1990-01-23

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 16 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, at the beginning of this continuing session, to present petitions again dealing with the GST, the goods and services tax, which is rejected by most Canadians.
These petitioners would like to tell the House of Commons how strongly they feel about this imposition of an additional tax on goods and services. This tax will be hidden from Canadians and it will be applied to virtually everything they buy.
They say that the imposition of this new goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle income Canadians, that the imposition of the tax will create an onerous burden on small business. This is an unprecedented tax grab from the pockets of Canadians that will hit them not only with higher taxes but with higher inflation, higher interest and higher unemployment.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposed goods and services tax at 7 per cent or at any percentage.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by 70 people in the towns of Bonavista, Elliston, Melrose, Middle Catalina, Catalina and Port Union.
These people are very concerned about Bill C-21. Specifically in their case it is taking $1.3 billion from the unemployment insurance business and taking it away from job development strategy programs which in fact provide infrastructure for the communities. As well there is the $2.9 billion the government is taking out. It really is getting out of the unemployment insurance business altogether.
They are concerned about the weeks that they will have for benefits. They are concerned about what is estimated to be the $112 million that will be taken out next year if this bill goes through.
The petitioners humbly pray that Bill C-21 will be withdrawn.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would also like to present a number of petitions today concerning the proposed goods and services tax, which should appropriately be called the grief and suffering tax.
This petition is signed by a number of citizens of the great community of Windsor, so ably represented in the House of Commons by my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present under Standing Order 36 on the goods and services tax, signed by a number of people in the country.

January 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
What they are saying is that we have an unfair tax system. We should have a fair tax system based on the ability to pay, where wealthy people pay their fair share and where corporations pay their fair share, not where ordinary citizens of this country pick up the entire burden.
I am very pleased to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 36 and on behalf of these people, the petition in opposition to the goods and services tax.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition that has been brought to me by small business people in my community.
They are very upset about the goods and services tax. They say that it forces small business to carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden in Canada. They also say that its implementation will be a nightmare for small business in Canada and that the offsetting is not adequate to support them in their businesses when they must change their computer programs and their cash registers. They say that this tax does not address the concerns of small business in this country.
The petitioners call upon this government to reject the goods and services tax and to consult with labour and consumer groups to reach a broad consensus on tax reform.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a pile of petitions from people from Blue River, Birch Island, Vavenby, Vola, Clearwater, Blackpool, Little Fort, Barrier, McClure, Hempley Creek and many other centres in the North Thompson Valley.
They point out their concern with the government's decision to pursue the 7 per cent goods and services tax. They basically cannot believe it and point out a whole list of reasons for it adversely affecting the residents of the North Thompson Valley.
The petitioners ask the government to come to its senses, to back away from this tax, to return to the drawing board and come up with real, comprehensive tax reform.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker, again on behalf of a number of people from the
Kamloops region who point out that they are interested in the government maintaining a national rail network for passenger service.
They are asking the government to consider investing in new equipment as has been done in other western industrialized nations in terms of rail passenger service and to consider introducing a VIA Rail bill that would give the government an opportunity to see proper passenger rail service introduced in Canada and not close that southern route across the country.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, the following petition is presented to the House by hundreds of residents from the communities of Tracadie, Sheila, Pont-Lafrance, Petite-Riviere-de-l'ile, Sainte-Cecile and Rogersville, and your petitioners are very much concerned about the fact that the federal Conservative Government is going to impose on Canadians a new, universal 7 per cent tax on goods and services. They are well aware of the disastrous impact a tax like this will have on the economy of northern New Brunswick, and they ask Parliament to reject the new goods and services tax which has been massively rejected by Canadians across this country.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition regarding the proposed goods and services tax. It is signed by concerned Canadians who strongly oppose this tax. They feel that it will cause serious and unfair hardship on low and middle income Canadians and that it will cause higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject this proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from quite a number of constituents from Paris, Dunnville, Waterford, Woodstock and Brantford.
January 23, 1990

They are opposed to the goods and services tax and recognize that the government is now trying to tax reading materials, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
They humbly pray that the government reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and that taxation be reformed so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of constituents from Winnipeg, Dryden, and Saskatoon, to name a few, who are opposed to the VIA Rail cuts that are taking place.
They are asking the Parliament of Canada to maintain and to upgrade VIA Rail's present national network, not take away from something we already have.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present two petitions to the House, both certified under Standing Order 36.
The first one is regarding VIA Rail. Petitioners from all across the country call upon Parliament to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, to introduce a passenger train bill giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate and to develop a revised costing arrangement with the railroad companies whose track VIA uses.
I think we all know how much Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have ripped off VIA Rail.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the second petition ties in with the debate in this House now for a fairer tax system across the country, not the grief and suffering tax being introduced by the Conservative government.
This is in the regard to the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas released on Friday, October 27.
These petitioners primarily from Crescent Spur and the Prince George area call on Parliament to reject the recommendations of the report and to develop a fair and equitable tax benefit program which recognizes the
Routine Proceedings
financial needs of the people in northern and isolated areas.
We trust the Minister of Finance will hear their words.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions under Standing Order 36. The first petition relates to the situation in El Salvador and calls on Canada to utilize its membership in the Organization of American States to pursue independent diplomatic policy leading to the full protection of human rights and a peaceful resolution to the conflict in El Salvador.
It is signed by many hundreds of my constituents.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting under Standing Order 36 relates to the cut-backs to VIA and the joining of efforts of the Transport 2000 and Rural Dignity in order to obtain justice and satisfaction to the reinstatement and enhancement of passenger rail service in Canada.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the third petition relates to the goods and services tax. There is, as you are well aware, broad rejection across this country to this kind of tax reform. These petitioners come from Manitoba and from Ontario.
The final petition is also against the goods and services tax. It relates to the petitioners' awareness that the tax burden is being shifted to ordinary Canadians and is not any semblance of real tax reform.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under Standing Order 36 to present four petitions today from people from Ontario, central British Columbia and Saskatchewan who are like minded in their opposition to the goods and services tax. They express in their petition that a tax on goods and services is a regressive tax which hits low and middle income earners the hardest and that Canadians are already overtaxed.
This further tax burden could and would adversely affect the economy. They call upon this House not to pass the goods and services tax and, based on broad public consensus, to replace our current sales tax proposals and our manufacturers' sales tax with the kind of tax

January 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
that would be progressive and would be in the interests of all Canadians, not just those Canadians who have a high income.
They view this as a massive tax grab and I am privileged to table these petitions on their behalf.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions today on a number of subjects.
I have a petition signed by many senior citizens from my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway who express serious concern about the clawback on old age security benefits to pensioners. They suggest that the taxing back of old age security is a direct threat to the principle of universality which is at the core of the Canadian social system.
They urge that Parliament reject the government's policy to initiate an inequitable and unjust clawback of old age security benefits.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been signed once again by residents of Burnaby and Vancouver which points out that one-sixth of all Canadian children live in poverty. The number of children living in poverty in some provinces is as high as 26 per cent. It is particularly high in the Atlantic provinces where there is a crisis, whether or not the Prime Minister recognizes it.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to support private member's motion No. 254 initiated by my very distinguished colleague from Mission-Coquitlam.
They call upon the government to negotiate with the provinces to provide a comprehensive bill of rights for children.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by hundreds of residents from across Canada including my own constituency. They are signed by many artists and actors from the Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake who point out that railway passenger services carried on by VIA Rail is essential for many Canadians and has been a part of Canada for more than 100 years.
They express concern about the cuts in VIA Rail service and they call upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to cany out its mandate to provide passenger rail service across this land.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Finally, Mr. Speaker, along with many other members of this House, I am sure from all sides, I wish to table petitions that have been signed once again by hundreds of Canadians, including particularly constituents from Burnaby-Kingsway, as well as seniors from the Bonsor Senior Centre, and members of the Construction and General Workers Union, Local 602.
These individuals express concern about the proposed goods and services tax. They point out that it is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for the taxpayers' ability to pay.
They call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to bring in meaningful tax reforms so that there is in fact an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations. They urge the government to reject this massive tax grab.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present under Standing Order 36 signed by 136 residents of Nanaimo and the neighbouring community.
Petitioners argue that the enforced pay back of old age security benefits by pensioners with incomes over $50,000 taints the legitimacy of social security benefits as income. Moreover, it is a threat to the principle of universality, which is the core of the Canadian social system.
The petitioners humbly pray and ask Parliament to reject the government policy to initiate this inequitable and unjust clawback of old age pension security benefits.


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, today I wish to present a petition that rejects the recommendations made by the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Isolated and Northern Areas. Your petitioners, who represent the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in Abitibi, are concerned about the
January 23, 1990

report's recommendations which will cause a number of workers to be laid off. They believe that the Government of Canada refuses to make adjustments to reflect the fact that life in the North is hard, isolated and expensive.
Mr. Speaker, according to the disparity index for the 84 isolated communities designated by the Government of Quebec in October 1989, Lebel-sur-Quevillon ranks seventieth.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition which has been certified by the clerk. It is from residents of Calgary Northeast who are opposed to the goods and services tax. Those residents feel that even reducing the taxation to 7 per cent is not acceptable. It is a discriminatory tax, hurting the consumer as well as hurting our trade ability with other countries.
I have a total of 11,000 signature and here are 1,011 more.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in presenting a petition which calls upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax. These people, in this case from the great province of New Brunswick, are like Canadians all over this country, including those from Alberta we just heard from and others we have heard from this morning and for the last many months.
They are saying one and the same thing: "Government, go back to the drawing board. We believe in tax reform, but we believe it ought to be in a form that does not sock it to poorer people".
That is what the goods and services tax is doing, and they are appealing to the good sense of the government back-benchers to reject this particular tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Routine Proceedings
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 149, 180, 190 and 195.


Mr. Whittaker: Has the government any projections of the costs (both personnel and equipment) of administering the changes to the pension adjustment (PA), past service pension adjustment (PSPA) and pension adjustment reversal (PAR) reporting contained in the draft amendments to the Income Tax Act and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Otto John Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Pension Reform will be implemented in stages over a two-year period, provided Parliament approves the handling of PA, PAR and PSPA reporting. The estimated costs for personnel, capital acquisition and operating expenses based on the premise that all facets of Pension Reform become operational by January 1, 1990 are as follows:
	1990/91
(a) Person Year Costs	151
(b) Capital Costs ($000's)	4,814
(c) Operating Costs ($000's)	7,857


Mr. Benjamin: Is the government aware of the studies done by the Department of Finance regarding VIA Rail and referred to by the Minister of Transport during Question Period on June 6, 1989 and, if so (a) what are their titles (b) what was their purpose (c) what conclusions did they reach (d) what methodology did they use?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: The studies referred to by the Honourable Benoit Bouchard, Minister of Transport, on June 6, 1989 are those that were conducted as part of the Budget preparation exercise. Both the studies and methodologies were tabled and released publicly during the last week of April as part of the Budget documents.
They include a five-year fiscal plan and a detailed fiscal strategy for bringing the public debt under control and raising the living standards of Canadians.

January 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The conclusion reached in regard to VIA Rail was that VIA should be expected to adopt a more commercial approach and to operate in a more cost effective manner. VIA was asked to bring forward a business plan which would achieve the objectives set by the government and respect reference levels.


Mr. Milliken: In respect of the publication entitled (a) From Backyards to Borders.federal environmental action in Canada's communities (b) A Decade of Achievement: Environment and Energy Research and Development (c) Toward a Common Future, A Report on Sustainable Development and its Implications for Canada, distributed at the Annual Conference of First Ministers (i) what number were produced in each official language (ii) what were the printing costs of each issue (iii) what were the other costs of production (including any fees paid to writers or photographers) for each issue?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: (a)	From Backyards to Borders
(i)	25,506 English; 10,261 French
(ii)	$40,633.14
(iii)	$20,270
(b)	A Decade of Achievement: Environment and Energy Research & Development
(i)	10,000 bilingual
(ii)	$42,417.92
(iii)	$40,071.96
(c)	Toward a Common Future: A Report on Sustainable Development and its Implications for Canada
(i)	4,830 English; 3,519
(ii)	$22,399.63
(iii)	$38,665.16


Mrs. Gaffney: 1.	Are there tenants leasing public buildings within the National Capital Commission's purview and, if so, what are their names?
2.	Are rents charged on public buildings or other space within the National Capital Commission's purview and, if so, in what amounts?
Hon. Elmer Macintosh MacKay (Minister of Public
Works): The Commission's total tenant list, and all rents charged, are not releasable to the public* due to the following:
The names and addresses of residential tenants, and rents paid by these tenants, fall under the definition of personal information under the Privacy Act. This matter has been referred to the Federal Court.
The Commission is of the opinion that disclosure of rents paid by commercial tenants could prejudice the tenants' competitive position and the Commission's negotiating ability. The Information Commissioner's recommendations on this matter are currently under review by the Commission.
The Member may wish to exercise her rights under the Access to Information Act.
*The Access to Information Act does not differentiate between Members of Parliament and the "general public".


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 177 and 179 could be made Orders for Return, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 177 and 179 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Young (Gloucester): Is the government aware of the difficulties in the fishing industry in Northeast New Brunswick and, if so (a) what will be implemented before next spring (b) what is being considered for that region in terms of (i) emergency employment programs for fishermen and fish plant workers (ii) the development and marketing of new and value-added products and under-utilized species (iii) economic development plans from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which include nonseasonal work (iv) new markets for fish products?
January 23, 1990

Return tabled.


Ms. Mitchell: With respect to grants given out by the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship in 1989 (a) what is the (i) maximum (ii) minimum (iii) average length of time it takes to process funding applications (b) how does this compare with other departments (c) what (i) number (ii) percentage of the applications are given approval for funding (d) what is the (i) name of the recipient (ii) purpose (iii) amount of each grant?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the Order Paper Questions. This is an issue that has been brought to the attention of Mr. Speaker before, but unfortunately I must bring it to the attention of the Speaker today.
I have a question on the Order Paper that dates back to October 30. I recognize that it is a rather lengthy question. Nevertheless, the 45 days permitted under the rules, because this is a 45-day type question pursuant to the Standing Order, have now extended to close to 90 days; in other words, double the length of time. I look for some guidance from the Speaker and the parliamentary secretary to getting a commitment for an answer from the government.
I also bring the following to your attention. Question No. 182 dated November 9 also standing in my name is a relatively short, concise and I think simple question to answer. I think even the government would recognize that it is a very uncomplicated type of question. It has been on the Order Paper since that time.
One of the side effects of this-I draw this to your attention-is the fact that Standing Order 39(4) says that no member shall have more than four questions on the Order Paper at any one time. Because of the fact that we cannot get responses to these questions, I am prevented by the rules of the House from asking new questions. In other words, I cannot place questions on the Order Paper because my spaces are all taken up. They are taken up because the government is not answering the ques-
Routine Proceedings
tions that I placed already and which have been there for some time.
The Clerk of the Journals Branch could easily inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a backlog of questions resting on his desk right now. I am waiting for these questions to be answered in order to be able to pose those new questions which I believe to be of public interest and, in any case, which are my right to ask as a Member of Parliament.
Again, I hope that you would look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. I am looking for your guidance as well as the co-operation of the parliamentary secretary so that we can get answers to these questions and any others that have been on the Order Paper, clearly marked under the 45-day provision, and which have been there for a considerable period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to call upon the parliamentary secretary because I am sure hon. members would not suspect for one moment that he had dreamed up this elaborate plan to keep the hon. member from putting questions on the Order Paper.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that I did not do any such thing. I certainly would not want to in any way impinge on the member's rights and in fact responsibilities and obligations to ask questions.
I do, however, want to say that we have had so far 145 priority questions asked and we have been successful in answering 82.8 per cent of those. Those are the priority questions. With the regular questions, we are presently sitting at 88.7 per cent. We certainly are doing our best to make sure that we answer those as close to the deadlines as we can and, if possible, to exceed them.
In the particular question that my friend refers to, I was not able to lay my hand on that question. If I am not mistaken, it is a very serious question that the member has asked regarding one of the trips that the Prime Minister took. What the member would like to know, among other things, is how many pieces of luggage each member who went on that trip took.
In all fairness, it does take us a fair amount of time to track down individual people to ask them how many pieces of luggage they took, what they took and whether they put it on the plane or whether they carried it on board with them. If the hon. member thinks that is a serious and important question, then I am sorry, but he is

January 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
just going to have to wait for us to take the time to dig out the information that he requests.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, that was not the question that I was referring to. I was referring to Question No. 182.1 referred to Question No. 162 as well. It is the one that is 90 days. Question No. 182 has been there for more than 45 days.
I have just noticed that another question standing in my name has been there since December 6. This one is merely to ask the names of the notaries working for the Federal Business Development Bank. That list should be available in something like 15 minutes. The question has been on the Order Paper in excess of 45 days.
The government has now confessed that one out of eveiy five priority questions is not answered in accordance with the rules. They are deficient close to 20 per cent of the time by the government's own admission. In my case, all of the questions that are on the Order Paper in my name except one have exceeded the 45 days and none of them have been answered yet.


Albert Glen Cooper: First, I want to correct a couple of things. I did not say that 82.8 per cent of the questions were filed on time or responded to on time. I said that 82.8 per cent of those questions have been responded to. There are at the moment a few late and I am quite prepared to concede that. We are on top of those on a regular basis.
If the hon. member is referring to question No. 197, he did not simply ask for the names of the lawyers and the notaries for FBDB, he wanted to know all the fees paid to them and that does take time.
In all fairness, we on this side our best to answer these questions on time. I personally try to make sure that they are answered on time, but when members continue to ask questions that require very detailed responses, that require checking and verifying with a number of individuals and offices, it becomes practically impossible for us to meet the 45 day deadline. We will continue at every occasion to do our best.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty faced by the parliamentary secretary. I know he has
trouble sometimes with the questions asked of him, but he has some statistics. He told us what percentage of questions he had answered. I wonder if he could also tell us the number of 45 day questions that were answered late; in other words, the percentage of the 82 per cent that he has answered that were in fact beyond the 45 day limit. Is it 90 per cent of them or 95 per cent of them? Could he give us that breakdown as well?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not of course want to bring this brilliant debate to a close because these are matters of importance and the number of questions that a member puts on the Order Paper often reflects the diligence of that member. The rule is there to be followed unless there is very good reason why the government cannot manage it in the time.
I appreciate the comment of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that he appreciates the position in which the parliamentary secretary finds himself. I think that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell has made a point and the parliamentary secretary knows that he is being pressed. I am sure that he will pass that message on.
If it is of any help, the parliamentary secretary could also remind those who have to get these answers that the rule, as I have said before, was not put in the book to lie in abeyance or to exist in a vacuum. It is there as a direction to the government and to the bureaucracy to respond as adequately and as quickly as they can to questions which must be deemed serious.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands asks another very detailed and complicated question. I would hope that he could handle that issue on a matter of personal negotiation with the parliamentary secretary because it might take quite a long time to find the answer to the question that he has asked.
I think I will leave it with the parliamentary secretary to do everything he can to obtain from others the kind of co-operation that is in keeping with the spirit of the rule.
Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
January 23, 1990



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed that you skipped over the routine proceedings that call for applications pursuant to Standing Order 52. You were right in calling orders of the day but I would like to make the point that some of us in this House feel that because of yesterday's proceedings, the privileges of some of the members in this House have not in my view been protected by the Standing Orders as they exist today.
The argument that I am going to make is that you received on January 18 last a letter, signed by the hon. member for Beausejour, asking for an emergency debate on the fishing situation, the escalating crisis in the cod, lobster, snow crab, and herring roe fisheries in Atlantic Canada, characterized by numerous shutdowns of fish plants, loss of jobs, and essentially closing entire communities.
That, Mr. Speaker, to us on this side of the House is a very important and very difficult question. We thought at the time that the request under Standing Order 52 was appropriate and should be given due consideration.
Of course we realize that in using Standing Order 52, which is a complex Standing Order, the discretionary decision was yours and we abide by that all the time.
The difficulty yesterday was that the government, in its resistance to having VIA Rail discussed on a motion moved by my friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan to concur in a standing committee report, had the same parliamentary secretary who a few minutes ago said that he would never infringe upon the rights of members of the House of Commons move a dilatory motion.
I put it to him that yesterday he did infringe upon the right of some members of the House of Commons to debate a very, very serious matter, not by his own will or by his own design, but nevertheless the rules are made that way. When he moved that we proceed to Orders of the Day, he thwarted every effort of this House to try to
Point of Order
discuss a very serious and deep concern of many Canadians about the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces.
The arguments that I would like to put to you deal with Standing Order 52 pertaining to emergency debates. I do not want to read the whole section because it is quite extensive, but I want to ask that you consider Standing Order 52(15). I will read that clause which is the last clause of that Standing Order, because I think it is important. It reads this way:
The provisions of this Standing Order shall not be suspended by the operation of any other Standing Order relating to the hours of sitting or in respect of the consideration of any other business; provided that, in cases of conflict, the Speaker shall determine when such other business shall be considered or disposed of and the Speaker shall make any consequential interpretation of any Standing Order that may be necessary in relation thereto.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my point. Yesterday the government decided that in its judgment it did not want to proceed with debate on the motion moved by the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan concerning VIA Rail. The government moved what I would call a dilatory motion. The government short-circuited the whole system. We did not get a chance to reach the point in Routine Proceedings that call for your decision upon an emergency debate asked for in good faith by the member for Beausejour. Therefore, today I thought you would call that item.
You have had the motion since January 18. There is nothing in the Standing Order which says that you had to call it yesterday or today. If something happens, within the rules, that prevents it from being called, we take it then that the Speaker will call it the following day. Now today we find that you did not call it.
I know you did not call it because I was told by the Table that we would have to retable or resubmit the letter. That to me is a bureaucratic decision which I cannot accept. Nothing in the Standing Order says that we must do that. Nothing in the Standing Order says that you must resubmit an emergency debate request.
An emergency debate is something that happens that day or happens that week or happens in that period. The emergency is still there. Why do we have to go through this rigmarole repeating the process of resubmitting a letter which calls for an emergency debate when indeed section 15 of Standing Order 52 gives it, in my judgment, authority to decide any interpretation of those rules.

January 23, 1990
Point of Order
I appeal to you, in the interest of parliamentary order and in the interest of getting this debate before the House, that you reconsider the decision not to go to Standing Order 52 today, as is called for in our Standing Orders on Routine Proceedings.
I would like to state in conclusion that my fear is that the government with its majority could at any time that it knows that there is an emergency and that there is likely to be a debate, because we sometimes advise the government that we are going to want to discuss a specific issue, could render this Standing Order absolutely useless when, during Routine Proceedings a member of the government has the floor and moves that we proceed to Government Orders. I find that a bit difficult to accept.
The government will use its majority to prevent debate on a very important question put to the House by a member of this House. In other words, any time the government wants to use its majority to thwart the process and avoid discussing an emergency, it could move that we proceed to Government Orders. In my view, that would not be in keeping with what I would call democratic process and I would object strongly to that procedure.
Therefore, I plead with you to reconsider the decision not to call motions under Standing Order 52 in Routine Proceedings as is normally done and to ask that the letter tabled by the member for Beausejour be considered today and a judgment made on his request for an emergency debate on the fisheries situation in the Atlantic provinces.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief on this issue. I think it is an important issue. I think all members of the House would recognize that members have a right to raise an issue that they feel is an emergency requiring a special debate and I think we ought to keep in mind, too, we are just returning for a session of Parliament and in that spirit, I think we want to maintain as co-operative and friendly an atmosphere as we can.
I think we all appreciate the government's decision to call for a vote as a result of a concurrence motion yesterday. The government had two choices as I see it. One was to move that we proceed directly to Government Orders, which the government did. Another alternative would have simply been that the present debate now adjourn and we move back into Routine Proceedings.
We had some discussion, as a matter of fact, between myself and the parliamentary secretary and we recognized that these were two options. The government chose one. As a result of that action, we were not able to get to the point in Routine Proceedings where hon. members could raise their cases calling for emergency debates on the Rafferty-Alameda Dam environmental situation, the situation in Ethiopia and the crisis in the east coast fishery.
Rather than argue whether or not we can interpret Standing Order 52 in such a way that would permit us to raise those questions now, could we not simply agree unanimously in the spirit of co-operation that at this point we allow those members who have submitted letters indicating their intention to rise and make a case for an emergency debate to have an opportunity to do so and get on with the agenda and the business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that other hon. members may wish to rise. Perhaps I can keep them from going through extensive argument by commenting on the application.
First of all, this matter may be resolved very easily today. Because we have to make a decision about this quickly, I do not want to give an incautious response.
Without definitively saying what the rule calls for, we should remember we have on the floor of the House now notice of only one application. It is the custom of the Chair not to comment on any other applications that the Chair receives until the member filing the application actually rises in his or her place. I know hon. members will understand that. In view of the fact that both the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Kamloops have indicated that there were a number of applications yesterday, I think I can refer to those applications as the applications that I received yesterday.
As it turned out, the government did move for Orders of the Day so it was not possible for me to rule on those applications. That could have been easily remedied perhaps without any need for argument if the applications had been refiled today.
January 23, 1990

In the event that there is some concern among members as to just exactly how this rule ought to be interpreted, I will go away and give it some consideration. In the meantime, it may be that as the hon. member for Kamloops has suggested that I deem the applications to be in front of me, I can only do that, of course, with the consent of the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I make a couple of points, the first one being that when I moved the motion yesterday, and I did move the motion that we move to Orders of the Day, it was not in any way my intention to cut off emergency debates. In all fairness, had the opposition advised me that they had made an application for such a debate, I am sure we would have been able to co-operate and to accommodate them in some fashion.
I want to say also, without in any way establishing a precedent, I have no problem and on our side we would be willing to accept the recommendation of my hon. friend from Kamloops, the House Leader of the NDP, in that those notices which were given yesterday, notice or notices, I am not sure what you are dealing with, being treated as though they were refiled again today, as long as that does not establish a precedent, and also does not in any way reflect on the government's opinion as to whether or not those particular issues in fact do represent an emergency.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell may have a point that I have omitted, and I will hear him.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a brief point to add to something that has been said, to ask the Speaker to consider one other element when Mr. Speaker makes his definitive ruling on the interpretation of Standing Order 52 and it is the following.
My colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, has described to Mr. Speaker why he believes that indeed today or at the immediate opportunity on the next day, there should be no need to refile and I accept that point. I wanted to make one further point. I wonder if the Speaker could consider as well whether it would have been appropriate yesterday, as a matter of fact
Government Orders
immediately after the vote to move to Orders of the Day, to deal with the issue.
I say this for the following reason, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying it was the motivation this time, but any government could in the future, if the Speaker's ruling today remains unchallenged, utilize the procedure of moving to Orders of the Day in order to stop the opposition from proposing to Mr. Speaker that pursuant to Standing Order 52, we have an adjournment debate. In fact, the government may have developed this tool now by accident. I am not saying it will use it, but the precedent would nevertheless be there.
If the Speaker could consider that immediately after such a vote were taken, if there were a similar vote taken in the future to move to Orders of the Day, that that vote not prevent the Speaker from ruling immediately after on the application under Section 52. That is the point that I wanted to make.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of hon. members. I think we have an arrangement in the House, at least at the moment, and I will deem that the applications are in front of me and I will deal with them at three o'clock this afternoon.
I want to say to hon. members that whatever remarks I have said or any remarks that anybody else has said here today do not stand as any kind of a precedent. I will consider the issue and come back to it. But I think it is fair to comment, and especially for the public watching, that if this were a skilful ploy, the House Leader has made it very clear today that he is not proceeding with that intent. I think the public should know that this matter at least for today has been resolved by agreement between the parties and I thank the hon. member for Kamloops for his suggestion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-52, an Act to amend the Income lax Act and related Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1990
Government Orders
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-52.11 suppose when you are looking at legislation and who benefits from the legislation you should send a very clear message. Those people whose incomes are in excess of $85,000 a year and those people who have $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 cash at the end of the year to set aside for whatever reason ought to be very happy with this government at this point because this legislation is tailored for all of those people whose incomes are in excess of $85,000 or those people who have $10,000 to $15,000 cash lying around at the end of the year to invest in some way.
We are talking about a very select group of Canadians. This legislation is aimed at probably less than 1 per cent of Canadians. The government plans that in its concerns with everything happening in Canada, we now should spend some weeks in the House of Commons debating how to assist those in the upper-income brackets whose incomes are $85,000 and more.
This is occurring at a time when in excess of 1 million people are living in poverty and nearly 1 million people are jobless. There is also an unquestionable crisis in Atlantic Canada and a farm bankruptcy crisis throughout the whole country, particularly in western Canada. There is also a collapsing west coast fishing industry and there are plant closures in all parts of the country, particularly in the industrial heartland of Canada.
In spite of all these issues that are crucial, which in some cases we have all agreed are actually in a crisis situation, the government says it wants to spend some time and help those people who need special assistance, those whose incomes are in excess of $85,000 per year. It reminds us of what the Conservative government's agenda is all about.
We do not spend any time talking about the forest industry. With all due respect to my friend, the minister of forests, who is in the House today and is very concerned about forestry, his cabinet colleagues may not share his same devotion and interest. Do we talk about forestry and the concerns of forestry? No. Do we talk about the concerns of the mining industry? No. Do we talk about the crisis in agriculture? No. Do we talk about the crisis in our export trade? No. Do we talk about the plight being faced by native peoples? No.
We do not talk about the issues facing this country. We are going to talk about assisting those people whose incomes are in excess of $85,000 a year, as if they needed any help. This is absolutely incredible and very embarrassing. I do not know how there are any government members sitting here today who are not just running out and having a cup of coffee to get of here so they do not have to listen to this. How can they seriously proceed here knowing what is going on? Let me get into some details.
Let me first make a slight comment about this legislation that is going to assist the wealthy in the country.
In 1982, the Liberal government carried out a task force on pension reform. It was very critical, very important and was done very seriously. It went across the country, had input and came up with a reasonable report, up to a point. We had to submit, of course, a usual minority statement because there were many parts of it that we did not agree with. The one part we did not agree with most emphatically is what we are dealing with today.
The report suggested that the government introduce legislation as it has done today. But the government has switched from being Liberals to Tories.
In the budget of 1984 introduced by the finance minister of the day, Marc Lalonde, he introduced legislation at that time which is exactly the same as the legislation we are debating today. Perhaps the Liberal mindset has changed since 1984. Perhaps the Liberal view of pension reform has changed. When listening to some of the speeches yesterday, that is one conclusion that I must draw. I can draw others but let us forget that. It is history now. It looks like the Liberals have changed their tune and are also now concerned with what this is going to do in terms of being unprogressive legislation in this country.
This is an appropriate time to deal with so-called pension reform because we all recognize that the population of Canada is aging, that there are problems in terms of people having adequate incomes in their retirement years. We recognize that many senior citizens in this country find themselves living in poverty, in many cases very serious situations of poverty, particularly elderly single women of which there are literally hundreds of thousands living in poverty. Yet this legisla-
January 23, 1990

tion does absolutely nothing that is going to be of any help, assistance or encouragement to those people.
If you are a wealthy senior citizen, or a wealthy person who will soon retire, this is great news because this bill is going to help the wealthiest in Canada at the expense of the poorest. This is dastardly legislation when you consider that fact. Not only is it going to help those who are very wealthy, it is going to harm those who are at the lower end of the income scale.
Let me be specific. By 1995, when the full force of this legislation will be in effect, those people whose incomes are $86,000 will get a tax benefit of $15,000 and a cash benefit of about $7,500. That is a super deal, using the tax system to avoid paying taxes. Of course, when the wealthy do not pay their fair share, we know who has to pay more than their fair share and it is the average working people in this country, once again.
This becomes interesting. Today, if your income is $20,000, you can contribute up to $4,000 to a registered retirement savings plan. However, when this legislation takes effect, by 1995, if you are earning $20,000, you cannot contribute $4,000 into the RRSP, you can only contribute $3,600. This means that those people at the lower end of the income spectrum will be receiving less benefits than they do today and those fortunate folks at the upper income levels will be receiving a much greater benefit than they do today under the present legislation. It just adds to the old theme, the rich get much richer under the Conservative government, and the poor and the middle class gets squeezed once again.
How often do we get squeezed? There is a lot of talk today about this goods and services tax that is going to literally rip the life out of a good part of the country and a good part of Canadians. The other day I went through the list of all the federal tax increases. In the last 12 months the Conservative Government of Canada has increased taxes in 31 different areas, to say nothing about the big goods and services hammer that is about to fall. In 12 months they found 31 different areas where they have raised federal taxes.
That is the theme, but now they say that somebody has to get a tax break in this country. Someone has to get some benefit from the Conservatives being in office.
Government Orders
Someone has to get a tax benefit, and who is that going to be? Is it the poor and the lower income people? No. Is it the middle income earner? No. Is it the very wealthy? Ah! That's it, the very wealthy in Canada are going to get a real tax bonanza as a result of this.
This really has nothing to do with pension reform. This has more to do with the Conservative tax reform package because this is all about allowing upper income earners, if you like, to avoid paying income tax. It has nothing to do with helping people with pensions.
If we were serious about helping people with their pensions, we would have introduced legislation that would assist the portability aspect of pensions. Does this legislation have anything to do with pension portability in this country? No, it does not. Does this legislation have anything to do with the fact that 90 per cent of the private pension plans have no indexation built into them? No, it has nothing to do with that.
Does this have anything to do with homemakers' pensions? No, it has nothing to do with that. Is there any element in this bill that would allow those men and women who must remain at home raising children or perhaps caring for elderly or disabled to have a chance for a pension upon retirement? No, not a word.
The only word is that if you are wealthy in this country, you are going to get a tax break on top of all of the tax breaks you already get. That is what this is all about. This is Conservative tax reform, reform of the tax system to help those in the upper income brackets. That has become perfectly clear.
This is going to cost the Canadian government a lot of money. When you give tax breaks to upper income earners, tax money does not come into the federal treasury. That means working Canadians will have to pay more tax. But when you add it up, how much is it going to cost? It depends on which witness you listen to. Some say $500 million a year, some say $350 million a year. The lowest figure I have heard is that it is going to cost $300 million a year. I think the short and long of it is that no one knows for sure, so it is somewhere between $300 and $500 million. That is half a billion dollars that it is going to cost the people of Canada to assist these people in the upper income brackets.

January 23, 1990
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, knowing the kind of person you are, I would suggest that it would make more sense to you, if we are going to lose at least $350 million, to take that money and give it to those people, particularly those single, retired elderly women, most of whom are living below the poverty line. We could give every one of them an extra $30 a month.
It may not sound like much to some people, but when you are on that kind of pension, living in poverty, an extra $30 a month would be very welcome. It would make a tremendous difference in the the kind of lives that they have. But, oh no, the government cannot afford that. The government cannot afford to give poor, elderly, retired women an extra $30 a month. But it can afford to give a nice little windfall by allowing those whose incomes are in excess of $86,000 to avoid paying tax on $15,000 or, in other words, a cash benefit of about $7,500. That the government can afford.
Therein lies the Conservative government agenda. Therein lies the theme of what it means to have a Conservative government in Canada. The very wealthy and privileged benefit, the poor become poorer and the middle-class become squeezed more and more in terms of taxes that they must pay and, as a result, their earning power is lessened.
Not only is this unfair to working Canadians, and particularly those Canadians who are at the lower income levels, but it is also unfair to women directly. We recognize from the statistics now available that in 1986 women only earned 57 per cent of what men earned. In other words, on balance women are paid a lot less, which means they have a lot less money at the end of the year to set aside to put into an RRSP, if they have any in savings. I wonder how many people who might be watching or listening today or reading Hansard know of women whose incomes are in excess of $86,000 a year. I think you would have to look long and hard to find those few select women in the country whom this is really going benefit.
I see my friend of long-standing, the chairman of the finance committee, is here. I suspect he is going to stand up shortly and explain why it is so important that those at the upper-income levels receive more tax benefits. He will tell us that if they do not have to pay any income tax,
then they will invest in more things and they will buy more and they will help the economy. Well, that is his view of the world, it certainly is not mine.
Let me go on and show you how this is unfair to women. Of those contributing to registered retirement savings plans last year, it turned out that 61 per cent were men and 39 per cent were women. In other words, almost twice as many men take advantage of this rather lucrative tax loophole. Again, obviously there is a bias against women. Sixteen per cent of women tax filers use the RRSP contribution option and 24 per cent of men tax filers use the RRSP contribution. Statistically it becomes clear that it is men, upper income earners, that take advantage of this tax provision, significantly more than women. In a very indirect way there is a real bias against enabling women to provide for their retirement years.
Also in many cases this is biased against small and medium-sized businesses that are trying to establish company pension plans for their employees, because many of them see these now rather lucrative opportunities in terms of the tax loophole system that the Conservative government has introduced and prefer to remove themselves from company pension plans and take advantage of these lucrative opportunities, making it difficult for the small business sector to provide for the employees' retirement.
It was rather funny and I guess we all had a laugh when the government introduced this legislation yesterday. We expected the Minister of Finance to stand up and introduce it because the bill is obviously a piece of legislation to change the tax system to benefit upper income earners. But who was it who introduced the legislation and represented the government? The Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) introduced the legislation, which again betrays the real agenda which is, rather than focus on the Canada Pension Plan and improve that, rather than focus on old age security and improve that, the government is moving towards more privatization of the pension system.
Why would this surprise anybody? We need simply recall that not too many years ago the very first thing the Conservative government tried to do when it became the government was to reduce pensions. That is the very first
January 23, 1990

thing it tried to do. Remember that? I know the chairman of the finance committee remembers those days.


Mr. Boyer:: Partial deindexing is not a reduction of pensions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend is yelling at me. Let me be more precise. The newly elected Tory government of Canada decided that rather than allow seniors to keep up with inflation, rather than allow seniors to get their regular annual increase, it was going to cap it. In other words, it was going to stop senior citizens from getting what they rightfully deserve each year. They are going to fall behind in terms of purchasing power which is a very real way of cutting the pensions that they would normally have received.
Pensioners across the country rose up and said, "We're not going to take this nonsense from a cruel, abusive government." Enough of them contacted members of Parliament so finally the Prime Minister said, "We can't take this heat. We're going to back off." Then they came in and said, "Listen, we can't have all the senior citizens in Canada getting old age security. If you have saved and planned ahead and scrimped your whole life and planned well for your retirement years, we're not going to give you any pension. We're going to claw it back." That is the terminology that the Minister of Finance used; "We're going to claw back pensions from senior citizens if you provided thoughtfully for your retirement years." TTiey said, "We've got to do this because of the deficit problem."
If the government is going to do that because of the deficit problem, why is it going to give half a billion dollars to the upper income earners of Canada through this legislation? We have to think, "Why are they doing this?" Obviously, the government does not really care about the deficit or else it would not be giving away this freebie to upper income earners.
There was something else and, of course, it was an abandonment of universality. If we can abandon universality when it comes to pensions as they abandon universality when it comes to family allowance, we can then turn this country into a charity country where people have to come and make the case if they are poor enough to get a pension, that they are poor enough to qualify for family allowance. That is the kind of charity, on your knees begging society that we associate with the Conservative government. That is where we are moving.
Government Orders
If the deficit is so serious I hope that the members opposite, when they make their speeches in the next few days on this legislation, will explain why they feel we should be sending $1 billion to the most wealthy of Canadian citizens.
There is so much more to say. Let me simply conclude by looking at statistics that the government has provided about those people who file for RRSP deductions in their tax returns. Hardly any of those people who are low income earners making $10,000 to $15,000 a year in total income use RRSPs. I would say virtually none. However, most people in the $50,000 to $60,000 bracket use RRSPs. Of those who are earning well, particularly the upper income earners, almost all use this tax loophole. Of the low income people, virtually no one uses the tax loophole.
Let us be honest now. This legislation is designed for a very select, specific, privileged group in our society, those people who earn good incomes, and particularly those people earning incomes over $86,000 a year.
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the New Democratic Party has given us a number of reasons why this bill ought to spend some considerable time being studied by committee; because of the tax deferral nature of the bill and because it is probably one of the most complicated pieces of legislation to come before the House for as very long period of time.
In that regard he will know that both the Liberal party and the government wanted the matter to come to the finance committee but for some reason the New Democratic Party decided it would like the matter to be filibustered in the House for awhile and then go to a legislative committee where there really would be no opportunity, under the rules, for a complete analysis of the nature and quality of the tax deferral system.
I was wondering why he would want to handle the matter in that fashion. Would he not agree with me that this bill ought to have very thorough consideration and ought to be subject to witnesses from various associations such as the Canadian Teachers' Association who are upset about the nature of this kind of legislation because, as he may know, it minimizes their potential pensions.

January 23, 1990
Government Orders
Would he not be interested in the problem that this legislation minimizes the transfer from one tax deferral scheme to another? Would he not want that very complicated financial legislation analysed in such a way where the committee could employ independent actuarial help? It cannot do that under the standing orders governing a legislative committee.
I was wondering why he had in mind taking the position he has taken so far in this debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question by the chairman of the finance committee.
He said at the beginning of his remarks that the opposition is filibustering this debate. We have had five or six speeches, from 295 members of Parliament, on what he describes as incredibly important legislation that has financial implications that are very significant and that will touch the lives of millions of people. He is saying that we are filibustering because five members of Parliament have wanted to discuss this matter.
That betrays an attitude that concerns me. It betrays an attitude of the government that says that any debate, any discussion, any examination, any analysis is too much, and for most of its policy I can understand why it would not want any examination or study. We saw that with the goods and services tax. They went to my own province of British Columbia and said, "This is going to affect the lives of every British Columbian for years and decades and we are going to allow about eight hours of hearings in British Columbia so that a handful of people could appear before the finance committee." That is their idea of input and discussion and consultation. It is an abuse of this place and the traditions associated with it.
Having said that, I am just registering my concern because we have seen this from time to time. When a matter is referred to a committee the government uses its muscle in terms of its majority and we see the tyranny of the majority say, "We don't need any witnesses, we are going to ramrod this legislation through and we will use our majority muscle to do that", and the opposition parties are simply cut out.
That is not the way Parliament is supposed to work, but unfortunately that is the way the Conservative government has worked too often.
My hon. friend has indicated today in the House of Commons that if this matter is referred to the finance
committee it will have an opportunity to hear an appropriate number of witnesses, that it will take considerable time to analyse all of the implications involved. That probably takes a number of days of discussion beyond the witnesses. And my hon. friend nods in agreement.
I realize that a considerable amount of expertise exists on the finance committee. I recognize that my hon. friend for Yorkton-Melville has worked on that committee and on this piece of legislation. My hon. colleague for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt will be participating. I feel confident, recognizing their contributions to this legislation and to the debate so far, that their contributions, along with those of appropriate witnesses, would be best. I am certainly prepared, on behalf of my caucus, to say that with those assurances of adequate witnesses, adequate time spent and adequate resource people being involved, we would have no difficulty in seeing this go to the Standing Committee on Finance.
I want to make it clear that I understand that my hon. colleague for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has communicated with my hon. friend, the chairman of the finance committee, and indicated our concerns and I understand that he is prepared to agree that all of these terms be met. If that is the case, we would have no hesitation in sending this piece of legislation to the appropriate committee which is the finance committee.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kamloops has made a very able speech and I congratulate him on his presentation. He speaks with great clarity and obviously he feels strongly on this subject. But I want to give him a chance to correct something on the record because I know he would not want to mislead either the House or Canadians by his suggestion in his speech dealing with the tax bonanza that he suggests is reaped by those who take advantage of the RRSP deduction, even in its existing form, let alone in the expanded version that the government is proposing in this bill.
I think he is aware that registered retirement savings plans represent deferral of tax. The person who makes the claim for the deduction pays no tax on the money but the money then goes into a special fund and is taxed when it comes out of that fund and is received by the person who put it in. In other words, it is a deferral of tax on that income which is allowed to grow in that fund. The depositor is hopeful that by retirement the fund is quite large. As the money is paid out to the recipient, the
January 23, 1990

person who created the fund, it is then taxed in that person's hands.
I would not want the hon. member to suggest that this is a complete tax bonanza for the well-to-do. The money will be taxed eventually, I think he will admit that. I just did not want to leave the record blemished in that respect. I know that the hon. member was not trying to suggest that this was a complete saving of tax. I think he is, in effect, acknowledging it is a deferral and I just want him to clarify that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that there is a point there to clarify. Let me make it very clear that when you have a tax concession that benefits fewer than 1 per cent of the people of Canada, who happen to be the most privileged group in the country as per our tax system anyway, perhaps tax bonanza is not the best term. I suppose "an exceptionally good deal for the wealthiest of Canada" would be a more appropriate phrase.
I think that if my hon. friend was to ask his tax accountant or his tax adviser, having deferred all of these taxes for perhaps many years, at a time, I might add, when your income will probably be less than it is today and consequently you would be paying tax at a lesser rate-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Unless I am clawed back.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unless you are clawed back, yes. There are ways and means of perhaps moving to a different jurisdiction for your retirement years. Having deferred taxes for a number years you might find that a relocation for your retirement years to a certain country would enable you to not only receive the income which you have deferred, but pay no taxes on that income as well.
I am just saying that by using creative accounting and creative tax planning those people who are most able to afford that kind of advice may find ways and means of actually avoiding paying tax completely. I think the point is well taken. Perhaps it was not as clear as I could have made it, but I am glad to have had a chance to clarify the point I was making; perhaps not a tax bonanza, but an incredibly good tax deal for those who need it least.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: The hon. member for Mississauga on a point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Normally, the opposition speaks, then the government speaks. The government has not had an opportunity to speak on this bill for some time. The bill has been carried by the opposition. I was wondering whether my hon. friend would allow me to make a very short intervention right now, largely so that the members of the New Democratic Party would be able to ask me some questions in the ten-minute question period allowed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: I do not consider that a point of order and I call on the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James on debate.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, normally I would have acquiesced, I would have acceded to that request, but I am already late for lunch with a certain gentleman from the Montreal area who has great aspirations for this country. I am going to have to try to explain why I am already late for lunch. But normally I certainly would have acceded to the request.
I am delighted to take part in this debate on Bill C-52. I particularly enjoy rising after the presentation by the hon. member for Kamloops. After all, he is very articulate and very good on his feet. He is a smart fellow and I particularly enjoyed the exchange between the hon. member for Kamloops and the chairman of the House of Commons finance committee.
I must say that I was taken aback a little by the chairman's comments about desiring further examination, a detailed analysis of Bill C-52.1 think that is a very good idea because, after all, this is an extremely complex bill and it will have an impact on thousands and thousands of Canadians. But I am compelled to ask whether some kind of a change has come over the chairman of the House of Commons committee and all government members? They have not exhibited a great desire in this Parliament for a detailed analysis of anything. In fact, what government in the history of Parliament has used closure more than this government? What government

January 23, 1990
Government Orders
has used the time allocation measure more than this government? What government has choked off public hearings, presentations and briefing on certain issues more than this government?
Right now we have a committee of the Senate visiting Atlantic Canada. It is doing that because this government has not allowed public expression and presentations with respect to the unemployment insurance issue. So I must say that I am a little surprised when I hear the chairman of the House of Commons finance committee making this strong pitch for analysis. But maybe it is a genuine change and if so I welcome it.
I do want to see Bill C-52 go to a committee, be it a legislative committee or a standing committee. I want it to go to a committee as soon as possible because there is a lot of work and study to be done here. This is a very complex and technical bill. As I said, it is going to have an impact on thousands and thousands of Canadians. We need the public input.
I got some idea of how Canadians feel about this when we Liberal members from Manitoba held day long hearings on proposed possible pension reforms last summer. We were deluged. People really care about this kind of an issue because it permeates our lives. We work for a certain time and then, if we are lucky and if we have good health, we retire and go on pension. We need a kind of income that will support us with some kind of dignity. Hopefully, most of us will have a standard of living that is not that far removed from the kind of standard of living we had when we were working.
I want to see this bill examined as thoroughly as possible. I would hope that if it does indeed go to a legislative committee, as I would expect, that the government majority would not use its majority to choke off briefings, to choke off presentations. Let us get a good airing out of this issue. Let us hear from Canadians because I know that they have a lot to say.
I would like to enter into the record in a few minutes a letter that I received from a constituent which deals with a particular provision in Bill C-52. But I will get to that in a moment.
I think that what I want to say now, and it is all part and parcel of this particular debate on Bill C-52, has to do with how Canadians feel about their federal government right now, how Canadians feel about their country as a whole. You know, Mr. Speaker, I, like the rest of the
294 MPs in this House, have just come off the Christmas-New Year break, if you can call it a break. I think most of us worked out of our riding offices.
During that break we had the opportunity to listen and to hear from a lot of constituents. The message that I get when I talk to constituents is that something has gone wrong in this country, something is amiss. They use that old expression, "There is something rotten in Denmark". You can change the name Denmark to Canada.
I think that there is a growing number of Canadians who are feeling and saying that there is something wrong in this country. We are on the wrong tracks. We are going in the wrong direction. Things are beginning to unravel. They are coming apart. We are beginning to lose the institutions that we worked so darn hard for some many years to build up, institutions that have served this country for so long and so well and we now see them coming apart at the seams.
Canadians are not stupid. They are not stupid. They are very astute. They can see it. They tell us that over and over again. They have not got a full grasp of it all yet, but they are getting there. I think they are getting right down to the nub of it.
I say to the members on the other side, if they are not listening, and listening very closely, they are going to find themselves in deep, deep trouble. Maybe a lot of us would not really care about those people on that side being in deep, deep trouble, but we all care about our country.
This government was not elected to carry out some kind of revolution, and I mean that sincerely. This government was not elected to carry out a revolution. But what do we see?
We see the decimation of VIA Rail. Were the government members elected to decimate VIA Rail? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. I do not remember them saying much about doing away with 51 per cent of the routes. They did not say anything like that back in the 1988 election campaign.
What did they say about the GST? They did not say a heck of a lot, did they, back in the election campaign? They talked about what? The second phase of tax reform. Some tax reform! It is not tax reform at all. It is a tax grab. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? This government was not elected to impose this kind of monstrous tax grab. It was not elected to bring in the clawback. It was not elected to attack seniors in that particular way.
January 23, 1990

Its members did not do it. They did not say that during the election campaign, but they have done it.
They were not elected to make those changes to the unemployment insurance scheme, those changes which are going to have such horrendous effects on Atlantic Canada in particular.
This government was not elected to wreck the fishery, despite the fact that the Prime Minister says there is no crisis in Atlantic Canada. Well, there is a crisis in Atlantic Canada. You cannot separate the fishery from the rest of the economy in Atlantic Canada. If there is a crisis in the fishery in Atlantic Canada, then there is a crisis right across Atlantic Canada. It is as plain as the noses on our faces.
This government was not elected to unravel or to tear apart rural Canada. All you have to do is go back to my home country, whether it is the province of Manitoba, or the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta and you can see how rural Canada is coming apart. This government has to address many of those issues.
As I said, this government was not elected to carry out some kind of a revolution. It was elected to be pragmatic, realistic and responsible and to deal with the issues of the day and not to proceed along some right-wing agenda, to proceed along some ideological path. That is not what this Conservative government was elected for. Canadians are practical people. They are realistic people. They are pragmatic people. They are responsible people. That is what they want the government to do, not this silly nonsense the government has embarked on ever since the beginning of this Parliament.
I want to deal with a couple of provisions in Bill C-52. I think that the complexities and the technicalities of the bill should be left to the committee. I think we MP's should be dealing with the politics of the bill and the politics of the issues around this bill.
There is the matter of the roll-over of pension income into RRSPs that will not be allowed any more under this bill. This is going to have an impact on a number of senior citizens. It is something that they have become accustomed to over the past few years, and now they are going to lose it. They are going to feel it. I have had a
Government Orders
number of calls and a number of letters with respect to this particular provision.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record one of the letters that I received just the other day. As I say, the letter is from a constituent. It goes like this:
Dear Mr. Harvard:
I would like to bring to your attention a predicament that the recent legislation prohibiting monthly pension payments to be transferred to RRSP's has put me into. I am now being forced to withdraw my Federal Government pension allowance (at age 57) when the intention was to withdraw my pension funds at a pensionable age. The situation is as follows:
I want to read this letter because I think it pretty well sums up the kind of predicament this gentleman is in. I am sure there are a lot of other Canadians who find themselves in the same kind of situation. The letter continues:
In July 1962, I joined the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Treatment Branch as a Clinical Chemist-at Deer Lodge Hospital in Winnipeg.
That is in my riding, by the way.
Negotiations to transfer the hospital from Federal to Provincial jurisdiction were completed in 1982 and the transfer was effective April 1, 1983. In preparation for the transfer all positions in the hospital were reviewed to determine whether the new facility required all these positions to carry out its objectives. Positions no longer required were termed "surplus" and my position as clinical chemist became "surplus".
In the months preceding transfer, all employees were counselled by Federal Government Employees from Ottawa as to their rights and advised regarding any decisions to be made. In my case, the major decision was what to do with my superannuation. I was aged 51 years at the time, too young to receive an annuity (an unreduced pension) and had to choose between receiving an allowance (a reduced pension due to age or length of service) or deferring my annuity until of pension age. Upon the advice of the counsellor-
I should add the interjection that this counsellor worked for the federal government.
Upon the advice of the counsellor I chose to receive the allowance (with a 45 per cent reduction due to my age) and transfer it directly to an RRSP. The reason for doing so was that a deferred annuity while not increasing would pay only 6 per cent interest while RRSP funds would probably grow at a higher rate of interest and not be subject to tax as income until retirement age. I have continued to transfer my monthly pension allowance to RRSP until now when I am being forced to

Government Orders
withdraw it, add it to my current income and pay a high income tax rate
on it.
I will not read the other paragraphs of the letter. I think you get the gist of the man's grievance.
What the man in effect is saying is that he sort of bought into a deal. He bought into a deal or a bargain. He negotiated with the government and thought he was doing it honourably. He decided that it was in his best interests to retire early, take an early pension and roll over the pension moneys into an RRSP. That was the plan.
The other party to this deal, if I can call it that, was the federal government. He finds now that the federal government, in essence, has decided to unilaterally change the deal. He will not be able to do this any more. This constituent feels aggrieved. He feels that something is just not right. I think it is an issue that the committee is going to have to look at very seriously. It is a microcosm of the larger issue, the larger issue being whether government can change some of these schemes after certain solemn promises have been made in years past.
For example, many Canadians back in the fifties and sixties were contributing to the old age pension plan. You will recall contributions to the old age pension plan came directly out of your tax payments. I think at that time Canadians thought that by paying into an old age pension plan they would get it all. They felt that was part of the bargain. It is similar to buying life insurance. If the life insurance company promises you $1,000 a month, that is what you are going to get. The value of $1,000 may not be as much when you finally get the money but it will be $1,000.
I think there are Canadians who feel that something has gone wrong with the system. I think this issue in particular has to be looked at very seriously when this bill goes to the legislative committee.
Another thing I wanted to mention was the other provision which reduces the amount that can be contributed to an RRSR Up until now it has been 20 per cent of earnings. Now that is going to be reduced to 18 per cent. Take the ordinary working person who may be making $25,000 a year. It is going to hurt that particular worker. This is another provision of Bill C-52 which should be explored very seriously when it goes before the committee.
I hope the Conservatives listen to the chairman of the House of Commons committee very seriously when he says that he wants a detailed and comprehensive analysis. That is exactly what this bill will get because it needs it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Malpeque.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James. I was particularly interested in a letter which he read into the record that he received from one of his constituents concerning the roll over of monthly pension into the RRSR I am just wondering how widespread this problem is in Canada. I would like to ask the hon. member if he has heard from other constituents on this matter. I would like him to comment on that.


John Harvard: I thank the hon. member from Malpeque for that question, Mr. Speaker. I say that because in my opinion this problem is quite widespread. I have heard from a number of constituents on this very issue.
Let me just tell you about one particular call I received from a woman who identified herself as 66 years of age, single and on pension. I do not remember how long she has been on pension, but she has had this privilege of taking the pension money and rolling it over into an RRSR Now she cannot do that.
I asked her the question: "You are a woman of 66 already on pension, why would you want to roll your pension money over? Why would you not just want to spend it? Why would you want to put it into an RRSP which is a form of saving?". I thought her answer was quite revealing. She said: "I want to put it into an RRSR I want to save it. I want to put it away for the future because I do not know what the future holds. I do not know whether the pension benefits I now receive will be good enough to meet the cost of living five or ten years down the road". She asked the question: "What if I live to age 80 or 85, will my pension be good enough? Will it be plentiful enough to meet the cost of living when I reach that age?" I think that is a veiy legitimate concern on her part.
These people do not want to go on welfare. They do not want to be a burden on anybody else. They want to stand on their own two feet. If that means that they can put a little bit of money aside now, even if it is pension money, they want to do that because there is that so-called rainy day. They want to be ready for that rainy day. I think that woman is typical of responsible Cana-
January 23, 1990

dians who are thinking about the future, who are thinking about tomorrow. We should have a lot of time for people like that.
When Bill C-52 goes before the committee those are the kinds of issues we should be addressing. These people are not crackpots. These are solid Canadian citizens with legitimate concerns. They are not greedy. They are not self-centred. They just want to conduct their lives in a very responsible way. Of course, and it is understandable, they do not want to see their standard of living decrease. All they have to do is look around and see the cost of living, inflation and the rise in taxes. The cost of living is going up all the time. It is a legitimate concern they have.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, just a comment on the reference that the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James made to the way in which the government is breaking the deal which was implicitly struck with many pensioners who retired with a certain understanding of what would be available to them when they retired, whether it was in the way of RRSP options, or for that matter the OAS.
I rise to comment on this because I recall when the Conservatives were in opposition they made a very big deal out of any actions by the Liberal government of that day which, in their judgment, were seen to be unilateral changes in what they understood to be agreements between the business community and the government.
I remember a great many Conservative members of Parliament being exceedingly indignant about the fact that the Liberal government of the day would abrogate certain tax agreements or other agreements that might be in place. This was regarded as a heinous crime by the opposition Conservatives at that time. Yet, in government, they seem to have no qualms whatever about breaking unilaterally longstanding agreements, longstanding understandings, that have existed between Canadian citizens and the government with respect to old age pensions, with respect to RRSPs, with respect to unemployment insurance, with respect to federal support for health care and post-secondary education-with respect to any number of things that affect the lives of
average Canadians. This government has had no qualms in acting unilaterally to violate longstanding agreements between the Canadian people and their government.
I find it hypocritical in the extreme that the government members should be so willing to do this while not so long ago they made a career out of criticizing unilateral government action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: Do I have unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bird):: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.51 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, today another American cruise missile is being tested in the Canadian north. Northerners have repeatedly expressed their opposition to this testing. We protest again today.
Northern opposition to these tests is long standing and consistent. Both the legislatures of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have passed resolutions opposing continued cruise missile testing over northern lands, waters and communities.
A growing number of Canadians view the continued testing of these missiles in this country as being inconsistent with recent improvements in the climate of international peace and security.
Positive developments in central and eastern Europe have opened up opportunities for western peace initiatives. Canada can make a valuable contribution to steadily improving east-west relations by rejecting further cruise missile testing over our north.

January 23, 1990


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, every year since 1985 this government has been promising a disaster program for farmers. There is no mention of such a program in the crop insurance legislation that was introduced last month. There does not seem to have been any serious discussion with the provinces. Ad hoc programs have been used recently for drought and flooding.
I urge the government and its Alberta counterparts to provide assistance immediately to farmers with snow covered crops in the Peace River block.
I realize this will cost money and Conservatives want to cut their spending on agriculture. Cuts have been made to fuel tax rebates, research and crop insurance. There is no more two-price wheat or interest-free cash advances. There is no more special grains program, even though U.S. efforts to force down world grain prices are being stepped up.
About 300,000 acres of crop lie under the snow in northern Alberta. Some may yet be salvaged, but all farmers will lose a great deal of money due to the rain and snow during harvest. These farmers need action from this government now.


THE CHILDREN'S WISH FOUNDATION OF CANADA
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, last November I had the pleasure of visiting the well-known Children's Wish Foundation in Quebec City, whose headquarters are located in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was very moved to see how some people were able to make dreams come true for children who are terminally ill, doing so with minimal financial resources.
Fulfilling these dreams is not easy. It takes a lot of love, dedication and determination, and it is being done by volunteers who work very hard for these children who are becoming increasingly helpless. Mr. Speaker, we all have basic needs that must be met, children most of all.
The two people who started this dream project, Edith and Pierre Letarte, deserve our admiration for the warmth and comfort they offer the children and, through them, their parents.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would urge people who have a few hours or a few dollars to spare to give generously and make this dream part of their lives as well.


ROMANIA
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have recently returned from a trip to Romania sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Church. We found there a courageous people who are determined that the thousands who have martyred themselves to overthrow the vicious and sadistic reign of Ceausescu shall not have died in vain.
Romanians need our help to re-enter the world they had been shut out of. No other East Bloc nation has suffered so much or been so sadly deprived of basic human rights.
I strongly urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the cabinet to offer generous support and assistance to the Romanian people and to the interim government in the implementation of their 10-point program.
We should also clearly indicate that long-term aid and trade relations will be subject to the implementation of democracy and the adherence to international human rights treaties.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, last evening I met with 75 Iranian exiles currently participating in a world-wide hunger strike protesting human rights violations in Iran, this at a time when the United Nations representative, Mr. Pohl, is presently in Iran to investigate charges of widespread torture and execution of political prisoners.
Reportedly more than 90,000 Iranian political prisoners, including juveniles, have been executed in the past eight years. Last year alone one mass execution claimed the lives of 12,000.
January 23, 1990

Amnesty International wrote in its Iran briefing that "Iranian courts impose amputations and floggings as punishments-punishments which contravene human rights standards by their cruelty and inhumanity."
Over the past year, the advancement of personal rights and freedoms has been at the forefront of world news.
The 75 Canadian citizens of Iranian origin are pointing out that Iran is a country where human rights are virtually non-existent. They are in solidarity with political prisoners and the oppressed people of Iran. Then-action should be commended, while at the same time the Canadian government must express in the strongest terms possible our grave concerns over the human rights violations in their homeland.


POLITICAL SITUATION IN HAITI
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, we heard with some consternation about recent events in Haiti. Political leaders, party leaders and journalists have been brutalized and deported without any regard for the most basic human rights and their rights under the Haitian Constitution. We are particularly concerned about these events because this government, coming after previous governments that had been compromised by acts of repression, had promised on a number of occasions that it would not only respect human rights but also work towards establishing a democratic government in this country by holding honest and free elections.
Mr. Speaker, our relations with Haiti and the size of the Haitian community in our country require us to be particularly attentive to developments in this country. That is why we appeal to the Canadian government to do everything in its power to ensure that minimum standards of safety and democracy are restored in Haiti as soon as possible.


FISHERIES
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stated in this House that an Atlantic fishing company faced economic disaster because the minister of fisheries
delayed authorizing the company's application to lease an American vessel.
Today the news is even worse. The unofficial word- and we have had no official word-is that the minister has refused the application.
Also, today, Mr. Jim Redmond, a representative of S. Stewart Fisheries, the company attempting to lease this American vessel, flew to Ottawa to speak with the minister. His efforts have proven to be as fruitless as getting the lease authorization.
Every level of government has approved the lease, including the minister's own department, but the minister turned it down. The minister has approved the use of Soviet vessels to fish Canadian quotas but will not approve Halifax fishermen. He has approved Cubans and Russians to fish Canadian quotas but will not approve nine Canadians to fish their own quotas.
The word to Mr. Redmond and his crew is that they should get a Newfoundland longliner when what they have is an enterprise allocation for a dragger.
This minister's lack of understanding of the east coast fishery is beyond belief. It is not something that Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians can take any longer. We need some action, we need it today, and we need to send Mr. Redmond and his crew back to work.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the prairie grain sector continues to suffer as a result of the ongoing subsidy wars between the United States and the EEC.
Projections now indicate a negative net income for Saskatchewan grain farmers this year. In other words, producers will not even have enough money to pay for the costs of operating a farm, let alone meeting their own family living expenses.
There is no cash flow in the grain growing areas at the present time. Many businesses in the villages, towns and cities which rely on farm customers are closing their doors.
Prairie farmers can compete very well against the rest of the world. They cannot compete against the treasuries of the governments of the United States and Europe.

January 23, 1990


S. 0. 31
[Stage Direction]
Prairie grain farmers must have help in two ways. They require cash now in order to be able to seed a crop this spring. In the longer term they need a contributory long-term income assurance plan.

Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday at McGill University in Montreal over 150 business, academic and political leaders attended a colloque to express support for the Meech Lake Accord.
From the opening remarks of Bob Rae to the closing speech of Bob Stanfield, those present heard strong pleas for active support. Roy McMurtry spoke of the need for understanding and collaboration. Ed Broadbent recalled the 1980 to 1982 constitutional debate with all the concessions which were made, except to Quebec.
Gilles Remillard, Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, expressed the need for a strong, federal government. My colleague, the member for Shefford, spoke passionately of the importance of the accord for Quebec and Canada.
I was very encouraged and impressed by the commitment and the constructive approach taken by all participants.
The all day event ended with an unanimous resolution urging the first ministers and all governments of Canada to take the necessary steps to ensure the passage of the accord and to commit themselves formally to a process for further constitutional renewal.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago as a young law student I was privileged to take VIA's train, The Canadian, westward to Vancouver to start a new life. Last week I was also privileged as a member of Parliament to be on the last Canadian to come east.
The Canadian has been running since 1955. It is the direct successor of the first transcontinental which pulled into Port Moody in July, 1886. It takes the
southern route through Banff, Calgary, Regina, and back east. It is gone now. I have 40,000 petitions collected by passengers and workers on VIA Rail. I propose to give them to the Minister of Transport later this week.
I want to thank Jerry Doyle, MLA; Ed Tchorzewski, MLA; Gary Doer, our leader in Manitoba; and my colleague, the member for Winnipeg-Transcona for piggy-backing these petitions across the country.
It was a magnificent run-to wake up in the Rockies, to see the quiet, calm Canada. Our young people are going to miss that. This government has taken us from the last spike to the last straw. We have to start this train up again for young Canadians, not just for rich tourists.


ALITALIA AIRLINES
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to condemn Alitalia, which as a result of administrative restructuring and financial problems, may have to close shop in Montreal, transferring all its business to Toronto.
Thirty-two years after coming to Montreal, Alitalia may cancel its only weekly flight out of Mirabel and concentrate exclusively on its Toronto customers, which also means it might close its head office on Peel Street in Montreal, which has a staff of 100 employees.
This means Alitalia will abandon Quebec, Mirabel, Eastern Canada, the Quebec business community and an Italian community that is 325,000 strong, a community that is very active and has been loyal since the very beginning when there were up to seven flights weekly.
After a meeting in Rome with Alitalia executives and the survival committee, I realized that Alitalia sees Canada the way Jean Chretien does: a Canada without Quebec! We won't stand for that!
I want to ask my colleagues, the Ministers responsible for External Affairs and Transport, to immediately review our bilateral agreements, which go back to 1972, and see whether Alitalia has always respected these agreements in the past, in Canada, and ensure that it undertakes to do so in the future.
January 23, 1990


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, two months before the last election the West German firm Thyssen AG announced plans to build a $58 million manufacturing plant at Bear Head in Cape Breton.
This plant was to produce armoured personnel carriers and environmental equipment. Some 500 people would be directly employed and another 800 indirectly employed at this facility. What the company needed and was encouraged by the federal government would be forthcoming was an opportunity to bid on a contract to build armoured personnel vehicles for our Armed Forces. They are still waiting for this opportunity.
Meanwhile, skilled workers from my riding where the unemployment rate in 1989 was 17.7 per cent are forced to leave Atlantic Canada because there are no jobs for them; 17,346 Atlantic Canadians lost their job or suffered a work reduction since the November 1988 election. Defence cuts in Atlantic Canada alone mean that as many as 1,700 jobs could be lost.
Yet, while promising to slash defence spending in order to reduce the federal deficit, this government awarded last summer a $110 million contract sole source to General Motors in London, Ontario to build light armoured vehicles. The unemployment rate there was 4.4 per cent.
Where is the economic justice? When is the Prime Minister going to wake up to the fact that there is an economic crisis in Atlantic Canada and it is one of his government's own making? If his government is going to-
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, throughout the Christmas recess I talked to a number of my constituents in Sarnia-Lambton about the proposed goods and services tax.
Oral Questions
For example, on January 9,1 met with an attentive and inquisitive group of municipal contractors and suppliers. When the meeting began, the mood was one of simple opposition and a little apprehension.
Yet, as we talked and I answered a number of general and technical questions, the mood changed drastically. These representatives of both small and medium sized business developed a better understanding and appreciation for the GST system. Most now knew what would be taxed and what would not, what input tax credits could mean to their business in a positive way, what their filing requirements might be, and how the GST package minimizes their administration and compliance costs.
This is the type of discussion which should be occurring all across the country. The replacement of a tax system is not simple or straightforward.
Therefore it is essential that all members of the House, including those opposite, present their constituents with as much unbiased and pertinent information on the GST as possible. It is only from this type of knowledge base that Canadians can form a rational and informed opinion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On December 18 last in this House, the Prime Minister said that his government-and I am using his words-"would be assisting the Atlantic fishery and the communities affected as vigorously as we intervened on behalf of the prairie farmers". Those were his words at that time, just before Christmas.
No such program has been announced. All there has been is a certain recycling of money that would have been spent in any event had there been no crisis at all and no lay-offs.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister led everyone in this House and in the country to believe that there would not be any such program when he said that "there is no crisis in Atlantic Canada".

January 23, 1990
Oral Questions
Why has the Prime Minister not kept his commitment to Atlantic Canadians? Why does he continue to break his promises to the less favoured areas of our country?
Right Hon, Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, I am sure, would be aware that with regard to the crisis in the fishery in Atlantic Canada we responded immediately to the lay-off announcements last month and earlier this month.
We brought forward a package valued at $130 million which includes programs of industrial assistance, a program for older workers and a Community Futures program. Areas selected for the special programs include Grand Banks and Trepassey in Newfoundland and Guysborough County, Nova Scotia, including Canso.
Among the available options in regard to the $130 million are small business development assistance for new entrepreneurs, skills training and relocation assistance. A Community Futures committee is to be set up in each community to assess their needs and select from an appropriate range of program options.
This is the first step in a series of initiatives that are required both internationally and domestically in co-operation with provincial governments, the unions and the industry to make sure that the crisis that does exist in the Atlantic fishery is dealt with in a comprehensive and I think a generous manner. That is what we did in other areas of the national economy such as agriculture, and we will do no less for the Atlantic fishery.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, why does the Prime Minister not recognize, as his Minister for International Trade has already admitted, that any subsidies accorded to the fishery in Atlantic Canada to meet this crisis would be countervail-able as an unfair trading practice under the terms of the agreement signed between him and the President of the United States?
Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Canada why and which subsidies are no longer possible as a result of his having signed that agreement with the United States?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the subsidies to which my right hon. friend refers have absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement. My right hon. friend knows full well that the
reference is made to the GATT, which itself has the kinds of rules and limitations with which the right hon. gentleman ought to be familiar.
I point out to him, in regard to the kinds of initiatives that can be taken throughout Atlantic Canada that, for example, since February 15, 1988, ACOA has approved in Atlantic Canada 6,966 projects. It has committed $670 million in federal support and leveraged $1.8 billion in total investment, creating 18,000 new jobs in Atlantic Canada.
That is perhaps why this morning Premier Frank McKenna, the Leader of the Government of New Brunswick, said this, which I would like to put it on the record for my right hon. friend. I quote: "New Brunswick's economy is not in a crisis. Certainly we are having some short-term difficulty with the fish industry particularly and it's slightly softening the economy but it's not in a state of crisis".
This is the point that I have been trying to make. I believe it is a legitimate one. There is a very serious crisis in the fishery. There are other areas of Atlantic Canada where the progress is strong and certain. Let us keep building on those areas of strength and let us work with all to make sure that those in the fishery come out of this crisis.


Right Hon. John N. Ttorner@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, that kind of smug talk is no consolation to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
I would like to quote another premier and his own Minister for International Trade when they ruled out government subsidies for fishing plants in Newfoundland because any such deal could be challenge by United States fish companies as unfair competition under the free trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, I continue in this vein.
One of the consequences of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States is that we can no longer ensure that the fish we catch are processed in our own plants. By giving up our right to levy an export tax, we have also given up our right under GATT to protect our processing plants. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that is the case?
January 23, 1990


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is barking up the wrong tree. We are not talking about the Free Trade Agreement, we are talking about a regulation under the GATT. When it suits the Liberal Party, they tell us to follow GATT. When it doesn't suit them, they tell us to set aside the regulations of this international body. And I would like to conclude with this morning's CBC commentary on this particular point. I am quoting the CBC and not Premier McKenna. The CBC said this:

"Premier Frank McKenna says New Brunswick's economy is far from being in a state of crisis. He was responding to comments made during a debate in the House of Commons yesterday. Opposition MPs said the Atlantic provinces were in an economic crisis because of the collapse of the fishery. McKenna says there are problems but describing the situation as a crisis is going too far".


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister and the Premier, Mr. McKenna, that the ground fishery is in trouble and it is critical. It is a major problem of this government's making.
How can the Prime Minister stand there when 46 per cent of the value of a billion dollar industry is in trouble and this government does nothing? How can he say there is no crisis in the Atlantic provinces when so many people are out of work because the policy has not changed and the direction that he is giving Atlantic Canada has not changed? There is a crisis in the ground fishery.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made precisely the point that I sought to make yesterday. I was being howled down by her members, but now she agrees that indeed while there is a crisis in the Atlantic fishery, as I said yesterday, there is as Premier McKenna said no crisis throughout all of the other areas of industrial endeavour in Atlantic Canada.
It is important that Liberals stop saying there is a crisis, trumpetting gloom and doom thereby driving away investment that is coming to Atlantic Canada.
New Brunswick, for example, led all of the Canadian provinces last year in growth in investment, with a 24 per cent increase. There were substantial increases elsewhere.
Oral Questions
Prince Edward Island has a balanced budget. There are good areas of economic growth throughout Atlantic Canada. Let us work together to make them better and let us resolve in a very serious and thoughtful way the crisis in the Atlantic fishery.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I say to him that this is a crisis in one sector. It is a renewable resource. This government has not improved on it since 1981. It was a $1 billion industry then, and it is still a $1 billion industry. When is he going to intervene and say that the policy he has taken on, that the private sector can handle this problem in the industry, is not effective? There has to be government intervention instead of whitewashing it and saying there will be help. This government is doing nothing.
There is no food on the table for people who are unemployed in Atlantic Canada. Come to Digby and talk to the people who were laid off last week because of this government's policy. Go to Lockeport. Go talk to the people.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, there have been many improvements with respect to the Atlantic fishery since 1984, including the fact that the giveaway-


Coline M. Campbell: Name them. Name them in the ground fishery. Thlk to the lobster people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: She said '81, John.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member believes that the Liberals have been out of power since 1981. Actually, it is only since 1984, although to them it appears like 1981.
One of the improvements made in the Atlantic fishery since 1984 has been the decision of the government to end the European communities taking 9,500 tonnes of northern cod from the area known as 2J3KL which was terminated. This giveaway of fish by the previous Liberal government has been stopped. That is just one of the many improvements made since 1984.
There is now a $130 million program in effect to assist those who may be laid off by the closure of plants in certain communities. As the hon. member will know, some of those communities have been given the notice of a year and a half in order to try to get ready for the consequences of a close down, including community

January 23, 1990
Oral Questions
development funds and assistance for those who are over the age of 50.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: I could go on, but somebody calls out "order" in the NDP. They never want to hear the good and positive side of anything.

[Translation\


ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that vocal concern about the economy of the Atlantic provinces was undermining investor confidence in the region. That is not the case. This government could not care less what happens to the people in the Atlantic region. As plants are closing down, these people are losing their paycheques, but what does the government do? It cuts unemployment insurance and regional development programs!
When will the Prime Minister go and see for himself what is happening and announce aid programs that will give these people a better future?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government, as the minister indicated, has already announced a support program for workers in the Atlantic region. This is the first action we have taken, but we are talking about a $130 million program with several components providing direct aid to workers and their families as well as to the affected communities. There are other possibilities, both nationally and internationally, that the government can consider to improve the situation of fishermen in the Atlantic region.
In the weeks to come, we will probably be announcing a number of initiatives to improve the circumstances of these fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that the Atlantic region was in a state of crisis, which was categorically denied this morning by the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna. I urge those deploring certain economic situations to avoid generalizing so as not to disturb investor confidence. We want to
protect investment in the Atlantic region. We don't want to cause a panic.
I would ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party to help us create more jobs in the region instead of scaring away investors.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is a panic situation for the workers in fish plants, for the fishermen, for the families in the Atlantic region. There is a crisis in the Atlantic region.
I remind the Prime Minister of a letter which he received from the Premier of Nova Scotia on December 22, 1989 where the Premier of Nova Scotia said on the first line: "The Atlantic fishery is in crisis. The fishery sector here is equivalent in economic importance to the auto industry in central Canada."
I visited Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.


John Carnell Crosbie: Four hours.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I talked to people in the fishing industry. I spoke to those families. Those people in Atlantic Canada have ideas. They have solutions. They have hopes and dreams, but they need help. I ask the Prime Minister to show that he cares. Is he going to go to the Atlantic and talk to these people in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia? This week or next week? These people want to know when the Prime Minister will show a personal interest in their future.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I often go to Atlantic Canada where I had the privilege of being educated and first elected to this House. On one of my many trips there I announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, one of the most important instruments of growth and prosperity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On another trip to Atlantic Canada I announced the awarding of the frigate contract to Saint John shipyard, the largest federal contract awarded to Atlantic Canada since Confederation. On another trip we signed the Hibernia agreement which the Liberals and the NDP had opposed for 15 years. On another trip there I signed an agreement for the clean-up of the Halifax harbour. I will be going there again and again. Every time we go to Atlantic Canada we bring something
January 23, 1990

constructive and helpful. It costs the taxpayers but we believe in fairness and social justice. We will continue to do a lot for Atlantic Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we have one region in crisis on the east coast and others are beginning to crumble.
On January 18 Cominco announced the closing of the Sullivan Mine at Kimberly, British Columbia, leaving a town of 6,000 without a future. Cominco received $79 million in federal funds. Canadians want to know why their tax dollars are being given to corporations that turn around and give workers a pink slip.
What steps will the government take to ensure that Cominco is accountable for these public funds and how will it assist these workers who are out of a job today?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that when she refers to the Cominco smelter in Trail and the agreement that was signed between this government, the province of British Columbia and Cominco, that the NDP, including the unions, were saying that that deal was absolutely essential for the maintenance of the Cominco operations in the interior of B.C.
That Cominco smelter had one of the highest costs of production prior to that investment. Today it has one of the lowest world-wide costs of production. The situation now is that when you look at zinc prices, when you take a look at the ability to maintain jobs, that plant in Trail has been guaranteed into the next century.
With respect to the Sullivan mine, a meeting was held yesterday. All of us recognized that the Sullivan mine was going to close some time in the 1990s because of the ore body. Yesterday, as a result of the meeting which took place, and obviously it is regrettable in respect of Sullivan, the mine will be maintained in the sense that if zinc prices go up, Cominco can consider its reopening at a later date. If you keep on opposing the Trail smelter and the investment by this government in the future of
Oral Questions
B.C., those jobs will be lost as well. You should reconsider the policy which you have.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who yesterday indicated that he had received from the President of the European Community an offer which would deal with the Portuguese and Spanish overfishing. Will he now agree to table his exchange of correspondence with Mr. Delors? Can he tell us how the government plans to respond to Mr. Delors' offer? Does he have an undertaking that the European Community will abide by the NAFO quotas while Mr. Delors' offer is being pursued?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the very encouraging development that was referred to yesterday was that, breaking from past practice by the European Community, President Delors responded in a way that made it clear that there is the possibility of further progress to be made through negotiation.
As one more indication of the willingness of the commission, as a result of diplomatic activities undertaken by my colleague the Minister for International Trade and others to move forward on some of these issues, the Community is sending its commissioner responsible for fisheries, Mr. Marin, to Canada in the next several weeks. We expect to discuss matters with him then. Undoubtedly there will be the opportunity and there may very well be the necessity for a meeting between the Prime Minister and President Delors. If that is necessary to move forward Canada's interest in the fishery, the Prime Minister will certainly meet Mr. Delors and make our case very vigorously.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. As he will know, this problem of foreign overfishing began in 1985. The figures will show that it is a matter that got out of hand since this government came into power because the Prime Minister refused to stand up to the Europeans. He let them walk all over us as a consequence.

January 23, 1990
Oral Questions
Will the minister give a commitment? He is talking in fairly positive terms. Can he be specific and give a commitment to the fishermen and plant workers that as a consequence of this new dialogue with Mr. Delors, the foreign overfishing will be eliminated in the foreseeable future? If he cannot give that commitment, there will be no future for those plant workers and those fishermen.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly our objective and that is certainly the position that we are putting to the Europeans in trying to get them to respect reasonable international regulation of fishing. We have made some progress on the matter.
I point out to the hon. member that developments that led to the movement of Spanish and Portuguese fleets into waters where they had not been before were not developments that occurred in Canada. They had to do with the decision of those countries to join the European Community and some of the consequences of that decision. I also want to make the point that one of the very positive decisions that was taken by this government was to stop the Liberal giveaway of 9,500 tonnes of fish.


YOUTH PROGRAMS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for youth. In the minister's absence, I will ask the question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The question concerns the future of this country, and in particular Canadian youth. It has been reported that this government will cut summer employment programs for students by almost 50 per cent. As the minister knows students' fees and costs have increased. How can the minister justify this action and block the major artery to Canada's future?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the components of the Challenge program and its objectives are reviewed every year. The minister of state for youth and myself, and other members of this government, have been focusing on and have been very sensitive to a specific problem and that is the problem of high school dropouts.
As a result of that, the work orientation component, which is a program designed to address that particular problem, was increased by $8 million over 1988. When the minister of youth returns, he will have a definitive statement on the whole Challenge program for this year.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if she can confirm or deny that this government plans to reduce the SEED program by approximately 43 per cent and funds allocated to the CECS by 30 per cent.
If that is true, how can the minister morally justify it? The students of this country would like an honest answer.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the honest answer is that the unemployment among youth has gone down very significantly under this government, and is certainly much lower than it was under his government.
I would also like to point out that the kinds of training programs that we have for young people are much more effective in terms of their skill development and their ability to get jobs. With the government focusing on the high school dropout rate which is very significant, particularly in Atlantic Canada, the hon. member should be applauding.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Gallery of a delegation to the Seventh Canada-Mexico Joint Ministerial Committee Meeting, including the Mexican Secretaries of Foreign Relations, Commerce, Tourism, Urban Development and the Attorney General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
In 1989, Canada's quota for North Atlantic cod was set at 225,000 tonnes, almost double what was recommended by Canadian scientists.
For 1990, Canada's quota has been set at 197,000 tonnes, 1.6 times the level recommended by our scientists. In the name of sustainable development of our cod
January 23, 1990

Oral Questions
resource, did the minister have any evidence to support these higher quotas, other than what the Minister for International Trade described as his "firm belief". Anything more than a hunch?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Indeed I did, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows that the methodology for determining the recommended allowable catch has a great range of uncertainty and the lowest level recommended by scientists has to do with the maximum rebuilding rate of the resource.
Dr. Les Harris, who has not yet given me his final report, suggested a quota for 1990 be nominally set at approximately 190,000 metric tons, and that represents a 26 per cent quota reduction from the quota I set only a year ago. As we can see in terms of the unfortunate events unfolding in Atlantic Canada, we have to be gradual, but we have to move toward the desirable conservation objective in these matters.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the minister discredits the evidence from our own scientists. Is he the least bit embarrassed about criticizing Portuguese and Spanish fishermen for overfishing quotas established by NAFO reps who are advised by our Canadian scientists, whose recommendations this government is so blindly ignoring?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the two situations are quite different. In the case of the overfishing by Spain and Portugal on the nose of the Grand Banks, they are fishing at a level 32,000 tonnes higher than the quota in that region, which was set by NAFO at zero.
When significant changes are required in Canadian quotas, with the full support of industry in the Atlantic provinces, we often cushion those changes over a period of one or two or three years. The hon. member is suggesting that we should have thrown thousands more workers out of work by closing the half dozen or dozen additional plants. This government is not prepared to take such a heartless decision.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation.
In October 1989, northerners obtained from Canada Post a three-month moratorium on postal rate increases of 32 or 40 per cent or more for commercial shipments to the North. These increases were originally to take effect on November 13, 1989; the moratorium ends on January 31, 1990.
Last Friday, Canada Post Corporation announced, before the end of the moratorium, that a reduction of only 5 per cent would be allowed for foodstuffs and drugs sent to the North.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Can the minister confirm to me today that in so doing, Canada Post Corporation is not respecting its moratorium and that northerners will have no more fresh bread in the coming months?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations from interested parties, including the hon. member last November, the post office indicated a 5 per cent decrease in the planned schedule for the northern air stage rates and promised a freeze until February 1.
My information is that that remains in place. In the meantime, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is undertaking to study the issue. It will be considering suggestions from all interested parties and by February 1 the following year, we will have appropriate policies in place. In the meantime there is a freeze in place.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week the Chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission was critical of the

January 23, 1990
Oral Questions
Employment Equity Act and said that the results were far from encouraging. These remarks were repeated by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
The Employment Equity Act was supposed to bring fair play in the market-place and in the labour force for visible minorities, women, disabled people and aboriginal people of this country. It has not been doing this. Under the circumstances, is the minister now ready to bring in amendments to the Employment Equity Act to ensure effective sanctions and to provide an enforcement agency for that law? Will she do that immediately?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, we implemented a law that had never been implemented before 1984. We received the reports for the second year and we all know that the legislation is to be reviewed in 1991.
I am following progress very closely and I intend to make any amendments that may be required during the year.
I must add that we have excellent co-operation from most companies with whom we work. Needless to say, changing attitudes takes a lot of time. Progress is gradual. This is an incentive. We strictly and scrupulously respect the sanctions provided and we will apply them.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, according to the government's own report, some of the worst performers under the Employment Equity Act are prominent national firms such as the CBC, Air Canada, the Royal Bank, the Canadian Ports Corporation, Imperial Oil, Bell Canada, the Canada Council and many others which have made no progress.
I want to ask the minister if she is happy with this record. If she is not, what is she going to do about it?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I repeated that I was not satisfied with the progress made and that I find it is still not enough. I also
reiterated our intention to monitor the progress veiy closely as we are in the third year of the program. Major changes must occur; otherwise, political action will be taken.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Andre Oueliet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. For several months, observers of the political scene in Haiti have been warning Canadian authorities about General Avril. After a series of murders and basic rights violations, we now have a proclamation of a state of siege. Has the minister decided to ask the Haitian Ambassador to his office, to express the indignation of thousands of Canadians who have an interest in what is happening in that country, and what steps does the government intend to take to further progress already made towards democracy in Haiti? Will this government let itself be fooled by General Avril as it was by General Namphy?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House are concerned about the situation in Haiti. As you know the government has suspended all bilateral discussions with the Haitian government on development aid, and it is now time for non-governmental organizations to step in. We are monitoring the situation in Haiti very closely. We shall be talking directly to the ambassador, to determine whether there are any options for Canada to do more than just express its position and whether we could in some way influence the situation in an effective manner.


André Ouellet: I want to thank the minister for his answer, and in the light of what he just said, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to order his Minister of Employment and Immigration to cancel all planned deportations to Haiti and legalize the status of hundreds of these citizens who are now living in Montreal, not knowing whether tomorrow or the next day they will be deported to Haiti or if they will finally get landed immigrant status in a country where they were seeking a peaceful life?
January 23, 1990


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the House that no one has been deported to Haiti since November. I agree the situation is very sensitive. I am monitoring the situation daily to determine what is best for Canadians and for Haitians in Canada. Our next step will be to review the situation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and determine what our future course will be.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister.
On December 28 last year the Federal Court, for the second time, instructed this government to follow the laws of the land and conduct the proper environmental review process as it relates to the Rafferty Alameda Dam Project. While the government dithered, construction continued on the project. In fact, it is some 60 per cent completed now. Does the government not understand that the environmental review process was put in place in order to assess projects before they begin?
I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. When is this government going to take its own law seriously, revoke the licence and not allow any construction until after an environmental review has finished its inquiry?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, may I reply to the hon. member. As he knows, the report has been given to the minister. The government has a period of 30 days within which to consider the report and to respond. This process is presently under way and due consideration has been given. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased with the government's response.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, when the government finally decides to act, most probably the project will be finished. The Saskatchewan government is laughing at the federal government. The provincial minister responsible has said they have no intention of making major changes to the dam regardless of what the panel's findings are. In fact, the operating plants for the project call for indirect diversion of
Oral Questions
groundwater which is a clear violation of Section 12 of the federal licence.
Again I ask the minister if he is going to proceed with an environmental review panel. Will he tell the Saskatchewan government to cease construction until the panel finishes its report.


Frank Oberle: My
colleague, the Minister of the Environment, intends to proceed in the exercise of his responsibility and will make his views and decision known. When he exercises this responsibility it will, of course, be implemented with the full force of his mandate and that of other departments of the federal government.


ROMANIA
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Although the situation in Romania has improved considerably, there is still some important issues that need to be addressed.
Canada has sold, through the AECL, the Candu nuclear power reactor to Romania. Canadians are appalled to know that ethnic Hungarian Romanians were forced to labour under dreadful deprivation at the Candu sites. Their human rights were deprived. How long has the Secretary of State been aware of this offensive situation and what steps have been taken to ensure that these human rights abuses have ended?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I was very disturbed when I first saw those reports and have asked that officials look into the matter and report to me. The initial reports talked about slave labour. Subsequent reports talked about the use of military conscripts. I am continuing inquiries into the matter to find out exactly what was happening. I think it is quite appropriate that the government and Parliament know how long what was happening was known by officials. I am inquiring into that as well and will keep the hon. member advised.


Christine Susan Stewart: Thank you for the response. However, there have been numerous reports that the breach of construction standards at the Candu sites have resulted in serious potential safety hazards and that on occasion Canadian supervision has been blocked. Should not Canadian support of this

Oral Questions
project be discontinued until a report addressing the labour and safety conditions at the Candu sites is provided to the Canadian people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the suggestion put forward by the hon. member, it is that in this time, shortly after a dramatic change of regime in Romania when that country is struggling not simply to open its way to democracy but also to put its economy on a strong base, we should act on the basis of reports that we have not been able to confirm or to deny, that we should act to cut off some of the economic development that is under way now. I think that on reflection the hon. member would agree that that would be an unfortunate way for Canada to proceed.
What we are doing is seeking to gather information that is reliable as to what went on, what safety standards there are now and as to what options are open to us. I am concerned about the matter. I was concerned about it when it came to my attention. We began inquiries and we are continuing them. As soon as we have information which merits action, we will take that action. I will keep the member informed.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The recent U.S. decision under its Export Enhancement Program to subsidize American wheat sold to the Soviet Union flies in the face of Article 701(4) of the free trade agreement, which states that the Americans will take our export interests into account when deciding whether to subsidize exports to a third country.
Has the minister informed the United States government that it considers this undercutting of traditional Canadian export markets a violation of the free trade agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have informed the United States on many occasions that we believe this policy is counterproductive, not only contrary to the spirit of the
free trade agreement though not contrary to any particular clause of the free trade agreement, but disruptive to the whole world trading system for wheat and grains. We have protested on many occasions. This is why we are supporting negotiations of the FTN to include agriculture under the FTN.
We are working on behalf of the Canadian exporters of grain so that these practices in the future will be blocked under the GATT. At the moment they are not. The United States says they are in competition with the European Community and they are determined to continue on until they persuade the European Community to drop their subsidy practices.
So, these two giants are clashing. The rest of the world is suffering. That is why we hope we will have the support of the members of the Official Opposition in our efforts to gain a successful Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations.
Up to date, all we have had is short-sighted criticism and picayune plucking away at our negotiations.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister did not read the free trade agreement. I wish he would read Article 701.4 which clearly states that this is in violation of the free trade agreement.
The government said that the free trade agreement would go beyond GATT. It would give Canada special consideration by the Americans. This latest U.S. export subsidy will likely drop the world price of wheat by 56 cents a bushel.
Will the minister not agree that his special relationship with the Americans is meaningless when it comes to protecting Canadian export interests? Will he not stand up for Canadian wheat farmers and demand that the U.S. withdraw this unfair trade practice-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has put his question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement applies to exports from Canada to the United States and exports from the United States to Canada. These wheat sales are exports from Canada to other countries in the world or exports from the United States to other countries in the world.
January 23, 1990

The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement does not apply directly to those exports. They come under the GATT. Our hope to stop these dangerous subsidy practices lies in the GATT. That is why we are members of the Cairns group. That is why we are fighting for the Canadian farmer to achieve a successful resolution in the Uruguay round.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 last year, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to assist two Canadian fishermen whose boats were seized by the U.S. Coast Guard in Canadian waters south of the AB line on the Alaska boundary.
In my discussions with the minister's office, they have recognized that there is some Canadian obligation to assist these fishermen but because the message was relayed by Fisheries, that that obligation is shared by the Department of Fisheries.
These fishermen are facing the loss of the $50,000 bonds they posted with the American government, they are facing the loss of the value of their catch and they are facing an expensive legal process in Alaska.
My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. When is he going to accept his responsibility to assist these fishermen and when is he going to make the announcement that that support is available?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the petition raised by the hon. member on behalf of the two fishermen, the owners of the Fonzie and the Viscount, which were apprehended by an American Coast Guard vessel for an alleged infraction north of or within the U.S. coastal waters, outside of the recognized Canadian boundary.
There is some ambiguity as to whether the vessel was beyond Canada's jurisdiction. However, I continue to work with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and other colleagues in cabinet, to seek some form of restitution or assistance in aid of these fishermen.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise hon. members that pursuant to a discussion earlier today, commenced by a point of order by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and followed by interventions on both sides of the House, it was agreed that the House would deem certain applications for emergency debates which came to my attention for consideration yesterday and which were not heard because the government had moved to Orders of the Day, to be in front of the House today and I, as a consequence, am responding to them now.
I point out to hon. members that this was done by arrangement and whatever was done is not to be taken as either a judgment on the point that the hon. member for Ottawa Vanier raised or a precedent. I will deal with the intricacies of the procedural matter that the hon. member raised at another time.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 RAFFERTY-ALAMEDA DAM PROJECT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to seek an emergency debate on a matter of pressing concern, namely the Rafferty-Alameda dam project in Saskatchewan and the disregard of environmental guidelines as found in the Federal Court decision of last month.
The court ruled that the environmental impact study ordered by the environment minister last year was flawed and incomplete. The judge ordered that the minister name a new panel to study these projects within 30 days. That has not been done. Meanwhile, construction continues, in some cases on a 24-hour per day basis, changing forever the landscape of Saskatchewan. The dam is now 60 per cent complete.
When the minister allowed construction to continue last August, he did so on the basis of a flawed study, yet he has not stopped construction. I submit that here we have an emergency not only in terms of substance, that is to say that the environment of Saskatchewan is being forever altered, but also in terms of environmental procedure; that we are in danger of setting a precedent that a project can proceed to completion while a review is going on. That is an emergency with respect to

January 23, 1990
environmental due process in this country and we are entitled to debate it.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the first of one or two requests for an emergency debate. I would request that the Standing Orders be enforced and that the submission be made and that there be no debate. Otherwise, we are at a complete disadvantage on the government side. We may wish to respond. We do not. We respect the rules and we ask the hon. member to respect the rules.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Justice raises a matter which has been raised before. Hon. members know what the practice is and as your servant, I must apply it.
The matter the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona raises is clearly an important matter. That was evidenced earlier today by questions put by the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle and the answers by the minister who was acting today for the Minister of the Environment.
I say it is an important matter for some of the reasons that the hon. member put forward but I am not satisfied that today is the day to proceed to an emergency debate.


ATLANTIC CANADA FISHERY
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I too ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a very urgent and serious matter, namely, the escalating crisis in the cod, lobster, snow crab and herring roe fishery in Atlantic Canada, a crisis characterized by the numerous shutdowns of fish plants, loss of jobs and the subsequent closing of entire communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the government has not yet understood the real dimensions of the crisis, and we would like to have-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to consider his remarks carefully. I think this was the very objection that was taken. There is no need for an argumentative presentation. I have the facts. I also thank the hon.
member for presenting me with a very clear letter indicating the situation. If the hon. member would like to close off his remarks, I will hear him.


Fernand Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We would just like to have an opportunity to raise the issue and show the real dimensions of the crisis and its effects on families and communities in Atlantic Canada. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Again, the issue is very important. Of course, all hon. members in the House of Commons are well aware of the serious crisis affecting Canadians who live in the Maritimes. Yesterday and today as well, there was much discussion on it and probably there will be even more in the coming days. However, I do not think it is necessary today to decide on an emergency debate. I would remind hon. members for their information that immediately before the Christmas break, there was an emergency debate. It may not have dealt with all the subjects raised today by the hon. member, but it certainly touched on the overall situation.
I will follow developments every day this week and also in the weeks to come, but for now, I do not see the need to accede to this request.


FAMINE IN ETHIOPIA
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for an emergency debate on the situation in Ethiopia.
The famine in Ethiopia is again reaching crisis proportions with an estimated four million people at risk of starvation and the effects of the drought in Eritrea and Tigre are daily growing worse.
This situation is aggravated by a long-standing war in the region. The severity of this famine is not well understand in Canada, and perhaps for this reason, Canada has not yet provided its characteristic ready response to this international distress.
For this reason, I am asking for an emergency debate so that the Canadian public can once again be informed of this situation and the political and environmental
January 23, 1990

aspects of it so that the Canadian public will be educated and will then be able to respond.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands has raised a matter which of course is a serious matter internationally and for Canada. However, there may well be opportunity for the hon. member to raise the matter further within a short period of time, and without taking away for one minute the seriousness of the matter, I find that it would not be appropriate to proceed today with the debate.


FISHERIES IN THE ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Pursuant to Standing Order 52, I, too, ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a very urgent matter.
The deteriorating fisheries industry on the east coast has created a serious economic crisis in that region.

There is every indication that further reduction in fish catches may be required, a reduction that will result in even more lay-offs, more plant closures, and greater unemployment, especially in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Coupled with other recent cut-backs to employment programs and unemployment relief, this surely will result only in a further decimation of the Atlantic community.
For that reason, I would respectfully request the adjournment of this House to have an emergency debate on this important issue.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Yukon and Leader of the NDP (Ms. McLaughlin) for her comments, but I believe I must give her the same answer I gave the Hon. Member for Beausejour.

In saying that, again I remind hon. members and the public watching that this entire subject is obviously one of very grave importance to the country and to the region. It is presently being debated, yesterday and today, very vigorously, and again I remind hon. members
Government Orders
that there was an emergency debate immediately before Christmas.
However, I say to the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party that, as I assured the hon. member for Beausejour, I shall of course pay attention each day and be watching events carefully.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Otto John Jelinek: that a Ways and Means motion relating to a Goods and Services Tax, laid upon the Thble on Monday, January 22, 1990, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish first to advise the House that there have been discussions among the three parties and tomorrow will be designated as an allotted day.
Further, I believe Your Honour would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative
committee of Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and
related acts, be amended to read "second reading and reference to
the Standing Committee on Finance".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the motion by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House on Bill C-52, the retirement savings legislation.
I believe in pension reform and I strongly believe that older Canadians who have contributed to Canadian society through their hard work and child-rearing should have the best pensions that our society can afford. However I do not see any progress toward that kind of pension reform in this legislation. I have read it, and it is
Pickard
Riis
Robinson
Simmons
Speller
Stupich
Waddell
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-80
January 23, 1990

complex. One thing is clear, though: it does benefit only the wealthy.
This is a bill that rewards upper income Canadians. What we want to see is pension reform that benefits all Canadians. This bill proposes to provide the greatest assistance to those at the upper end of the income scale. Someone earning $20,000 a year would get an annual RRSP break of about $1,200. Someone earning $86,000 a year would get a tax break of $7,500.
One clever newspaper editorial in a Toronto paper said:
We agree that everyone should be treated equitably, but we don't accept Wilson's fundamental premise that the taxpayer has an obligation to help the wealthiest Canadians maintain their lifestyles in retirement especially since they have the means to do so without government help.
Wilson's proposal, when fully implemented, would drain an estimated $300 million a year from the federal Treasuiy, which Wilson has previously said, on numerous occasions, is stretched to the limit.
This piece of legislation will cost the public Treasuiy $300 million. At the same time the finance minister keeps whining about financial restraint. He uses financial restraint as the excuse to attack our social programs.
If he suddenly found $300 million kicking about, why not put it into the Guaranteed Income Supplement? That would allow Canada to give $30 a month more to the more than 600,000 elderly, widowed and single women who have no other source of income and who are living below the poverty line. Thirty dollars a month does not sound like much, but it can mean the difference between having to rely on charity and being independent for many widowed and single older women.
This legislation has serious consequences for those Canadians who were unable to save for their retirement because of other spending commitments such as raising children or simply because they could not afford to put money away.
Taxation statistics show us that a majority of people making over $50,000 a year contribute to RRSPs. The percentage of tax filers who do contribute to RRSPs is shown to be directly proportional to their income levels. RRSPs can provide a supplement to retired incomes, but
Government Orders
we cannot rely on RRSPs alone to provide an adequate pension income for most Canadians.
The route the government is taking on pension reform is really very disturbing. It is leaving those who are most needy out of this discussion altogether. It is ignoring middle income earners. This is the third step this government has taken after attempting to deindex pensions, after the successful clawback of pensions, toward the privatization of our pension system.
This move will leave poor seniors, and especially older women, with even less income than they currently have. It is no coincidence that the changes dealing with the tax treatment of retirement savings were introduced in conjunction with the proposal to deindex Old Age Security. The deindexation would have cost Canadian pensioners $255 million in 1986 alone.
What the finance minister is attempting is to privatize our pension system completely. This government has already tried to deindex pensions. It failed because of overwhelming opposition from seniors working actively in lobby organizations and groups right across this country, and from the opposition of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons. That was the first attack this government made on our pension system.
The logic behind that, and this move that we see before us today, is to force Canadians to rely solely on their own savings for their retirement. There are many seniors, women who have spent most of their lives as homemakers, who do not have such savings. This does not make their contribution to Canada any less.
Canada owes them a decent standard of living in their old age. Many of these women are from a generation where the most common thing was for a woman to stay and work in the home. These women come from a generation in which there were more children per family. It was hard work, especially without the kinds of services and amenities that we have today. It is unfair to turn our backs on these women now and say: "You are on your own".
Canadians who have worked all their lives at low wage jobs do not have much savings or opportunity for savings. It is hard enough to live on the minimum wage, let alone put money away for a retirement savings plan. Any savings that middle income earners and lower income earners have go into their children's education. These

January 23, 1990
Government Orders
hard working people are not going to benefit from this legislation at all, whereas the finance minister himself will. He already has a fat pension and wants to see it grow even fatter.
I am horrified to see what this government is doing to our country. It is even more horrifying to note that these same pension amendments were first proposed by the Liberals in 1982. It shows us that the Liberals have no alternative vision of the pension system in our country. They really are just Conservatives dressed up a little differently.
The wolf in sheep's clothing can fool some of the people some of the time, but sooner or later people are going to examine the Liberal record and discover a mirror image of the Conservative plan.
A real alternative to relying on RRSPs as pension income is an expansion of the public pension system. We need to provide an adequate retirement income for all of those who have salaries too low to tuck away $15,500 a year every year into an RRSR That is the total salary for the year for some people.
In the retirement years there are also additional health expenses. With this bill, wealthy Canadians will be better able to meet those additional expenses. Poorer older Canadians will be left on their own. Where is the pension reform that will benefit all Canada's people equally?
RRSPs can be an unreliable source of pension income. They are vulnerable to stock market fluctuations. People could be putting hard earned money aside each year only to have its value decrease. Most people cannot afford to put aside the amount of money from their salaries into an RRSP that it would take to guarantee a totally adequate pension income.
Wealthy Canadians use RRSPs mostly as a tax shelter. It really has very little to do with retirement. Already a tiny minority of people in this country own 20 per cent of all the income in Canada, they derive 27 per cent of their taxation benefits from tax deductible contributions to RRSPs. They do so at the expense of middle and lower income Canadians who pay for these deductions through higher and higher taxes. Is this part of what the GST is meant to compensate for? Only a Conservative government could come up with pension legislation that increases ordinary people's subsidization of the lifestyles of wealthy Canadians.
There are people in this country who are sleeping on the streets and who have to rely on food banks to sustain themselves. This government proposes not to help them get back on their feet, but to ensure that the rich can afford to maintain a Mercedes until they are 90. This government's priorities really are ludicrous.
How does the finance minister sleep at night knowing that the pockets of ordinary Canadians are being robbed to support the wealthy? I am starting to believe that having your soul removed is a prerequisite to joining cabinet.
New Democrats believe that all Canadians should have equal opportunities to plan effectively for their retirement. In my constituency seniors are an active and important part of the community. Century House is a centre for seniors that puts on innovative programming and reaches out into the seniors community and the community as a whole.
Some seniors find themselves hindered from full participation in the community by poverty. This bill will not help them or other middle or low income Canadians when they become seniors. This bill does not address the pension-related concerns of people in New Westminster and Burnaby.
My constituents of pre-retirement age want to know that they will have enough to live on comfortably when they retire. Older constituents want to know that now. They do not want to subsidize the lifestyles of rich Canadians. They want a good, fair and equitable pension system.
I have serious concerns about the implications of this bill for women. This legislation does not address at all the pension needs of women. This bill just gives rich people a bigger tax break for contributing to an RRSR Only 16.5 per cent of female taxpayers contributed to an RRSP in 1987, compared to 24.1 per cent of male tax filers. This figure even misrepresents the number of women who contributed to RRSPs because it only counts women who actually file tax returns. Poor women who do not file tax returns are not included in these figures. The vast majority of women, even the vast majority of women who do file tax returns, do not contribute to an RRSP.
January 23, 1990

If one looks at the gender distribution of RRSP contributors, a significant inequality emerges. In 1987, 39 per cent of the total number of RRSP contributors were women. They contributed 32.8 per cent of the total value of RRSPs. In the same year, men made up 61 per cent of the contributors and held 67.2 per cent of the value of all RRSPs.
Not only are most RRSP contributors men, but as contributors they are able to contribute more. Conservatives say: "Well, why don't women just get their act together and contribute more?" The answer is they cannot. Women make up the majority of the poor in this country. Women cannot take the food out of their children's mouths in order to put money away for an RRSP.
As usual, this government is trying to put legislation in place that benefits only the rich, and in this case rich men. This new legislation places restrictions on the splitting of RRSPs by disallowing the transfer of RRSP retirement income to a spousal RRSP or RRIF upon marriage breakdown, except where the annuitant's RRSP was amended before 1990 to provide for the transfer.
This bill includes no regulations to tighten the rules governing spousal RRSPs so that women will actually see these funds at retirement. Spousal RRSPs are often simply used as a tax shelter.
The 1983 parliamentary task force on pension reform was told by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, by the Federation des femmes du Quebec, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, that the most important reform for older women of the future would be to expand the Canada and Quebec pension plans. The task force report ignored this good advice. The New Democratic Party minority report agreed with the women of Canada.
Contributing to an RRSP is a luxury that most women cannot afford. Instead of having poor women subsidizing rich men with their taxes while rich men get huge tax breaks, the New Democratic Party proposes a freeze on existing RRSP contribution levels, a major expansion of the Quebec and Canada pension plans and a significant boost to the universal pension system.
Government Orders
A disproportionate number of native people live in poverty. Elders who have spent most of their working lives outside the cash economy do not have CPP or private pensions to fall back on. They did not have money to put aside in an RRSP. They rely on the public system, one that is failing them.
We must enact alternatives to this bill now. We must have real pension reform now. It is economically unsound to keep handing money to the rich. It is morally unsound to make ordinary Canadians subsidize the rich. I urge all members to engage in discussion about real pension reform and leave this bill in the back room where it was created.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Mackenzie- Agriculture; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-Emergency measures; the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon-VIA Rail.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the introduction of this bill by the minister. I noted that in his presentation he made a point of saying that it could be or should be-I am not sure which he said now-revenue neutral. I do not know if he used those words, but his point was that he hoped it would not cost the government anything nor would it bring in any extra revenue.
We are faced with increasing concerns from individuals and from organizations clear across this country. The GST legislation has increased the concern about this. With the other increases in taxes there is a feeling that governments have to start controlling their expenditures.
For the government to bring in a measure such as this and say that after all this work, after all this effort, we are going to be revenue neutral is not what the people of the country are looking for. The arguments have been made by my colleagues and by others in the House that it is helping the relatively well-off, compared to those who are not well off, to those at the bottom of the income scale or even those with no income at all.

Government Orders
The government may argue that that is not the desire, not the intent, not the plan, but it is not able to argue with the figures that are being presented by the members of the opposition, members of the New Democratic Party in particular, that it is helping those who are well off at the expense of those who are not doing well at all.
That is not good enough either. Whether they are totally correct is not the point. The point is the public perception right now. The public perception right now is that the government should be cutting down on expenditures. Whether they are direct expenditures or whether they are indirect, forgoing revenue does not really matter to the public. They want the government to show some example. If the deficit has to be brought under control, the government has to take charge of things. To bring in a program such as this one, which as I said earlier is revenue neutral, is certainly not doing the job.
The government is saying that it is closing doors so that people who have been able to take undue advantage of the RRSP program will not be able to do so any more. That is one of the purposes of this legislation. I am not sure whether the government has done that job well or not, but had it done that job well and stopped there, it would have done something that from the point of view of public perception would be progress. The government would, according to its own figures, be saving a revenue expenditure of some $350 million. That may not be much in the terms of a $35 billion deficit, but it is nevertheless going in the right direction. I think this could have been applauded by the public as a whole.
At the same time to bring in a new giveaway program that is not helping those at the bottom of the scale, that is not helping those in the low and middle areas of the scale but is helping those above that, is again going against what I feel the public, certainly the voters in my riding, want. It is going against, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, what the voters in your riding want.
They want us to be helping those who are most disadvantaged. They want us not to be increasing the deficit. They want us to take control of the deficit and indeed reduce it. They want us not to bring in programs that are revenue neutral, but programs that will be
revenue positive at the expense of those in our country who are most able to pay the costs of it rather than try to get more out of those who are least able to pay the cost.
People have been saying that you would have to earn $86,110 or at least have that amount of income related to the RRSP before you could claim the maximum of $15,500. That is all very well, but it is indexed. This is one place where it is going to be fully indexed to increases in wages and salaries. In all other programs through which the government is giving money to those least able to survive in our country, it is only partially indexed. I do not know of another program that is indexed so closely to increases in wages and salaries as is the program being described in Bill C-52.
Once again, I would suggest, we are going contrary to the wishes, the desires, and the hopes of the people that we are supposed to be looking after in this country.
We are limiting the assistance to high income taxpayers. That is not what we should be doing. The existing dollar limits are being increased. That is not what we should be doing because it is costing the government revenue. It will eliminate opportunities for excessive or unintended tax deferrals. That is a move in the right direction, but we should not have found some way of giving the revenue that the government is getting by eliminating these schemes to those who need it the least.
The reform should result in no net revenue. On the contrary, the reform should bring in more revenue and that is what the program should have been designed to do.
I suppose the real quarrel we have with this is that it is pushing people into the laps of those who are providing private pension plans as opposed to government plans. We have argued for years that the old age assistance plan is not sufficient. We should be putting more money into that. We have argued for years that the guaranteed income supplement is not sufficient.
The Canada Pension Plan, which is contributed to by workers, employers or by self-employed individuals, is a good plan from the point of view of where the money is being invested. It is a good plan from the point of view that it is building up pensions for people in Canada, but it is deficient in that the amount of the pension is

*


January 23, 1990

insufficient to maintain people at any kind of standard of living afterward.
Why not beef up the Canada pension program available to everyone in Canada who has any kind of an income from their places of employment? That is a direction the New Democrats could have and would have supported quite willingly and happily.
I think it is a program that the people of Canada would have supported. It would have been revenue neutral as well, but it would have been bringing the money in from the people of the country, from their employers and from self-employed individuals. It would be building up a fund that in turn would be invested in Canada in projects under the control of governments in Canada, as opposed to encouraging people to invest in shares in trust companies or insurance companies which might be investing the money anywhere in Canada, or indeed might be investing some of it outside Canada in projects that the people of Canada might not be happy about and might not support at all, but certainly projects beyond the control and influence of the federal government or of any government in Canada.
Once again, we are pushing people into supporting and participating in private plans rather than Canada or Quebec Pension plans which have had a long period of time to show how good they are, how well they are managed and how successful they are. We have not been improving those, beefing them up or putting more money into them so that all people would have a pension plan from which they could draw when they started drawing their pension and to which they may contribute while they are working, which is the proper way for Canadians to have been accumulating pension plans and for the government to have been controlling them.
Instead an editorial entitled "RRSP changes benefit wealthy", which goes back to the first announcement of the changes to the RRSP program, says that the program is so complicated that people will have to wait until Revenue Canada tells them how much they can actually put in.
We are supposed to be simplifying the tax system. Well, come on. The last time we simplified it a couple of years ago, the percentage of people who were going to professionals to get their tax returns completed increased by about 20 points, as I recall. Each time we
Government Orders
simplify it we seem to push people into the hands of professionals. I have nothing against professionals doing income tax, but obviously we are going the opposite direction from that of simplification.
The government itself admits that we will have to wait for it to tell us what our maximum contribution to RRSP can be. There is no way we can figure it out ourselves. We have to wait for the government computers to get around to doing it and to get around to letting us know, when they they are able to, just how much of a contribution we can make.
Simplification? It is the very opposite of that. A fair pension plan? It is the very opposite of it. A fair way of taking money out of the economy, by taking it from those in the lower income brackets and giving it to those in the higher brackets? It is the very opposite of a fair plan in every way imaginable except that the government is continuing to look after the needs of the most well-off in our community, as it has with many other programs and most other pieces of legislation the government has been bringing in.
In every way by which a fair system can be measured and in every way by which we can be properly looking after the needs of the people in our country and being fair to the people of our country, this government is failing the people of Canada. This government does not deserve the support of the people of Canada.
There can be little doubt that the public opinion polls we have seen on many issues are totally correct when they say that the government has lost a significant measure of the support that it had just 16 months ago from the people of Canada as evidenced by a general election. The government has lost that. It has thrown it away, frittered it away, and it is continuing to do so by bringing in programs that are contrary to the needs, wishes and desires of the people of Canada.
There is no way that New Democrats can support the legislation in its present form before this House.


Mr. Fisher:: I would like to congratulate the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan for a very fine speech and an extremely good analysis of the situation as it seems to be developing in respect of the government's programs. It does not seem to matter which program you talk about

January 23, 1990
Government Orders
because, for the ordinary people of Canada, these programs have nothing but negative connotations.
There were some references to privatization, and I thought they were most apt, especially in light of the fact that the minister who was described yesterday as shepherding this legislation through the House is also the minister responsible for privatization.
One of the previous speakers mentioned the number of homeless people in Canada. I would remind members of the House and all Canadians that it was this very same gentleman who, a couple of years ago when he was Minister of Housing, said that the homeless in Canada were homeless because they wanted to be and that if they really wanted shelter, they would certainly be able to find it. If they did not have shelter, it was their own fault.
The question I would like to ask my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan is something along these lines. He made reference to government revenue and said that whether it is given away in grants, gratuities or not collected it is still lost revenue. I wonder if the member could expand on the idea of revenue not collected contributing just as much to the deficit as money which is given away.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, if I may just say to begin with, when the minister spoke about this and said that it could or should be revenue neutral, he was certainly falling far short of saying that it "would" be revenue neutral. He obviously does not know at this point in time. On previous occasions we have had the Minister of Finance tell us that certain legislation was going to be revenue neutral only to find out that by his own calculations he was out about 25 per cent. Thus I have no confidence at all in this particular piece of legislation being revenue neutral.
The legislation before us talks about the different ways in which the government is closing loopholes. Every time it closes a loophole which would allow someone to get away with putting more money into an RRSP than the legislation originally intended, what the government is doing is allowing that person to reduce his or her taxable income and thereby reduce his or her income tax for that year.
The government might say later on that it is going to catch up, when the person starts drawing the pension he
will pay tax on that income that was deferred and on anything that the deposit has earned in the meantime. By then, in all likelihood, the person will have retired or at least be in a low-income position. The person might through some adversity have to start drawing those RRSP funds out earlier. A person would not do that unless he was in a lower-income position, at which time he would have to pay tax at a lower rate.
The GST might catch up with him and the government might get back at him through that method. But I do not think the plan for the GST was to catch up on people who are avoiding paying income tax at lower income tax rates in earlier years. Some of the loopholes are described in the papers that I have before me, but in general that is it. Whatever the scheme, whatever the method, it is to reduce taxable income by putting money into an RRSP in one year and then reporting that income some year down the road, hopefully at a lower income tax rate for the person involved, and hopefully by sharing it with others. There are various methods of paying it. It is to reduce that person's income tax rate in the current year and that costs the government money.
Anytime you reduce a person's taxable income by allowing him or her to get away with paying less on income that year, both the federal and the provincial governments lose tax revenue for that year. According to the government's own figures, and it has talked about a difference of $350 million, it says that people have been avoiding paying income tax to the extent of $350 million because there have been these tax expenditures that they have been able to push ahead for future years and have put into RRSPs, thus avoiding paying tax to the extent of $350 million. That means revenue in the neighborhood of $1 billion, if they are able to push into future years. That is the kind of thing I was talking about with tax expenditures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Beaches- Woodbine.


Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. You may not be aware of this but the hon. member was a Minister of Finance in the New Democratic Party Government in British Columbia a few years ago. Listening to his speech and the responses that he has given to the questions, his expertise in this area shows very clearly.
January 23, 1990

I want to follow up on the previous question and the response. We have known for years that there are kinds of money charged to middle and low-income earners every time a tax break is given to the well-off. We made as a major issue during the 1984 election campaign and also the last one the need for real tax reform.
It is very difficult for average Canadians, let alone parliamentarians, to grasp the complexities of the pension system. It is even more difficult to grasp the complexities of the tax system. When people take a look at the Income Tax Act I have heard many of them say that you have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it. Even then, many of those have difficulty understanding it.
The question I want to ask is this. Surely to goodness in being fair to Canadians the government should clearly show how much it is costing middle and low-income taxpayers by making these kinds of tax benefits available to the wealthy in society. Surely it is time again to produce as a part of the financial documents that we receive from government a tax expenditure account, the item that was referred to by the hon. member.
I wonder if he could explain in the few minutes we have left exactly how that would show average Canadians how much it is actually costing them in increased taxes because someone else is not paying their fair share. Perhaps he could take a few minutes to tell us about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has two minutes in which to respond.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that the provincial ministers of finance are veiy interested in. Every time the federal government involves itself in another tax expenditure and reduces the income tax revenue it is also reducing it for the province since the province gets a percentage of the federal tax revenue. It is a real concern.
I can recall one budget in British Columbia where the Minister of Finance did introduce budget papers that showed the cost to the government in forgone revenue for many different programs in which the government was involved. I have only been here one year and I have not had a chance to find this out, but for all I know the federal government may also have such documents available. It is one of the things I have been intending to look at for quite some time. Perhaps it has documents, for example, that would show what it is actually costing us every time we grant another exemption or create
Government Orders
another loophole, loopholes that allow people to avoid their fair share of income tax by putting excessive amounts of money into RRSPs.
I hope those papers are available at the federal level. I am looking forward to seeing them. I know that they have been produced provincially and cannot help but believe that they would be available federally.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words today on Bill C-52.1 have listened fairly closely to the debate as it has proceeded through the House. Nearly every one of the speakers has pointed out the figures that were referred to by the previous speaker. In fact, while I was sitting here listening to the debate I looked over the debate that took place in the House yesterday on this bill. I saw that one of my caucus colleagues, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt in his speech to the House, made this reference to the bill before us.
He said:
Through the amendments in the registered retirement savings plan we know now that it will cost the government $300 to $350 million in the first year for these extra tax breaks to the wealthy, because they are the ones who are going to benefit. Let us be honest about it, it is the wealthier persons in the Canadian society who benefit by these tax breaks. Might not we be better off using that $350 million in insuring an extra $30 to $60 per old age security earner to ensure that they have a little more comfort.
It is not necessarily that there is a split in the NDP caucus. I think that when we talk about the government being deprived of some $300 million to $350 million in the first year because of the measures contained in this bill, that is somewhat in error. It is not the government per se that is being denied these additional tax revenues. It is Canadian taxpayers. If these wealthy Canadians are not paying their share, someone else is picking up the cost. That someone else happens to be middle and low-income earners.
When you compare what this government is proposing to do for those people who have salary ranges in the $100,000-a-year-bracket-and that is what we are talking about-and if you look at the background papers that the government supplied with this bill, you realize that to take advantage of that legislation and the provisions contained therein you must have an annual salary of around $80,000 a year and upward. You cannot possibly take advantage of any of the provisions in this legislation

January 23, 1990
Government Orders
unless you have a disposable income of around $80,000 a year.
If you are earning $20,000 a year, you cannot take advantage of anything in this legislation. You will continue to rely on old age pensions and the Canada Pension Plan. If you are fortunate, if you happen to be one of those Canadians covered by a private pension plan, and only about 50 per cent of Canadians are, then you are out of luck. You would be out of luck in providing yourself with a decent source of income upon retirement. That is what RRSPs are. They are a personal saving vehicle for retirement.
We find that the government is bringing in this kind of proposal when what is sorely needed in this country is reform to our pension system, not this kind of reform, not reform for people making $100,000 a year, but reform for people in the low and middle-income levels on salary scales.
When you look at our pension system you realize that something like four out of every ten elderly women over the age of 60 are living in abject poverty because there is not a decent retirement income replacement system to help those people in the so-called golden years of retirement. They are not golden years for many of those people. They are years of misery when the worry from day to day is whether to spend $2 on going to visit grandchildren or whether to buy a pork chop to provide a meal for themselves. That is not decent retirement. We have a responsibility to people who have contributed in many cases 50 and 60 years of their lives to growth in the economy of Canada to provide the kinds of benefits that I, and young people as you look around the room, the pages and others, expect.
The standard of living we enjoy today did not just come about. In many cases the standard of living that we enjoy today was provided by the sacrifices of the elderly several years ago. Many of these elderly brought their kids up through the Depression, through very difficult economic times. They looked after the family during world wars that Canada participated in. Many of them lost children and loved ones, husbands and wives, in those conflicts.
Surely to goodness we have a responsibility to at least say to those people: "You have given your all for this country. You have given your all for future generations. Now it is time we gave you something back." What this government has done is to bring forward this kind of legislation which, in the context I am talking about, is absolutely obscene. It is doing that and at the same time it is proposing to claw back pension benefits that have been bought and paid for. It is not some largesse that a government has handed out to these elderly Canadians. It is something they bought and paid for. They bought and paid for it through contributions to the income tax system.
Just to spend a minute on old age security and whether or not this is some kind of largesse from a benevolent government, which it is not, up until a few years ago Canadians had a surtax on their income tax specifically to provide the funding for old age pensions. They paid for it. It was an additional amount on top of their income tax that they paid for to provide adequate pensions on retirement. That changed, of course, a number of years ago when that surtax was just buried into the income tax system. Now everybody is paying it, and nobody is complaining about that.
I think most reasonable Canadians have accepted that there are some responsibilities in society that should be shared by all of us if we want to live in a caring and humane society. It is a part of the social contract that the vast majority of Canadians recognize, except if one happens to be a Tory government member. Then it is different. Then it is largesse. The government gives and the government takes away. We have seen that since 1984.
Since the members of this government were elected in 1984 the first thing they did in their budget was to go after old age pensions to try to deindex them so that they would not be protected against the ravages of inflation. When pensioners and every decent thinking Canadian across this country said: "You ain't going to do that to my mother or my grandmother or my great grandmother, " they backed off. They realized that they had made a serious political-and I would argue moral-mistake.
It did not take them long before they were at it again when they went after spousal allowances under the Canadian Pension Plan. TTiey want to attack them. They figured that the women should provide for their own

retirement. So do women believe that, if they are given the opportunity. But they certainly do not want to be attacked because of some perceived notion that under the policies of this government women no longer need that kind of pension or retirement income.
Since then, as recently as a year and a half ago, the Minister of Finance floated a White Paper proposing legislation that would have gutted private pension plans at the federal level across this country, if he had a chance to enact it. He did not get away with it because there was such an uproar among employer and employee groups across the country. He decided to back off, especially since it was just prior to an election campaign. He re-examined his options. That White Paper is still sitting there, though. I would put money on it, Mr. Speaker, that before we see the end of this government we are going to see legislation based on that White Paper. I say that because it has something against pensioners. I do not know what it is. Freud could have had a ball with that kind of question in examining the relationships of members opposite with their parents. But the government seems to have a problem with pensioners and pension plans.
We saw again in the last budget the clawback of pensions for anyone making $50,000 a year. "Anybody making $50,000 a year does not deserve to receive the OAS". The government tries to leave the impression and make the argument about why bank presidents should receive old age pensions. That argument does not wash. Bank presidents are entitled to old age pensions because they paid for them.
In any event, if the government is concerned about bank presidents receiving old age pensions, the way to deal with that problem is not to grab the pension. It is to deal with it through the income tax structure. If people are earning too much money, whether that money includes salaries earned, pensions earned through the bank, stocks that the guy has earned through the banks, old age pensions and the Canada Pension Plan, and if you combine that and say that this individual is not entitled to receive all that money on retirement, then change the Income Tax Act-reform the Income Tax Act. Say that if you are earning $100,000 a year, then you pay your fair share of taxes. We could care less where the earnings come from, whether it is a pension system or
Government Orders
anything else. But you do not attack the program that is universal, that everyone accepts and supports because everybody receives the same benefit.
If you attack that, you attack the program. That is exactly what the government has done. When it went into that clawback it did something against what was sacrosanct up until that point, that is, against the universality of social programs. The government ended universality of old age pensions when it did that.
Today, it is talking about someone earning $50,000 a year. Ten years from now about a quarter of the Canadian population-by all forecasts that I have seen- who would otherwise have been entitled to old age pension benefits will not get them because of the way that this government has structured and formulated the tables on that clawback system.
While it looks like relatively few people today would be affected by the clawback, in 10 to 15 years from now 75 per cent of pension recipients will be affected by that clawback provision.
It was not only pensions the government went after, it went after family allowances. The government has ended universality in that area as well, at a time when we all know-if anybody wants to take a look at the facts, and certainly the government has a responsibility to do that-that there are literally exploding numbers of kids in Canada who were relying on food banks in order to get a meal.
If that is not enough, the government is proposing to introduce a GST, a sales tax, initially of 9 per cent, now reduced to 7 per cent. Whether it is 9 per cent or 7 per cent, to those parents whose kids are now having a hard time finding meals and who are trying to put clothes on their kids' backs and shoes on their feet that 7 per cent represents a reduction in their ability to do that. Very many of these parents are single parents headed by family members who happen to be women. It is a direct attack on the disposable income of another 7 per cent. If that is not enough, they will have to go on the unemployment insurance program.
They say: "If you have not had enough pain and suffering, then we are going to make sure that if you become unemployed there ain't going to be any safety net for you". I suppose it is Tory philosophy to force people to be self-reliant, to teach people to be self-reliant and look after themselves.

January 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
That is the argument they used years ago when they opposed the introduction of old age pensions. If you give anybody $50 a month old age pension, went the argument at that time, they won't save for their own retirement. They argued that in a very real way, not only on the floor of the House of Commons, they even went so far as to take a delegation over to the Privy Council in Westminster, London, in the United Kingdom, to argue that what the federal government was trying to do at that time was unconstitutional under the British North America Act.


Ron Fisher: The Tories did that?


Neil Young: The Tories did that. They have never supported pensions. They have never supported that kind of decency that other ordinary Canadians accepted years ago. They are still working at it.
I think it is totally unacceptable. I and other members of my caucus agree that there has to be pension reform. But it has to be real pension reform, not for those people in the $100,000-a-year bracket. When you bring in this kind of pension reform that we see here today what the government is asking low and middle-income Canadians to do is to pay for it once again. I think that is unacceptable. We will not be supporting this legislation for that very same reason. I understand why many Canadians would be attracted to RRSPs. It is because there is an inadequate private public pension system to provide them with adequate pensions on retirement. I can understand that, and I have some sympathy for them.
I would make the argument that they would be far better off by putting pressure on that gang over there to bring in proper pension reform, to provide every Canadian with a decent level of retirement income at age 60 or age 65, or in many cases now as a result of the attacks of this government against VIA Rail, those older workers who may never find another decent paying job because of the kind of community they live in, very many of which are remote. Because of that they may never again be employed. That is a terrible thing to say in a country that is as rich as ours.
We may have to take a look at reforming the public pension system to provide for earlier retirement than at age 60, to provide for retirement at the age of 55, if you happen to be an older worker in that kind of community where the government has deprived you of a job in order
to provide that individual with an adequate support system.
I can see you are indicating to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. You have been extremely generous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have 10 minutes in questions and comments if he would like to take it the next time the bill comes up in the House.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   INDUSTRY IMPORT-REPLACEMENT PRODUCTION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consult with industry and trade unions to develop measures to increase import-replacement production in Canada, particularly in the higher-technology sectors such as machinery production.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will start out where my colleague has just finished in some senses, that is to point out that as we start the 1990s this country is facing serious economic problems. We are facing the problems in Atlantic Canada with a special force. We are seeing it in our fisheries with tremendous shut-downs of fish processing plants. These problems are not just in the fishing industry. The Prime Minister yesterday tried to suggest that it was only in the fisheries that Atlantic Canada faced serious problems. I have talked recently with steel producers in Cape Breton, in Sydney, who have told me that their workforce has shrunk in the past eight years from close to 4,000 workers to about 700 workers. It is likely that we will see significantly further increases take place. The same thing is happening in the coal industry, not just in Cape Breton but elsewhere in Atlantic Canada.

Not only the Atlantic provinces are facing the economic problems I just mentioned. We see the same thing happening in the province of Quebec. There are some very serious problems in the shipbuilding industry. Today for instance, there is a report in the paper about
January 23, 1990

members of the Quebec Conservative Caucus who asked the government about support for shipyards in the province of Quebec, and it is clear that the industry cannot count on that support.

One can see the same thing in Ontario and in parts of Quebec in the major problems which exist in both those provinces in the automotive industry. Certainly I see it in my home constituency. I also see it in the city of Windsor itself. I see it in St. Catharines, in Toronto, in Oshawa, in Ste. Therese in Quebec. Right across the whole of industrial Ontario and Quebec one sees that this industry, which has been the engine of economic progress and growth for Ontario and Quebec and to a significant degree for the entire country, has been hit with lay-offs, some of them temporary, but far too many of them permanent. These lay-offs are hitting workers in General Motors in their van plant in Toronto, lay-offs which are hitting workers in St. Catharines that are permanent, lay-offs in Ford in its engine plants in my constituency, lay-offs in Ste. Therese which I fear may turn out to be permanent.
These same economic problems exist across the prairie provinces. Earlier this past year when I was in Portage La Prairie, one of the largest employers, Campbell Soup, was shutting down its operations and consolidating its operations as a consequence of the free trade deal.
One can see the farm economy right across western Canada being hard hit directly and, therefore, the offshoots of that farm economy itself being very, very hard it, for example, food processing, machinery manufacturing that contribute to inputs to the farm economy itself.
We have just heard that this sense of serious problems in the Canadian economy is reaching British Columbia. The resource sector is being especially hard-hit. The west coast fisheries are being hit with serious threats to processing plants as a consequence of GATT decisions.
As well, some of our mining and mineral industries such as Cominco in Kimberley, B.C. in the Kootenays are telling 700 plus workers and another 200 or 300 staff people that their jobs are being eliminated. That is in a
Private Members' Business
town of 6,000 people, so we are looking at devastation for that community.
We can see many changes in economic policy which are required in the face of some of these serious problems. We see, for instance, the need to cut interest rates in this country to a sensible level. Historically, we have never had a gap of 4.5 percentage points between interest rates in Canada and the United States. Yet that is what this government continues to support.
We can see the immense importance of serious rules to govern plant closings so that a company cannot simply decide that because it can make more money in the United States, it can shut down its operations in Canada and transfer production to the United States. There has to be a possibility for workers in communities that are affected to be able to examine the books of companies in those situations, and if those companies are making money to be able to take those operations over with the support of community development funds to make sure that jobs and communities are preserved.
We need the development of regional development banks which will be able to see that in poorer parts of Canada that assistance in the form of capital, at lower interest rates, is available to help small producers, to help new businesses establish new jobs.
We have to see the potential for a general system of variations in interest rates so that poorer parts of the country suffering much less from any inflationary pressure are able to have access to capital at significantly lower rates of interest. They have done this in Japan for many years. It is something that we could do in Canada quite readily.
We have to put much more emphasis on research and development, not just in the industrial sector of our economy, but right across our economy.
However, and this is what the motion deals with, we need a bottom-up approach to industrial planning for the future of this country so as to make much more use of the skills which we have here in Canada; to be able to use the resources which we have in this country in a way that will see to it that the many Canadians who are out of work are combined with the resources which exist in this country to produce new items which we have been

January 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
importing, and in the process produce jobs to save communities and give many Canadians a future.
We have to look especially at some of our key industries in the higher technology areas. We have to use models which have already been used in this country. We have to look at some of the things which were attempted in the early part of the 1980s in the automotive sector. For instance, in 1983 a report was produced entitled "An Automotive Strategy for Canada" which came from a federal task force established to look at the problems of the automotive industry. It was a task force which was co-chaired by the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, somebody from the employer's side in short, and by Bob White, the then director for Canada, now president of the Canadian Autoworkers. It included as members the president of Chrysler Canada, the president of General Motors of Canada, the director of research for the Canadian Autoworkers Association, and the vice-president of planning for Magna International. Therefore, it included a number of parts producers, a number of vehicle manufacturers and some trade union input.
We can look as well at the 1986 report when this government itself saw fit to establish a task force. This was an even more widely-based task force which was co-chaired by the president of American Motors, by the president of the Automotive Parts Producers and by the president of the Canadian Autoworkers. It included representatives of the federal government, provincial governments as well as representatives of the vehicle manufacturers, of parts manufacturers and key people from different trade unions.
From these two reports ideas have emerged of building up the capacity to produce in this country more of what we consume in this country. There were commitments and suggestions for better training, so that we do not again reach a situation such as that which emerged a couple of years ago in the auto industry in my community. It was then necessary for some of the big auto producers to bring into Canada skilled workers from Europe because these skilled workers were not available in this country.
It was absolute nonsense that at a time when unemployment was so high in this country, instead of being able to recruit skilled workers who had been trained in this country, these companies had to go overseas on special recruitment drives to bring in skilled workers from abroad. The task force report suggested we had to establish the support in this country for serious effective training, something which my colleague for Saskatoon- Dundum is responsible for talking about in our caucus. We put forward a good many ideas for improving training right across this country, but the suggestions made specifically with respect to the automotive industry were set out in these reports.
It was also suggested, however, that we had to use trade policy so that these industries employed more Canadians. It was suggested that we needed commitments from some of the new companies that were setting up production facilities such as Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, commitments that they would meet the same level of Canadian content in their sales in Canada which the American based automotive producers have to meet, 60 per cent Canadian content targets.
It was also suggested that some incentives be provided to improve Canadian production in the parts sector. It was suggested that once we had all automotive companies producing on the same basis that those companies should have to gradually increase their commitments so that, for instance, they might reach the level of Britain. Britain requires that companies that sell major output to the British market in the automotive sector have to produce 80 per cent of their output, 80 per cent of what they sell has to be made up by British value added.
It seems to me that there are a great many import sectors across our economy where this kind of philosophy could be put into effect. If we look only at the last three years, we can see that situation in the case of chemicals, electronic tubes, or electronic components. For instance, in chemicals there were over $7 billion worth of imports into this country in 1988, and in the case of electronic components almost $6 billion worth of imports. But the area where this import level is most scandalous is in machinery production. In 1986 there were almost $11 billion worth of imports. By 1988, there were over $13 billion worth of imports into this country compared with exports of about $4.5 billion. So there is a massive trade
January 23, 1990

deficit in this area and in many cases a trade deficit in areas where we are major producers of final products using this machinery.
For instance, we import massive amounts of pulp and paper machinery. We import massive amounts of mining machinery, despite the fact that we are producers almost unparalleled in the world in pulp and paper and in the case of many mining products. Yet, we do not produce the machinery here in this country.
I very much hope that the House would eventually be able to support a motion such as mine before us today which says that we should get serious. We should set up task forces of employers, of workers, of communities, of governments to work together to plan ways that we can see to it that we produce the machinery, the other specialized hi-tech imports which can give us the jobs for the future which we need in this country, which our people right across Canada desperately need, and which will be a solution to the economic problems that are so serious from Atlantic Canada right to the west coast of British Columbia. I urge this House to support this kind of motion for our economic future.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor and I believe I can offer some useful insight on this subject. I will try to respect my notes because I think my hon. colleague went a little bit outside of his motion.

In Canada, industrial development has so far been based mostly on our abundance of natural resources and easy access to markets. However, in today's global economy, our success will depend increasingly on our scientific and technological capabilities and appropriate macro-economic policies.
If we want to maintain our position as one of the great industrial and economic powers, we must improve our industry's competitive position on international markets by integrating our efforts in science and technology. We must consider the future of Canadian industries within the context of world markets and acquire competitive
Private Members' Business
edge based on the excellence of our products and processes.
In its first term which started in 1984, this government recognized the importance of a competitive industrial economy, whose growth was based on the private sector, when it made a commitment to Canada's economic renewal. To that end, it took a number of macro-economic initiatives. These included tax reform, designed to stimulate consumer spending by reducing taxes on individuals and to increase business confidence by reducing corporate income tax. They included as well adopting a science and technology policy that provided for a substantial increase in public funding to encourage research and development in industry as well as other scientific activities.
The creation of Industry, Science and Technology Canada was another initiative taken by the government in response to growing international competition and the rapid pace of technological change affecting products and manufacturing processes.
Up until now the Canadian economy has adapted remarkably well to the trade liberalization triggered by the series of GATT rounds. Our industries have progressively increased their operations, their specialization and their effectiveness. This government firmly believes that free trade between Canada and the United States will pave the way for Canadian industries to improve their performance and compete not only on the American market but also on world markets.
The first priority of Industry, Science and Technology Canada-and of the government, for that matter-is to make sure that we as Canadians can compete on the international scene. Indeed my colleague referred to that earlier when he spoke about Quebec's shipyards. Mr. Speaker, I simply fail to see how the NDP Members can talk about Quebec's shipyards, for we can always encourage- There is a will to support industries, as my colleague pointed out, but we know they are not always competitive. A good example would be the Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin), a leading businessman. He established his own multinational corporation and seldom misses an opportunity to brag about that in his campaign, but we happen to know that he bought his last seven ships in Brazil. What a way to encourage Quebec! We can also encourage our industry, but when we no longer build ships- My colleague is probably not

January 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
listening to me but he ought to seek more information. Supporting labour unions is fine, but so is promoting productivity.
I am pleased when people talk about car manufacturers because I happen to live next door to Sainte-Therese, as you know, and Windsor is not the only place where people can make cars. I listened to the NDP Member brag about talking to the labour unions and helping them, yet, Mr. Speaker, we know that their own candidate in Chambly, listen to this, it may be worth your while-
His own candidate in Chambly-and we know that the NDP is pro-union-named the Lada "car of the year" when he was with the APA, the Automobile Protection Association. Think of it: the Lada as car of the year! You should be ashamed to say that you represent the unions, because Lada is a Russian car made with Italian parts and as a driver I can tell you that there was no worse piece of junk!
Anyway, if members of the New Democratic Party encourage such things, they really have a nerve to talk about it in the House. I know about it because I was in the car business and close to the candidate who is running in Chambly. You always have to look at yourself in the mirror.
He then talked about the problem of the fisheries and he probably does not even know the real problem with the fisheries because I just spoke with the minister and it seems that it is not quite as he said.
He talked about Sainte-Therese. Certainly the government is proud that it can say today in the House that we supported the auto industry, whether in Sainte-Therese or in Bromont. We saved Sainte-Therese and with it, over 3,000 jobs. So I think that the government has fulfilled its responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the NDP often boasts of being more Catholic than the Pope, but sometimes I have serious doubts when they encourage sales of Ladas, which are not even made here. You could buy one for $6,000 and two weeks later, if you wanted to return it, it was worth only $400. I have serious questions. The candidate running in Chambly did that. The hon. member-the candidate in Chambly. He is not a member of Parliament and I hope he never will be. In any case, that is what you are doing, and it must be hard to convince people you are pro-union, when you urge people to buy
a car made in Russia that was a complete disaster. So let's be realistic!
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to improve our competitive position internationally by taking a specific approach that consists in: defending the needs of industry, as we have done, to ensure it is not overlooked when setting essential, macro-economic policies; conducting joint initiatives with industry to help it improve product quality and increase market share within a reasonable length of time, as we did with General Motors in Sainte-Therese; ensuring that government aid is compatible with our international obligations and treaties; providing increased aid and services for industry to promote development and dissemination of strategic technologies, market development and other innovation-oriented activities; providing less financial assistance for manufacturing facilities and more for research and development and technological development-as the hon. member said earlier, we need people with better training for certain industries.
These objectives and the focus of ISTC were established following close consultations in early 1988 with the provinces and representatives of national organizations as well as with people from the business, scientific and academic communities. These groups generally supported the mandate and direction of ISTC and helped us determine which initiatives should be a priority.
One of ISTC's major new initiatives has been to promote the development of strategic technologies that are essential to enhancing the competitive position of a wide range of industries, and I am referring to advanced industrial materials, biotechnology and information technology.
Today, the focus is on three main objectives: to support the creation of research and development alliances between business and universities in order to develop and disseminate new technologies; to support the creation of alliances focussing on technology applications in order to promote risk-sharing in connection with research and development projects and certain feasibility studies; and to promote technology management in a joint effort by ISTC, industry and universities.
Under the Technology Outreach Program, we are trying to improve productivity and competitiveness, especially in small businesses, by accelerating the acquisition,
January 23, 1990

development and dissemination of new technology and essential skills.
Mr. Speaker, I could also talk about advantageous initiatives and sector competitiveness, but I am running out of time.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to inform the House that two major objectives underlie all ISTC initiatives, and these are to defend the interests of business and the scientific community in cabinet, in areas such as taxation, transport and energy; to provide businesses with support and information to help them market their products and acquire new technology; and to increase competitiveness and adapt to the new business climate.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my hon. colleague from Windsor, Ontario for raising this motion in the House today. It is a timely and extremely important issue which deserves our attention and our action.
As we can see from the headlines in the daily newspapers, our world is changing. We are facing lay-offs in the forestry industry. In Bas-Caraquet the fish packing plant is closed. In Shippagan the plant is in receivership. In Canso, North Sydney, Lockeport, Wood Harbour, Port Medway, Port Mouton the plants are closed. Small towns across the country are boarding up windows and closing down.
Obviously we simply cannot rely on our fishery, our forests and our farms to provide jobs and wealth in this country. We are now emerging from a global round of competition which, by all reports, indicate that we must re-evaluate our economic and political priorities. In this highly competitive and creative world our traditional policies are just not good enough any longer. We have to alter our course.

The second half of this decade has been characterized by the restructuring, on a global scale, of companies trying to adjust to the new international environment.
Before setting our goals, we must know our roots. History shows that most firms base their economic and social policies on their national culture.
Private Members' Business
Ironically, Canada's problems derive from its strengths. Our natural resources have always provided us with a high standard of living. But, even though we cut down more trees than any other country, we are still importing chain saws. In 1987, the value of imported manufactured goods in Canada exceeded that of exported goods by $24 billion, which represents $460 million a week.
For example, we are importing 76 per cent of our machinery, 40 per cent of our electrical appliances and 80 per cent of our medical equipment.

Trade in advanced technology has grown almost twice as fast as trade in general. By 1995 trade in computers, aerospace equipment, electronic machinery and pharmaceuticals will account for one-quarter of total world exports. But Canada is largely missing out on this growing opportunity. For example, in 1980 our trade deficit in high-tech products totalled $4.6 billion. By 1987 this deficit increased to over $7 billion.
Recently we were told that Canada has experienced its first monthly merchandise trade deficit in thirteen and a half years. It is particularly noteworthy that this deficit included a sharp increase in imports of machinery and equipment during that month.
As the Premier of Ontario told the National Forum of Science and Technology Advisory Council this past June:
Increasingly, we are exporting yesterday's goods, and importing
tomorrow's technology.
We are currently putting 1.3 per cent of our Gross National Product into research and development. Our competitors are doing twice that much. For example, 7 per cent of Ontario manufacturing industries do not have even one engineer on staff. So what can they do but import products, technologies and the very knowledge needed to put them to use.
If we want to win in the international arena and thereby protect and enhance the quality of life of our citizens we must set our sights on competing with the very best. In an article published by The Globe and Mail last March Dr. Larkin Kerwin, President of the National Research Council wrote:

January 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
Canadians face some very unpleasant facts. Among the world's
industrial nations, we rank as technological illiterates; we have become
incompetents in the unfolding scientific civilization.
So what can we do about that? To start, we have to work together. Internationally speaking, Canada is simply too small to risk diluting its strength by each of us moving in different directions. We must work together and mobilize all of our sectors in a national effort. We must address this problem on a national scale.
This is not an issue which can be resolved in isolation of a federal, provincial or municipal government or by industry and labour alone. This is a problem which requires the collective effort by all elements of society. For example, in Ontario the government has brought together some of the finest minds from the world of business, labour, the academic community, and government and established a special council. This premiers' council was set up to develop an internationally competitive economy. Basically, its goal is to produce a game plan for building on existing strengths and creating new ones.
The council is working to restructure core industries and to invest in high gross and emerging industries. It is also addressing the need for investment in people through education and skill training. Sub-committees of the council hold public forums in schools, factories and union halls.
The concept for the council was borrowed from the Japanese who have a council which is chaired by the Japanese Prime Minister. Clearly, this is the kind of co-operative constructive action that we need on a national level. But there is something else we must consider.
New industries and new technology is vital but if we are to take full advantage of it we must have the skill, the entrepreneurial people to use it, transfer it, and ensure that it benefits all.
Along with government incentives to manufacturers and technology-based industry, we must work together to create a well educated and highly skilled workforce. All the incentives and all the investment in the world will be useless unless we have a workforce with the
ability to adapt and learn the constantly changing skills of the modem workplace.
Interestingly enough, the Southern Literacy Study estimates that as many as 5 million Canadians are functionally illiterate. Although it is very difficult to estimate the cost of illiteracy, a Woods Gordon study conducted for the Business Thsk Force on Literacy put the cost to Canadian business in the range of $4 billion per year due to lost productivity, increased training costs and industrial accidents. The estimated cost to Canadian society as a whole is as high as $10 billion per year.
The problem is getting worse. Increasing technological sophistication in the workplace and in society generally has raised the level of reading, writing, and number skills required to be functionally literate.
An article in The Globe and Mail this fall indicated that 50 per cent of factories use high technology. This is the technology that is necessary to lower costs and make these companies more competitive. The article also indicates that in 53 per cent of the plants, managers encountered problems trying to hire skilled people to work with the advanced technologies. Obviously, efforts to increase the proportion of our economy involved in the manufacturing industry will be for nothing unless we have prepared our workforce to perform these new tasks. It is therefore absolutely vital that any effort between the government, industry and trade unions to increase domestic productions in high technology sectors must also include a commitment to work together to combat illiteracy and to increase the skill level in our workforce. Therefore, there is no doubt that focusing on the high technology manufacturing sector will pay off richly in terms of jobs, trade balances and the economic well-being of Canadian communities.
For example, a recent consultant report indicates that the city of Kanata, known as "Silicone Valley North" will see huge growth in the next 10 years. In fact, they estimate that employment in the high technology sector which now employs 7,000 people in this city will quadruple by the turn of the century.
Around the world we are seeing a new spirit of co-operation between government, businesses and people. That same spirit must be represented here in
January 23, 1990

Canada amongst all the various sectors of our nation if we are to ensure that the step into the next century will be alongside the economic leaders in the world.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment as I begin. I believe the opportunity to speak during Private Members' Hour on Private Members' Bills and Motions is very important. I believe some of the most meaningful debate actually takes places here. I am pleased to have the opportunity and I thank my colleague for Essex-Windsor for introducing the motion today.
I suggest there is very little difference among people in all parties on many items when it comes to developing our industries, especially our high-tech and advance industries on which our future will depend. I think all members will agree that there should be more R & D. There should be more development and co-operation with industry, with the universities, with unions and with all parties that can work together to forge success in this area.
However, there may be many differences as to the approaches we take to achieve those priorities. I would like to refer to one example that was used by the Member for Essex-Windsor. It is one that is near and dear to my heart. When it comes to the forest industry in Canada no one in the world can produce lumber like we can. When it comes to the technology surrounding it, although we have many of the fresh ideas and new thoughts, the blooms of this new technology, we really have not been as successful in the development of that industry.
I would concur that that is an area in which we should be working with the universities for their R & D, and with small business and large business to try to encourage that development. It is extremely important that this business, when developed, is good sound business that can survive.
The member for member from Essex-Windsor gave us the example of pulp and paper equipment as something that we should be developing ourselves. I would be the first to say "Good. Let's get at it." Let us see if we can be competitive.
It would not be very realistic to think that we could develop equipment strictly for the use of Canadians. If we develop something in pulp and paper technology it has to have a wider economic base than just Canada and
Private Members' Business
would obviously have to be successful world-wide. We cannot just close our border for our own use of all the pulp and paper equipment or all electric motors that we use.
In order to develop this new technology, our priority should be to focus on international competitiveness. That is one way we can make that development work.
Any effort by Canada in the past to look inwards has not worked. Import replacement policies, as it is referred to, involves a number of practices that do not sit well with the economic realities of today's competitive world, nor do they accord well with the views of the present government on how best to achieve sustained economic growth.
In the past some industries were often selected by the government of the day as having growth potential. They were then given support and this support usually meant putting up trade barriers or non tariff barriers for the import of goods from other countries in the hope that the essential ingredients for sustained commercial success would be achieved by these industries.
These so-called infant industries were supposed to grow big and strong and stand on their own feet. In many cases, this did not happen. Those infant industries just did not grow up. The end result was that we were forcing on our own economy higher prices and inefficiency. It is that type of inward looking growth that we must try to avoid.
These approaches were inappropriate for the 1950s, 1960s, and even the 1970s. In some instances they led to the establishment in Canada of successful industries, but very few. In a world now that requires intense competition and rapid change, that is not the direction in which I feel we should be going.
One of the keys on which we have to focus in Canada if we are going to achieve that success, and one on which this government has been focusing, is the program of excellence, whether it be in industry, in our universities or in small business.
We must be able to produce and supply what the markets demand and, most important, at the right price. We must be competitive. This requires the right combination of up-to-date technology, the right mix of inputs, good delivery and servicing, flexibility and just plain old fashioned good management. We cannot hope to do everything well. We must find a niche in which we can

January 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
succeed, where we can take competitive advantages and build on it until we are successful.
Another area to which the government is giving greater consideration is the removal of some our interior barriers. It is not enough to take down the barrier in trading between here and the United States because in many cases inter-provincial trade is very limited. We should be addressing that question and I am glad to say that the provinces and the federal government are co-operating in this area.
I am proud to be a part of this government which I believe is taking some very commendable steps through the Department of Industry, Science and Technology for initiatives that will go a long way toward achieving many of the successes that we have been talking about here today.
There is much more I would like to say on this topic but the time is short. In conclusion, it is obvious that the aim of the government is to create in Canada a program of excellence for industry on a world class science and technology base. The government has renewed and strengthened this commitment to R and D and to co-operative efforts with industry. It is the task of this new department to translate this commitment into action.
The key today is global trading. In Canada especially, we know that we can succeed, but there is a real risk of failing if we look too much inward. There are prime examples of this around the world. China has been an inward looking economy and government, surrounded by smaller, but so much more successful centres of economic excellence. Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, these are all peoples of the same nationality with great success because they look to the world for their market.
There is a similar example we see in Europe, with East Germany and West Germany. One is looking inward and the other is looking to the world markets, building on their successes, building their technological excellence. Why.should we in Canada do anything different?


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my thoughts to those of my colleagues, especially the member from Cariboo-Chil-cotin who gave an excellent speech. I would like to add my thoughts on the motion put forward by my hon.
colleague the member for Essex-Windsor, who proposes that the government develop measures to increase import replacement production in Canada.
Import replacement is a somewhat archaic concept, since it takes us back to the notion of small, inefficient industries protected by high tariff walls. In today's global economy, a company cannot rely on servicing only a small captive market. Successive trade liberalization efforts under GATT have progressively lowered the tariffs since the end of World War II.
Combined with the increasing output of newly industrialized countries, it means that our industries are facing increasing competition at home and abroad and are themselves challenging others in an international marketplace. Given the dependence of our economy on international trade, inward looking protectionist measures are not the road to survival and success. The key is to enhance the competitiveness of Canadian industry.
At the time of the Depression tariff walls were 80 per cent higher than they are today. As we have lowered them, Canada has become increasingly competitive and we should only seek to do more of this in the future.
It was in this spirit that the Prime Minister announced in August, 1987, the creation of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology and charged it with the mandate of building up Canadian industry's international competitiveness with all sectors and with both overseas and home markets in mind.
We need world-class industries to create and maintain a world-class economy. Import replacement is not a viable development strategy. Canadian companies must develop innovative technologies and products and achieve sufficient scale in production to address the world market. Only then can they sustain the continuous reinvestment that is required to generate future generations of products. The Canadian market is simply not big enough.
For example, Canada is a world leader in telecommunications. TTiis industry is the engine that drives all our high technology sectors. With global sales of over $8 billion, it employs over 150,000 highly skilled, knowledgeable workers. Our world strength in telecommunications has come about because of a coincidence of geography and government policy. Our country is so vast, the communication challenge is so great that we had to become world leaders. We had to break new ground.
January 23, 1990

Today this industry is responding to the challenges offered to it by nations all around the world.
The rapidly growing companies that make up this industry must expand into new global markets to ensure their future. More generally, ISTC consultations with industry have pointed out that unless we respond quickly as a nation to build on our successes and develop our comparative advantage in areas like information technologies, we will be rapidly surpassed by the newly industrialized nations like Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and the others that my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin mentioned.
These countries are making investments necessary to emerge as the tigers of the 21st century. As they make these investments and as their economies grow, wages increase and the standard of living increases. It has increased rapidly. Many of these countries are what I would call economic miracles.
The appropriate role for government is to encourage Canadian industry to become and remain competitive. For example, through establishing appropriate macroeconomic and other policies, disseminating information on changing domestic and international circumstances and market opportunities, and providing specific services where needed. We must examine new ways of doing business. We must explore new options.
One of the most important advantages that any Canadian manufacturer in whatever sector, for example, machinery or textiles, has over a foreign competitor is time. What every customer seeks is the right product at the right place and perhaps more importantly at the right time. This is why officials at ISTC are spending considerable effort to encourage Canadian industry to put in place and use more efficient and speedy communication linkages between raw material suppliers, equipment suppliers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Such linkages are facilitated through encouragement and support to industry associations and councils.
Through sector competitiveness initiatives, ISTC works with selected industry sectors as well as other government departments and agencies to identify constraints and opportunities, define industry-wide needs and put together in co-operation with industry a fully
Private Members' Business
integrated and complementary action plan to realize these opportunities. This comprehensive approach will help to ensure the future strength of those industries in the market-place.
Another positive, forward-looking initiative to which the government has devoted a lot of time and energy is that of encouraging the development of Canadian suppliers, particularly small business, to the federal government. In collaboration with the Departments of Supply and Services, Transport and National Defence, Industry Science and Technology has worked on the source development program. Source development is a concept designed to provide industry with historical market information on federal purchases, particularly by National Defence and Transport, Transport currently contracting outside of Canada or having low over-all Canadian content.
This is particularly important to us in western Canada where historically the federal government has purchased few products. This is gradually and slowly working. We are optimistic that it will continue.
Tax reform, strengthening international partnerships, deficit control through spending restraint, and good management all contribute to the government objectives of building a strong and fully competitive economy. Innovative and forward-looking industrial strategies are also essential. That is why the ISTC is working with industry and universities to bring about a greater and more effective integration of our scientific, technological and industrial activities to improve commercial competitiveness.
In conclusion, it is not by imposing trade barriers but by improving our competitive strength on a continual basis that we can effectively forestall excessive import penetration. Indeed, increased imports are not a cause for concern if they are a reflection of increased rationalization and specialization by Canadian producers on fewer but highly competitive products which are successfully exported.
Such trends are evident in a number of areas. In some sectors of machinery, aerospace and other industries, while imports are still substantial our exports in these

January 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate
sectors in niche products and niche markets have been improving significantly for over two decades.
These challenges and choices we face as a nation can best be addressed by outward looking policies focused on being internationally competitive rather than by backward and inward looking protectionist policies.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on December 5,1 stood in the House to ask the government to explain its agricultural program cuts in light of the negotiations that are ongoing with regard to subsidies in the GATT round of negotiations.
I posed this question in part because a few days before, on the weekend, the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds had been speaking to the Alberta Wheat Pool in Calgary and he was quoted as saying in the Calgary Herald of Saturday, December 2, that he was assuring the Pool delegates that Canada is not about to make changes to its agricultural subsidy programs during the current round of international trade negotiations without similar moves by other nations. He was quoted as saying that we have no intention of getting into a situation where we give up some of our support unless other countries are doing the same thing.
It was very hard to understand how the minister could say that with a straight face after having been in the negotiations for three or four years. During that time, Canada has given up the two-price wheat system. We have given up interest free cash advances to farmers. We have virtually given up tax rebates for farm fuel to farmers. They have been cut another 65 per cent as of January 1 of this year. We knew the cut was coming when I asked the question.
Research funds have been cut or frozen, meaning that there are less funds to do the same amount of work next year because of the inflation that exists in research. Crop insurance funding carried by the federal government
dropped from 45 per cent of the total cost to something like 25 per cent of the total cost.
There are probably even more programs that I could have listed in Question Period at the time. It is obvious that the government is not following the policy that the minister outlined in Calgary. I wanted to get some of the ministers to explain why they were, in fact, giving up what the U.S. considers to be subsidies under their producer subsidy equivalent program that they are touting in these international talks when none of the other countries are.
We gave up interest free cash advances while the Americans continue their advance program. We have given up our two-price wheat program which had the effect in low markets of paying the farmer more money for his wheat that was to be consumed domestically while the Americans continue a massive subsidy program to their farmers.
Since that time, the Americans have also continued and stepped up their export enhancement program, a program that raised the ire of this House on all sides when they began paying from $7 to $12 a tonne to customers to take their grain from them. They are now up to $20.95 a tonne on the last major sales to China and U.S.S.R.
The U.S. continues to increase its aid to farmers with the money it is pouring into agriculture, while this government responds by reducing the amount of aid, even though the talks are ongoing. This concerns me, my party, and farmers as well because when this kind of negotiation is going on, ultimately at the end of the round all sides are asked to lay their cards on the table, so to speak, and name which programs they are going to cut. While there is a clause at the beginning of this round that says that cuts made during the program should count at the end of the day, they really do not. In all previous negotiations what normally counts is what is put on the table at that particular time and that is what the Americans and Europeans will demand again this time.
In my supplementary question I raised concerns about how these program cuts were harming existing programs and I referred to a copy of a memo that I had received from the agriculture research branch, namely, the Animal Research Centre, whereby the director notifies all staff as follows:
January 23, 1990

We have now put together a clearer picture of the Animal Research Centre's financial situation. As a result, I must advise you that there can be no further purchases of supplies or services from now until March 31, 1990. This includes travel, rentals, stock from B.R.C. stores, etc.
Steps have been taken to ensure that our livestock and poultry will have all basic requirements met. We are currently reviewing all avenues to determine whether any research activities can be continued. However, until further notice, no expenditures will be approved.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have this great research centre sitting there unable to conduct any research and concerned that it may not even be able to feed the animals that it has.
I did not get any response from the Minister of State for Agriculture on that issue and I would hope that today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture will be able to shed some light on these cuts and tiy to justify why his government persists in cutting back funding to agriculture and reducing the research impact that the department has.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this government certainly has supported the needs of the Canadian agri-food industry and it has never wavered here at home or internationally.
The hon. member for Mackenzie is taking us to task for adjustments that have been made to our agricultural programs over the last year. Of course we have had to make adjustments; the changes taking place in agriculture demand it. And I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to respond to the changing agriculture environment. These adjustments to our policies and programs have been consistent with the objectives outlined in the national agriculture strategy signed by federal and provincial agriculture ministers in 1986. They are consistent with the national policy review we are currently leading.
The hon. member has suggested that our agriculture policy is authored by our international trading partners and that they are GATT driven. This is simply not the case. The government has and will continue to develop agriculture policy that meets Canadians' needs and conditions.
Yes, we have adjusted our programs in a way that also reflects our goal and approach in the MTN. This does
Adjournment Debate
not mean we have softened in the defence of our agri-food industry. We firmly maintain our right to design programs that suit Canadians' needs but are also consistent with our international obligations.
That is why Canada is working hard with other countries for international trade reform through multilateral trade negotiations. We expect all countries will agree to adjust their policies consistent with the new rules that are being negotiated. This will reduce trade distortions and lead to a fairer and more open international trading system.
I also want to assure the hon. member that this government remains committed to agriculture research in Canada. Agriculture Canada is a leader in this area with an annual research budget of $250 million. We will continue to support this activity to meet the needs of the agri-food industry.
In fact, research at our Central Experimental Farm here in Ottawa is being enhanced and refocused to reflect industry concerns. This is also happening at the Animal Research Centre in Ottawa because industry has picked up long-term animal breeding technology developed at the centre. The arc is now moving toward the development of new technology to improve animal production. The centre is reorienting its research programs toward the key areas of safety and quality of food, animal bio-technology, animal behaviour and environmental quality. However, the centre is moving in these scientific directions at the same time as existing programs are being completed. Because of this, the centre was heading toward a serious budget overrun in this transition period and extra controls had to be imposed.
Funding to the centre has not been cut and frozen, as the hon. member has stated. Rather, expenditures are being managed and controlled within the existing budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. This is not only ensuring that the centre can continue to provide essential services but also that it has this flexibility to meet urgent needs and maintain ongoing research programs. We are trying to do the maximum research with the resources available.
This government is committed to providing the sort of agricultural policies and programs that are in tune with the needs of our agri-food industry and we will continue to adjust these policies and our programs.

January 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate EMERGENCY MEASURES


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today during today's adjournment debate to speak on an issue which is of great importance.
On October 18 of last year, one day after the devastating San Francisco earthquake, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of National Defence about the government's lack of support for programs relating to emergency preparedness. The Minister of National Defence is the lead minister responsible for emergency preparedness and I regret to say that I was less than satisfied with his response. I appreciate the opportunity to further discuss this issue as several months have now passed. I would hate to think that the government has forgotten this whole issue.
As the House knows, this government made severe cuts to the earthquake prediction research program of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is indeed unfortunate as Canada is susceptible to earthquakes. Near Newfoundland, Yukon and Baffin Islands, high risk zones exist. As well, Vancouver Island and the lower mainland of British Columbia, where my riding is, are also at high risk. There is a high population density in these latter regions. If a serious earthquake should occur, and experts agree it is just a matter of time, the damage to property and the loss of life will be stupendous.
Last October, we saw the graphic and heart-wrenching images from the San Francisco earthquake. We were all relieved to know that the death toll was not as high as it might have been. It was thanks to improved preparedness that the city of San Francisco was able to cope. Would the people of southwest British Columbia be as fortunate?
Let us look at the reality of the situation. Each year Japan spends $100 per person on earthquake preparedness. San Francisco alone spends $19 per person. In Canada, we spend 29 cents.
Our Constitution outlines disaster response as multifaceted. Municipalities are the first to respond in a disaster. As they are financially unable to carry this out, they must turn for funding to the provinces who must turn to the federal government for financial assistance. This is not an alien concept. The federal government has had the revenue raising system in place designed to pass
along needed funds to the provinces and to the municipalities.
This issue is of great importance in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Experts say two possibilities face this region: a major quake of up to 7.5 on the Richter scale will occur every 30 to 50 years or a catastrophe quake of more than 8 will occur every 500 years.
I am concerned about this because I believe we face several risks. Many Vancouver area highrises were built before 1975's building codes came into effect. Vancouver's airport is only three metres above sea level and the earth under its runways could liquefy, rendering the airport useless. Two major dams, the Cleveland and the Seymour Falls dams, need further investigation into their ability to withstand a quake.
Last fall in the Vancouver area, thousands of parents were alarmed to find their children were attending schools which would likely collapse in the event of an earthquake. If we happen to get an earthquake which measures 8, a catastrophe, cities would be devastated and comprehensive damage would occur from Seattle right to Prince Rupert. Experts in B.C. have repeatedly stated that emergency planning is hampered by a lack of support by the federal and the provincial governments. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has told the province that a hazard analysis needs to be done on the major lifeline systems, hospitals, roads, bridges and pipelines. The province has yet to fund this.
Furthermore, the province has suggested that after a major earthquake we would have to wait 24 hours before the province would provide assistance. I do not know what the provincial government believes, but if it thinks that the injured and the dying could put everything on hold for 24 hours before needing support, it better think again.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me make one point perfectly clear. Experts have said time and time again that southwestern British Columbia is a high risk earthquake zone. They have said that the loss of life would be extremely high should a massive earthquake occur. They have also said the best way to prevent such a tragedy is to prepare for an earthquake.
We all know the most important first step in preparedness is prediction. Why, then, Mr. Speaker, did this government cut back the earthquake prediction pro-
January 23, 1990

gram? Why has the government jeopardized the entire earthquake preparedness program by attacking its very foundation?
I would like to remind the minister of what he said in this House on October 18, as found in Hansard at page 4810. In commenting on the role of the federal government to the two other levels of government he said:
We co-operate with them as a national government. We provide the
expertise that we can provide.
I think it is past time that the minister acted on his own words. It is time to co-operate. It is time to provide that much needed expertise. The minister has a choice in this matter. He can restore funding to the prediction program, thereby enabling scientists and the Emergency Measures Organization to have fair warning of earthquakes, or we can all wake up one morning to find that an earthquake has devastated British Columbia and perhaps killed hundreds and destroyed millions of dollars worth of property.
The choice, Mr. Speaker, is the choice of this government. It is the choice of the minister.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have directed her question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp), since seismic research is his department's responsibility. However, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister responsible for emergency preparedness, I am quite interested in the issue of earthquake prediction. For this reason, I tried to find out the reason why budgetary cuts were made in that area. It is simply this: Budget cuts were made in this particular program as part of the effort the government is making to curtail federal program spending generally, as recommended by the Nielsen Task Force. It was simply a matter of budgetary priorities.
This year, the credits allocated to the Earthquake Prediction Research Program were increased by $400,000. They will provide better means to monitor earthquakes in Canada as a whole and in Vancouver Island in particular and to seek evidence of earth's crust tension associated with earthquakes. They will help also develop new seismic hasard analysis methods and deter-
Adjoumment Debate
mine their degree of reliability for the purpose of updating our building standards.
Mr. Speaker, I must remind you that the federal government has initiated a serious disaster response planning to meet the needs of all Canadian provinces and territories in case of earthquakes, for it is first and foremost a provincial and territorial responsibility.
In reply more specifically to my honourable colleague who claimed just now that it was strictly to send money, I just cannot understand why the federal government is always being asked for new funds to carry out provincial responsibilities when the provinces and municipalities have just as much taxation powers as the federal government.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to come back and re-ask a question that I asked in this House in October of 1989. The question was with respect to VIA Rail and the announcement made by the Minister of Transport in that time period when he told us that the business plan called for the elimination of certain routes in this country and that the transcontinental train service, VIA passenger train which travels from coast to coast in Canada, was going to be reduced to three days a week from seven days a week. For the train to get from the east to the west, it must go through northern Ontario from Sudbury or Capreol through to the Manitoba border.
In that area of our country and part of the riding I represent, there are two rail lines what are commonly referred to as the northern line and the southern line, which follows Lake Superior. They are known to be competitive in scenic beauty with the trip from Calgary to Vancouver through the Rocky Mountains. I was on the last train as it went through this beautiful area of the country. Having been on both those lines, it is hard to imagine that this government would make that move to eliminate the southern route through northern Ontario.
It defies logic in as much as the line that was chosen to continue the transcontinental train across Canada is a line that only services 14,000 people in its northern route as against in excess of 256,000 people through the

January 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate
southern route of northern Ontario. The figures are based on actual accounts of Statistics Canada, using the 1986 census.
The reality of the matter is simply this. In the VIA cuts that were announced on that date by the minister, cuts which have met with so much opposition from coast to coast, there are many areas that have to and will experience from January 15 onwards a very reduced service of passenger rail service. The reality that we face in northern Ontario is the fact that we do not have a reduced service. As of January 15, 1990, we no longer have passenger rail service through northern Ontario in the communities of Marathon, Terrace Bay, Shreiber, Nipigon, Red Rock, Kirkit, Dorion, Thunder Bay, Ig-nace, Dryden and Kenora as it goes up into Winnipeg.
These areas just mentioned enjoyed passenger rail service in this country for over 100 years. It is doubly difficult to accept that move by the government because in this particular area we do not have the infrastructure that many other areas of our country have with respect to roads. Some of the communities that I mentioned have alternate bus service or adequate roads or airport terminals.
The very logical question I asked the minister is how he could make that decision. The response I received was that in the decision, we considered it was better at the time to keep the service for what is called the remote communities rather than for Thunder Bay and Sudbury which have better modes of transportation.
After making those statements, I invite the minister to visit Thunder Bay and Sudbury. Perhaps he would like to tell the people directly that he figures it would be better to provide a service where there are no people than to provide a service in Sudbury where there are approximately 125,000 people and also in Thunder Bay where there are 125,000 people.
I do not question that there may be some remote areas in Canada which do not have access to other modes of transportation. However, I assured the minister on that date and subsequent to that that the line he cut, the line from Sudbury or Capreol through to Thunder Bay and on into Winnipeg was not a remote route any longer, nor did it test on all the communities on that route, nor did it pass the test of remoteness.
What is the critical test of remoteness? It is whether any of these communities have any other means of transportation. I showed in explicit form, based on the
statistics already mentioned that the communities, although perhaps remote at one time, within the 12 years since VIA has existed, were now accessible by a fair quality of highway. They were accessible by bus or a combination of bus-highway or an adequate airport. So the test of remoteness did not apply in this particular area from Capreol or Sudbury through the southern route to Thunder Bay, Ignace, Dryden, Kenora and on to Winnipeg.
Both of those arguments were not only made in this House, they were made in committee and in personal meetings with the Minister of Transport and in personal meetings when the mayors and reeves of all of these communities in northern Ontario came to Ottawa to meet with the minister to see if they could get a change of mind.
The minister responded to my supplementary question by saying that it has been a scenario we have used for the whole country. We have people in this country who do not have any other mode of transportation. As I have said, I do not disagree with this. What I object to is the government labelling the CN line as remote when it is actually not, and it does not present a factual, logical conclusion to the argument I have just made.
I see that my time is running short. Let me just rephrase the question for my hon. friend. I appreciate him being here to reply.
It still does not make any logical sense that the northern route through northern Ontario was chosen rather than the southern route. If he can explain to me, through you, Mr. Speaker, why it is better and more economical to service 14,000 people rather than to service 256,000 people with passenger rail service in this country, I would like to hear his answer.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon about his question on the selection of which northern route to take in the reorganization of VIA's transcontinental service.
I am sure that in the next few minutes, I will not convince the hon. member that they have made the right selection, because he obviously has a bias in this. He comes from Thunder Bay-Nipigon, and that is one area not represented by VIA to the fullest extent that it has been in times past.
January 23, 1990

As part of the government's announcement of a national, affordable and sustainable network, the minister indicated that VIA would continue to provide service to truly isolated communities with no alternative means of transportation.
Back in October when the hon. member raised his question, he said that the communities from Sudbury to Chapleau, White River, Marathon, Nipigon, Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora and on to Winnipeg will lose their rail service link along CP's line in northern Ontario. In making that statement, I think he was playing around a little bit with his geography. He knows the area well, far better that I do. But in making his statement, the hon. member has overlooked the fact that VIA's Sudbuiy-White River service on the CP rail line continues in place under the government's decision.
It may be that the hon. member has overlooked these communities in making his statement. I can assure him that they were not overlooked when the decision was being made about what lines would have to be cut in order to fit within the framework of the money that we wish to expend in the subsidies to VIA Rail.
Similarly, the truly remote communities of the Winni-peg-Capreol portion of CN's line will be covered by operations of VIA's new restructured transcontinental
Adjournment Debate
service. For the communities between White River, Thunder Bay and Winnipeg, my information is that the total population of that particular area is only about 150,000 and not 350,000. We will have to sit down together and go through these numbers.
We also know that these communities are all served by the Trans-Canada Highway and all have high frequency bus service. In conclusion, the choice of routes reflects the government's intention to strike a balance between the transportation needs of Canada and the fiscal realities. The government's decision is not only financially responsible, but it meets the needs for a sustainable, national network.
I can also say in all truthfulness that the decisions were very, very difficult to make when it was decided what would be kept and what would be dropped. There is no way that you can satisfy all of the needs and what people would like to have through the rail passenger service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 24, 1990