 went to women. Some 515,000 jobs have been created in the past 12 months and the cumulative totals since this Government took office is 1.213 million. Furthermore, over 85 per cent of those jobs are full time, and over 50 per cent of them have gone to women.
Today there are 1.213 million more Canadians working than just three and one-half years ago. The unemployment rate, at 7.8 per cent, is at its lowest since August, 1981. In every province in this country the unemployment rate is lower than it was in September, 1984.
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for their responsible approach to deficit reduction which has created an environment in which the initiative, entrepreneurship and energy of

March 11, 1988
Canadians has been able to manifest itself in this outstanding record of job creation.

[ Translation]



IN MEMORY OF CHARLES BRUNEAU

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers mourn the loss of the most charming little boy, who was a ray of hope, who fought for his life, who built up courage and was confident in the future. That little boy was Charles Bruneau who appeared in advertisements for LEU-CAN. He suffered from leukemia, and right to the end, to the last minute, he was courageous and full of hope.
I would like to extend my condolences to the family of young Charles Bruneau, Mr. Speaker, and I hope Members and Ministers will remember him when they study the Government's Estimates. When the time will come to allocate billions of dollars for arms or submarines, thought should be given to acquire one less submarine and use the money for research, for saving lives. I hope the memory of this young man remains with us a long time.



STATUS OF WOMEN


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, Women in Scholarship, Engineering, Science and Technology, WISEST, is a committee made up of scientists, engineers, scholars, educators and students from the University of Alberta, the Alberta Government and the private sector. Its mandate is to increase the representation of women in all fields of scholarship, particularly in the areas of the sciences, engineering and technology, where women are very much under-represented in decision-making roles.
One initiative which WISEST has developed to increase the number of women in these fields is a program for Grade 11 high school students who spend six weeks during the summer working in established research groups at the University of Alberta. Between 15 and 25 students are accepted each summer. The program also includes small numbers of male students working in home economics and nursing. WISEST believes this program is unique in Canada. With Alberta's unemployment down 31 per cent since September 1984, such programs may be especially helpful in meeting specialized labour demands in the coming years.



WAR MEASURES ACT


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in October, 1970 the Pierre Trudeau Government was proclaiming a state of emergency and imposing war measures. Hundreds of people were arrested during the night, jailed and released without being charged with anything. Cities like Montreal and Ottawa were under siege. All freedoms were abolished. Today, notes taken by a former Minister, Mr. Donald Jamieson, show that there was no evidence of an insurrection.

The then Minister of Justice, now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), said that someday the Canadian people should know the facts about the imposition of the War Measures Act. Now is the time for the Leader of the Liberal Party, and for other Members of that Cabinet, to come clean with the Canadian people and tell them why the War Measures Act was imposed without ample justification?

[Translation[



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs! Today is a great day for Canadians because they will see and hear through the media that the Conservative Government is keeping its 1984 election promise to create jobs. Since we have come to power, 1,200,000 jobs have been created. Since 1984, unemployment among men, women and young people has been reduced by 33 1/3 per cent. Unemployment is at its lowest level in several years: 7.8 per cent in Canada. Listen, Members of the Opposition: 7.8 per cent in Canada, 33 1/3 per cent less than in 1984! It will be a day filled with pride and satisfaction for Canadians knowing that the Conservative Government works for them and keeps its promises.
Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs!



TAXATION


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, last June the Government announced a 10 per cent tax on long distance telephone calls. That tax discriminates against rural
March 11, 1988

residents. If one lives in the country or a small town, one's business, school, and personal contacts are likely to be in another telephone exchange. This means that the taxes become an extra burden for businesses and citizens in rural areas, an extra burden carried not because of the use of the facility but because of where they live or carry on their business or, even in some cases, where they send their children to school.
It is time the Government corrected its mistake which discriminates against rural Canada.



ABORTION


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to encourage the Government to show strong national leadership on a very sensitive and important social issue affecting families today, the issue of abortion. During the hearings held last year, the Committee on child care, of which I was a Member, was told of the need for support of the Canadian family.
I would hope that our society has, or will have, sufficient support mechanisms in place so that if a woman has a so-called "unwanted" pregnancy, counselling, support and constructive help for her and her unborn child will be easily accessible. She must realize that there is an alternative to abortion.
I have received approximately 1,800 letters from my constituents to date who feel that Parliament must recognize the unborn child and his or her right to life from the moment of conception. I would strongly urge that any legislation or proposed motion on this matter should be framed from the basis of the value of life. For the sake of the Canadian family, present and future, we must act strongly and with conviction.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Pre-retirement Leave Plan of the Cape Breton Development Corporation was designed purposely to have the workers affected to continue to be employed under a contract of service to Devco in order that they be eligible to continue to earn entitlement to various benefits, including the Canada Pension Plan. With very few exceptions, income from employment for purposes of one of the Acts I have mentioned is income from employment for the purposes of the other.
Since the Pre-Retirement Leave plan of 1971, many miners have now gone for a compassionate disability pension and
Oral Questions
programs under the Labour Adjustment Program. Under these programs, individuals were not being requested to pay unemployment insurance premiums. Hence, individuals who participated in the Devco pre-retirement leave plan of 1971 must pay unemployment insurance premiums. This is financial discrimination since these persons will never obtain employment with this federally owned Crown corporation.
I call upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Mac-Kay) as well as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to change this absurd and unfair deduction. Both Ministers realize that if these deductions are cancelled, both the miners and senior management of Cape Breton Development Corporation would have substantial savings. I urge the Government of Canada to show some compassion for these needy persons.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the people of Canada did themselves a favour by voting for jobs and a Progressive Conservative Government. We have delivered the jobs, 1,213,000 of them since the election; jobs for women, jobs for youth and jobs in the regions. There are so many jobs it is almost an embarrassment. Statistics Canada computers are running red hot just trying to count them all.
The number of jobs is equalled only by the stony silence of the Liberals and New Democratic Party on our jobs policy. They know that in a thousand years, they could never match our record.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to put a question to the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister as to whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was speaking yesterday on behalf of the Government, and represented government policy, in two speeches he made. I will have to put the question to him both in his capacity, I gather, as Acting Prime Minister and as Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I say to him and to the House that all Canadians abhor human rights abuse. All Canadians denounce violence. However, there is also a particular responsibility for national leaders of this country to help heal wounds and provide

March 11, 1988
Oral Questions
constructive and thoughtful solutions to difficult problems in fragile parts of the world.
It is particularly important, given our country's well-earned record as a peacemaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs not pour oil on flames. In two speeches yesterday, in the House as it related to Sikh organizations in Canada, and then before the Canadian-Israeli Committee, the Minister did pour oil on flames with respect to two very sensitive issues.
I want to ask whether the Prime Minister of this country approves in its entirety the speech of the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, made yesterday to the Canada-Israel Committee. And does the Prime Minister believe that speech constitutes a constructive process and solution to the achievement of peace in the Middle East, to the termination of violence in the Middle East-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Napier Turner: -and to the finding of a homeland for the Palestinian people?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The answer to those questions is, of course.


John Napier Turner: 1 gather "of course, yes" is the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SIKH ORGANIZATIONS IN CANADA-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Secretary of State. Last summer, the Prime Minister praised a Sikh organization for "helping to unite not only the people of your community but the people of Canada as well". Those were the words of the Prime Minister.
Yesterday in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that Members of that very same organization that the Prime Minister praised, "are part of the most serious internal security threat that Canada faces today". Those were the words used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, does the Prime Minister approve in its entirety the speech which he delivered to Members in this House yesterday? Does the Prime Minister think it fair of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tarnish the reputation of all Canadians of the Sikh faith?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, of course, yes.
With regard to the second question with respect to a letter by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was responding to a request, and I will quote it into the record, "that the Prime Minister give a message to all the Sikhs of Canada which we would like to publish in an historic document" that was being published by that organization.
In this instance, the Prime Minister's message was correctly quoted by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. His message to all the Sikhs of Canada, in response to the invitation was, "You are all in Canadian society, you are helping to unite not only the people of your community but the people of Canada as well".
With regard to the question of tarring all groups, my speech makes it very clear that we are not doing that at all. We are dealing with a very serious problem to public order in Canada, and to the right of Canadians of Sikh origin and of other origins to pursue their lives in peace and freedom.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I take seriously what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition states about not pouring oil on flames. That is a responsibility of all Members on both sides of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST OF SIKH ORGANIZATIONS FOR AN APOLOGY
John Napier Turner: Unfortunately, members of Sikh organizations across the country are demanding an apology from the Minister for his earlier statement, and for the speech that he made yesterday in the House.


INQUIRY REGARDING PRIME MINISTER'S SUPPORT OF RECENT SPEECHES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with due respect, in his two speeches yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs took a firm but not very constructive position. He failed in his duty to propose constructive solutions for delicate and difficult problems. I will ask my question again. Will the Prime Minister specifically endorse the two speeches the Minister made yesterday, one before the House about the Sikhs and one to the Canada-Israel Committee yesterday afternoon? Is the Prime Minister going to say where he stands?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are no divisions on this side.
March 11, 1988


CANADA POST CORPORATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with his famous supermailboxes. The Minister knows that the Ontario Municipal Board ruled a 5 per cent reduction in property taxes for some individuals. The Ontario Ministry of Revenue has stated that it will abide by that decision. It also stated that an additional 20 home owners who appealed their 1987 property tax assessments before this year's deadline, and who had those community boxes in front of or beside their homes, will qualify for this 5 per cent reduction.
I would like to ask the Minister who is responsible for protecting and promoting consumers' interests, if he will now inform the House as to what he is going to do about this nuisance caused by those so-called supermailboxes?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, prior to undertaking this program and fulfilling the policy which was laid down as long ago as 1974, the Post Office undertook test studies and had independent appraisers look at what effect those supermailboxes would have on the communities and on property values.
There was an independent appraisal done which stated that "Based on surveys undertaken in the three communities within York division, Streetsville, Oakville, and Markham, we find no evidence that the Canada Post superbox has any effect on value of neighbouring residential properties". That was stated by an independent appraiser.
Why the Ontario Municipal Board would reach the conclusion that it did, less than 48 hours after the supermailbox was in fact put into use, is something for the Government of Ontario to work out, and if it has reached its decision, it is entitled to do that.


COMPENSATION TO HOME OWNERS-MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same Minister. This Minister is abdicating his responsibilities for consumers in this country. He knows full well that an Ontario Municipal Board now supported by the Ministry of Revenue in the Government of Ontario has stated very clearly that his now famous super-duper mailboxes are a nuisance.
The Minister has a choice. He can either scrap this particular program, which is just absolutely ridiculous for Canadians, or he can compensate those individuals, particularly the municipalities that will lose revenue as a result.
Is the Minister going to accept his responsibilities and act on behalf of consumers as opposed to the corporate interests continuously?
Oral Questions
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): The Ontario Municipal Board reached a decision about two home owners and one location. That is all. Why that was extrapolated to include everybody else is a question that the Government of Ontario will have to answer.


David Charles Dingwall: What a cop-out.


Harvie Andre: If it is the interest of consumers that is really of concern to Members of the Liberal Party, then they should be aware that fulfilling the policy commitments I guess they made-I am not sure, one is never sure from day to day-but if they are talking about having door-to-door delivery in every area now served by group mailboxes, they are talking about charging the consumer 60 cents to mail a letter. That is protecting consumers according to the Liberal Party, is it?


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: That's nonsense. The facts do not support that.


FREE TRADE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will be aware that the Conference Board of Canada which recently analyzed the Canada-U.S. trade deal released a report yesterday. In the report it indicated very clearly that the lost revenues as a result of a reduction in tariffs will require one of two actions on the part of the Government. Either to have taxes increased substantially, or to have a significant increase in the deficit.
Will the Minister of Finance indicate to the House and to the people of Canada which one of those options the Government plans to pursue?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, neither. The Hon. Member should refer to the budget papers that I put out with the last Budget which indicate that a 1 per cent increase in the economic growth in Canada will lead to $1.1 billion worth of increased revenues in the first year, and increasing after that. If that is transposed into what we expect is a 2.0 to 2.5 per cent increase in economic growth, it can be seen that that will be greater than the amount of revenues that would be lost as a result of the tariff reduction.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member ignores the fact that we have a very strong economy, and a growing economy. In his earlier comments he ignored the fact that there was a .3 per cent reduction in the unemployment rate in February to 7.8 per cent, which is the lowest level since 1981.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: The increase in jobs created, as we now have over 1.2 million jobs created since September, 1984, together with other news of a 17 per cent increase in investment intentions, a very strong period of economic growth last year with the highest level of growth in the fourth quarter, indicate that we are going into 1988 in the strong period; all of those things together say that we have a very strong economy, an economy that is responding well to the economic policies of the Government of Canada. Possibly the Hon. Member should stray from his normal characteristic of walking around with a cloud over his head.


EFFECT OF POTENTIAL LOSS IN REVENUES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to the budget papers. The budget papers point out very clearly one initiative that the Government took was to increase gasoline taxes which will offset the loss in revenues of the first two years of the tariff phase-out.
My question to the Minister of Finance is the following. In the study done by the Conference Board of Canada it indicates that, "Our analysis shows that this reduction in tariffs is not off-set by federal revenue gains from a faster growing economy".
If the Conference Board of Canada, as a result of its very thorough analysis of the trade deal, comes up with that type of observation, just what is the benefit to the people of Canada as a result of the trade deal?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board has been wrong in the past once or twice.


John Napier Turner: You only refer to them when you think they are right.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that I only refer to them when I think they are right. I refer to them when they are wrong, as I am doing right now.
If the Hon. Member is asking for the reasons that we are entering into the trade agreement, perhaps I could have about half an hour, Mr. Speaker, to answer the question.
However, let me just give him a few examples. His Leader has said that we should be expanding trade with other countries. We expect, as a result of the trade agreement with the United States, that our productivity will be better. The Conference Board says that, we say that, and all economic studies say that. That will improve our competitiveness, not just with the United States but with other countries. We will be improving our trade capabilities in relation to Third World countries as well. That will create jobs in British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia-right across the country.
March 11, 1988


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance that in a number of areas of British Columbia the unemployment rates have increased from September, 1984 by four or five percentage points. Since the Government took office, the situation is incredibly worse in a number of areas of British Columbia.


NATIONAL SALES TAX-GOVERNMENT'S POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my third question is for the Minister of Finance. The Conference Board of Canada points out that there are two alternatives as a result of the reduced revenues coming in from the tariff phase-out, that is, either an increase in taxes or an increase in the deficit.
Since the Minister of Finance has indicated that the Government plans to introduce phase two of tax reform, which of course will be the imposition of a national sales tax, is the reason for doing this that it is the Government's way of offsetting the losses which accrue to the Government of Canada as a result of the tariff phase-out?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just comment on one element of the preamble to the question.
Since September, 1984 the unemployment rate in British Columbia has gone down from 15.2 per cent to 10.7 per cent, which is a drop of 4.5 per cent. It is higher than the national average, but that represents 138,000 jobs created and a drop in unemployment of 54,000 people. The economic policies of the Government of Canada are working in British Columbia as well as in other parts of Canada.
The Hon. Member is specifically asking how we will finance the drop in tariffs. I have indicated that because of the growth in the economy over and above what would be expected from the growth that is there now, which I indicated is very strong, additional revenues will be generated that are far more than what is necessary to cover the loss in tariff revenue.
What the Hon. Member is saying, that we have to use stage two tax reform to do this, demonstrates that he is out to lunch. He does not understand what he is talking about when he draws those conclusions.


THE ECONOMY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board study is not the only one which has suggested that the Minister's projections are rosy and that economic growth in coming years will not be large enough to do all the things the Minister is anticipating. For instance, the Minister talks about increased employment, yet we know that we need 3
March 11, 1988

per cent growth just to stand still in terms of employment creation.


Miss MacDonald:: That is what we have been having.


Aideen Nicholson: Somebody says that that is what we have, but the Minister is saying that it is about to increase and that we will have a tremendous increase in employment.
Since the Conference Board study is not the only one which points out that there will be limits to growth, how in fact does the Minister intend to extract this $2.9 billion from Canadians whom he has already taxed almost beyond endurance?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is attacking my projections. I will go back to November, 1984 and compare my projections with those of other Members of the House of Commons. I remind her that her Leader said in November, 1984 and in May, 1985 that the policies of this Government would cost us 50,000 or 100,000 jobs. I believe that was the figure he used at that time. Since then we have created 1,213,000 jobs, so our projections on this side of the House speak for themselves.
We have a strong economy. I have said that this year the economy will increase by 2.8 per cent. Some of the economists are coming out today and saying, as a result of the unemployment rate drop announced this morning, plus the investment intention increase of 17 per cent for this year, plus the strength in the fourth quarter last year which no one had anticipated, that my figures are low. They are saying that there will be a 3 per cent increase in growth this year.
What we have indicated for the free trade agreement-the 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent increase in productivity and the
120,000	jobs-is on the low side again.


SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has very substantially increased manufacturing sales tax. It was supposed to be an interim measure, until the new consumption tax came in. Now we find that the consumption tax will not be introduced for at least three years.
Again I ask the Minister from where the additional revenue is coming, or will he increase the use of sleight of hand in his Budgets to disguise the real facts from Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I refer to the appendix to The Fiscal Plan, which demonstrates that with an increase in economic activity of 1 per cent there is a $1.1 billion increase in revenues in the first year, and that increases as time goes by. That in itself will more than offset the loss in tariff revenues.
However, as I have also indicated, we believe that the Department of Finance study on the expected results, the impact of the free trade agreement, is on the conservative side, because it does not measure certain intangible elements such
Oral Questions
as the response of business people to the greater degree of confidence in access to the United States market-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister may need more time. Perhaps he could use another occasion to do it.


REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sure he is aware that a Federal Court judge has ordered the people of Canada to pay back some $141 million in taxes plus interest to a single oil company.
We are concerned about a sum of nearly $1 billion owed to the people of Canada by some 80,000 corporations in unpaid taxes. We want to know what the Government is doing to collect these undisputed taxes which are owed to the people of Canada.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the recent decision by Judge Muldoon in the Irving Oil case, of course our judicial system provides for an appeal mechanism if it is appropriate. Our Department is studying the decision, and it has been referred to Justice for proper analysis.
As far as the other matter which the Hon. Member raises is concerned, he knows that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has since 1984 in his economic statement made comprehensive efforts to remove some of the more inappropriate tax loopholes and programs.
Our Department is attempting in a comprehensive and fair way to assess and audit corporations which owe taxes and, in cases where appropriate, we will take action.
On the other hand, in areas where there are legitimate losses, the corporations are entitled to take them into account against income. We respect that as well.


TAXPAYERS-DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Minister is aware from the information provided to me in September last year that there is nearly $1 billion in unpaid taxes. These are not taxes in dispute but are owing to the Government. As well, the Minister's own figures show that there were some
20,000	corporations which avoided paying over $320 million in taxes for over two years.
Will the Minister explain to the people of Canada how it is possible that more than 20,000 corporations can end up avoiding paying the taxes which they owe while individual

March 11, 1988
Oral Questions
taxpayers, if they are behind in paying their taxes, are hauled to court?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague as a knowledgeable individual knows that any taxpayer, including corporations that avoid paying taxes, are properly liable to be taken to court.
We acknowledge that there are accounts out there we have to collect and we are doing our best to collect them. We have many accounts being assessed. Interest is accruing on them. There is always room for improvement. Our department, I repeat, is doing the best we can and I think we are making some progress.


UNEMPLOYEMENT
Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
All Canadians know that unemployment has reached its lowest level in many years. It is now at 7.8 per cent, one-third lower than it was in 1984. The Minister obviously agrees with the Government's employment policy.
My question is this: Does the Minister have a specific objective, a target percentage for the unemployment rate? Does he intend to introduce other policies? Could he perhaps inform the House what he intends to do in future to further reduce unemployment and create new jobs?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians were delighted this morning to hear that the unemployment rate has reached its lowest level, 7.8 per cent, since 1981.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton East will keep quiet if I tell her that unemployment among women has dropped 3.6 per cent, thanks to one of the most successful job creation programs in Western countries.
In fact, Canada has done better than West Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and France. In three years, Canada has created more jobs than all industrialized countries in what we call the Western world. Again, I think we have been very successful. And I also believe that all Members, and even for a few seconds, Opposition Members, will have to admit that the Conservative Government's record has never even been touched by the Liberal Government.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion answered one of my questions, saying that creating a space agency would depend on the Canadian Government's participation in the space station. On February 7, 1987, the Minister of State (Science and Technology) stated at a press conference that there was no connection between the plan to create a space agency and the space station. Could the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House the reason for this change of heart, this about-face? Would he agree that this new decision or new approach merely reflects the lack of political courage on this issue, to quote the president of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Garcia?


Charles Joseph Clark: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think I can best answer the Hon. Member by quoting the Minister, who said:
I would like to explain to the Hon. Member that agencies are not crated in a
vacuum. They are created to accomplish certain tasks. In this particular case,
the existence of a space agency will depend basically on whether the
Government decides to proceed with a space station.
As soon as we in the Government have reached a decision on participating in the space station or the European Space Program or similar programs, an announcement about creating an agency will be made.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we must assume from the Government's answer that the Minister of State (Science and Technology) was not being forthright with reporters when he said that there was no connection. So the Governement has had a change of heart.
We know that the Space Agency will involve $824 million and that the space station represents a mere $26 million.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT'S REVERSAL
Jean-Claude Malépart: In
my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to remind him that the Government of Quebec was given a raw deal by this Government on the shipyards issue, especially in connection with the frigates. I get the impression the same thing is happening with the space industry.
The Prime Minister of Canada came to Montreal to meet with the Mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec, and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion had a meeting with the municipal authorities. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec were told that the Space Agency would be created only if we were involved in the space station, or, as was reported by the media, did the Government give the
March 11, 1988

people of Montreal the impression they would get the space agency and is it now backtracking on the deal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is just repeating the first question he put yesterday to my colleague, the responsible Minister. He was given a specific answer yesterday, and I can only repeat that answer today.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, the Minister stated in the House, and I quote from Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, no postal services have been cut.
Does the Minister mean to tell me, when the people from Ruskin, B.C., Ninga, Manitoba and Rainy River, Ontario, who have lost their services and have to travel many kilometers to get the kind of services they had, that no services have been cut?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, over-all the changes that are occurring in the postal service, Canada Post Corporation, are a result of changing demographics, of people moving into the cities from the country and of smaller communities losing their retail outlets and so on.
There are changes in the Post Office, but over-all it is easier now to find a place to buy stamps and obtain postal services at times most convenient to the purchaser. The delivery systems are being improved.


Mr. Penner:: Do you believe that?


Harvie Andre: There are independent audits now. A lot of progress is yet to be made. The Post Office was in a terrible mess but the current management is making progress in that regard, although it is not helped by people spreading false stories.


RURAL POSTAL SERVICES
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the people in Ruskin, B.C. have to go an extra 32 kilometers to get their services. The people in Rainy River have to go an extra 64 kilometers, and the people in Ninga, Manitoba, have to go an additional 35 kilometers for their service. Over 194 rural post offices have been closed.
Oral Questions
Will the Minister restore to the people of rural Canada the postal services to which all Canadians have a right? Please tell this House what the rural services in Canada are all about.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to come to some of the committee meetings at which representatives of the Post Office attend. She ought not to be listening to representatives of the union who are interested in protecting union positions-


Marion Dewar: They are the facts.


Harvie Andre: -not in servicing the public. If the Member attended some of these meetings, she would find out that in many cases it simply makes no economic sense to carry on the traditional types of services, but replacements have ensured that people are able to get their mail in appropriate time.


Marion Dewar: They can't buy stamps.


Harvie Andre: They buy the stamps the same place they buy their milk and bread and get their dry cleaning services and so on.


Marion Dewar: No they can't.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Acting Prime Minister on the question of the space agency. In the Speech from the Throne in 1986 the Government announced it would establish a Canadian space agency to bring together activities which are now dispersed in a variety of agencies and departments. Just a month ago, the Minister of State for Science and Technology was talking about the need to establish a space agency.
Why is the Government through the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Secretary of State now saying that we do not need a space agency when just a month ago the Minister of State for Science and Technology said we did need one and one was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is-how do I put this-exaggerating. The situation, and it is quite-


John Napier Turner: He is only quoting the Speech from the Throne.

March 11, 1988
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: If he were only quoting the Speech from the Throne, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not only be right, he would be popular.
The situation with the space agency is quite clear. We are taking a look at the question-


Ms. Copps:: Bring back Maureen.


Charles Joseph Clark: Did you say, "Bring back Maureen"? I will report that.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Canada is considering the participation with the Government of the United States and other countries in a space station. The Hon. Member, because he is very interested in this subject, will know that that is a matter that could, among other things, involve very expensive commitments by Canada and potentially by the United States.
We are assessing the question of our participation in that station, assessing it very carefully. Obviously our decision as to the nature and extent of our space program will have an impact upon the decision as to the necessity for a space agency in Canada.


REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister probably should know that the space agency was to co-ordinate a number of activities such as a mobile satellite system, and the Minister of Communications could perhaps tell him a word or two about that, and a radar satellite. Is the Minister saying that we should forget about these activities as well?
Why is the Government ignoring the Standing Committee report entitled Voyage to the Future which reported that there was essentially unanimous support from witnesses who appeared before the committee for the creation of a space agency? Is it because the Government wants Canada to go back to the future?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I really do believe that I have answered that question.
A question has been raised as to the status and the necessity of a space agency. I have indicated to the Hon. Member as directly as I could at this stage of government discussions the matters we are considering regarding the participation in the United States space centre. That is a complicated matter, and I think the Hon. Member understands that.
With regard to the other elements of Canadian policy to which he made reference, we have made clear announcements of government policy in support of those kinds of ventures. The situation is precisely as I explained it a moment ago, and I
would hope that the Hon. Member, with the interest he has shown in science policy, will not seek to create misunderstandings.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, in response to a question I asked him, he said that property values did not decline as a result of locating supermailboxes on properties. Yet that flies in the face of what the real estate industry is saying, what municipal Governments are saying, what the Ontario Government is saying and certainly what home owners who have those supermailboxes on their front lawns are saying.
Could the Minister tell us why he is the only one who is out of step and the only one who believes that property values do not decline by locating supermailboxes on home owners' properties?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that was the statement made by the Ontario Municipal Board yesterday or the day before. It said that there was no evidence of property values being decreased as a result of supermailboxes. That was a statement made by this independent tribunal.
I quoted earlier today, in answer to a question put by the Member from Cape Breton, an appraisal by independent appraisers who did an appraisal of areas where supermailboxes were located and reached the conclusion there was no evidence whatsoever of any diminution in property values as a result of supermailboxes, which incidentally are not put on people's front lawns, contrary to what the Hon. Member said.
Faced with these independent sources making that statement, I do not see why it is so surprising to the Hon. Member that I should offer them in reply to him.


LOCATING OF A SUPERMAILBOX
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister really believes that these supermailboxes are the greatest thing since sliced bread, why does the Minister not instruct Canada Post to stick one of these in front of his house and see what happens to his property values?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in front of my house is a mailbox, an electric utility box and telephone poles. That comes from living in an urban environment. These objects must be put there to supply the services we require.
The fact that there are now supermailboxes along with electric utilities, fire hydrants and telephone poles does not
March 11, 1988

suddenly cause the value of property to diminish by 50 per cent as the Hon. Member seems to be implying.


LABOUR RELATIONS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Treasury Board). Several language teachers in my riding are concerned about the quality of the courses they teach. I am told that Treasury Board wants to increase the number of hours they spend in the classroom. For the teachers this would be unacceptable. It would have a negative impact on their professional performance, since they would only have a few hours left for course preparation.
I would like to know how discussions with Treasury Board are proceeding, and whether the Government is prepared to resolve this dispute very shortly.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that this is a legal strike situation. There was a settlement reached in September of last year which unfortunately was rejected by the membership. In January of this year there was a majority conciliation report issued which recommended that the settlement reached in September be adopted by the parties without change. We have informed the bargaining agent that we are prepared to sign an agreement on that basis, but there has not been any response from the union to this point.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is connected with the upcoming summit meeting in Washington between the Prime Minister and President Reagan.
In view of the fact that transboundary air pollution coming from the United States is causing continuous damage from millions of tonnes of S02 coming across the border, damaging our forests and agriculture, our buildings and monuments, our water resources and the like, I would ask the Secretary of State whether he would be willing to direct government Departments and agencies to prepare a bill for the damage
Oral Questions
Canada is suffering yearly as a result of transboundary pollution.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member well knows that the question of dealing with that transboundary pollution has been a very high priority of this Government and that we are still involved in discussions with the United States about it. We are not optimistic about the nature of those discussions, but we are pursuing them very seriously. The Hon. Member is making a proposal that, to my knowledge, he did not make when he was the Minister responsible.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, mainly because I did not raise the expectations of Canadians, as the Prime Minister of Canada did in 1985, 1986 and 1987, that this matter could be easily resolved on a bilateral basis just because of a special relationship he announced in Quebec City on the occasion of the first summit. There is an element of expectation that this Government has raised-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question, given the time.


BILLING FOR DAMAGES OF TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State therefore take this matter up with the Prime Minister and prepare a bill for the damages we are suffering as the years go by?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport has certainly never raised anyone's expectations. I take seriously recommendations made by Members of the House and for that reason, I will look at that proposal.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister wrote off $750 million of the Western Grain Stabilization deficit last December. That money came directly from the taxpayers and not through the contributory program. It is therefore highly unfair to those producers who did not participate in the program. They have been short-changed by about $164 million.
Will the Minister find the funds to alleviate this unfairness to this small group of grain producers?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member reflects on the motivation for doing this

March 11, 1988
Committee Reports
he will see we are trying to remove a disincentive to those who are not part of the fund and encourage them to come in without having to worry about how the deficit will be funded. That is the reason we are taking this action. I hope the result will be that more farmers who are not taking advantage of the western grain stabilization fund will become part of that program.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise Hon. Members that because of the time we are proceeding to single questions.


INCOME TAX
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. He will no doubt be aware that six people in the City of Hamilton have been charged as a result of a phoney income tax scam involving fraudulent use of T4 slips which were floating around for anyone to pick up and take advantage of.
I would like to know what system he has put in place to prevent this kind of rip-off of the taxpayers taking place and whether he is aware of this type of scam happening in other parts of the country. Can he tell us whether this ring was just in southern Ontario or had it spread across the country, and what action is he taking to restrict access to T4 slips to prevent a future tax scam?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to restrict access to T4 slips. In fact, in most cases our department is trying to increase access to those slips. I take the Hon. Member's question seriously but in all honestly I will have to take it as notice and give her a more detailed report later.


FISHERIES
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, Groupe Purdel Inc. has decided against reopening a large section of its fish plant in Riviere-au-Renard in the Gaspe. According to the company and the Quebec Minister responsible for Fisheries, the decision is due to the fact that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has banned Quebec-based industrial fishing from the 200-mile zone. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to the House why this was done?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member for Gaspe
has a very keen interest in this matter. As the Hon. Member is aware, there have been discussions involving both representatives of the various governments involved and the industry, prior to formulating a plan. I may add that I will make a note of the Hon. Member's question and that I intend to discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If anything positive can be done, it will be done!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the 54th Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


WAYS AND MEANS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for Ways and Means Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think, after I give a short explanation, you will find the House is prepared to give consent to the putting of this motion.
On Monday, the House passed Bill C-l 13, an Act to promote the development and diversification of western Canada. Unfortunately, some Members were unable to participate in the debate since it was what we often call backup legislation, in this case to Bill C-72. Under the circumstances, the Government is prepared to accommodate those Members of Parliament and arrange for a further debate on the subject of western diversification. Therefore, I am advising the House that we will call Bill C-82, the Lobbyist Registration Act, on Monday. Once the debate is finished on that and
March 11, 1988

the question decided, we will call the special Government order now on the Order Paper pursuant to the following order. I therefore move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, March 14, 1988, the House will not adjourn until completion of proceedings on a special Government order, respecting Bill C-113, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and
that any speeches in debate on the special Government order be limited to 20 minutes, with 10 minutes of questions and comments; and
that, if such proceedings are not completed before 5 p.m. that day, Private Members' Business will be taken up from 5 to 6 p.m. but the adjournment proceedings will not be taken up that day; and
that, any recorded division on the said special Government order be deferred until the calling of Government Orders the next day; and
that, in any case, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the normal time of sitting the next day.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to take this opportunity to respond to the Elon. Minister. As he indicated, when we moved quite expeditiously the other day in voting unanimously on the official languages Bill and Bill C-113 was called, it is fair to say that the right people were not in the right places at the right moment. Therefore, when the request was made for a recognition of the fact that some Hon. Members, and the number at this point is unknown but I do not expect it to be large, were still interested in making some remarks at second reading, which of course is when we discuss the legislation in principle, the Minister agreed that this would be done. I simply want to say to him on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP that we appreciate his generosity in enabling this debate to be concluded in the way it should be.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties, and the order the Minister read earlier was agreed to and received the consent of our Party. We intend to support this order.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Government whether we can expect the Report of the Striking Committee establishing the membership of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-72 to be tabled very shortly in the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I believe we just got it. I think if he checks with the Table he will find that it has been deposited.


Mr. Speaker:: I might advise the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) that the Minister has correctly divined the situation and the list is at the Table.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Petitions

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to present, on behalf of a number of constituents, a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners believe that the Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised, in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations, that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and that it now obviously has been compromised. They also believe that the trade deal denies Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermines Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that in the United States.
They feel very strongly that this whole trade deal threatens the fabric of our political and economic sovereignty. Therefore, they now ask that Parliament dissolve in order to allow the people of Canada an opportunity either to accept or reject this trade deal during a national general election.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House today petitions from over 1,700 citizens of Abbotsford, Clearbrook, and other lower mainland communities in British Columbia. These concerned Canadians call on Parliament to define human life as being created at the moment of conception and ask that this be reflected in a newly created law.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and responsibility, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition from Canadian citizens from London and Toronto, Ontario, and other municipalities.
The petitioners state that whereas in February, 1985, the Government ordered the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights; and whereas in October of that same year the subcommittee on equality rights and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs submitted a report to the House recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas under federal jurisdiction including the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces and in age of consent legislation with regard to sexual orientation or practice; and whereas the Government has yet to introduce significant legislation acting upon these recommendations supported by the Government, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament act to implement the recommendations contained in the report as specified above with all due haste and speed.

March 11, 1988
Order Paper Questions OPPOSITION TO BILL C-55-REFUGEES


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition from many residents of Canada on the subject of the Government's legislation in Bill C-55 which these citizens believe threatens Canada's traditional commitment to the assistance of refugees.
They point out that refugees reaching our border will be turned away without having their claims heard on the merits. They point out that the standing committee of Parliament did propose a procedure for refugees which would have been both quick and fair and which has received the support of all the public groups in Canada which have commented on it, including the churches and the Bar Association.
They therefore call upon Parliament to ensure that Bill C-55 will be withdrawn and that legislation will be substituted for it which involves the principles of fair, quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the immigration commission, universal access to these hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right to appeal on the basis of fact.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Canada who are concerned that the flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador, is disrupting the way of life of many of the native people there who prefer hunting, fishing, tourism, and mining as a means of earning a living to employment on the base.
The petition also points out that this flight training to train pilots to fly under radar into eastern Europe is a provocative, aggressive, war-fighting action which tends to endanger world peace. They ask Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end all the low-level flight training at Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Spadina with regard to the trade deal negotiated between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States which, they point out, would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural, and political independence and would cause the loss of jobs in many sectors.
Therefore, they request Parliament to obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election prior to the finalizing of such an agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 245 and 255.


Mr. Howie: What federal facilities or procedures are available to assist in the search for
missing children?


Hon. James Keileher (Solicitor General of Canada):: The
RCMP Missing Children Registry (MCR) in Ottawa was established by the federal Government to assist all police departments in recovering missing children. Since July 1986, it has ensured that missing children reports from across Canada are entered immediately into the Canadian Police Information Computer (CPIC). The Registry offers the following services:
(i)	co-ordinates inquiries from small Canadian police departments regarding abductions;
(ii)	provides an interface with all Canadian police agencies and private organizations concerned with missing children, such as Child Find, Victims of Violence, and the Tania Murrell Society;
(iii)	acts as a clearing house for Canada in connection with missing children cases when dealing with U.S. and international police departments, state clearing houses, and organizations such as the U.S. National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children;
(iv)	searches Registry files in order to associate unidentified bodies with any missing children reports.
The MCR is also involved in developing search techniques. A representative of the MCR participated in the work of an RCMP committee which has developed a standard technique for urban and rural searches for missing children.
The Report of that committee, entitled Police Procedures for Ground Searches and Rescue for Lost and Missing Persons, has been approved by the Canadian police community and is now undergoing final editing prior to publication and distribution to Canadian police departments.


Mr. Dorin: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation engage the services of a paid consultant, adviser or lobbyist, either an individual or a firm, in the course of preparing and promoting its bid for an all-news broadcast licence to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission and, if so, what was the total cost involved?
2.	Did a representative of the (a) Department of Communications (b) Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission meet with a representative of (i) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (ii) Allarcom
March 11, 1988

Limited for the purpose of reviewing or discussing that organization's
application for an all-news broadcast license?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In
reply to the above-mentioned question, I have been informed as follows:
1.	The CBC did not hire any lobbyist in the course of preparing its bid for an all-news broadcast licence to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. The Corporation did hire some consultants to help prepare its application. With respect to the cost of these consulting services, it has not been customary for Parliament to require the Corporation to provide details of its internal management and administration such as payments made for professional services. The background to this custom is explained in the reply to question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.
2.	(a) (i) No, (ii) no, (b) (i) no, (ii) On March 20, 1987, two senior staff of the CRTC (Colin Nelson and Patrick Tourigny) met with Yves Mayrand of Allarcom, at the latter's request, to discuss Allarcom's intention to file an application for a news and information specialty programming service.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and passed.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in resuming my intervention in this debate I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the Department of the Environment is being treated as the Cinderella of Departments of the Government. The amount being allocated to this Department this year, in terms of percentage, is less than half of the percentage increase of the over-all Budget for the fiscal year 1988-89.
As though this were not bad enough, upon considering what has happened to that Department since 1984 you find that the loss of purchasing power of the Department of the Environment as a result of inflation is in the range of 17 per cent. Every pensioner in this country and everyone who lives on a fixed income knows what it means to lose ground to inflation.
Borrowing Authority
This is exactly what is happening to the Department of the Environment despite the fact that in poll after poll Canadians are indicating that the condition of the environment is an issue to which they attribute one of the highest priorities.
As a result of this reduction of 17 per cent in purchasing power, the Department of the Environment has lost 336 scientists, technicians, and support people. How can this Department perform the role of vigilance, protection, advocacy and protection of the environment when it is not only not holding its own with regard to inflation but is, year after year, losing ground? That escapes the ability to understand of Members on this side of the House.
What is worse is the rhetoric of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) who is trying to convince Canadians to the contrary, as is proven by the letter he wrote to the Toronto Star to which I made reference earlier in this debate. In a desperate attempt to create an impression that things are fine with regard to the budget of that Department, the Minister made reference to $106 million for the establishment of South Moresby over the next 10 years. That is a good development, but it has nothing to do with the capacity of the Environment Department to function this year.
In another desperate attempt to create a smoke and mirrors effect he mentions a $150 million allocation to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. That $150 million is in 1982 dollars and there is a very good reason for that. It has been ear-marked since 1982 to be made available to non-ferrous smelters when they proceed with the modernization of those plants in order to introduce anti-pollution equipment. It is a situation in which the Minister is invoking figures from other Departments to shore up the abysmal picture that is emerging for Environment Canada.
While I welcome a substantial increase, such as those for Agriculture and other Departments, it hurts to see this Department being treated like Cinderella, with an increase of 3.6 per cent in this year. At the same time, we must listen to the rhetoric of the Government and the Minister of the Environment, who claims the contrary. Not only does it hurt, it is offensive and disregards the priorities which Canadians want the Government to give to the environment.
We are on the eve of another summit in Washington next month between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan, where the question of acid rain will be raised again. The summit in Quebec City took place in 1985. It was an expensive event at which the Prime Minister displayed his skills as a tenor. I do not know whether that was good enough to convince President Reagan that Canadians mean business about the matter of transboundary pollution, because we are on the eve of the fourth summit and the situation has not changed, unfortunately. We were hoping that the Prime Minister's claim of a special relationship with President

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
Reagan would achieve our goal of a treaty on acid rain pollution abatement.
At least four million tonnes of sulphur dioxide crosses the Canadian-American border each year. That transboundary pollution is damaging our waters, our forests, our agriculture, fish spawning grounds and the fisheries in general. It is also damaging our building structures and monuments. It is damaging human health. The total yearly damage runs into the millions of dollars.
Having listened to the invocations and incantations, and having watched the smoke and mirror performances over the last three years, on the eve of the fourth summit it becomes imperative in this debate to impress upon the Government the need to muster the courage and present a bill for damages to President Reagan when they meet again in April.
Considering the expectations that were raised by the Prime Minister in 1985, this matter can no longer be allowed to drag. Expectations were raised with the Canadian public in this very Chamber a year ago when President Reagan was here. When he left Ottawa that day the Prime Minister proclaimed the event as a breakthrough and a success in terms of acid rain reduction. Since April of last year, after proclaiming there had been a breakthrough, nothing has happened. There has not been a reduction of one ounce in the tonnage of sulphur dioxide that crosses the border between Canada and the United States. The damage is the same, and it continues. Our resources are facing even more damage as a result of this.
Canada has embarked on a program to cut our pollution. The Americans who are downwind from us will benefit from our program. The transboundary pollution from Canada into the United States will be reduced by half between now and 1994. The least we can expect is reciprocity. Since we are not getting this reciprocity under the present Government and the Reagan regime, our only alternative is to present a bill for damages being caused to the Canadian economy, human health and Canadian resources as a whole.
We also want to consider the over-all picture in this debate. While the Government continues to increase taxes, it has not lowered the public debt as it promised to do in the 1984 campaign. The taxes, particularly the invisible federal sales tax, have been increased methodically year by year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired. I gave him an extra few minutes. Questions or comments? Debate.


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, we are in fact facing this morning a situation that is something of a paradox concerning the Bill now before us, because the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) boasted during Question Period of this Conservative Government's prowess in the area of employment. We now find ourselves with a proposal to give the Government authority to borrow an extra $25 billion in order to operate till the end of the year.
To dare claim, as my colleague for La Prairie did, that the employment situation is almost exclusively due to this Government's prowess, is showing misplaced boastfulness, Mr. Speaker, and more still this is misleading Canadians because all the previous governments, including the short-lived conservative ones, always have been at the mercy of the global economic situation.
When the global economic situation was good, jobs were created. But when we are going through a period of recession, global recession, then we have unemployment. And if at this time the Government can show pride, it is not necessarily because of its prowess but rather because of a global economy that is totally favourable and that results in a strong economy, an economy that can create jobs, an economy that normally should be allowing the Government to manage public finance without having to ask for a $25 billion borrowing authority, as we have now.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have an opportunity to rise on this borrowing authority requested by the Government, and as my colleague for Trinity (Mrs. Nicholson) mentioned earlier, this Bill was tabled before the Government came up with its Estimates. As she said this morning, even after examining them I fail to understand why, at a time when the international economy and our domestic economy are in excellent shape, the Government is obliged to ask for an additional $25 billion to be able to run this country.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of bragging about the fact that 1,200,000 jobs have been created since 1984. Normally, those jobs would generate additional revenue for the Government, through taxes. So I fail to understand why the Government wants to maintain a borrowing authority of $25 billion when its revenues are increasing, unless its expenditures are increasing at a tremendous rate as well, since the deficit is going down far less than the Minister of Finance said it would when he tabled his forecasts in previous years.
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke the first time, I said that this Bill was a perfect example of the poor management the Conservative Government has been inflicting on Canadians during the past four years.
I would also like to express my grave concern about the precarious situation in which our youth finds itself, and about the many problems connected with regional disparity in Canada.
As we all know, if the Bill is passed, the Government will be able to increase the national debt by $25.3 billion in the course of the financial year starting on April 1. Twenty five billion may not sound like much, just another loan added to a national debt that is already far too high. At the end of this financial year our national debt will total nearly $3 billion. This works out to a little over $12,000 per Canadian, per year. That is a tremendous burden, Mr. Speaker. It is a serious problem, when we consider that despite the fact that the economy is in very
March 11, 1988

good shape, the Conservative Government keeps increasing our debt.
I have said it before, Mr. Speaker, and I say it again: As a Canadian citizen, I am very concerned about the fact that this Government has failed to take advantage of the excellent economic situation this country has enjoyed in the past four years. Actually, $25.3 billion is far too much for a Government that has undermined the confidence of Canadians by failing to keep its promises. It is an incredible amount of money for a Minister of Finance who in his last Budget made it clear he was totally unqualified to manage the money of Canadian taxpayers. It is incredible, when we consider that with all the money it has borrowed and collected in the form of taxes, and despite the excellent state of the economy, the Conservative Goverment still has nothing to offer the poorest and neediest among us, and especially our youth.
The times we live in demand strong intervention by the federal Government in a number of areas, such as guaranteed income, education and training, quality of life and housing. This Government tends to neglect these serious issues and remains supremely indifferent to the legitimate concerns of Canadian men and women who have to cope with these problems.
Poverty lies at the heart of most of Canada's social problems, including poor health, crime, unsanitary accommodation, family violence and mental illness. The Government cannot continue to maintain that improving the economy will make it possible to bridge the gap between rich and poor. The poor are not necessarily unemployed. It is because of their jobs pay such low wages that some workers are poor. It is wrong to suggest that society helps everyone when the heads of 55 per cent of poor families in Canada have a paying job.
Families are hit especially hard by poverty. However, the measures contained in the last Budgets and the tax reform have challenged the principle that Governments agree to compensate parents for the costs they incur in raising their children. This Government has partially de-indexed family allowances, lowered the ceiling for elegibility to the child tax credit and eliminated the child exemption.
In another area, the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless has gone by without the Government really dealing with this issue.
In 1986, over 100,000 Canadians were homeless at one time or another. In 1987, the situation did not improve and it may even have worsened. It is estimated that 750,000 more families had an urgent need or decent or affordable housing. In the area of housing, the Conservative Governement has constantly imposed enormous budgetary restrictions, limited elegibility to subsidized housing, thus victimizing low and middle income families, and delegated its responsabilities to the provinces.
Throughout Canada, the streets, the water mains and the bridges are cracking up and becoming corroded and distorted because they are put to a greater use than previously and less
Borrowing Authority
maintenance is being done on them. While the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is requesting new federal initiatives to provide part of the $15 billion investment necessary to modernize municipal services, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has stated that municipalities should increase the water rates paid by consumers to repair the water supply system.
As a former mayor, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I intend to move a motion in the near future to ask for a national water purification program and a municipal toxic waste elimination program to provide assistance to the municipalities, which, because of weak federal or provincial legislation, are not necessarily responsible for all the pollution, caused, even though this unfortunately comes under their jurisdiction at the present time.
Also, we had to wait nearly two years following the cancellation of the Manpower Adjustment Program before the Government introduced its Older Worker Adjustment Program. In 1982, 4.8 per cent of the unemployed had been without jobs for over a year. In late 1987, this proportion had increased to nearly 20 per cent, which represents about
200,000	Canadians. On the other hand, 158,000 people had been looking for jobs for a period ranging from 27 to 52 weeks. To the number of those who are chronically unemployed, we must add the 400,000 people who are considered fringe workers. At the end of 1987, there were in Canada 55,000 disillusioned unemployed workers who had stopped looking for jobs, feeling that their chances of finding jobs were pratically non-existent. Faced with this serious problem, the Tory Government continued just the same to reduce the funds allocated for the Formal Training Program, while subsidizing jobs in the private sector.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brags about the results his Government has achieved with job creation, he overlooks the fact that these jobs are unequally distributed among the provinces, between men and women and among the various age groups. Data collected by Statistics Canada reveal the following discrepancies: Ontario, with 38 per cent of the total labour force in Canada, had bagged 45 per cent of all the jobs created in Canada in 1987. Which means that 62 per cent of the manpower in Canada had to be satisfied with the remaining 55 per cent of the new jobs. While men lay claim to 61 per cent or the majority of all full-time jobs, women hold 71 per cent or most part-time jobs. Part-time workers are paid a lower average hourly salary, about equal to 79 per cent of the salary paid to full-time employees, and often receive no social benefits.
In December 1987, the unemployment rate for our labor force generally was 8.1 per cent, but it was 8.6 per cent among women and only 7.7 per cent among men. For the same month, the unemployment rate among people between 15 and 19 years of age was 13.5 per cent.
In spite of this evidence, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance continues to describe Canada as a country of affluent

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
men and women driving Le Baron cars and whose portfolios withstood quite well the crash of last Fall. In short, the Minister of Finance feels that everything is fine and dandy in Canada.
He does not seem to realize what it means to be poor in Canada. To be poor in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is to be put at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to housing, education and training, daycare and legal aid services, credit and health care.
Many of the Canadian poor live on welfare. Many others are small-wage earners. The majority of single seniors and single families headed by women have an income that is hundreds and often thousands of dollars below the poverty line. The economic difficulties of this decade have swelled the ranks of the poor and hardened society's reaction to that fact of everyday life. Poverty affects people of all ages, but the saddest thing about existing programs for fighting poverty is that 20 per cent of Canadian children live in an underprivileged environment.
In 1986, Mr. Speaker, 3.7 million Canadians, or 14.9 per cent of the population, lived below the poverty line. Last year, more than 34 per cent of single persons were poor. That amounts to 982,000 Canadians. More than a million children below 16, that is 1,016,000 children, live in poverty. Nearly 57 per cent of the poor in Canada are women, although women account for only 51 per cent of the population. And more than half, or 56 per cent, of single families headed by women are poor.
The number of Canadians with an income below the poverty line rose from 3,475,000 in 1980 to 4,240,000 in 1984. The number has decreased since then, but the 1986 figures were still higher than those of 1980, before the recession, Mr. Speaker.
In 1986, the total income of the poorest 20 per cent of Canadians was only 4.7 per cent of the over all income of the Canadian population. By contrast, the richest 20 per cent had 43 per cent of the over all income, nine times the income of the poorest group.
In spite of these alarming facts, Mr. Speaker, this Government brags so loudly about the people who are benefiting from the improved economic situation that it cannot hear the complaints of those who benefit not at all or very little from it. As a Liberal concerned for the welfare of all Canadians, I reject a plan which is supportive of the well-to-do privileged classes while the poorest and neediest suffer.
The Government still brags about its job creation figures. While the situation is improving, which is quite normal after six years of recovery, there are still over one million unemployed in Canada, but the Government does not seem to care. It regularly cuts back its job creation programs on the assumption that our economy is doing so well that people should be able to find a job without Government assistance. As I have already said, this might be true in certain regions, but it is certainly not the case everywhere in Canada, and it is
certainly not the case for young people, whose unemployment rate is still twice as high as the national average.
Mr. Speaker, if the Bill now before the House was a guarantee that the Government will create jobs for young people, that it will create or implement programs or projects to reduce poverty in Canada, that part of these amounts will be used to improve the quality of life for all Canadians, and more particularly for all young people in Canada, then, Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection to voting for this Bill. However, as we are aware of the wasteful spending which occurs during certain trips and as we know that these $25 billion could be used for purposes which will not benefit all Canadians, we cannot agree to provide this Government with the power to borrow $25 billion more.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to participate in the debate. The Government is asking us to approve its borrowing measure of more than $25 billion. I believe that that is the largest sum that any Government has ever asked Parliament's permission to borrow. Given the type of deficits accumulated over the years, one can understand that the sum that the Government needs to borrow has progressively increased year after year.
I wish to place on the record, despite some of the statements made by both Conservative and Liberal Party Members, that New Democrats are concerned about the deficit.
Historically, in my own Province of Saskatchewan when a CCF Government was elected in 1944, essentially the province was broke. Yet over the years we were able to bring the economy of the province back up, implement a program of rural electrification, which cost a fair amount of money for Saskatchewan, introduce a system of regional and local hospitals and schools and a road system throughout that huge province.
That was done without leaving large accumulated debts. One of the things that we were proud of in Saskatchewan was that we consistently ran surpluses if not balanced budgets. The same was true during the period 1971 to 1982 when the New Democratic Party formed the Government in Saskatchewan. In those years we ran balanced budgets. It took the election of a Conservative Government in Saskatchewan in 1982 to introduce deficits into Saskatchewan. At the present time, the people of Saskatchewan are burdened with a horrendous debt and an accumulated deficit of several billions of dollars that will take several hundreds of years into the future to pay off.
In looking at the federal debt, one realizes that paying the interest on the debt is one of the largest, if not the largest expenditure of government. There is certainly nothing socialist about paying several million dollars every year on the interest on what the Government owes. As New Democrats we are committed to seeing that the deficit is wiped off the books as quickly as possible and as humanely as possible.
March 11, 1988

It is interesting to note that historically it seems that during periods of Conservative Governments the debt seems to increase. That is certainly true in the United States. Under President Reagan the United States has had the largest deficit in its history. The same can be said of the Government of Margaret Thatcher. Certainly, in the Province of Saskatchewan there has been a debt increase since the Conservatives were elected. One becomes puzzled why this is so. After all, Conservative Governments are noted for cut-backs in government service. The philosophy of the Conservative Government is that government should not play an active role in the society, and Conservative Governments talk in terms of fiscal responsibility and Government living within its means. Indeed, under Conservative Governments generally there is a decrease in government expenditures. Yet the deficit increases. Why?
I think that the answer can be found in the fact that generally under Conservative Governments one finds tax breaks particularly for the wealthy, and that the revenue source for Government decreases under Tory Governments. That is true in the United States, it is true in Great Britain under the Thatcher Government, it certainly was true in Saskatchewan whom the Government of Premier Grant Devine dramatically decreased the taxes that the oil industry had been paying into the coffers of Saskatchewan, and I think it is also true in Canada.
Despite the tax reform introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), he still admitted in his papers when he introduced tax reform that there will be some 60,000 well-to-do profitable corporations that will still not pay one cent of tax. Among the 60,000 will be found some smaller companies, but also some of the larger companies. Is it any wonder that there is this large accumulated deficit in Canada when one considers that, in 1983, a teller with the Royal Bank of Canada paid more in taxes than did the Royal Bank of Canada? Although the Royal Bank of Canada, in 1983, had over $360 million in profits, it did not pay one cent in taxes. In fact, it received a tax credit of some $20 million. The Government felt that it was not profitable enough, so it gave the bank a tax credit of some $20 million.
Perhaps one should not single out the Royal Bank of Canada because it certainly was not the only one. Most other banks did not pay a cent in tax. Most trust companies did not pay a cent in tax. Certainly none of the insurance companies with billions of dollars in profits paid a cent in tax. No wonder we have a deficit like the one we have.
Some folk will say that the reason for the large deficit is that we have been living beyond our means or that the social programs in Canada are too rich. Tory spokespersons like to indicate that the Government has been handing out money to the poor, spending too much money on education, health, housing, and other social programs, and that is why we have a deficit. However, when we look at what we in Canada spend as a percentage of our gross domestic product on social programs,
Borrowing Authority
compared with other industrialized nations in the world, we find that we are the second lowest. We spend less on things like housing, education, maternity care, job creation, pensions, unemployment insurance, and so forth than Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Great Britain, France, and Italy. Countries that have fewer resources than we have, countries that have much larger populations in much smaller areas, countries that have a much older population, all spend a greater amount on social programs as a percentage of gross domestic product than we do in Canada.
For me to hear people say that we are living beyond our means in Canada is something that I just cannot accept. I cannot accept that when I see in my home City of Regina young children going hungry. Here in the bread-basket of the world we have young kids going hungry. In our largest cities we see the homeless, people who cannot afford to put a decent roof over their heads because they do not have the income. We see line-ups at food banks from coast to coast. Surely to say that we are living beyond our means is really to crack a cruel joke.
The fact of the matter is that we are not living beyond our means. There is real poverty in the country. In a country so blessed with richness and wealth there are over 4 million people who are living below the poverty line, who are living in poverty. For Conservative spokespersons to claim that we are living beyond our means is nothing but propaganda. It is not true; it is not true at all.
Essentially we heard from the Minister of Finance as he presented his Budget and as he justified his borrowing authority Bill, that under the leadership of the Conservative Government the economy of Canada is doing quite well. Of course it is all relative. Indeed there are fewer people who are unemployed today than there were in 1984. That is very true. However, we must not forget that, compared with the United States, for example, our unemployment is still quite high, unacceptably high.
Fet us step back one second. When inflation was out of control in the late 1970s or early 1980s, industrialized countries decided in a joint effort to wrestle inflation to the ground. They did it by increasing the interest rate, in essence by taking the steam out of the economy and forcing the western economy into a recession. Well, it certainly brought down the inflation rate. Right now it is running at some 4 per cent, but this was done at the price of an economic slow-down and at the price of millions of men and women in the western world losing their jobs, being thrown on the heap of unemployed. It was particularly severe for working Canadian men and women.
Our unemployment rate was one of the highest of western industrialized countries. The recovery from the recession in Canada was slower than other industrialized countries. When the Conservatives came to power in 1984 we still had an unduly high unemployment rate. The recovery from the recession had been slower in Canada, in part because of the

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
type of economy we have. A large part of our economy depends upon the export of basic raw materials. When there is an economic recovery, the suppliers of raw materials are the countries that experience the recovery as being slower than in other more industrialized countries. It took a while for the recovery in western economies to be felt in Canada.
In a sense the Conservatives were lucky that they were elected in a period when the recovery started to occur. Yes, unemployment has declined dramatically in Canada. The Minister of Finance is happy to point out that it has declined more rapidly in Canada than in other industrialized countries. However, one begins to wonder whether or not it was as a result of the actions of the Government. It might very well be that the Conservatives were lucky to be elected in a period when the recovery was occurring.
We also wonder how a Government, which does not believe in becoming involved in the economy and which has a basic philosophy of laissez-faire, could take credit for the economic recovery. In fact, the Minister stated that in more or less those terms when he appeared before the finance committee last week. He said: "We cannot really take credit for this; it is the industry out there that has created the jobs".
One could wonder what sort of economic situation we would be in, had we had a Government which believed that the public sector had a role to play and that indeed we could devise economic strategies to create jobs. In fact, one could wonder how much better off Canadians would be, particularly in regions where we still have 10 per cent, 15 per cent, and 20 per cent unemployment, if we had a Government which believed that the public sector had a role to play and had some economic strategy to make certain that economic recovery occurred in all regions of the country.
We have asked the Government, as part of an initiative to help create more jobs, to lower the interest rate by 1 or 2 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) calls us irresponsible. In fact, in committee the other day, the Minister of Finance told my colleague that what we were saying was garbage. The funny thing is that when the Minister of Finance was in opposition, he was also calling for the Government to lower the interest rate. It must have been garbage back then as well. It is amazing how the Liberals and Tories change their tune when they cross from one side of the floor to the other. When the Tories were in opposition, they were calling for a lower interest rate. Now that they are in government, they say they cannot do it. When the Liberals were in power, they said they could not lower the interest rate, but now that they are in opposition they are, in turn, calling for a lower interest rate. It is amazing how the Liberals and Tories flip back and forth on the question. We suggest that we can lower the interest rate by 1 or 2 per cent without causing undue inflationary pressure.
The Minister of Finance says that inflation at 4 per cent is unacceptable. I agree with him. But it is not the interest rate
that is keeping inflation at 4 per cent, it is the action of the very Government. The Government has increased taxes, increased public transportation costs, fuel, oil and gas taxes. We have seen property tax increase. Tuition fees for postsecondary education, tobacco and alcohol taxes and electricity costs have all increased. The present Government has also introduced a 10 per cent telecommunications tax. These tax increases, many of them imposed by the federal Government, some of them by the provinces and local municipalities because of the cut-backs in transfer payments, have resulted in prices going up and an inflation rate of 4 per cent. It is not because of low interest rates, nor is it because workers are demanding higher wages. In fact, the wage level has been below the inflationary level. Those are not the targets anymore. The reasons for high inflation are the revenue and tax grabs by the federal Government.
Yes, we can have a lower interest rate. Yes, the cost of production can be lower in Canada so that we can be competitive with our trading partners, who pay lower interest costs as a cost of their production. Unfortunately, we have a government that had its head in the sand and is not providing the economic type of leadership that Canada surely deserves. Canada deserves economic leadership. The poor in this country deserve some leadership, and they have not received it from this Government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Government's Bill C-109, the Bill in which the Government asks for the authority to borrow $25.3 billion, almost the amount of the deficit. That is what the Government is borrowing. It is necessary for us to give some attention to what the Government may do with the money and how it will use what it gets from the taxpayers.
There is the old principle that you should look at what a person does rather than what he says. The same applies to government. How the Government spends the taxpayers' money demonstrates where its priorities really are. That is what we have to examine in this debate about borrowing $25.3 billion.
The Budget that proceeded this borrowing Bill was fairly skimpy on information. There was a great deal of self congratulation in it, pages and pages of glowing expensively printed remarks about what a fine Government it is. There was much less information than usual about the details of the Government's plans and priorities. However, there is some information on which I want to focus, particularly in two areas. They present a very striking contrast and they show where the priorities of the Government really are. The first area is defence in the general sense and, in particular, the nuclear powered attack submarines.
This year the Government plans to spend $23 million simply on preparation, making the plans and so on, to buy these attack submarines. The total cost of the submarines will be somewhere between $7 billion and $15 billion. Some estimates are higher. The Government used to have a lower estimate, but
March 11, 1988

it got laughed out of that. The $7 billion to $15 billion range depends on whether we look at the bare bones submarines themselves or whether we include the support facilities and the necessary base.
The other area I want to look at is child care. Some of the money from this borrowing Bill will be spent on the Government's child care plans. The plans are to spend about $5.4 billion over seven years on child care. At first, $5.4 billion sounds generous. It sounds almost like the cost of three or four submarines. We have to look closer. The Government's plan appears to be comprehensive on the surface, and there is a significant amount of money involved. The Government will spend $2.3 billion over this seven years on tax breaks for parents with children. The Government will spend $3 billion for capital and operating costs for child care centres and $100 million for special initiatives for research and pilot projects among special groups.
One thing which is a matter of common experience is that tax programs are generally the least effective way of creating public programs because it gives the Government very little power to direct where the money that comes from tax breaks will be spent. In other words, spending what are called tax expenditures. In this case, the tax expenditures are particularly hypocritical. The Government, at the same time as it undertakes to spend this money on day care through tax breaks, will be cutting family benefits. By 1991 these family benefit cuts will have taken $1.5 billion out of the pockets of families.
Let us take a closer look at both tax breaks. Together they will amount to a total of $2.4 billion. If this money were used to create new child care spaces, an additional 170,000 Canadian children would have spaces. That is not the way it is going to be done. The tax programs mean that there will be a refundable child tax credit with a maximum of $200 a year per child. That is not enough to pay for even informal non-market, non-receipted child care. It is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of child care these days. It is not enough to enable a couple to make the decision to forego the income from one of them working so that that he or she can stay home to take care of a child or children. It offers a little extra fuel to the so-called underground market, whatever kind of unreceipted day care may be offered on a very informal basis, with no assurance of quality for the parents and no assurance of quality for the kids, but the parents are forced to take it because that is all there is. It is called choice, but it is a situation of no choice.
Second, the doubling of the child care expense deduction for receipted child care sounds generous, but in reality, on the basis of past experience only a minority, the well-to-do minority of families, can benefit from this amount. In 1984 only 15 per cent of families could afford to save money this way. It does not work for the big majority of the population. The average family could only take advantage of one-half of the deduction that is being provided, one that will give, of course, full benefit to the wealthier families. This is another way of rewarding those who already have much more income than most people in this country.
Borrowing Authority
The next important area in this program is the capital and operating grants. The system the Government has proposed has led some day care people to call it a child care limitation plan. In the past, under Canada Assistance, there was no ceiling set, no cap set on how much could be done by the shared programs in which the Government participated to 50 per cent. But now there is a cap set and the government objective is to create 200,000 spaces during the next seven years. That is a slower rate, a far slower rate than the rate at which they were created during the years since 1974. In other words, there will be a slowdown in the creation of new spaces for child care; that is, for licensed, receiptable, quality child care. Furthermore, by the end of the seven years, the operating funds provided by the Government will have been reduced to less than $2 per child per day.
What will we have at the end of seven years for this program? We will not have this Government, of course, but if this program continues, what will we have at the end of seven years? There will be two million children-this is the Government's figure-still without access to licensed day care spaces. There will be no action on the kind of maternal or parental leave provisions that might make home care a reality. There will be an expensive tax deduction and credit program that helps rich families more than ordinary families, and a program that fails to provide real choices or real assistance to the majority of families. In short, it is a typical Tory program that helps the well-to-do with the tax money that comes at the expense of ordinary Canadians, a program that fails to deliver its promises.
I would like to direct attention to the Minister of National Defence's nuclear-attack subs. This is a Budget which involves spending $23 million this year for the preliminary planning work, the project-definition phase, but the rumours are that that has to be pushed this year because DND is desperately trying to get the contracts firmly in place before the Tory Government is defeated in the next election. The original price tag for the total project was said to be $5 billion. That caused great laughter throughout Canada and throughout the western world since, obviously, that was more like half price for 10 to 12 subs.
The Government has discovered that the subs in fact need shore bases. It appears that it left that out. Shore bases cost money. So the total project cost now, according to independent critics which the Government does not answer in any detail, is somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion. Those are the costs.
We know that the Government's child care program is not going to work. The question is, will the subs work. The question is what will they do. Well, they will travel under the ice. That is quite true. They will travel under the ice. The question then is, what for. What work will they do when they have travelled under the ice?

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
The Minister's original rationale was, he said, to protect our sovereignty in northern waters and to protect us against the supposed Soviet cruise missile attack. Well, as Professor James Eayers who has studied this matter for many years said, and I quote:
It is the most bizarre decision in Canadian weapons policy since the premier
of British Columbia bought two submarines originally built in Seattle for
Chile.
That fantastic decision was made during World War I. It was supposed to protect British Columbia coastal fishing from raids by German ships, Germany being on the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, this is the World War III equivalent, I guess, by our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), of the folly of World War I. The decision that was made in World War I was to protect the citizens of British Columbia from a non-existent threat. But there at least was then a real war, and it was hot. Today's decision takes place in the midst of a war that is real, but cold. It is real because people like the Minister of National Defence work very hard at keeping it going.
Canada has the doubtful distinction of having a Defence Minister who is more of a hawk than Ronald Reagan, and is insisting on Canadian subs which neither NATO nor the United States have asked for. Granted, if we offered to donate them to Lord Carrington, he would say thank you, but this was never considered a necessary part of defence.
The estimate of the Soviet forces and the Soviet threat in the White Paper are even more exaggerated than the estimates in the Pentagon's propaganda. President Reagan on the one hand is willing to discuss with the Russians the possibility of limited cuts to nuclear weapons in the intermediate-range and long-range departments, but the Defence Minister will have nothing to do with discussion of arms reductions with the Russians. He is not even willing to begin seriously discussing nuclear weapons free reduction or exclusion or limitation in the zone of the Arctic.
He should recall by his reading what was said by a well-known leader of defence, Sir Winston Churchill, some years ago. It is always better to jaw-jaw than to war-war. Even Churchill, though he was a good leader in war, preferred to negotiate where there was an opportunity to do that. We have a Defence Minister who would rather spend, spend than negotiate. In fact, he would rather spend, spend than have an arms reduction.
His spending will increase the chance of war. These attack subs, whether they are nuclear or otherwise, do not have a genuine defensive role for Canada. The Arctic waters of Canada are not and will not be the forward staging areas for some supposed Soviet attack. They are not suitable. They are narrow, they are shallow, they are ice clogged and most submarine-launched cruise missiles such as might be feared from those subs do not have the range to hit American targets from the Canadian Arctic. The Russian ballistic-missile submarines do not have to come near Canadian waters to
launch their missiles. They can do it more conveniently from the Atlantic or the Pacific.
Using these subs for coastal defence does not make much sense. How does a sub warn off surface ships as effectively as a frigate can? It just does not make sense. But what may be the Government's logic is something far more dangerous than that to peace.
On February 3, Vice Admiral John Anderson of the Canadian navy testified before the House of Commons defence committee. He told the committee that in times of heightened tension, Canadian nuclear attack submarines might be sent to attack Soviet strategic submarines. That is about as dangerous a strategy as can be imagined. It is part of the United States navy doctrine, the so-called forward maritime strategy. What it means is that the United States, or in this case the United States and Canada, or by a trade off, the United States and Canada together, would send large numbers of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers into the Soviet northern waters at the first hint of any crisis. Their mission would be to sink Soviet strategic submarines in the Barents Sea as soon as there was any outbreak or skirmish of conventional war. In other words, as soon as there may be a war anywhere with conventional weapons, we might have Canada with the United States initiating a nuclear war, which most Governments and experts, both in our country and elsewhere, have admitted would not allow survivors. In other words, a nuclear war is not a war in the conventional sense that there is a winner and a loser. It is an exchange of weapons with the result that all would be losers. This would be the result of the American forward maritime strategy, which is the only logical use for the proposed Canadian nuclear submarines.
That strategy is a most dangerous military proposal, probably the most dangerous the Reagan Government has prepared, and we should not be going along with it. It makes war more likely, not less likely.
We have to look at what the Government does with our money, not what it says, when we consider lending it the money. It announced a day care program that would leave hundreds of thousands of Canadian children without day care. If, as the NDP suggests, all the money in this program had been used to create new spaces, we estimate that at least
170,000	more spaces would have been created over the life of the program. Instead, the Government spends the money we need for child care on nuclear attack submarines. Those submarines make nuclear war and the end of the human race much more likely. This is a very poor Budget and a very poor reason for borrowing $25.3 billion.


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


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to what the Hon. Member was saying about submarines. I think it was inadvertence that caused him to put his adjectives the
March 11, 1988

way he did in the final sentences of his speech when he suggested that nuclear attack submarines bring nuclear war closer. Can the Hon. Member give the House his understanding of the nuclear nature of the proposed Canadian submarines? Does he understand them to be nuclear armed or nuclear powered, and in what way would the fact of their nuclear power likely lead to nuclear war?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. The Canadian Government has proposed that these submarines could replace American submarines to make the American submarines available for attack on the Russian submarines. It is also clear that a plan for armament of the Canadian submarines may be developed or revised once the proposal is under way.
The nuclear component of the subs is nuclear power, not nuclear missiles or any of those things used in American, British and Soviet submarines. However, those submarines are described as attack submarines, therefore their target is clearly Soviet submarines.
The point at which I say it increases the risk of war is that if there is some little skirmish and the Soviet Government knows that Canadian submarines, either by replacing American submarines or by attacking themselves, may destroy the Soviet submarines, it may very well act on the principle of: Use them or lose them. It might be prompted to initiate nuclear war in order not to be wiped out by a first strike of NATO forces. That is why that kind of provocative armament makes nuclear war more likely and peace less likely.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks on the Government request to borrow some $25 billion. I want to suggest that the Government's priorities, as revealed in the Budget tabled last month, are wrong. The Budget essentially says to Canadians who are unemployed or having a very difficult time making ends meet that, "I'm all right, Jack". That just is not good enough.
It boasts about bringing unemployment down. We heard more boasts about that this morning. Certainly we on this side of the House are pleased to see any reduction in unemployment. However, on Vancouver Island we have exactly the same number of unemployed today as we had in September of 1984. Nothing has changed. Some 35,000 people are still listed in official statistics as being unemployed and the Budget does absolutely nothing about that.
I want to mention a couple of specifics, first regarding small craft harbours. That issue is of particular concern in my riding but it is also of concern in ridings on both coasts and, indeed, in the other parts of Canada. Last spring the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans held a number of hearings on this issue. In June it submitted its report, and I would like to refer to that.
The report says that investigations by the committee reveal that the level of effort dedicated to the repair and maintenance
Borrowing Authority
of federal small craft harbours is inadequate, which is inconsistent with the stated Government goal of providing increased safety for our fishermen and protecting their material investments. In the short term, this inadequacy will prolong disruptions to commercial fishing, endanger harbour users or their property, and result in increased repair or maintenance costs when necessary work is delayed. In the long term the level of effort will neither protect the value of the assets nor sustain the harbours in safe and usable condition for those they serve.
The report went on to say that the committee heard testimony from Department of Fisheries and Oceans' officials that the minimum requirement to have all commercial fishing in recreational harbours under the administration of the Department and meet the small craft harbour guidelines is $120 million a year for the next five years. It was also indicated to the committee that should the small craft harbours program be required to continue at the present base funding of $48.5 million, there would be the inevitable closure of at least 150 harbours within five years.
Those very serious facts have been addressed in a most inadequate fashion by the Minister, his Department, and the Government. Instead of bringing forward a realistic Budget with projections over a number of years to deal with this problem, we have instead a phoney small craft harbour revitalization program which is really a dressed-up system of privatization that will provide an initial grant to municipalities or user groups, after which they will have the responsibility for maintenance and operation. It is a way for the federal Government to get out from under its historic responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure across Canada.
At least one community in my constituency has looked at this whole situation, and they feel it is just not feasible for them to get involved in taking over responsibility for a harbour. They have looked at the statistics and seen that when other communities have done this, they have inevitably lost money. That is not surprising. I do not think that our harbours should necessarily be money-makers. We do not expect that our roads be money-makers, and our airports are not moneymakers. Why are we loading that burden upon small communities which depend upon these harbours for their fishing industry and, in many cases, their tourism and recreational industry? Why do we try to shuffle federal responsibility on to communities or user groups?
I want to mention some specific harbours in my riding. The harbour of Sooke on the west coast of Vancouver Island is protected by a well known land form called the Whiffen Spit, a very beautiful piece of land which stretches out and protects the harbour. In recent years it has been subjected to a great deal of erosion. There has been a jurisdictional dispute between the federal Government, which has responsibility for maintaining the harbour, and the provincial government, which actually owns the land.

March 11, 1988
Borrowing Authority
Because these two levels of government have not been able to get together to solve a real problem for this community, the Whiffen Spit is eroding very badly. I visited it not long ago. There is a gap in the spit some 10 feet deep and 500 feet long. That means that storms will be able to move right through the spit which traditionally provided a very effective breakwater.
That will do damage to government facilities at the small craft harbour floats, to private marinas, and to the Uplands property owners. It will make it very difficult for the local mill to get barges in and out and to maintain the mill. It is essential that the two levels of government get together and find some way of solving the problem of the Whiffen Spit in the interests of the total community. So far we have not seen any real action on that.
There is also the situation of Cowichan Bay. A year ago I wrote to the Minister and pointed out that there is a very difficult situation there, that the breakwater is inadequate and that repairs should be undertaken immediately to extend it and provide additional protection to what the present breakwater gives. Admittedly, it will be an expensive proposition, but we are talking about the need to protect hundreds of thousands of dollars of both public and private investment. We received no positive response from the Minister on this. This past winter a very bad storm did a great deal of damage in Cowichan Bay, and the community is now looking to the Government in hopes of getting some federal assistance to rebuild.
In Ladysmith they need federal help to upgrade their Department of Fisheries and Oceans small craft harbour, but have been told that they can only get help if they form a local harbour authority and go for the government privatization program which it calls revitalization.
It is the Government's refusal to accept its historic responsibilities and its attempts to get out from under that makes us very leery of giving the Government permission to borrow $25 billion.
In Port Renfrew, another community on the west coast of Vancouver Island, there is a Transport Canada wharf which is urgently in need of repairs to bring it up to standard. These repairs will be expensive, costing some $900,000. Instead of looking at possibilities for increasing the use of this wharf if it is brought up to standard, Transport Canada simply decided to write it off, saying that the present level of usage does not justify that expense.
I have received correspondence from the community of Snug Cove on Bowen Island in another riding. There is a proposal there to get rid of the Department of Transport's floats and replace them with a private development. Local people are very concerned about what kind of access they will have and what the effect on the environment will be.
Speaking of the environment, we must question the commitment of the Government to taking action on the environment. We have been drifting along and acting as though everything is going okay with the environment while the environmental
crisis is mounting in Canada and around the world. In the last few months we have seen a great deal of evidence that pulp mills are discharging toxic wastes which have a very severe effect upon the environment and marine life.
In my riding there is a pulp mill at Crofton. Some of the tests done there showed that oysters and crabs there had above safe levels of 2378TCDD, one of the most dangerous toxins known to humanity. We have not taken the action with regard to that toxin or others which is required. There is a whole range of toxins which are not even being adequately tested. The Government does not have the facilities to do the tests in the short length of time which this urgency requires. It has not put the muscle into enforcing environmental standards which the health, safety, and environment of Canadians demands. That raises questions about granting the Government this borrowing authority.
With regard to Canada's commitment to development assistance, we remember that when the Government was first elected the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) made a solemn declaration at the United Nations on behalf of Canadians that we were going to reach .7 per cent of our GNP by 1990. Since then, of course, there has been one retreat after another from that figure. We are now talking about possibly reaching .7 per cent by the 21st century. Last year when the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade studied Canada's development assistance policy and the Government's commitment in that area it said:
We doubt that the current plan to hold the ratio steady at 0.5 per cent until 1990 and then increase it sharply to 0.6 per cent in the following five years is realistic, particularly considering that we are now at a level slightly below 0.5 per cent.
We are concerned that Canada may find itself once more in the position of abandoning its commitments. In the Committee's view, a plan is needed that would take us to the 0.6 per cent level in 1995-96 by steady, achievable annual increments. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that progress towards achieving the 0.6 per cent target in 1995-96 should begin in the 1988-89 fiscal year, rather than the current plan of fiscal year 1990-91, and proceed by steady annual increases. We estimate that would bring the ODA/GNP ratio to 0.53 per cent in fiscal year 1990-91.
In the just-released government strategy paper Sharing our Future, the Government rejected this recommendation which was made by the Conservative members of the committee. The Liberal member and myself had recommended that the Government should move toward its original commitment of 0.7 by 1990. That was too much for the Conservative members. They were concerned that unless some action was taken our percentage of development assistance would not increase so that by the 1990s there would be a steep increase and Canada would once again welsh on its commitments. We are concerned about this refusal to take our commitments to development assistance seriously. There are crying needs for development in other parts of the world, including Africa, Asia, Central and South America. Canada can be a real world leader because, while we are doing considerable already, we could do many other things to help countries reduce their debts and reach self sufficiency in food production. Much more
March 11, 1988

needs to be done, and that is what we as a nation should be doing.
The Government's attitude that it need not push toward the 0.7 per cent goal, or even work in increments toward reaching the 0.6 per cent goal, is unconscionable in the face of world needs. At the same time, Canada has a government that is dedicated to borrowing billions of dollars to purchase nuclear submarines.
We also witnessed the kind of Government profligacy as detailed in this morning's story about a one-night stop in an Ontario city where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be spending $1,900 without even having a public meeting. Profligate spending on expensive and dangerous toys like nuclear submarines does not contribute to world peace or Canadian security and at the same time neglects vital interests at home. The Government is not dealing with the problems of unemployment in the regions, nor maintaining the infrastructure of industries, such as our fishing industry with small craft harbours. It is not fulfilling the commitments it should in this hurting and hungry world. That is why we have great difficulty with this request to borrow money.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to debate the Government's request to borrow $25 billion to cover some of the shortfall in the Budget that was presented just over a month ago. I do so in the context of my riding in Saskatchewan because people in that area are curious about the Government's expenditures and its handling of the economy.
Last year, inflation was some 4.5 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has suddenly decided that it is extremely important to fight inflation and is doing so by keeping interest rates high. In turn, high interest rates have led to an increase in the Canadian dollar by 12 per cent or 13 per cent in the last year. People living in rural areas who produce for an export-price related market will have decreased incomes.
For example, people in my riding who produce grains and oilseeds and whose sales are made in American dollars will face a decrease in sales of some 11 per cent to 12 per cent as a result of the Government's policy with regard to interest rates. People who export beef and pork to the United States will receive 12 per cent or 13 per cent less for those exports because they are dealing in U.S. funds.
There are a number of manufacturers of farm machinery in my riding who primarily export to the United States. It is more difficult for them to export into the United States as the Canadian dollar strengthens and the value of those exports drop accordingly. As a result, some of those companies have been forced to lay off even more workers.
The general tenure of the economy in my part of the country is one of decline. The fight against inflation in rural Saskatchewan has meant a great deal of deflation. Farm land prices
Borrowing Authority
have declined by as much as 50 per cent in my area in the past five years, primarily since the Government came to power. Inflation is not the problem. There are towns and villages in my constituency which have 20 or 30 good quality houses for sale because there is no one to live in them. The prices for such houses have declined by as much as 50 per cent in the last six years which I suggest represents deflation, not inflation.
The Government is mistaken if it believes it can fight inflation with a high interest rate policy. It is a lose-lose situation for my constituents. Since they have lost on the income side by some 12 per cent or 13 per cent, they must borrow money to keep in business but find that interest rates have increased by one per cent to 1.25 per cent in the last year. Therefore, they must pay more money to stay in business. Their income has decreased because of the Government's economic policies and their cost of staying in business is increasing because interest rates are rising according to Government policy.
The Government often talks about win-win situations. Its approach to the economy and the management of the Budget for people in my part of the country is definitely a lose-lose situation. Of course, we cannot all be consistent winners in an economic program. In order for someone to gain an advantage, another must make a sacrifice. In our case, the Minister of Finance has developed a growing economy in an area with which he is more familiar. Unemployment is going down in the Toronto area, and I understand that inflation is rising as property values increase and a hot investment climate continues. However, that is not the case in the West, the Prairies, the North, eastern or Atlantic Canada. The Government should be fighting a war against deflation rather than inflation.
The $25 billion which the Government seeks in borrowing authority will essentially go to pay off the cost of previously borrowed money. Many businesses and farms in my part of the country have been in this kind of financing position for a few years. Ultimately most of them have had to quit.
The net public debt at the end of last fiscal year was $264 billion. We are into the last few weeks of the 1987-88 fiscal year, which means we can add approximately $30 billion as the deficit for this past year. That brings the accumulated deficit the Government is leaving us with in the neighbourhood of $300 billion. Even if the Government is able to borrow money at 8 per cent or 9 per cent to keep paying for that accumulated deficit, that debt, which makes up just about 52 per cent of our Gross National Product on an annual basis, the amount of money the Government wants permission to borrow is not quite enough to pay the interest on that accumulated debt. The $25 billion will barely do that.
I only point that out because I have a lot of constituents, some of whom have been in this situation. A lot of them have watched relatives, friends and neighbours become involved in a similar kind of situation over the last number of years where at

March 11, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
the end of the year they could not pay any of the debt and had to go to the bank, credit union or relatives to borrow money to keep the accumulated debt going for another year. That is basically what we are trying to do. This request by the Government to be given another $25 billion of borrowing power is to permit it to stay afloat for the coming year. The amount in taxes it is receiving will not meet the expenditures which the Government itself has set.
That seems a little strange coming from a Minister of Finance who tells us the problem he faces is a problem of inflation. The textbook definition of inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods". Does it not seem ironic that we are borrowing another $25 billion to add to the amount of dollars we are using to chase inadequate government services? Does it not seem ironic that a Government which is worried about inflation would do this sort of thing? Some members of the Government recently attacked me when I made a speech on this matter earlier in the second reading debate. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) said his Government was doing a good job, that this was nothing like the radical spending that took place under what he called the "NDP-Liberal alliance" back in the 1970s.
History books do not record any such NDP-Liberal alliance. The Hon. Member referred to the early 1970s. I would like to direct the attention of the House to the record presented by the Minister of Finance when he presented his fiscal plan on February 10, page 96. We see that in 1971-72, at the beginning of that period of this alleged plot, with the NDP forcing the Liberals into all sorts of rapid expenditures and expansion, the net public debt as a percentage of the GNP was 20.5 per cent. That was fairly high. As we went through that two or three years, it dropped. The first year it went down to 19.9 per cent. The following year it dropped to 18.5 per cent. At the end of the period it was at 16.8 per cent. That was from a starting point of 20.5 per cent. If the New Democratic Party had very much influence on the Liberal administration at that time, I submit it was a very good influence because it substantially brought down the proportion of public debt to the Gross National Product.
The Liberals were forced by this Party to follow a certain amount of proper expenditure programs, and were putting government funds into items and projects that would create growth. I think it should be noted that at the beginning of that period the Gross National Product was some $97 billion. At the end of that period, it was at $152 billion, a growth in excess of 50 per cent. That was because of following some of the advice of the New Democrats in that period of time.
I will complete my remarks by simply saying that I find it very strange that the Government persists in trying to fight inflation when, for most of the regions of this country, including my own, the problem is deflation, debt, lower prices, lower incomes and higher costs because the interest rates in this country are far too high.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Horner that Bill C-264, an Act to amend the criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! I would like to advise the House that when the debate adjourned, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) was to take the floor. As he is absent, I give the floor to the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, although the use of narcotics and some other drugs is now illegal, literature promoting the use of drugs, instruments and kits which facilitate their use, can be bought freely in stores or head shops specialized in the sale of such paraphernalia.

The national drug strategy that was announced last May is proof of our commitment to specific undertakings that were made in the Speech from the Throne as solemn promises to the families and parents of Canada. For example, we are dedicated in our intent to eradicate the vast profits that are to be made from the trafficking in illicit drugs by the presentation of the proceeds of crime legislation in Bill C-61.
At the time of its introduction, this legislation received unanimous support from all sides of this House and I, for one, welcome its consideration in committee and speedy return to this Chamber for early passage. Hitting the offender in his or her pocket-book is the only realistic way of terminating the cycle of enterprise crime. More profits breed more crime. We are profoundly concerned about this problem.
There is a dichotomy evident, on the one hand, in the clear statement enunciated in the national drug strategy and, on the
March 11, 1988

other hand, the continued existence of businesses that apparently flourish on the merchandising of so-called drug paraphernalia. A consistent message is fundamental to a successful initiative against drug abuse. There is no room for the impressionable in society, especially our youth, to feel that drug use is acceptable social behaviour. That is the message these entrepreneurs attempt to convey.
The thrust of Bill C-264 is to criminalize any dealings such as importing or selling drug paraphernalia which is defined by the legislation as an "instrument for illicit drug use". This in turn is defined as:
-anything designed primarily or intended under the circumstances for
consuming or to facilitate the consumption of an illicit drug.
The question I would ask is, to whom does the intention apply, that is, does it apply to the seller or to the buyer? Despite the obvious good intentions of the sponsor of this Bill, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner), I am concerned that this definition may create a field day for inventive members of the Criminal Defence Bar. That is not to say that members of the Defence Bar are criminals. I wish to be very clear that when one attaches two adjectives to a noun, as did my friend, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), earlier in the day, it is not to be seen that members of the Bar are criminals but rather members of the Criminal Law Defence Bar. This would then result in the initiative being ineffective. We must consider any legislation very carefully, especially in this era which is more and more being shaped by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am not suggesting that we are paralysed from acting decisively.
I am simply saying that our effort must be consistent with the constitutional rights enshrined in the Charter. Since we can always learn from the experience of others, I suggest we might look at the British experience.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom recently passed "drug paraphernalia" legislation. It is contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which came into force on January 12, 1987. The major part of that legislation is similar to our proceeds of crime legislation, Bill C-61, which provides for the seizure, freezing and forfeiture of the proceeds of drug trafficking, including assets that are physically situated in Canada. It is interesting to note that Canadian assets can be taken into account for the purposes of a confiscation order made by a British court. Section 34 of the British statute which deals with drug paraphernalia states:
(1) Any person who supplies or offers to supply any article which may be used or adapted to be used (whether by itself or in combination with another article or other articles) in the administration by any person of a controlled drug to himself or another, believing that the article (or the article as adapted) is to be so used in circumstances where the administration is unlawful, is guilty of an offence.
Hypodermic syringes or any part thereof are specifically exempted from the operation of this provision by subsection (2). Assuming the evidence establishes a belief that the
Illicit Drugs Promotion
administration of the substance, for instance, heroin, is illegal, one wonders why this exemption for hypodermic syringes was created. It may have some connection with the growing AIDS epidemic that is aggravated by individuals sharing needles for "shooting-up" purposes. The supply of articles for the purpose of preparing a controlled substance for administration is the subject matter of the prohibition in subsection (3). As in Canada, the lawful administration of controlled substances is defined by regulation.
The breadth of those prohibitions is potentially very wide in that they catch every imaginable article in existence that can be employed or adapted for use in the administration or preparation of illicit drugs. The limitation in the provision is created by the requirement that the person who supplies believes that the article is to be employed in either the administration or preparation of administration of a controlled drug. This would appear to be a subjective test which I admit may be quite difficult to prove.
Because of the recent passage of this legislation, experience in the British case has not been able to tell us how useful this approach will be. It may be that an objective test would have been a more effective basis for belief, that is, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the article will be used for the improper purpose. That would mean that even in situations where the purchaser does not intend to employ the article for illicit administration of drugs, the supplier could still be found guilty because all the surrounding circumstances pointed to the creation in the mind of a reasonable man of a likelihood that unlawful use of the article would be taking place. This type of approach would also assist in the use of undercover police operations to detect and prosecute offenders of this enactment.
This legislation from the United Kingdom is a model that bears consideration and examination. It also points to the level of concern in other countries about the problem of drug paraphernalia. I am sure that the working group that has been set up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will be able to provide a much fuller analysis of this provision when its report is delivered. I would prefer to await the delivery of this report which will examine all aspects of the problem.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-264. This Bill focuses attention on one of the major crises facing our country today, that is, the widespread drug and alcohol abuse that afflicts so many Canadians, and the fact that it is a growing problem. I do not suppose that there are many of us in the House of Commons who do not know someone or know a family where drug abuse has caused a great deal of heartache, severe problems, and has hampered the future of individuals.
In light of those comments, Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you my surprise on a number of occasions when walking into a certain shop on a certain street and noticing in the display cases all types of interesting paraphernalia, little ceramic pipes, holders, syringes, water-pipes, and certain types

March 11, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
of fancy cigarette papers. One can find all types of interesting tidbits. The only thing that those articles can be used for is to roll joints, smoke hash, munch up magic mushrooms, or whatever it is that people might be into. This is all right out in the open. At the side of the room there are many brochures and booklets on how to grow your own marijuana or how to harvest marijuana plants to get the maximum amount of good oil out of them, and on and on. Then one thinks, Mr. Speaker, my goodness, all of this is illegal in Canada. We are not supposed to smoke hashish, eat magic mushrooms, or take LSD.
I went to the library and got a number of recent studies. Those studies list pages and pages of illicit drugs that can probably be bought on any college campus, in any high school, or on many street corners in the City of Ottawa as well as other cities across the country. The descriptions are vivid, and those studies list the fines attached to summary conviction for possession or trafficking. There is page after page and report after report of the illicit drug situation in Canada. The report on drug abuse and availability of illicit drugs in Canada has perhaps 300 pages of descriptions of what happens town by town in terms of the various types of drugs that have been uncovered by police. It is a horrendous problem that we face.
Bill C-264 comes to grips with this incredible hypocrisy. In the head shops around the country there are people who are presumably making a living selling the paraphernalia and gadgetry that goes with smoking illicit substances, eating them, chewing them, rubbing them, or whatever people might do with them, and that this is apparently okay. This Bill says: "Listen, if you are going to manufacture, promote or sell instruments or offer literature for illicit drug use then it will be considered an offence, you will be guilty, and you will be liable on a summary conviction."
I have just been passed a piece of information that reminds me that in the part of the country I come from on the west coast, magic mushrooms are dried in dryers in the laundromats to make things easier. I do not suppose that laundromats are covered in Bill C-264. Perhaps that might be the next stage.
This is not a laughing matter. It is an attempt by an individual to deal with the problem. It does not deal with the problem. We must not get caught up in concerning ourselves with water-pipes or other apparatus. We must ask ourselves what is behind all of this. What has led to increasing numbers of young people in the country taking mind altering substances? What has driven people, particularly young people, to this kind of behaviour?
There are high levels of unemployment in various parts of Canada, about which we were unfortunately reminded today. In many communities, particularly some of the smaller and remote ones, 20 per cent, 30 per cent, and 40 per cent of the population are unemployed. There are incredible divergences
in terms of social guidelines for young people wherein appropriate behaviour or appropriate action is confusing. Job opportunities for young people are limited. Career opportunities for young people are limited. One could go on and on in terms of the very difficult challenges and problems confronting Canadians today, particularly our young people, but I will not do so. One way to deal with the situation has been to lose oneself by using a mind altering drug or by excessive use of alcohol.
When it comes to smoking, the federal Government has decided to take certain steps. These days we are debating a piece of legislation which will hopefully encourage people to smoke less and consequently save tens of thousands of Canadians each year from all the problems associated with smoking. It is a positive initiative which I think most Canadians would applaud.
Dealing with Bill C-264, which I suspect is honourably motivated, and concerning ourselves with pins, water-pipes, and so on surely misses the point. The point is: Why are these shops necessary? Why is there a need for this paraphernalia? What is behind it? I think that is where we should be focusing our energies and efforts as responsible parliamentarians.
This is not to say that the Government does absolutely nothing in this area, but I think the public is demanding that we do more. Federal, provincial, and local Governments, as well as many agencies, should be taking much more affirmative action in terms of setting the stage so that Canadians, particularly younger ones, learn that the need to escape from reality or the real world through mind altering substances is no longer necessary and that they can live and develop their lives as productive and contributory citizens. At that point we will know that we have been successful in advancing Canada to a more progressive and more civilized country.


Geoff Wilson: use. This expression is defined in the Elon. Member's proposed Section 420.1 as meaning the following:
-any printed matter describing or depicting, and designed primarily or
intended under the circumstances to promote or glamorize, the production,
preparation or consumption of illicit drugs.
To a great extent the media-and here I do not limit my remarks to the print media but would include the film and television media-have exercised a responsible approach to the publication of material regarding the illicit drug industry. However, there is a segment of the publishing industry which has done much to facilitate the efforts of the drug trafficker through the creation of a mystique surrounding both those who traffic and those who consume illicit drugs. These publishers collectively bear some considerable measure of responsibility for the popularization of so-called soft drugs, and it is toward those publishers that proposed Section 420.1 of Bill C-264 is directed.
The impressionable, the naive, those lacking in self-esteem and self-confidence, are drawn in many ways to experiment with drugs and to be part of a lifestyle they are made to perceive as attractive. Some publishers do not exercise any self-censorship but rather, in seeking to expand their circulation or reputation, do not hesitate to publish that which they would describe as literature-the glorification of successful drug traffickers. I am certain we all support freedom of expression and free exchange of information. However, in a free and democratic society we recognize that reasonable limits may be placed upon such principles.
In a similar fashion small store owners and operators of so-called head shops, specializing in the distribution of devices which have no other legitimate purpose than to facilitate the consumption of drugs, make profit from those who consume illicit drugs. They, too, exploit the victims of organized crime. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, drug trafficking accounts for the largest share of the criminal transactions of organized crime.
Ultimately all society is the victim of such organized criminal activity. The taxpayer pays for the law enforcement efforts directed at combating and eradicating the illicit drug trade and the cost of imprisoning convicted offenders who trafficked in these substances or committed other crimes in order to obtain money to buy drugs. Of course the victims include those whose lives are forever harmed and destroyed by the consumption of drugs, as well as those who had criminal acts committed against them either by persons under the influence of these substances or by persons who, in order to obtain money to buy drugs, violated their property rights.
On a larger scale, I submit that millions of people unknown to us in the poorer countries of the Third World where many of these drugs are produced are also the victims of this illicit commercial activity. They live in terror, the subjects of drug overlords who hold sway over large territories in South America and Asia. So long as a market for their goods exists in developed nations such as Canada, these drug lords will
Illicit Drugs Promotion
continue to produce. Their markets will not shrink if nothing is done to counter portrayals in some media that it is good to be bad. Education is the key.
One cannot expect law enforcement officials or the criminal justice system to succeed in the fight against organized crime without the support of society at large. More must be done to generate awareness of the economic and social impact of drug trafficking in Canada and abroad. Active measures which involve the community at large must be developed.
Bill C-264 speaks to an inconsistency in our approach to drug abuse. We prohibit the trafficking in or possession of illicit drugs, yet do nothing to prevent the commercial sale of paraphernalia which have no other use than to facilitate the consumption and use of such substances. To the average man or woman on the street, this is incomprehensible and I suspect that there is a great deal of support for the thrust for Bill C-264.
However, I have a major concern on which I would like to briefly touch. I am worried about that part of the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code which would have the effect of imposing a form of censorship over what Canadians are permitted to read. Hon. Members will note that the Bill makes no attempt to control any printed matter other than those few publications which specialize in the promotion of the consumption of illicit drugs. I am concerned that this legislation might be attacked under the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protect the freedom of expression and the freedom of communication of the press and other media.
Would the courts accept that there has been a need demonstrated for the introduction of such a measure? There are other publications disseminating information which, it could be argued, have no legitimate purpose in being distributed. Here I would refer the House to the report of the Senate Special Committee on Terrorism and the Public Safety which specifically addressed the topic of so-called mayhem manuals.
The committee recommended that the Government look at ways to prescribe the importation, production, distribution or sale of manuals which had as their dominant primary characteristic the description of how to fabricate weapons or bombs, or the description of tactics that could be of practical assistance in mounting terrorist attacks.
I believe a parallel may be drawn between these two types of publications, mayhem manuals on the one hand and literature for illicit drug use on the other. Neither serve any positive social purpose nor contribute to the good of Canadian society. Both are examples of specialized publications which reflect the views and interests of an extremely small segment of society. They are, however, instrumental in the dissemination of a set of values which are inconsistent with those held by the majority of Canadians. Both mayhem manuals and literature for illicit drug use are, in my submission, areas where the

March 11, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
courts may support an exception to the protection of the fundamental freedoms listed in Section 2 of the Charter.
I have one final concern which also results from the Charter. The publishers of these specialized publications may point to their colleagues who communicate such information through other means and claim that they are being discriminated against. Would it not be wiser to expand the ambit of the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code to bring other forms of communication within its control?
In closing, I would invite Hon. Members to consider all aspects of this proposed legislation and not to dismiss it lightly. Fundamentally, what is proposed in Bill C-264 is sound and generally consistent with other legislation in this area. I salute the Hon. Member for Mississauga North for bringing this Bill forward. However, the working group established by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to review the issue of drug paraphernalia will report within the year. I, therefore, recommend that the study of Bill C-264 be deferred until the conclusions of that report are known.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter this debate and offer some observations on the topic. For a period of time, mainly from 1969 to 1975, I worked with a youth agency in Vancouver where we very often dealt with young people who had overdosed on drugs, young people who had taken LSD and were on bummers, so to speak. I speak with a certain amount of knowledge as to the usage of illicit drugs, particularly in Vancouver during that period of the latter 1960s and the early 1970s.
I would like to say at the outset that the Private Members' Bill offered to us today really will not be very effective. You just do not deal with that problem by outlawing head shops, Mr. Speaker. It might satisfy some cravings of Hon. Members that they have struck a blow for righteousness and goodness, but I am afraid that is all it will do.
First, let us talk about head shops. Generally there are different types of cigarette paper. Does that mean you will outlaw all cigarette paper? That would be quite difficult. Does it mean that tobacconists will not be able to sell cigarette paper? That would be a little difficult. I hear an Hon. Member suggest that is a different thing. It really is not different. Essentially you can use these cigarette papers to roll a joint, a marijuana cigarette or a tobacco cigarette. To outlaw cigarette papers per se I do not think will accomplish very much. You can outlaw some of the other paraphernalia. Some of the other paraphernalia would be what is called "roach holders". For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, bobby pins can be used as roach holders. Will you outlaw bobby pins? Of course not, that is ridiculous. What about pipes? Some of these are what is called hookah pipes. Generally you find these in the Middle Eastern countries. They can be used either to smoke marijuana, hashish or tobacco. Will you outlaw them? Again, that is quite a different call to make. By outlawing pipes that can be used
for the smoking or inhaling of illegal substances, at the same time you will be prohibiting the smoking of legal substances. That does not make much sense either.
I suppose we now come to things that would be sold like posters and magazines that would extol the use of marijuana and other illicit substances. I might say that I have never seen a publication that encourages the use of what I would call the real dangerous drugs, namely, heroin, the hard drugs, the drugs that are addictive. I would say in my experience that marijuana, hashish and even mushrooms and LSD, from what I observed in the young people with whom I was dealing in Vancouver, are not really addictive. You can make a claim that they are psychologically addictive. Certainly I have known many young people who have used these substances on quite a regular basis, but you cannot describe them as being physically addictive as heroin would be, or, for that matter, alcohol or tobacco. In fact, from dealing with people who have gone through drug treatment programs, having been addicted to heroin, they tell me that they find it more difficult to quit smoking than to break the heroin habit. As I mentioned before, I have never seen a publication that extols the use or encourages the reader to use such hard drugs as heroin.
Are we going to outlaw these publications? The way the Bill is drafted, it is so open that major pieces of literature would also have to be outlawed. For instance, the Kubla Khan, A Vision in a Dream by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Ulalume by Edgar Allen Poe, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll, Tropic of Capricorn by Henry Miller, Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, On the Road by Jack Kerouac, Howl and Other Poems by Allen Ginsburg, Beneath the Underdog by Charles Mingus and The Collected Works of Billy the Kid by Michael Ondaatje, winner of the Governor General's Award for poetry in 1971. Those are some of the publications that would conceivably fall under the ban proposed in this Private Members' Bill.
I do not understand why the drafter of the Bill, if he is concerned about magazines and pieces of literature that perhaps put into a positive light the taking of such illicit substances as marijuana and hashish, would stop at the printed word. Certainly popular music today, and has I would say for the last decade or decade and a half, has positive suggestions. There are several pieces by The Beatles that would also surely be banned if you used the same criteria that is being used in this Bill today.
Do well-intentioned Hon. Members, by outlawing and bringing the law to bear on businesses like head shops feel that they are doing something to deal with the drug problem? I would suggest that that is really not the case. They are really not dealing with the problem. It will not make any difference whatsoever if there are no so-called head shops around.
March 11, 1988

[DOT]	(1430)
There is a drug problem that exists in society. Most of the problem has to do with hard drugs and with alcohol. Those two cause the most serious drug problems in society.
We all know about alcohol. We know of the untold deaths that occur on the highways because of drinking and driving. We know of marriage breakups that occur because of alcoholism within families. We know of the loss of jobs and economic security, again caused by alcoholism.
I would say that alcoholism is the most serious drug problem that exists in our society today. The second most serious problem is caused by heroin and morphine, two variations of the same drug, one being harder and having a different chemical consistency. In essence, they are both pain killers.
Heroin definitely causes serious social concerns. The funny thing is that part of the reason for heroin being a problem to society is that it is illegal. It has been noted that there are professional people like doctors who have access to heroin and have become heroin addicts but who can function quite well and competently as doctors. It is because the substance is illegal and so addictive that people will commit all sorts of crimes to get the money to satisfy their habits.
A proposal that has at times been brought forward but, I understand, never really seriously discussed is the consideration of what England has done, and that is to treat heroin addiction as a medical problem rather than as a legal problem. I suspect that if we treat it as a medical problem, we would not have the type of crime we have today. There would be a much better chance of having treatment programs and certainly we would not have the murders and thefts that occur because of heroin.
I see that you are indicating to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to Hon. Members, even though I laud their intention and do not take issue with it, that the Bill is not appropriate. It will not do what they hope it will do.
[DOT]	(1440)


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from the New Democratic Party who spoke before me, I do not think that my colleague from Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) introduced this Bill because he felt a wave of puritanism and wanted to express his opposition to a softening of social standards. On the contrary, I think he is a very responsible man who has seen the ravages caused by drugs among young people and who is looking for a solution to that problem.
This bill to amend the Criminal Code may not be the ideal or the only way to go about it, but I do not question in any way the sincerity of my colleague from Mississauga North when he approaches the problem by suggesting we must do something now.
Illicit Drugs Promotion
I know full well the ravages caused by drugs. I represent, Mr. Speaker, a constituency where 45 per cent of the urban population is under 35. About two years ago, I had to work with Gatineau policemen, particularly with police chief Joel Cheruet, to try and make illegal the setting up of arcades and pinball machines near elementary schools in the city of Gatineau. Because unfortunately in those arcades could be found not only pinball machines but also drug traffickers who took advantage of the tender age of those schoolchildren to get them addicted. As a result of their addiction, those children began to steal from automatic vending machines, in churches and also from older citizens coming back from senior citizens' clubs. They stole coins, mostly quarters from them to play those pinball machines in the arcades and to purchase drugs. It was noted that a gang of young schoolchildren were involved in drugs due to the proximity of those arcades where traffickers would be waiting for them.
Now this is a serious question. We found it difficult to convince civic authorities that such arcades near schools should be banned. They referred to business rights, to what my NDP colleague said a while ago about privacy and they told us that we should not be too coercive. Our efforts to protect those defenceless young people were thus undermined.
Faced with such a problem we should refrain from saying: "Oh dear, our community should not become puritan as a result of such problem." This is not the case. Indeed, we have a very serious problem.
I am also aware of the devastation caused by drugs because in my constituency there is an organization called Le bon samaritain led by Carole Dagenais, Carole Mongeon and Robert Gervais from the CIP and many others who are very devoted individuals. Those I know are working with former drug addicts. Whenever I visit "Le bon samaritain", I notice that the average age is very low. Therefore, it is a problem I am very familiar with.
I suggest it is our duty, as citizens, elected representatives and leaders of the community, not to discourage people like my friend the Hon. Member for Mississauga North when they suggest ways and means to try and stop drug trafficking. Rather than amending the Criminal Code, we could emphasize and enhance a number of Criminal Code provisions. I refer for instance to Section 422 of the Code which states:
422. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who counsel other persons to commit offences, namely,
(a)	every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable; and
(b)	every one who counsels another person to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
I was quoting from 1953-54, Chap. 51, Sec. 407; 1985, Chap. 19, Sec. 61.

March 11, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
So, Section 22 of the Criminal Code defines a "counsellor" as a person who counsels or procures another person to be a party to an offense. Jurisprudence has it that, in order to obtain a conviction, it is not necessary to prove that the other person has committed the offense which was counselled to him or her by the accused. Simple counselling is enough for an offense. So we could use this section.
It would be difficult to find a basic difference between the action the people doing that kind of counselling are accused of and the behaviour of the people involved in the sale of illicit drug paraphernalia. Under the Criminal Code, it is clear that offering the devices and kits freely available in the so-called "head shops" to make the use and, therefore, possession of illicit drugs more attractive, make any person, especially the owners and employees of the shops, liable to criminal pursuit for having counseled persons into committing an offense.
1 hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will consider using Section 422 of the Criminal Code as a means to solve the problem resulting from the possession and sale of illicit drug paraphernalia in this country.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, if this Bill was voted on and deferred to a legislative committee, we could deal with the measures suggested by my colleague the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) for the purpose of improving it and dealing then with the use of Section 422 or other ways to proceed. However, Mr. Speaker, I object to people imputing motives on someone who wishes to deal with the difficult drug addiction problem, especially when young people are involved. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) that instead of taking offense for a wording that might differ from his way of life or his ideas, he participates in a constructive way to this debate in order that we find, and this very rapidly, the best possible solution to this terrible problem. I wish as well to encourage my colleagues in the House to actively participate in crime prevention movements that are being launched here and there in Canada, because parents of young people already hooked are often those who assume the whole task.
I believe those fortunate enough to have children who escaped this drug addiction calamity should get very personally involved with these prevention groups, because they are the ones who could bring with a clear mind the right answers, whereas parents of children who were once or still are drug addicts are sometimes so emotionally disturbed by their family problem that they fail to calmly consider the issue.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having listened to me with much attention and 1 am sure that my colleagues will have a second thought before casting aspersions on a person who only wishes to resolve such a problem.


Charles-Eugène Marin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on that important question. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) has introduced a legislation amending the Criminal
Code to prohibit the sale of drug paraphernalia. As we all know, while narcotics and some other drugs are actually prohibited, it is still possible and easy to find litterature promoting such drug use as well as drug paraphernalia and kits in shops specializing in the sale of such paraphernalia.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has announced last May its national Strategy against drug use thus manifesting its firm intention of finding solutions to the problem of drug abuse. The matter of drug paraphernalia is directly related to the problem of drug abuse.
As you will surely know, several states have passed legislations to eliminate the sale of drug paraphernalia. I would like to take a few moments to trace the history of the problem of drug parahernalia South of our frontier.
Early in the 1960's, most Americans had almost never experimented with drugs, except naturally for alcool, tobacco and coffee. It is through newspapers, novels and movies that people have learned about the way of life of the drug addicts. It was among the poor, mainly the black, the Spanish immigrants and the native that illicit drug use was more prevalent. In their mind, the people associated drug use with criminals and other marginal sub-cultures such as the beatnicks among whom some of the greatest poets, artists and musicians of their generation are found. The average American did not have much to go with drugs but they were omnipresent in the dregs of society as well as among the anti-establishment intelligentsia.
As the 1960's went by, drug abuse skyrocketed. Thanks to progress made in medicine and in pharmacology the number of available drugs increased considerably. Vitamins began to be used in millions of homes. Large immunization campaigns were carried out. Millions of people were prescribed tranquilizers for the relief of stress symptoms.
The introduction of oral contraceptives has set in motion a sexual revolution and created a direct association between pills and pleasure. Other factors, such as social unrest prevalent in those times, have contributed to an increase in drug abuse behaviour. Arts and cinema became psychedelic; in Woodstock, the generation of the Sixties was celebrating its liberation with protest songs and acid rock.
Civil disobedience had become the accepted way of fighting against discrimination, encouraged by the State. The notion that governments could and should be opposed has contributed to the political anti-establishment activities which have marked the Vietnam War years. In the late Sixties and early Seventies, the morality of the governments and of the Establishment was questioned, and many people, mostly young people, were suspicious of the foreign racial and drugs policies of the United States. Even in the most respectable circles it was good to criticize government policy, and the attitude towards drugs was the most permissive ever seen. Pressure groups were set up to promote the reform of drug legislation and some States went even as far as to decriminalize marijuana. In many other States, sentences imposed for minor drug
March II, 1988

offences became much lighter in most if not all cases. In that context, it is impossible to ascertain if the increase in drug abuse resulted from a temporary mental aberration or rather from the cohesion of a sub-culture. But repression of drug abuse, so dearly won during the first half of the century, was wiped out within a decade. The most widespread drugs were marijuana, pharmaceutical products, hallucinogens and, to a certain extent, cocain and opiates.
On the list of articles useful or necessary for drug use, we find pipes, water pipes, cigarette papers, tweezers, mirrors, razor blades and a whole range of accessories for illicit preparation, conservation and consumption of illegal drugs.
Those accessories, although they were not widely available, appeared in the sixties in headshops and record stores. Their growing popularity brought about an increase in the number of stores where they were available. The marketing and distribution became more and more sophisticated. In 1974, the magazine High Times was published for the first time, 20,000 copies being printed; it was an immediate hit. High Times publishes reports and editorials pushing for recreational use of drugs while at the same time providing the manufacturers of thoses accessories with a medium to advertise their products.
Opposition against the instrument industry first came from parents, church leaders, and government authorities. In the early days the opposition was weak and disorganized. The first organized group that challenged the drug device makers was established in 1977 in the American state of Georgia. Its members maintained that the whole industry was violating the government's drug control policies and that shops gave youngsters the impression that drugs were socially acceptable. Similar groups were set up in other parts of the country and brought pressure to bear on local governments so they would issue regulations outlawing the sale of drug paraphernalia.
Between 1977 and 1979 a number of states and municipalities passed legislation to prohibit possession and distribution of such devices. Those first laws were all declared unconstitutional. In May, 1979, the White House requested that the Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Agency attempt to develop a constitutionally permissible approach to the control of paraphernalia.
The DEA's response to the White House request was to develop a model drug paraphernalia Act. Hearings were held before the House Select Committee on Narcotics and Drug Abuse control in November, 1979, to review the model Act. The committee concluded its review by finding that the paraphernalia industry contributed to the flagrant and harmful use of drugs and found that the model Act was necessary to eradicate the paraphernalia industry.
I would like to go over some of the basic provisions of the American model Act.
First, it provides a comprehensive definition of the term "drug paraphernalia" with specific descriptions of the most common forms of paraphernalia.
Illicit Drugs Promotion
It lists the factors which must be taken into account to determine whether an item is covered by this definition.
It makes it an offense to manufacture, advertise, deliver or use drug paraphernalia.
It makes it a special offense to deliver drug paraphernalia to anyone under 18 years of age.
It precisely defines outlawed acts in the manufacture, advertising, delivery and use of drug paraphernalia and specifies the culpable intent necessary to commit the offense.
It provides for seizure and confiscation of drug paraphernalia.
To date, some 40 American states have adopted the uniform legislation proposed to control drug paraphernalia.
In my opinion, the problem of drug abuse and drug paraphernalia is more serious in the United States than in Canada. We can only approve any initiative which might help to put an end to the social calamity which drug use has now become. The purpose of the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member is quite laudable, but I do not believe that the means suggested by the Hon. Member are appropriate to meet this purpose. In any case, the Department of Justice has undertaken a review of this whole issue, and during this process, it will consult those concerned and professional groups. It should be able to publish its conclusions later this year. I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that the debate should be postponed until the findings of this study have been published.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are four minutes left in the time for debate. The Member will not be able to complete her comments today, but I will recognize the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to participate in this debate. While we certainly endorse the comments that have been made by a number of speakers this afternoon, we would like to point out that Bill C-264 is in fact a follow-through on what has already been proposed by a standing committee of the House of Commons. More specifically, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deemed that because there was a drug epidemic in the United States, there was also a drug epidemic in Canada. As a result of that statement, there was a study launched by the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare which examined the whole range of licit and illicit drugs in Canada.
One of the areas which that committee studied was head shops and the paraphernalia sold in head shops. The committee made a number of very salient and proper recommendations in that regard. That report was entitled "Booze, Pills & Dope; Reducing Substance Abuse in Canada" and was tabled

March 11, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
here in the House of Commons some months ago. Yet, we have heard absolutely nothing from the Government.
It is all well and good for us to stand up and say "Let's support this wonderful Private Member's Bill". With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is motherhood. Of course no one in their right mind is going to stand up and say that we should support the sale of illegal drug paraphernalia in Canada. Of course we should be acting.
However, I must ask the Government today why it is leaving the job up to Private Members in the form of Private Members' Bills and why it has refused to respond to the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare when in September, 1986, I believe, the Prime Minister said that there was a drug epidemic. He has had a report on the matter sitting on the desk of the Government for a number of months and there has been no response.
Therefore, can we stop hiding behind Private Members' Bills and the very good intentions of Members of Parliament on all sides of the House and start doing something, start showing some leadership? Private Members' Bills in this House will be debated. We will all have a chance to put our thoughts on the record and send our messages to our constituents so that they will know that we are speaking out on the important issues. However, Private Members' Bills seldom become the law of the land.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has had in his possession a series of recommendations which specifically address the problem of head shops in Canada and he has chosen to ignore them. Why do we not cut out this hypocrisy?
According to Standing Order 96(2) the the study "Booze, Pills & Dope; Reducing Substance Abuse in Canada" was reported to the House of Commons and we are still waiting for the reply of the Government. There were a number of government Members on this committee. The Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) was the chairman of the committee and the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) was the vicechairman. The Members for York Scarborough (Mr. McCros-san), Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White), and Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) were members of the committee as well as myself and the Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin). A lot of Members worked on this report and came up with some extremely good recommendations, one of which specifically dealt with the question of drug paraphernalia and nothing has been done.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know why I should entertain a point of order when the time for Private Members' Business has now expired. The Hon. Member has 30 seconds to put his point of order, otherwise the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired and pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.57 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, March 14, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers