1990-01-22

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
December 21, 1989 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 21st day of December, 1989, at 3.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
['I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely:', "The Hon. J. E. Broadbent, member for the electoral district of Oshawa, by resignation, effective December 31, 1989.\nAccordingly, I have addressed on January 2, 1990 my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.\nPursuant to Standing Order 30, paragraph 6, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper."]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other Acts-Chapter 27.
Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act -Chapter 28.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 3.54 p.m., pursuant to Order made Wednesday, December 20,1989, this House stands further adjourned until Monday, January 22, 1990 at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, January 22, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely:

The Hon. J. E. Broadbent, member for the electoral district of Oshawa, by resignation, effective December 31, 1989.
Accordingly, I have addressed on January 2, 1990 my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30, paragraph 6, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of entering into negotiations with the government of Ontario to establish a wilderness reserve or heritage park to protect the environmental uniqueness and importance of the Rouge River Valley system in Scarborough.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to introduce this motion today on behalf of the people of
Scarborough and indeed all Canadians. I want to thank the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River for seconding this motion.
It is fitting that an environmental issue is debated as the first order of business for this House at the start of the 1990s. This motion signals, as the beginning of the debate for this year, the importance that Canadians have placed on the preservation of our environment.
This votable motion calls on the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations with the Government of Ontario to establish a wilderness reserve or heritage park to protect the environmental uniqueness and importance of the Rouge River Valley system in Scarborough.
The Rouge River Valley has a great history which dates back to the ancient Indian tribes that first settled in the valley some 2,000 years before the birth of Christ. The first European settlers explored what was then called the Ketchie Sepee or great river in 1793. The river was later renamed the Rouge River because of the colour that was added to the water from clay deposits along the shoreline. Today, the Rouge River Valley system is about 10,000 acres of wilderness reserve in the midst of the largest city in Canada, metropolitan Toronto.
Many questions have been raised about the Rouge and its significance to our community and to our country. As the member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre and one of the first members to have become involved in this issue I want to take this opportunity to respond to the questions and explain why this is such an important and significant national issue.
First, where is the Rouge River Valley? The Rouge River and its water system are located in the north eastern part of the metropolitan Toronto. The watershed begins north of Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouff-ville and flows through Markham and Pickering and Scarborough before emptying into Lake Ontario. The system's many tributaries make up three main water courses: the Rouge River, the Little Rouge River and Petticoat Creek.

January 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
The most environmentally sensitive area of the Rouge is located in north eastern Scarborough. Anyone who has ever visited the metropolitan Toronto zoo has seen a very small part of the Rouge Valley and can appreciate its size, its beauty and indeed its uniqueness.
Why is this area so unique and worthy of preservation? The Rouge River Valley system is an incredible natural resource. The valley contains three areas of Carolinian forest designated by the World Wildlife Fund of Canada as critically unprotected. The area also has over 70 different native tree species which is more than can be found in British Columbia's South Moresby Island.
Among the over 40 varieties of fish in the Rouge River two are rare nationally. Of the over 70 bird species the red-shouldered hawk and Cooper's hawk are nationally endangered. Among the over 400 different kinds of flora in the valley 12 are nationally rare, 11 are provincially rare, and 92 are regionally rare.
The forests in the valley are inhabited by deer, bald eagles, foxes, coyotes and 16 other kinds of mammals. In addition, over 63 archaeological sites have been discovered in the valley, some of which are over 9,000 years old.
And all of this, Mr. Speaker, is less than a 40-minute drive from the comer of Bloor and Yonge Streets in downtown Toronto.
Why and how has the valley remained in this natural state? It is mainly through chance that the Rouge Valley has been spared the fate of the Don and the Humber valleys in Toronto.
A great deal of land in Scarborough and Pickering was acquired by the provincial government around 1972. In fact about 80 per cent of the lands in the Rouge system is presently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Government. About the same time the federal government acquired land for the proposed Pickering airport. I understand that the Rouge area had always been intended to be a green space between the city of Scarborough and the proposed airport. When the airport plan was shelved by the federal government the Rouge area continued to remain in its natural state ever since.
This has now given us the opportunity to have the entire Rouge River Valley system preserved.
What are the threats against the valley today? It is incredible to think there are those in our community who would rather use the Rouge as a garbage dump, a freeway, or as building lots for million dollar mansions. The threats to the future of the valley are very real, growing, and very disturbing.
The Metropolitan Toronto Council recently approved the use of the Rouge as a potential dump site. The Province of Ontario is considering using the area as a throughway for an eight-lane freeway. The recent leaked provincial cabinet document has called for further development in the valley. Developers in the city continue to push for the construction of million dollar mansions in some of the most sensitive areas of the Rouge.
The Peterson government has failed to come forward to save the valley system.
What alternatives have been proposed? Due to the outstanding work of the Save The Rouge Valley System organization, a proposal has been put forth to preserve the valley as a 10,000-acre park.
Save the Rouge Valley System is a remarkable community based volunteer organization. Started over 17 years ago, SRVS has become one of the largest environmental groups in metro Toronto providing extensive information and education on environmental protection and conservation. SRVS has been awarded the Scarborough environmental award in each of the past five years and its efforts to save the Rouge Valley have gained national recognition.
I have been pleased to work with Jim Robb, president of the Save the Rouge Valley System, Glen De Baere-maeker, Kathy Gregorio, Gloria Rezler, and Lois James. Ron Moeser, who is now a Scarborough city councillor has also worked tirelessly with SRVS as the chairman of the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations. The mayor of Scarborough, Joyce Trimmer, has also been actively involved in efforts by the SRVS to save the Rouge.
Each week the SRVS conducts walking tours through the Rouge. The Scarborough Board of Education has established an outdoor education centre in the Rouge, where thousands of school children visit and appreciate the beauty and the mysteries of nature. It is a tremen-

dous place for families to be, to explore and to appreciate. Speaking of families, I am pleased that my two sisters, Lettice McKenzie and Shirley McAllister, have travelled some distance to be in this chamber gallery today to witness this debate.
There are alternatives to the development projects that threaten the valley. Recycling initiatives have been proposed as an alternative to the metro dump site. Improved recycling could reduce the amount of waste generated in metro by up to 25 per cent, but it is unthinkable to put garbage in this magnificent tablelands that would destroy the ecosystem of the Rouge. We want this magnificence preserved.
The SRVS has also presented the province with an alternative to the government's freeway proposal. SRVS has suggested that instead of destroying the Rouge Valley with an eight-lane freeway a number of existing roads could be expanded to ease the traffic problems in eastern Metro. For example, the extension of Morning-side Avenue to link in with Markham Road and the widening of Highway 48 farther in Pickering, Brock Road and County Road 23 in Durham region are appropriated for expansion.
There are real alternatives which need to be acted upon. The park concept proposed by the SRVS would not only protect the Rouge as a wilderness area, but it would also create new recreational and tourism opportunities for the area. The proposed park would also preserve a number of farms and agricultural areas within the valley system. Some of these farms, such as the one owned by Russ Reesor, have been part of Scarborough's history for over 100 years. The historical buildings that are there are worthy of preservation.
However, most important of all, a park in the Rouge would provide millions of Canadians with a wilderness reserve that is accessible by city transit. Where else in the world could residents of a city the size of Toronto take a bus or a subway to such a huge wilderness forest?
You may ask: Why should the federal government be involved in this issue? The Rouge River Valley represents a truly unique environmental challenge. The federal task force report on the Canadian Parks system entitled "Our Parks, Vision for the 21st Century" called for the establishment of "national heritage parks" to protect wilderness areas that would not normally fall under the criteria of a national park. The Rouge Valley fits perfectly within the heritage park concept. The
Private Members' Business
national Minister of the Environment recently called for a huge expansion of the national parks in Canada, and he included the Rouge Valley in his announcement as an example of an area of national environmental significance that should be protected.
But, is a park in this valley a feasible concept and who supports it? Yes, saving the Rouge Valley as a park is feasible and the support for this concept is overwhelming.
Over three-quarters of the land in the proposed park area is already owned by the people of Ontario through the provincial government. The plan put forward by the SRVS blends existing development with protection of the wilderness uniqueness of the valley system and the recreational uses.
The municipal councils and those that border the Rouge have endorsed and voted for saving the valley as a park. Two of those communities, Scarborough and Markham, which contain the majority of the proposed park area, have also amended their official city plans to accommodate the proposed park.
The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, chaired by the former Toronto mayor and federal cabinet minister, David Crombie, has fully endorsed the park proposal. I was pleased to make a presentation to the commission and bring to Mr. Crom-bie's attention the importance of including the Rouge Valley within the scope of his study.
Last summer Mr. Crombie released his interim report of the commission, and I would like to quote from it: "The Rouge Valley is a unique resource for the metropolitan area, the last opportunity to preserve a significant urban wilderness in the heart of the greater Toronto area. Accordingly, the royal commission recommends that the Rouge River Valley be protected as a natural heritage park. Therefore, the province should co-operate immediately with the federal government in establishing such a park as outlined in the proposal of Save the Rouge Valley System group." That is a significant recommendation and I commend the royal commission.
In addition to the royal commission, over 50 local and national organizations have added their support to saving the valley. Those groups include the World Wildlife Fund of Canada, the Western Canadian Wilderness Committee, the Canadian Nature Federation, the local chapter of the Canadian Auto Workers, the Scarborough

January 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
Chamber of Commerce, and the Chiefs of Ontario, all of which support the creation of a park in the valley.
Perhaps most significant of all for this chamber is the fact that the federal government, under the leadership of the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Tom McMillan, has made a $10 million commitment to the Province of Ontario to help establish a park in the valley.
I want to read briefly from a letter that Mr. McMillan sent to the Premier of Ontario the day after I hosted the minister on a tour of the valley. He states in this letter: "Other cities of the world have preserved some of their most expensive real estate in parks despite development pressures. Central Park in New York, Hyde Park in London are but two examples. Such green spaces have attracted and delighted generations of visitors and residents, to the lasting credit of the governments that assure their preservation. For the benefit of Toronto residents, other Ontarians and all Canadians, I urge you likewise to place environmental values ahead of shortterm economic gain and to put an end to any possibility of development in the Rouge."
A year after Mr. McMillan toured the valley the present Minister of the Environment also visited the area and restated our government's commitment. During that visit the minister called the area "a miracle" and stated that a dump or a freeway in the valley would be completely unacceptable to our government.
Just 14 months ago the Prime Minister of Canada reiterated his support on his visit to Scarborough. The community was most appreciative of his enthusiastic endorsement of the park and you, Sir, the Speaker of the House of Commons, joined me on a tour of the valley last fall and added your very strong support for the preservation of the this unique area.
So you ask, Mr. Speaker, why then hasn't the future of the Rouge been secured? The fate of the valley rests with the Ontario Government and Premier David Peterson. Last fall, the legislature of Ontario gave unanimous approval to the Progressive Conservative Party motion to save the valley. However, to date no concrete action has
been taken and the province has still not accepted the federal government's offer.
As members of Parliament representing all Canadians, we have an opportunity to join the thousands of people from across Scarborough and Canada who are fighting to save the Rouge. This is an urgent issue. This is not a time for half measures. This is the time for the Rouge Valley system to be saved in its entirety. It is time that the provincial Government of Ontario understood the importance and the urgency of the Rouge being preserved. Saving the Rouge Valley system is an opportunity to put talk into action because once an area like the Rouge is lost it is gone forever. As the World Commission on the Environment said: "We have not inherited the earth from our parents; we have borrowed it from our children".
I urge all members of the House of Commons to come together, united, to support this significant environmental issue. As we begin a new year and a new decade, let's prove to Canadians that we are ready to take action to save the Rouge Valley for our children and for generations to come.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, since my election to the House of Commons about 14 months ago there have been many issues on the Order Paper of significance to the people of my riding, Scarborough-Rouge River. Today, the issue we debate deals directly with a large portion of land in our riding. The people of my riding recognize that the particular challenge of preserving the Rouge Valley lands is multijurisdictional and thankfully non-partisan.
This is not the first nor the last debate on the issue of setting aside lands for parks or conservation. All levels of government have learned the need to set aside space for recreation and parks. We have in this country a stunning array of national parks from Signal Hill to Pacific Rim, from Pelee Island all the way up to the new park on the tip of Ellesmere Island.
More recently we have had the successes of South Moresby in which our Speaker took a keen interest and other initiatives currently in relation to the Carmanah forest and Temagami in Ontario. Although each of these areas has its own special character, the Rouge Valley is in one way different from all the rest. Unlike these other areas, the Rouge Valley lies within a major growing
January 22, 1990

metropolitan area and is now lying in the path and face to face with the concrete steel and asphalt of urban development.
There are at least two major categories of reasons why the Rouge Valley must be preserved. The first has to do with the intrinsic value of its natural attributes. The second category relates to where we stand in time and in relation to man's future and his ability to grow and develop.
On the first count, the Rouge Valley is the last significant wildlife area remaining in metropolitan Toronto. As my colleague from Scarborough Centre has reviewed, it is home to approximately 78 species of birds, 35 species of fish, and 63 identified archaeological sites. It has metro's last Class II wetland and its largest continuous forest. There are many, many cogent reasons for preserving the Rouge Valley.
In relation to the second class of reasons I would like to start by saying that historically the presence of a natural environment or a vulnerable species has rarely stopped man before from plundering what stood in his way. The list of endangered and extinct species is long but, more important, the list can start right in our own backyard.
They include the whooping crane, the bison, the Labrador duck, whales and many others.
However, we have reason to believe that we are capable of continuing to grow and develop without degrading, killing and adulterating everything that stands in our path; that we are capable of pursuing long run development in a manner that is compatible with our global environment and the interdependent ecosystems which comprise it. We call that sustainable development.
In the early years of this century, in Toronto, there was no need to distinguish between the Don River, the Humber River, Etobicoke Creek and the Rouge River. We had lots of clean rivers, lots of ecosystems intact, but when only the Rouge River is left, maybe we can understand that if this one goes like all the rest, then there will be none left.
These are some of the reasons why the Rouge Valley must be saved, not just because it is the last chance to preserve a river valley in metropolitan Toronto, not just because of the natural assets contained in it, but also because we must prove to ourselves in North America that we can pursue a sustainable development process,
Private Members' Business
that we are in fact in control of our destiny and that we are in control of our planet's future.
We have here an opportunity to make that statement. Standing face to face with one of the hottest, most expensive, aggressive and possibly the meanest urban development market in North America, I want that statement to be made by my city, by my province and by my federal government.
There is another facet of this initiative that cannot be overlooked. The Rouge is not just a piece of real estate or a greenbelt. It is an ecosystem. Every facet of life within it is affected by what man does nearby. The headwaters must be protected. The table lands are also an integral part of that same ecosystem. That is why there is opposition to the provincial proposal to build an expressway over these lands and across the valley, when an alternative is available.
That is why there is opposition to the construction of housing on these lands. As if to create a theatre of the absurd, metropolitan Toronto recently proposed that a portion of the Rouge lands be dedicated as a new dump site.
If the Rouge Valley ecosystem is to be saved, it must be protected from all of the man-made, adverse environmental threats surrounding it. The initiative to create a park and preserve the Rouge Valley is now in the hands of government which already owns about 80 per cent of the involved land. The federal government has made a financial commitment. The city of Scarborough has imposed compatible zoning criteria. It is now up to the Government of Ontario to take the necessary steps to achieve that objective. Block the expressway and the housing, abandon the dump, dedicate the necessary land to the park and commence the planning and implementation.
I urge this House to adopt this motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to offer my appreciation and congratulations to the hon. member for Scarborough Centre for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. Several weeks ago, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River and myself had an opportunity at the initiative of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre to host a gathering here on the Hill for those residents who are very concerned about what is happening to the Rouge River Valley and to

January 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
allow other members of Parliament to meet with those individuals who were concerned.
I want to say that the presentation they gave at that time was very impressive. I do not think there was a member of Parliament who left that reception not thoroughly convinced that governments had to act to protect this ecosystem.
I want to assure you at the beginning of this debate that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus fully and unconditionally support this motion. We urge that there not be a prolonged debate, that the matter is so urgent and so apparent and so obvious that it could be dealt with prior to two o'clock this afternoon. We would be prepared to give it that kind of support today.
I find, for the very reasons that the two speakers before me made in their speeches to the House, that what we are debating here today is unacceptable. If the developers and those who wish to destroy this valley manage to accomplish their intentions it would be obscene. I cannot find language to use that would be any less strong than that. It would be an absolute obscenity to allow developers to build a highway through this valley, or to build multi-million dollar homes in this valley. The final obscenity would be to place a garbage dump in this valley.
The Rouge River Valley on its own is a wondrous thing. It is the only natural wildlife area in a place like metropolitan Toronto. It has wildlife and fauna that cannot be found anywhere else in Canada. Yet there are forces out there which wish to destroy it, all in the name of development.
Next month I will celebrate 10 years of being in this House. In that 10-year period I have seen a new awareness in Canada and, indeed, globally and a growing and grave concern for the environment. After all that has been said about the greenhouse effect, about what we do to rivers and lakes and our air, when we use them as garbage dumps to dispose of our waste, we find ourselves standing here today debating this very matter.
We are debating it because we have a provincial government in Ontario that campaigned in two elections on environmental matters, made itself out to be the protector of the environment and yet is prepared to listen to arguments such as we have heard here today that would destroy a natural habitat right in the centre of
the major metropolitan Toronto area. It boggles the mind. Any way that one looks at this it presents at best a puzzled kind of rash reasoning. It defies normal human behaviour.
I do not want to take up too much time because I think both members who spoke before me said as much as I could possibly say. I do want to say that this matter is so urgent that the federal government has recognized and, indeed, has made a proposal to the Government of Ontario to start negotiations on how to save the Rouge Valley system.
All I can say here is that I urge the Ontario government and people in this Chamber who have any influence with members of that government to urge them to sit down with their counterparts at the federal, municipal and regional government levels to come to a sensible solution to save the Rouge Valley system.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support this Private Member's Motion introduced by the member for Scarborough Centre on the advisability of entering into negotiations with the Government of Ontario to establish a wilderness reserve or heritage park to protect the environmental uniqueness of the Rouge River Valley system in Scarborough.
Although I wholeheartedly support this motion, I want to stress the importance of not confining the debate to the geographic area of Scarborough. Half a mile south of the village of Vandorf where I live lies the most northerly headwaters of the Rouge Valley system. Indeed, nearly half of the Rouge River Valley system is in my riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. The Rouge watershed stretches from Richmond Hill and Stouffville in the north through the town of Markham and south into Scarborough where the Rouge River empties into Lake Ontario.
Like any chain, the Rouge system is only as strong as the sum of its parts. When one link in the chain is threatened, the survival of the entire system is threatened. The question we must ask ourselves then is: can we preserve a healthy river system within a growing urban area? This presents a great challenge to all politicians, planners, developers and residents. The key is to ensure that all development activity is kept well
January 22, 1990

away from all environmentally sensitive areas, particularly the network of water courses and their supporting table lands. With wise planning and buffer zones around all rivers and tributaries, we will ensure that towns like Markham retain their environmental quality and natural heritage.
The park proposal put forward by the Save The Rouge Valley System organization is based on proven environmental planning principles that must be respected if the Rouge Valley System is to be maintained as a healthy and productive ecosystem.
The proposal encompasses 4,338 hectares of watershed area. This 4,338 hectares encompasses only 12 per cent of the entire watershed area. Of this 12 per cent, well over 75 per cent of the land is owned by the Government of Ontario. Most of the remaining lands are flood prone and therefore appropriate for acquisition by the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
I recently spoke with Stephen Marshall of the Save The Rouge Valley System in Markham. Mr. Marshall feels that the proposal put forward by his organization could best be achieved through a joint federal-provincial effort. He also said: "A provincial or joint federal-provincial park would really put Markham on the map. As Markham grows this park with increased protection of other significant natural areas will ensure that our community will continue to be a liveable healthy and beautiful community".
Never before have I witnessed such widespread public concern over an environmental issue as I have with this one. It is obvious that people are aware of what is at stake here. To lose this beautiful gift from nature to a garbage dump or another subdivision or a major highway would be criminal. It would not be an admirable legacy to pass on to the next generation of Canadians.
In September 1988 the federal government offered to contribute $10 million toward saving metro Toronto's Rouge River Valley as a provincial park or ecological reserve. At the time former environment minister Tom McMillan nicely summed up the situation when he said: "It would be a major achievement for our generation to
Private Members' Business
ensure that it (the Rouge) survives forever". That was in The Globe and Mail on September 16, 1988.
The rate of urbanization and development is accelerating in the Rouge Valley and has far surpassed any meaningful progress by any one level of government to provide environmental protection. Stream bank erosion, illegal dumping and sewers channelled directly into the water courses have degraded the Rouge River substantially. If this abuse is allowed to continue much longer, it will be too late to save the Rouge from gradual destruction. As more and more precious farm land is converted into housing projects and as the habitat of wildlife grows smaller and smaller, the time to make a difference and stop this madness grows shorter and shorter. We need urgent action and we need it yesterday.
To this end, Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Scarborough Centre for introducing this motion and I urge all members to support it as a positive first step toward saving the entire Rouge ecosystem from harmful development proposals.
Our ultimate goal for the rouge must be a park of the kind advocated by the Save The Rouge Valley System group which, as I mentioned earlier, is based on environmentally proven standards.
The 4,338 hectares of parkland envisioned, most of which is publicly owned land, constitutes all of the ground over which the Rouge River drains. This relatively small tract of land is vital to the preservation of the Rouge River ecosystem.
This proposed national heritage park envisions four broad management areas with complementary objectives. First, a natural reserve to protect and enhance all animal and plant life; second, passive recreation to provide high quality, low-impact outdoor education and recreation opportunities; third, a historic reserve to preserve the cultural heritage of the Rouge Valley system, including all archaeological evidence of native cultures; and finally the development of secondary tourism attractions that complement the exceptional natural and cultural assets of the area.
In its interim report of August 1989, the royal commission on the future of the Toronto waterfront recommended that the Rouge River Valley be protected as a natural heritage park. Spurred by thousands of phone calls, letters, and a record-breaking attendance of hundreds of Save The Rouge supporters at public meet-

January 22, 1990
Private Members' Business
ings, Scarborough council decided on July 11, 1988, to zone 5,000 acres around the lower Rouge River for natural environment and rural uses.
Although the Government of Ontario has stated its intentions to save the Rouge ecosystem, the province has yet to act on the federal government's year-old offer of $10 million toward the establishment of a natural heritage park. The will is clearly there to save the Rouge. What is missing is co-ordination and direction. I therefore feel that it is essential that this House offer its unconditional support to this motion to enter into negotiations with the Province of Ontario. The metro area land was originally acquired to create a regional park. In late 1989 the provincial legislature endorsed the creation of a provincial park.
The federal government has offered financial support. What we need now is action. The motion that is before us today for debate recognizes the urgency of the situation and calls for decisive action. It is a small miracle that the Rouge River Valley system has survived this long. If we want to ensure that it continues to survive then a logical first step would be to support this motion.
In closing, I am hopeful that these negotiations will lead to the adoption of the proposal advocated by the Save The Rouge Valley System organization. This would ensure that the entire system, not just part of it, is inherited by the next generation.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know from your own experience, whenever it comes to the allocation of land or the setting aside of land for purposes other than transportation or construction of highways and highrises, it becomes an extremely difficult experience. The Rouge River Valley is no exception to that experience.
Usually we know and we hear that there are important conflicting interests that have to be dealt with and there will always be when we come to the pressure of putting land aside for this type of use, either recreational or wildlife. There will always be excuses put forward whereby this project cannot be implemented.
I submit that this is not a question or an issue that can be resolved on technical grounds because all the technical questions and objections will never be satisfied and answered in a satisfactory manner. This is a political decision, a decision that requires political will.
Evidently in this House today, as a result of the initiatives taken by the member for Scarborough Centre and the member for Scarborough Rouge River, there is political will being generated in this Chamber and the message in a few minutes will be loud and clear that the elected members of all three parties in this House endorse and support enthusiastically the idea of putting aside this land for recreational and wildlife purposes for future generations.
That ought to be registered veiy clearly and firmly at Queen's Park. We cannot resolve this matter on questions related to transportation, hydro transmission lines, you name it, because we will be involved in this type of exercise for years to come without finding a satisfactory solution.
The point related to political will is therefore of paramount importance. It is important, therefore, in that context also to say a word of appreciation about the role that has been played in highlighting and promoting this issue by the Save The Rouge Valley System association which has not only produced interesting and intelligent material but also has advanced the issue by way of presentations to various groups across metro in a relentless manner over the last two years. Great merit has to go to this particular group if this project ever becomes a reality.
What we are talking about here is the quality of life in metropolitan Toronto. We already missed a golden opportunity with the harbourfront lands which were set aside in 1971. Because of mindless political decisions and poor leadership, they no longer were the object of what was originally intended to be an urban park but became gradually what it is now, namely an almost fully developed piece of real estate.
We have had that experience and we are tired of that type of drifting that has taken place when there was a golden opportunity for the people of Toronto to re-establish contact with its major geographic asset, namely its own Lake Ontario. Now we have another opportunity. We do not want to miss it. It is located perhaps not as
January 22, 1990

ideally as harbourfront but nevertheless it is located close enough to the population concentration of 2.5 million, as others have already said, to make it an extremely worth-while concept for recreational purposes and for the enjoyment of future generations.
Having missed on harbourfront we do not want to miss on the Rouge River Valley. Therefore we support fully this motion today in the hope that similar momentum will be generated in the Ontario legislature so as to bring this matter to its final and happy conclusion once and for all.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join with my colleagues today in full support of the motion which has been presented by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre. Even though I am a rural member and some 150 miles from that very wonderful area, the Rouge River Valley, I certainly support this and I am delighted to hear that from all sides of the House there is unanimous support. We hope that this message will get to the Ontario government and of course to the Premier of Ontario.
The Rouge Valley certainly is worth protecting and, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, particularly because of its unique situation so close to a great metropolitan area such as Toronto. The Rouge, where the river flows into Lake Ontario, is one of the few Toronto beaches that has managed to stay open for swimming in recent years. Of course, I think we are all aware that when the summer heat comes along, signs go up prohibiting swimming in this part of the metropolitan Toronto-Lake Ontario beach area, and I am delighted to know that this is one that is still reasonably clean.
Of course it has also been mentioned that the Rouge Valley is a naturalist's paradise. There are more different kinds of trees in the Rouge Valley, for example, than there are in South Moresby, one of Canada's most ecologically diverse areas. The Rouge Valley has been designated as one of the 36 most important remaining examples of the Carolinian Life Zone in Canada by the Wildlife Fund of Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Ontario Heritage Foundation.
Private Members' Business
The Rouge Valley is a treasure, made all the more valuable by the fact that it is located within or adjacent to the borders of the largest and greatest city in Canada, Toronto. Toronto is Canada's most heavily populated and definitely economically advantaged city.
Like modem cities the world over, Toronto can be a bustling, noisy place where fumes and soot from automobiles bring tears to the eye and where the hectic pace of life sometimes makes residents long for a place where they can find a little peace and quiet, a place where they can get in touch with nature and restore themselves to tranquillity. How fortunate the citizens of metro Toronto are to have access to just such a place, located right on their doorstep. The residents of Toronto, the people of Ontario and for that matter all Canadians can take advantage of this opportunity to save a magnificent pastoral park for urban dwellers if, and only if, the Rouge Valley is preserved.
Vancouver is already blessed with just such a park. The existence of Stanley Park goes a long way toward explaining why Vancouverites consider their city to be the most beautiful in Canada. New York City has Central Park, located right in the heart of Manhattan. Londoners can enjoy Hyde Park, Parisians the Bois de Boulogne.
All are vast reserves, located at the centres of vast metropolises. All are monuments to civic foresight in preserving land that could otherwise have been developed.
I would like to sit down at that this time, and trust that the House will pass this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
It being very close to two o'clock the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

January 22, 1990


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that on this day I refer to a very historic program put forward by the World Wildlife Fund last fall. This book, Endangered Spaces, which was circulated to all members of Parliament, all members of legislatures, provincially and in the territories, is a very cogent plan produced by 22 authors to complete in the course of the next decade the national parks system and the provincial parks system so that we may have a complete representation for all time to come of the historic areas, the natural areas of this country.
We are in a position federally where about 50 per cent of our park system has been completed. Some very encouraging leadership has come from the Minister of Environment with respect to pursuing the completion of that plan over the course of the next decade. We also need the full and active support of provincial governments as was indicated here today. It is my hope that with the kind of all-party support and agreement on the Rouge just a moment ago, we may see this as a logical extension to adopting the plan and program of endangered spaces that is so important for the future of this country.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney trade deal has done it again. There have been more factory shut-downs and more employee lay-offs. It hit home for me last week. My father, a dedicated employee of IBL Industries, located in the Conservative held riding of Burlington, received his pink slip. An official with the company states that the trade deal is largely to blame in the decision by the company to lay off employees permanently and to enter into receivership.
The irony is that while promising secure access to the U.S. market, the Conservative government actually managed to have tariffs imposed on some Canadian companies where there were none before the deal came into effect. Prior to January, 1989, IBL Industries had free and secure access to the American market, but because the Conservative government did not stand up
to American negotiators, their products became reclassified and they now have to pay duties.
Many Canadian firms have already moved south of the border. Canadian companies like IBL have lost important contracts to competitors in the U.S. Thousands of jobs, including my father's livelihood, have been lost in the shuffle. The trade deal is a misdeal and the Tories should fold.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, January 20, 1990, a derailment occurred in the municipality of Val d'Or, Quebec, at mile 36.1 of the Val d'Or subdivision. This derailment, which involved 11 cars, including four carrying gas and heating oil, made it necessary to call in CN's emergency teams, local firefighters and officers of the municipal police force and the Quebec Provincial Police.
One of the cars lost its cargo of 78,000 litres of gasoline while 150 gallons of heating oil escaped through the valve of a tank car. The remaining cars that went off the track contained copper concentrate.
CN experts quickly arrived on the scene and established a safety perimeter.
Mr. Speaker, CN's directors in Montreal have cut the number of sectionmen in Abitibi during the past few years, and the Canadian government should follow the recommendations given in the National Transportation Agency of Canada's report, released on January 4, 1990, on causes and circumstances connected with defects in U.S. tank cars.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Minister of the Environment to do his job properly. I am not the first person with this request. On December 28, the Hon. Justice Muldoon also ordered the minister to follow the law and to conduct a real environmental assessment of the Rafferty and Alameda dam projects.
January 22, 1990

This is the second time the courts have ruled against the government on this project. The minister still has not announced an independent panel to study the environmental impacts of the Rafferty-Alameda dams. He has eight more days to do so.
When he announces the panel, the minister should also revoke Saskatchewan's licence and stop construction on the dam. The Devine government in Saskatchewan continues to build a dam 24 hours a day, weather permitting, and has now completed some 16 per cent of the project.
What will happen if the panel finds the project to be environmentally unsound? Will the Minister of the Environment travel to Saskatchewan and tear down the dam? I doubt it.
Surely the minister can see how ludicrous is his situation. The people of Saskatchewan and Manitoba care about their environment and will not give up until the minister can prove, without a doubt, that the project is sound. Two courts have ruled against the minister. Why does he not use this opportunity to get it right?


UKRAINE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the seventy-first anniversary of a very special event in Ukraine, the creation of a united Ukrainian National Republic. However, the decades following that event were tragic ones.
But today we are witnessing an unprecedented revival of independence in Ukraine. So it is a particularly fitting time for everyone to celebrate with special optimism one of the great moments in the history of that country.
To commemorate that event, Ukrainians formed a human chain between Lviv and Kiev. Also yesterday, Canadians of Ukrainian origin formed a similarly symbolic human link by the eternal flame on Parliament Hill to reaffirm their quest for independence for their country of birth and heritage.
Today I call on the Prime Minister and his government to commemorate this special Ukrainian day by taking bold and determined steps to sustain the progress of freedom in Ukraine. We in Parliament shall help keep
the flame of that great national event forever burning in the hearts and minds of all freedom loving Canadians.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, even though the wording of the Meech Lake Accord states that the words "distinct society" do not give the government of the Province of Quebec additional authority, these words still concern many Canadians. In fact many areas and sectors of Canada already have distinct needs and solutions designed exclusively for their own regions.
For example, in Atlantic Canada we need a distinct economic development agency and we have it, ACOA. In western Canada, their needs are different and they have a distinct program called the Western Diversification Fund. We call for distinct approaches to help the prairie provinces' wheat producers and another for the Atlantic fishery. We have a distinct program for freight transportation in Atlantic Canada, and on and on.
My point is that all regions of Canada already have distinct solutions to meet their needs and the words in the Meech Lake Accord do not change the situation for any part of Canada. I respectfully urge those dissenting provincial premiers to actively make every effort to resolve their concerns and pass the Meech Lake amendment as part of our Constitution.


FIREARMS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, a young woman was murdered in my constituency last week. There was no apparent motive behind the killing; she was just gunned down. The suspect in the case has been described as depressed and suicidal.
This raises serious questions about the way firearms acquisition certificates are issued to purchasers of restricted weapons in Canada. When a person applies for a firearms acquisition certificate, he is asked whether he has had a mental disorder. If he replies "no", there is no way the police can confirm it. They have no right to demand to see his medical records.
The process needs fixing. Police should not be sent snooping into medical records but persons wanting handguns and semi-automatics should be required to

produce a medical certificate that, in effect, says he has no mental problems. After all, a medical certificate is needed before getting a Class 1 driver's licence in my province.
I appeal to the Minister of Justice to act now. It is just too easy to buy a restricted weapon in Canada. Let us act now, before more lives are lost.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what Canadians and foreign tourists might believe after listening to the media and the oppositions critics last week, VIA Rail is still running passenger trains in Canada.
The first Canadian train run only began in the 1950s and, like most things with VIA Rail, it ran late. Its cancellation was late, years and hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars late.
The last Canadian-it sounds like a title from some Harlequin Romance-was full. It was full of so-called train buffs who admitted they had not ridden the train for years and it was full of the media. The media had not used it for 30 years but took a free ride to write or report a story.
What is in store for Canada now that we have experienced the last Canadian media rail circus? Real train buffs will still be able to travel the rails, only this time the trains might be full and taxpayers will not be forced to pay for the train buffs' nostalgia.
The media and a few of the opposition members across the way can resume travelling by air as they have for years. Not for them, the slower romantic clickety-clack of the passenger train.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the Liberal government recognized the necessity of a national water policy and launched an inquiry. It produced in 1985 a report called Currents of Change.
In 1987, this government released a paper entitled Federal Water Policy, a weak document which had little
effect on government policy. Although it promised that international water projects would be subjected to environmental assessment and review processes, the environment minister had to be taken to court twice to make him enforce his own law in the case of Rafferty-Alameda dam project.
That paper also promised a legislative framework for water in Canada. Yet today, seven years later, after launching that inquiry, despite copious rhetoric on sustainable development, this government has no national water legislation, no national standards, and no legislative commitment against diversions and export of water.
We therefore must call on this tired government and urge it to introduce into this House meaningful and substantial water legislation.


CANADA POST
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious deficiency in the federal heritage buildings' legislation under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment. That legislation is being taken advantage of by the Minister of Public Works and the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Federal heritage policy requires a degree of maintenance and protection for identified federal buildings in Canada, some of which are currently owned by Public Works and leased to Canada Post.
While Canada Post continues to withdraw its commitment to operating post offices, particularly in rural Canada where the only federal presence in the community is the federal post office, the Minister of Public Works, through a loophole in existing legislation, allows Canada Post to operate outside compliance with the heritage buildings legislation. As a result, heritage structures like the post office building in Wilkie, Saskatchewan are left in need of maintenance and restoration and identified for sale to the private sector.
It is time to renew our commitment to postal service in rural Canada and through the Minister of the Environment to strengthen heritage legislation and prevent the loss of even more heritage structures across Canada.
January 22, 1990


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, as we get down to business on the opening day of Parliament 1990, I thought it might be helpful to members to provide an update on just what the issues are, and for the viewers at home where each party stands.
First of all, on the GST, nobody likes it, not even Mike Wilson. But he has the guts to do what is right for the country.
On the Meech Lake Accord, the NDP members like it so much they want two. The Conservatives support bringing the country together and, as Liberal Premier Peterson says, "It really does not matter what the federal leader thinks".
On leadership, the Tories are happy, the NDP have elected their interim leader and the Liberals continue the search.


HARBOURS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and in particular Atlantic Canadians are painfully aware of the devastating impact that this government's economic policies have had on the Atlantic economy over the past five years. Today I wish to bring to the attention of the House another problem that is hampering the economy of my own riding of Hillsborough in Prince Edward Island, that being the lack of a ports and harbours authority for Charlottetown Harbour.
The federal government is responsible for appointments to the ports and harbours advisory committees which monitor the daily shipping activities of this important harbour. To date, my constituency is still waiting for the federal government to announce such appointments. The Charlottetown Chamber of Commerce and numerous other organizations continue to wait.
The names of qualified individuals have been submitted but these initiatives have fallen on deaf ears. Today I call upon the government to expedite the process so that the Charlottetown Harbour can return to full capacity, benefiting all our farmers, fishermen and the local business community.
5. O. 31 VIA RAIL


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, last week VIA Rail announced 40 per cent fare reductions on some of its Ontario and Quebec routes. One week earlier, VIA announced a 40 per cent fare increase on the Vancouver Island passenger service of VIA Rail. At the same time, the Minister of Justice announced that he would appeal a Supreme Court decision which obliges Canada to continue to operate the Vancouver Island service under the conditions of the terms of union by which B.C. entered Confederation.
I call on the Minister of Justice to withdraw his appeal of that decision and to stop conspiring with the CPR to relieve them of their responsibility to provide passenger rail service on Vancouver Island. I call on this Tory government to remember that the terms of union by which B.C. entered Confederation are not like Tory promises that, can be forgotten after the next election. They are the glue that holds this province as part of Confederation and extends this dominion from sea to sea. Finally, I call on the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the hon. member for Halifax.


FISHERIES
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic fisheries are continually being victimized by this government. In its disregard for the Atlantic region, the government has opted to ignore legitimate requests and is not even bothering to construct its usual lame and inane excuses.
Last month, the Jessie & Shelly II, a $2 million fishing vessel, burned causing $1 million in damages. While under refit, the owners of the vessel have sought to lease a replacement vessel from the United States. Their request is legitimate and has received the approval of all levels of government and is in compliance with the temporary vessel replacement policy of Canada. However, the process has been stalled by the Minister of Fisheries.
The request has awaited the minister's signature for a week and inquiries as to the status of the request have been ignored and phone calls not returned. The minister's indifference to the plight of the crew and the owner

Oral Questions
is intolerable. Already $30,000 has been spent preparing the replacement vessel and each day that the minister stalls costs an additional $8,000.
A crew of nine is now collecting unemployment insurance for the first time ever. Why? Because the minister has been sitting on this request rather than approving it.
I have a message for the minister and this government. The people of Atlantic Canada are sick and tired of having to swallow this government's indifference. At least show some semblance of responsibility and approve this request.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, coastal Atlantic Canadians anxiously await the government's aid package. Recent press attention has focused on the town of Canso, but let us not forget that the Canso plant has not yet closed, while people in communities like Port Mouton, Lockeport, Port Le Hebert, Bear Point, Shag Harbour and Woods Harbour have already seen their plants close and their people laid off.
The South Shore has also been hit by lay-offs at plants and from trawlers in Lunenburg, Clarks Harbour, South-side and Port La Tour, not to mention the closure of boat yards up and down our coast, and the closure of CFS Barrington.
Coastal Atlantic Canadians are in need of assistance, short-term relief for families, communities and for municipalities who have seen their tax bases eroded and their social budgets increased. Funds are badly needed to support and encourage economic diversification and a reduction of our dependence on the unpredictable fisheries resource.
Let the aid package come soon. Let it be comprehensive and let it not forget the communities of southern Nova Scotia.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

The fisheries crisis in Atlantic Canada is going from bad to worse. Every sector of the fisheries is affected, be it groundfish, lobster, snow crab or herring.
The government knew this crisis was brewing and had promised general and generous programs, to use the Prime Minister's words. We now hear from different ministers that there will be no special aid package for the affected communities. Whatever aid there is will be from existing programs and existing funds.
Can the Prime Minister explain to the thousands of workers in Canso, in Gaultois and the other affected communities just what is going to happen? Is the Prime Minister once again backing away from his statement that his government would come to the aid of the fishery in the same broad, generous way Ottawa has helped drought-stricken western farmers? Is he going to back out on those words?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the problem of the fishery in Atlantic Canada. Unfortunately it is not one that can be solved overnight. It is structural.
There are the problems of overfishing by foreigners. There has been undue pressure in terms of inciting people to join the fishery. There has been overfishing by some Canadians.
In many ways there has been an absence of planning that has come to bear on the entire fishery with unfortunate consequences for fishing communities and for people engaged in that occupation.
My hon. friend who has a degree of expertise in this knows that it is not a problem that can be readily solved by slogans or simplistic proposals. It can, however, be solved in the longer haul by earnest co-operation between federal and provincial governments, the communities concerned, the unions and all members of this House.
January 22, 1990

I indicated to my hon. friend that it was our intention to co-operate with the provinces and all concerned to develop a comprehensive program that would be sensible, thoughtful and productive, that would help resolve-


An Hon. Member:: It's none of those. Where's the money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the Liberals. They ask a serious question about the Atlantic fishery. When I try to provide a serious answer, all we get from the Liberals are cat-calls. This government is going to bring forward programs. We are going to leave the cat-calls and the denigration to the Liberals.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, all we hear right now from the government is that there will be no new money. We are willing and are waiting to co-operate, but we would like to have the means to co-operate and do things that are of value.
In the case of communities affected by cuts in the groundfish quota where entire communities will be wiped out, everybody knows that existing programs are not sufficient to respond to the extraordinary needs of these communities. Already, provincial and municipal governments have reacted negatively to this government's response, or lack of response.
These communities ask, when will they receive assurances that new programs with special funds will be made available to see them through the storm. That is all they ask.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wrote, as my hon. friend knows, in the strongest possible terms to Jacques Delors, President of the European Community, and received a response offering to deal with this problem at the highest levels. The government is going to take advantage of that and there will be announcements made in this regard.
The government announced a substantial package of immediate assistance for those affected by the National Sea closures last month. This package includes programs of industrial assistance, a special program for older workers, and a community development fund. That was our immediate response. But for many months a special
Oral Questions
cabinet committee has been developing a substantial package for the restructuring of the northern cod fishery. This will be carried out in conjunction with the provinces and the communities affected.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration is finalizing details on the application of the Community Futures Program which will provide-and this is very important to my hon. friend-substantial moneys to the communities affected. These funds can flow immediately-
In addition, $50 million more will be directed to the Community Futures Program by the unemployment insurance bill which is presently stalled in the Senate. I have held meetings-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Fifty million dollars more is available for Community Futures, and if my hon. friend wants to do something, tell the Liberal Senators to pass the bill.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister.
All we hear about is recycled or reprofiled sums of moneys just like we did with ACOA.

In addition to the crisis in the groundfish fisheries, there are also enormous problems which are in fact reaching crisis proportions in the lobster, snow crab and herring fisheries. Plants have already closed down, and several thousand people have been laid off. Is the government aware of the crisis that exists in New Brunswick, Eastern Quebec, and Prince Edward Island, or does the government intend to ignore the problem as it did in the case of northern cod and is it going to let the people in the Atlantic region slowly starve to death?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not only very much aware of the problem, we are working extremely hard to try and deal with it. We are also counting on the co-operation of the hon. member and his party to help us in this respect.
The hon. member referred to a crisis in the Atlantic region. He is a member from the province of New Brunswick. It is true that we have a very serious problem in the Atlantic fisheries. I think that, before sounding off in a way that might affect investment in his native

January 22, 1990
Oral Questions
province, the Hon. Member should realize that since 1984, 39,000 new jobs have been created-


Fernand Robichaud: Oh, come on! The situation is worse than it ever has been!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in New Brunswick and that investment-Now listen! Instead of shouting slogans I think you all should listen! And if you don't want to listen to me, New Brunswick, I think you should at least listen to the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Frank McKenna. This is what he said in a statement published in the Financial Post on April 21.

I quote: "According to Statistics Canada, New Brunswick will lead the nation in capital spending growth in 1989, up a whopping 24.1 per cent. Business investment will increase an astonishing 37.7 per cent in 1989".
Listen to what the Premier of New Brunswick says. "With a world class port, a first-rate work force and our strategic location in light of the Free Trade Agreement, New Brunswick is fast becoming known as the smart place to be. We think investors and business leaders should know this information, but if we don't tell you, who will?"
That was Frank McKenna, Premier of New Brunswick. Stop bad-mouthing New Brunswick. Stop bad-mouthing Atlantic Canada and help us build a stronger Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I tell him that the people are saying that all that guff he just got on with will not put any-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recognizes the crisis and is at least half a step ahead of the Minister of Fisheries.
It is an unfolding national tragedy and it is a disgrace of international proportions. What the people, the fish plant workers, the fishermen want to know from this Prime Minister, what they desperately need, is a clear signal from him that he understands the dimensions of
this tragedy, that he cares about them and that he is prepared to put it as his first order of business.
I ask him, would he now give notice that he is prepared to stand up to the European Community, to take definitive action to stop the over-fishing in order to protect the jobs and the way of life being jettisoned by his callous inaction up until now?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated, there is of course an international dimension to this and it involves dealing effectively with the European Community.
I think the hon. member, if he is serious about solving the problem, would know that there are no gunboat solutions available here. There are none and anyone in this House who pretends that there are gunboat solutions is simply misleading the people who already have problems enough in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada.
The only way this can be solved is by tough-nosed negotiation with the European Community. We have begun that and have already made some progress. Not enough progress-and we are the first to admit that- but much more progress than there had been before when people dealt only in rhetoric and were not prepared to be involved in serious negotiations.
The Prime Minister has been in touch with the President of the European Community. The response of the President of the European Community has been more constructive than we had thought it would be. We intend to follow that up. We intend also-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, hon. members opposite can belittle the progress that is being made and they can pretend that there is some way that we can threaten the Europeans into line. They know that is false. We are not interested in dealing with falsity. We are interested in trying to restore stability and some prospect of growth to the fishery of Atlantic Canada.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims progress. I would say to him that after five years of silence, of using the Atlantic fishery as a pawn at best, the government began to pay lip-service and the minister got his answer from the Spanish and Portuguese a month ago on that. Despite all
January 22, 1990

Oral Questions ATLANTIC CANADA
the lip-service, they are going to take four times the quota assigned to them in 1990. The minister calls that progress?
I say to the minister, talk is not working. It is not working. Would he now take some definitive action? Would he take some trade action? Would he take some diplomatic initiatives? Would he stop the cheap lip-service which is getting us nowhere? Would he start the process?


Mr. McDermid:: What would you suggest, Roger?


Roger Simmons: I suggest that he start the process to extend jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks for a start. That is what I would suggest. What does the minister suggest?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, were the issue cheap lip-service, no one in the House could compete with the hon. member who just spoke.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not that. The resolution clearly lies on diplomatic actions. We have already been able to get some reductions in the quotas established by the European Community, not enough, but some movement. We have had some response by the president of the commission. We expect to have a visit here in Canada soon, within weeks, by the European commissioner responsible for fisheries, at which time we will have the opportunity to discuss those matters with him directly and can bring to his attention some of the problems that are being faced.
He talks about trade measures. He comes from the Province of Newfoundland. He knows that the Province of Newfoundland is the province that would suffer most if we got involved in a trade war with Europe because they would respond by going directly at Newfoundland and other Atlantic Canadian exports to Europe.
We have problems enough in the Atlantic fishery now without embarking on gunboat diplomacy, the certain consequence of which would be to do damage to other parts of the Atlantic Canadian economy that are strong now and that we intend to keep strong. We intend not to engage in these kinds of rhetorical flights of fancy that only harm Atlantic Canada.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that he does not want simplistic slogans, he wants programs. He has told us that he is waiting for the cabinet committee to come forth with some programs. He has removed more people from the unemployment insurance program on the east coast but he has put $50 million into Community Futures which requires the applicant to be on unemployment insurance. So he takes people off the program on the one hand and puts more money into a program for people on the other.


Mr. Epp:: It does not.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told us what may be, but people in the Atlantic region, families, are wondering what the future is going to be for their children. People are being laid off now. Communities, school boards and comer store businesses cannot even plan because of the instability that is created by the lack of proposal of specific programs for the Atlantic region.
Will the Prime Minister tell this House what specific programs he is prepared now to implement for the Atlantic region?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member clearly does not even understand how these existing programs work. Community Futures is a program that is designed for communities that have very specific problems. They are designated. There can be funding for these communities depending on the unemployment rate-not because of individual unemployed-that help them build a future. And that is what is being held up in the other place right now, an additional $50 million for those communities. That program is a program that works. It has been proved time and time again that it works in communities all across Canada and particularly in Atlantic Canada.
I will be making an announcement later today about three new designated Community Futures areas, but for all the Community Futures there is $50 million more, but that money can start to flow right now.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I redirect the question to the Prime Minister.

January 22, 1990
Oral Questions
We talked about programs and possible programs. It is reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce is threatening to examine any assistance package to fishery products by the Government of Newfoundland in view of whether there might be unfair subsidies. We know, based on past experience, that the U.S. fishing industry believes that essential Canadian social programs are unfair subsidies.
Will the Prime Minister tell this House what specific programs the government has considered but may have felt could not be put into place because of threatened retaliation under the free trade agreement?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we know of the hon. member's intense interest in this issue because she flew into Newfoundland for a photo opportunity for a few hours and flew out again around a week ago, so we know the intensity of her interest in this issue.
With respect to the question of countervail, there was already a countervail investigation in the United States which held that social programs such as unemployment insurance, as they were applied in the fisheries, were not subsidies and not countervailable. So the hon. member is barking up the wrong tree again as she does so often.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we have heard so far today a number of very sensible questions about the future of the Atlantic region and I think all members of the House are concerned about that. I ask once again, given the crisis in the Atlantic region, given the need for assistance now-not a rejigging of old programs, but real assistance, assuring that people can remain in their communities in the Atlantic-is the Prime Minister personally prepared to take action on this issue and to become personally involved in ensuring that this crisis can be dealt with now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to my hon. friend is that, of course, I have been deeply involved in trying to resolve what is a very major problem in the Atlantic fishery.
I take exception to my hon. friend's contention, and I will resist it there or anywhere else, that there is a crisis in Atlantic Canada. There is no crisis in Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is not.


Roger Simmons: Where you been, boy?


Mr. Peterson:: John, do you agree? Do you agree, Crosbie?


An Hon. Member:: Where have you been, in Florida?


An Hon. Member:: Wake up and smell the coffee brewing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: What's he smoking, John?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There are important areas in the Atlantic economy-particularly the fishery, which is in a state of crisis. That we recognize and have said it many, many times-that are going very strongly. Premier McKenna pointed out in an advertisement in The Financial Post, which I have just read, in August, that investment growth in New Brunswick led Canada in 1989.
If you do not heed the cries of gloom and doom which undermine investor confidence I believe there is a possibility that New Brunswick and other Atlantic provinces can lead Canada again in investment in 1990. The elements are there, notwithstanding the fact that there is, indeed, as my hon. friend points out, a very serious crisis in the fishery.
I ask my hon. friend to consider the fact that throughout Atlantic Canada total business investment in the economy was projected to increase almost 17 per cent last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The centres of excellence for research and development, so important to Atlantic Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we will move on. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I find it absolutely incredible that the Prime Minister would say that there is no crisis in Atlantic Canada. Not only is fisheries a major industry, but it is the only industry in a vast, major portion of Atlantic Canada. There will be communities completely wiped out if something is not done.
January 22, 1990

What are these people going to do? Why is the government allowing these communities to die?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there again is distortion. We have acknowledged that the Atlantic fishery is in a state of crisis and we are co-operating with provinces, communities and other national governments to make sure that we deal with that crisis. But we do not want the international investment community to believe that because there is this serious problem in the fishery that the economy of Atlantic Canada is to be scorned because it is a basket case. It is not a basket case. The economy of Atlantic Canada shows areas of important strengths. There is an economic future in Atlantic Canada. We do not want doom and gloom. We want to bring about greater prosperity.


Some Hon. Members:: What are you doing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, where there was a basket case. When we came into power, the Liberals had unemployment in Newfoundland at 23.5 per cent. We brought it down 7 percentage points. We brought it down 3.5 points in Nova Scotia and 3 points in New Brunswick. The economy of Atlantic Canada was a basket case and we are improving it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will not be surprised if the people in towns like Canso are not dancing in the streets.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The Prime Minister shows an abysmal ignorance of Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, if the fishery is in crisis, the economy is in crisis. It is not only the major stupidity of the fishery policy but ACOA's negligence and deficiencies, free trade and the VIA policies have all devastated Atlantic Canada.
This government is not only widening the disparity in this country, but this government is sentencing thousands of people in Atlantic Canada to abject poverty.
Why is the government not able to tell us what it is going to do for Atlantic Canada right now if it is going to do something? Why can it not do that right now? Why
Oral Questions
has it not come up with a policy? It has known long enough about the problems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Catherine Clancy: Tell us!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not need any lessons from a Liberal on how to help Atlantic Canada because Atlantic Canada is doing infinitely better today than it ever did under a Liberal government. You should be ashamed of yourself for raising these problems that only damage investor confidence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh come on!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to Canso, my hon. friend does himself and the House a disservice by suggesting that anybody is dancing in the streets. I have acknowledged that the Atlantic fishery is in a state of crisis. I have acknowledged that it requires special programs to help it. I have told the House and the country that with regard to the fishery we have and will continue to bring forward the same kinds of generous programs that we brought for the western farmers. I have already told my hon. friend that. We have done some things and we have much more to do.
What I am saying to my hon. friend, and what I am saying to the Liberals and the NDP, that with respect to Atlantic Canada there is trouble enough with a very genuine, fundamental structural problem in the fishery. Do not extend that to every area of economic life in Atlantic Canada. It is not true, it is not fair, because there is a very good economic future in Atlantic Canada and we want to work to make it better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
# * *


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it is really incredible to hear someone say that a crisis in the fisheries industry in the Atlantic Provinces does not constitute a disaster for the entire economy in the Atlantic region.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, because Canadians are also worried about another issue of national importance. Is the Minister of Finance now prepared to admit that Canadians across the country stUl massively reject his proposal for a new 7

January 22, 1990
Oral Questions
per cent tax on practically every single item and service they use?
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is this: Since all his colleagues have now had a chance to hear what their constituents had to say during the holidays, is he now prepared to withdraw his proposed GST?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member suggest that we withdraw this proposal a number of times in the past. If he is so drawn to this as an option, could he tell us what he would put in its place as an alternative to the GST proposal, because I have not heard a thing yet from the Liberal party as to what it would put in its place.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has now set a precedent where he has indicated that he is prepared to change his mind from time to time. We had the premiers of the ten provinces ask for a reduction in interest rates and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asking for a reduction in interest rates and a lowering of the Canadian dollar. They are now joined by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Through all of this, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada said no.
Now we see a bit of movement. Has the government finally given up on its policy of maintaining high interest rates and a highly valued Canadian dollar? Has it finally seen the light over the Christmas vacation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the response of the associate critic for finance for the Liberal party that he does not have an option to the GST because the silence that I took from his question demonstrated clearly the Liberals do not have an idea in the world about sales tax reform.
The hon. member has referred to unanimous points of view. Let me remind him of the unanimous point of view taken by the provincial premiers in August of 1988: Knock interest rates down by 2 per cent. Since then, we know interest rates have gone up by 2 per cent. At the same time we have seen increasing inflationary pressures during that period.
So if we had taken the advice of the premiers-the unanimous advice of the premiers at that time-we would be in a jackpot by now. We would have rip-roaring inflation today, different from the signs that we are now getting inflation under control. We have seen some first signs of that. We are not out of the woods yet but the fruits of the policies that we have been following over the past couple of years are starting to appear and with some patience and some appropriate decisions on the part of various people in the private sector, we hope to see some progress in that. But we are not there yet. We still have to bear with this policy to assure ourselves that we are going to get this inflation problem beaten.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As he knows, and as the whole world knows, for the last many months we have been witnessing the grinding down of the cold war in central and eastern Europe and even in the Soviet Union. For example, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are presently negotiating to get Soviet armed forces entirely out of their countries, and we should welcome this.
Therefore, why is it that he, his department and this government insist upon clinging on to that old relic of the cold war, cruise missile testing here in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there have been dramatic developments in East-West relations. There have been dramatic changes which are evident and, to some degree, surprising to all of us in their extent in eastern Europe.
There is no doubt that there were several causes of that. One of them, of course, was the reform initiative undertaken by Mr. Gorbachev. But, there is also no doubt that one of the reasons for those changes was that at times when parties like his were suggesting that the West should take positions that were divided, governments like ours decided that it was in our interest to maintain the solidarity of the western alliance.
That solidarity led, in the first instance, to the reduction of a classification of nuclear weapons. We believe it had contributed substantially to the dramatically new atmosphere that now exists in East-West relations. We have followed the practice in the past of taking major decisions of this kind in consultation with our allies. Often we propose things, as we have done with the
January 22, 1990

open-skies conference, that become the policy of the whole alliance. But we do not propose to act unilaterally and, by acting unilaterally, undo one of the forces that has led to the progress we all celebrate in this House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are prepared, each in their own way, to take unilateral action to bring down the cold war and to eliminate it when we don't have the courage to promote it ourselves?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How can we justify encouraging the super powers not only to put the cruise missiles on the bargaining table at the START talks but to tiy to get the cruise missiles eliminated when we are, at the same time, promoting the development of yet a more deadly cruise, the stealth cruise, right here in our own country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the NDP, where there is no prospect ever of achieving power, you can try to have things both ways. But in the real world you cannot have things both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, say that we should act unilaterally and on the other hand say that we should negotiate reductions.
We believe that the way to proceed is by negotiating reductions. That is a policy that has led to the present situation, to the present decline in tensions and that has contributed significantly to that. We believe that kind of solidarity which has worked and brought us to this stage in world events should be continued and we intend to continue to do that, through open skies and through carrying out other obligations that we have undertaken.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
Last Saturday, a derailment occurred in the municipality of Val d'Or, in the course of which an American tank car spilled 78,000 litres of gasoline on the ground. On January 4, 1990, the National Transportation Agency submitted a report on defects in U.S. tank cars. Will the Minister consider the recommendations of this report with respect to American tank cars that are a hazard to Canadians and the environment as soon as possible?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we did in fact receive the report to which the Hon. Member referred. Officials at the Department of Transport are now discussing its contents, and discussions are underway with the people responsible for the cars in the United States. Obviously, Canadian regulatory review will make it possible to tighten up regulations for both American and Canadian cars.

[English}


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right Hon. Prime Minister. As we move away from the cold war era and enter a new decade of East-West relations of collaboration and co-operation, Canadians are getting very excited about the opportunities that present themselves in areas of mutual interest, including the protection of our fragile Arctic.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister why, on the one hand, we are taking progressive steps such as hosting the open skies conference and yet, on the other, clinging to the past and indulging in regressive policies by allowing the continued testing of the cruise missile over Canada's north?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question was just raised and answered and our view is quite clear about the question of the importance of maintaining an approach that has worked among western nations. There are a variety of other challenges that we now have to face, particularly challenges of helping the nations of eastern Europe, which have had the courage to make these dramatic

January 22, 1990
Oral Questions
reforms, to find the way in which those reforms can be made more permanent.
With respect to the north, there are obviously some possibilities that there can be progress made in terms of negotiations, alliance to alliance, with respect to developments in the north. We are prepared to look at those. Mr. Shevardnadze and I began the discussion of that kind of option. The Prime Minister did with Mr. Gorbachev in meetings in Moscow last year. Mr. Shevardnadze will be here again in February. I intend to cany on those discussions with him to see if there are some proposals that the Soviets want to put to us. We will consider them bilaterally but we will only, as we have made clear, negotiate them on an alliance to alliance basis.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs told the press last week that he will be undertaking a major foreign and defence policy review and that he will have a report to cabinet within about three weeks.
Will the minister make a commitment today to consult with Canadians through the parliamentary process during this review and allow Canadians to tell the government whether or not they approve continued cruise missile testing, or is the minister afraid that Canadians will tell his government that its foreign and defence policy is inconsistent, contradictory and hypocritical?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, two little matters of historic note; first, it was a Liberal government that brought in the cruise; second, for years and years and years the Liberal party refused to have any kind of public consultations on foreign policy. It was this government when we came to office that published a paper that was the basis of foreign policy discussions around the country.
Now, to be precise, what I indicated in comments last week was that because of the dramatic changes in eastern Europe I have instructed my officials, working with officials of other departments, to undertake a major review of our policy in Europe. I think that is urgent. I think that any prudent country taking a look at the dramatic changes that have occurred, particularly in eastern Europe in the last several weeks, would want to do that. That is what we are doing. I expect to be able to
take the review to some of my cabinet colleagues in the next three to four weeks.
Certainly, I think it would then be useful for me to come before the standing committee of the House of Commons and discuss the results of that review with my colleagues in Parliament. If there are some constructive proposals, as often there are, from those kinds of parliamentary consultations, I would certainly welcome that.


ATLANTIC CANADA
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade who is playing a key role in the Atlantic fishery.
A few minutes ago the Prime Minister said, "There is no crisis in Atlantic Canada." I want to ask the minister, if he does not agree with this statement what does he intend to do about it? Or, does he agree?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Muzzle him.


Mr. Fulton:: Watch that nose. It's going to grow.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as the House Leader seeks to distort what I have just said, it is incumbent upon me to deal with it.
I indicated that there is a crisis in the Atlantic fisheiy. It is deep seated and it is serious. It requires not catcalls and slogans, it requires mature co-operation between governments, both nationally and internationally. It requires an infusion of capital. It requires restructuring. It requires assistance from employment and immigration, from international trade, from external affairs and all of these measures are in train to deal with a genuine crisis in the Atlantic fishery.
What I indicated to my hon. friend is that he ought not to jump from a genuine crisis to besmirch other areas of activity in Atlantic Canada where there is growth and growing prosperity. As Premier McKenna said in New Brunswick, New Brunswick leads Canada in investment. There are jobs and prosperity in many important areas. Let's recognize that to make Atlantic Canada better and
January 22, 1990

prosperous while at the same time dealing in a mature, thoughtful way with a genuine crisis in the fishery.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think that I quoted the Prime Minister verbatim when he said, "There is no crisis in Atlantic Canada." I want to ask the Minister for International Trade again, does he agree with this statement and, if he does not, what does he intend to do about it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I agree with every word, every syllable, every comma and every full point of the Prime Minister's last answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Bye-bye, Johnny.


John Carnell Crosbie: And the hon. member does not do Atlantic Canada any favours by trying to pretend that Atlantic Canada has no present and no future. It has a present and it has a future. It has a crisis in the fishing industry which we are going to help overcome. It has a bright future as well with Hibernia, with all its potential. The kind of remarks made by the hon. gentleman opposite are doing nothing to help Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Minister also knows that there is a crisis looming out in British Columbia. Zodiac Hurricane Marine, a manufacturer in Richmond, B.C., has been told by the U.S. Navy that it will no longer purchase Zodiac vessels built in Canada.
It is because of an unfair U.S. protectionist ruling that the company must now close down its operations in British Columbia and relocate to the United States. At least 100 Canadian jobs and millions of dollars to the Canadian economy are going to be lost if this company closes down.
I want to ask the Minister if he would agree with a statement that is right here in this document that he helped draft, the free trade agreement. Chapter 5 states that once goods have been imported into either country
Oral Questions
they will not become the object of discrimination. In light of that ruling in the free trade agreement will the Minister now launch an appeal for a ruling of the bilateral panel on trade, or through GATT, to turn back this unfair, protectionist measure that the U.S. Government has imposed upon this Canadian industry and save these Canadian jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. gentleman has a somewhat belated interest in this matter. It was brought to my attention by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at least several weeks ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: That's a big help.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are not interested at all in having your colleague's question answered. You are just going to bellow, roar and bawl so that he does not receive any answer.
Two weeks ago the minister of fisheries brought this to my attention. We are pursuing the matter with the Americans to persuade them to change the interpretation they have now put on their domestic practices. The ambassador in Washington is apprised of it. We are doing everything we can to have this changed.
I hope that in Canada we will not do anything ourselves to deliberately flout the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, such as adopting protectionist amendments like some other provinces that I could name have done.
I hope the hon. gentleman will do all he can to see the U.S.-Canada agreement is observed in Canada so that we have a good example for them down in the United States.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that if this House had been sitting two weeks ago, you would have been given the question in plenty of time to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the same minister that last year the U.S. Navy was awarded 274 contracts worth over $312 million in Canadian purchases, while in Canada we are prohibited from

January 22, 1990
House of Commons
making a comparatively minor sale of Zodiac vessels to the United States.
The free trade agreement was supposed to open up U.S. government-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I would ask the hon. member to complete his question.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that the free trade agreement was supposed
to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosedale.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today the House unanimously approved the motion of the member for Scarborough Centre with respect to the Rouge River and its preservation of the valley as a natural resource.
In light of the earlier campaign by the World Wildlife Fund to preserve the endangered spaces of Canada, both provincially and federally, and the commitment of the minister with respect to 22 or 23 more spaces federally over the course of the next decade, could the minister indicate what action plans will be formulated both federally and in concert with the provinces to achieve this before the end of this century?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our goal must be to complete the network of our parks by the year 2000. We still have 18 ecological regions to be represented in the existing network.
I have instructed my officials to work on a plan to include in the global action plan of the government a strategy to complete this network by the year 2000, with a clear commitment for the establishment of certain number of parks within the next five years.


TABLING OF STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to table the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dated December 1989 reflecting the changes adopted by the House on Wednesday, September 27 and Wednesday, December 20, 1989.
The complete edition, including an index, will be published in the forthcoming weeks.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to ask the government House leader if he can give us some idea of the business he intends to call for the coming week. I apologize for not giving him notice. I realize the question is ordinarily asked on Thursday, but I thought that since this is the first day we are back it might be helpful to members on all sides of the House if he has any additional information.
I repeat, I am not trying to put him on the spot. I recognize I have not given him any notice. If is there is anything he can tell us formally which could go on the record of the House, it might be helpful for all sides.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. Today the House will be dealing with Bill C-52, as we indicated to the offices of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.
We intend to follow that up with Bill C-51, the Garnishment Act, which is also a finance bill.
I would expect that we will have our normal House leaders' meeting tomorrow at 3.15, shortly after Question Period at which time-and I will instruct my office to have contact with both of the other offices to see if we can get any preliminary discussions out of the way-we can discuss a reasonable timetable for the rest of the week.
January 22, 1990



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Income Ihx Act and other statutes of Canada.
I ask that an Order of the Day be designated to debate the motion.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
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's response to several petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TRANSPORT


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I gave notice to the Table of my intention to move concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport presented to this House on November 8, 1989.
Routine Proceedings
I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented to the House on November 8, 1989, be concurred in.
Normally or traditionally in situations where a member of this House is moving concurrence in a report of a standing committee, particularly one that has received support from all parties, one would work out in advance with both the government members of that committee and the official opposition members of that committee the scheduling of this kind of debate. I regret that I was not able to do that because today is the first day of the House coming back from its Christmas recess.
I felt, in consultation with my colleagues, that the events of this preceding week necessitated debate in this House on the very important matters considered by the Standing Committee on Transport.
As members will realize, the second report of the standing committee dealt with VIA Rail and the future of rail passenger service. The committee held hearings in the fall after the Minister of Transport announced to a press conference the decimation of about 51 per cent of the rail passenger system in this country.
The committee met with a number of organizations which had specific concerns about the impact of those cuts, gave consideration to the matter and issued a report which was tabled in this House on Wednesday, November 8.
The committee examined a number of the areas of concern and made some recommendations. One of the recommendations was that the cuts not be proceeded with, that there needed to be further study and further consideration by the government. Since the government had put in place a Royal Commission on Passenger Transportation, which was also to be charged with the matter, the committee felt that it did not make sense to proceed with the cuts and then the study.
That is the rough background to the committee's report. I am sure the question in members' minds is: Why today?
Given the outpouring of support for VIA Rail that we saw in the final three or four days of its cross-Canada elimination-and there were not just hundreds of people but thousands of people who came out to indicate their support, whether it was at rallies or as individuals just being there by the tracks as the last Canadian went through-we have a responsibility once again to express to the Government of Canada our desire, even at this

January 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
point in time, to reverse the decision. It is entirely possible to do that.
Until such time as the tracks are removed-and I realize that as we speak that is happening not too far from this House-and until the equipment is sold there still is an opportunity to reverse the decision of the government and to put VIA Rail back on track, not just in half of the country but in all of the country.
As part of this process, and having been to those rallies in Guelph, Toronto and Thunder Bay, and having seen the thousands of people who came out to show their support, I felt that we had to continue the fight.
Earlier today I wrote to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Sirs:
On January 15, your government's cuts to VIA Rail went into effect.
The cuts were carried out through an Order in Council, circumventing any need for public hearings. When the federal Liberals used that procedure in 1981, your party and ours condemned them-quite rightly-for trampling on Canadians' right to be heard on a vital national matter.
Many Canadians have decided that, hearings or no hearings, they will speak out against the cuts. Rallies across the country attracted thousands; in my home of Thunder Bay alone, over one thousand people turned out to support VIA Rail.
Hundreds of thousands more have sent letters, cards and petitions to my office and those of my New Democrat colleagues. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians want VIA's service maintained or expanded. The cuts are opposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, whose town and city governments speak for 17 million Canadians.
I urge you to consider the effects these cuts will have on remote communities, on seniors and young Canadians, and on the millions of people who cannot afford air fares. I urge you to consider the effects on entire cities that have lost VIA service.
And I urge you to consider this alternative: a moratorium on the cuts, at least until the Royal Commission on a National Passenger System for the 21st Century makes its report. Put VIA back on track now-and do not sell any rolling stock.
Such a moratorium would be consistent with the all-party report of the House of Commons Transport Committee, and would allow the
Royal Commission to truly examine all options. It would provide badly needed public debate on the future of passenger transport.
You have described your desire to ignore the will of the vast number of Canadians as "courage". I respectfully suggest that you have confused courage with conceit. Real courage demands the admission your government may not have all the answers. And democracy demands that Canadians at least have their fair say in the changes that will deeply affect them.
I hope you will find that courage.
The letter is signed by myself as member of Parliament for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
The government would like to suggest that the outpouring of support for VIA Rail in the final days of its service across Canada, whether it was The Canadian or whether it was the regional services or the commuter services, was nothing more than romanticism, that people were shedding a tear for something that no longer mattered and they were sorry to see it go. That is not what I heard from them.
I heard students telling me about the impact it would have on their ability to keep in touch with their families. These are students attending university or college who would go home for Thanksgiving or Easter, in some cases for the weekend. They will no longer be able to do so because that cheap method of transport will no longer be available.
Seniors who for some reason cannot fly, who do not own their own vehicle and who really do not enjoy travel by bus are without the ability to travel now. Even by the government's own estimates there will be 125,000 people every year who will no longer travel because of the elimination of VIA Rail services.
If you take the price tag of an airplane ticket for a family of four from Thunder Bay to Toronto, you are talking in excess of $1,500 to $1,600. For them to go by train will take a little longer, but it is a lot saner kind of trip and it certainly has a lesser impact on their pocket-book.
Let us look, too, at who pays the price, which has been one of the arguments. The argument has been that there are only 7 million people who are using the trains and so many more are using planes. However, studies have shown that the vast majority of people who ride airlines either have their tickets paid for by somebody else-and I include members of Parliament in that group-or are businessmen who write off the total amount on their
January 22, 1990

taxes, or are consultants who are being paid by their clients, or are civil servants. I am told that 80 per cent of airline travel is in that category. This leaves 20 per cent who pay their own way, who do not get a tax break. The exact opposite applies to rail. Some 80 per cent pay for their own tickets.
We can play the subsidy game, but I say that air is subsidized to as great an extent as rail has been subsidized. To say that one is more appropriate than the other is a false economy, to say the least.
There is also the environmental question. My colleague, the member for Skeena, our environmental critic, will address it in much more detail than I will, but I want to walk you through some of the aspects.
We had handed down in this House a week after the decision-a week after the Minister of Transport announced to the country that here were the cuts, here were the routes we are going to eliminate-a four-page preliminary environmental assessment. There are those of us who are suspicious of a document that is handed down a week after the decisions are announced. As I understand it, any proposal, any project done by the Government of Canada, is supposed to adhere to the EARP guidelines, the Environmental Assessment Review Process guidelines. It has to be tested; and the initiating department, in this case transport, was to take a look at it to see whether it felt there were any impacts on the environment.
They did do something. There is no question about that. We know that the final decisions on the routes to be saved and the routes to be cut were not made until the night before the order in council was passed, so there is no way under that kind of scenario that a proper testing could be done even on a preliminary basis. Then we found out that it was an economist and a transportation specialist who did the environmental assessment. It was not done by an environmental scientist. It was not even an environmental engineer. There was no contact with the Minister of the Environment who has officials who one would assume would understand the process.
They did not even do the proper environmental assessment, even though the Prime Minister in the election of 1988 said that every major economic decision made by his government would be tested for its impact
Routine Proceedings
on the environment. As members know, we did not stand idle when the government made the decision to cut VIA. Nor did we stand idle when we saw the four-page phoney environmental assessment.
We took action elsewhere in this city, action which resulted in a full day of hearings before the Federal Court. The government lawyers came in and said: "Hang on folks, the EARP process does not apply to the cabinet. They are above it. They are above the law."
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what decision made by the Government of Canada is not implemented through Order in Council? Then they said: "Transport was not the initiating department. It is the Minister of Finance who initiated it because it was a budget decision".
My colleague, the member for Regina-Lumsden, argued before committee time and time again: "What are we doing here? What are we doing having the Minister of Transport making fundamental decisions about the kind of transportation system that we have in this country," or, as we find out, that we do not have any more.
The government put forward that argument and said: "We are above the law". I would really like to hear from the government, to have it justify to this House and to the people of Canada why it believes that cabinet should be above the law, why cabinet should not have to adhere to an environmental test on decisions it makes. It would be very, very interesting to hear that response.
Canadians by the thousands have indicated their support. It was not a case of the media riding the train for the first time in 30 years. The people I talked to-and they were from age 5 to 85-have a keen sense of how important rail passenger travel is to this country. It is not a thing of the past. The equipment that we have been using is outdated.
Seven Ministers of Transport have recognized that, including some in this government, and have promised to replace the equipment and to do what other countries around the world have done, that is invest. But, no, they never followed through. One time it was an election promise. Another time is was an election commitment. Both parties failed to follow through on that.

January 22, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Yet if they had given VIA Rail the kind of rolling stock that does not break down in 40 below weather in northern Ontario or northern Manitoba or in the rain in B.C., rolling stock that is attractive, that has increased capacity, we could have turned things around.
Compare VIA to Amtrak in the United States. They get a return of about 74 cents on the dollar, and they use new double-decker transcontinental rolling stock. They are even getting support from this government across the way in the form of export development loans to Bombardier-$100 million last year, $200 million this year-to supply rail passenger equipment to the United States.
Let me look at the comparison. Amtrak is at 74 cents on the dollar. What do we do in the corridor where we have a density and a potential utilization that is beyond a lot of the other parts of the country? We are already making 71 to 72 cents on the dollar there, and we are making it with junk. If we could increase the car capacity by 80 per cent with new head-end equipment, new marketing techniques, expanded schedules, I can guarantee that we would not even have to go to high-speed electric on the corridor to break even. We could do it with a good investment in some new equipment.
This is an important issue. It is one that people will not forget. The government thinks it will go away as the people stop seeing the trains. One of the Liberal members from Manitoba was on Newsworld with me back in November. He was a member in this House prior to 1984 and was defeated in 1984. He said the reason he was defeated was that people had long memories and they remembered what the Liberals did to rail passenger services in 1981-82.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that whether it is in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada, in southern Ontario, in northern Ontario, or on Vancouver Island-even though there they have a court decision that protects their railroad, and I give credit to those people who took it to court-people will remember. They will make sure that the next time around they will not be voting for anybody who cut their trains.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, this issue is certainly an issue that is important to the Canadian public. It is important to this House and to this government. In fact, this House has been seized with the issue a good deal of time in the last few months.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of questions in Question Period. There has been debate on the issue. Of course, the committee itself has put a great deal of work into looking at the question of rail passenger service within our country. Members of the committee looked at a number of issues, all of which are very important. They looked at the question of the environment, the question of services in remote areas of Canada, the question of a legislative mandate of VIA Rail, equipment and productivity. They looked at all of those questions that we believe are very significant and very important as they relate to passenger rail service in this country.
We as a government take that issue very seriously. That is why we have taken in this report that has been filed by members of the transport committee, a report that we know they put a lot of work into and a report that we as a government are treating seriously.
Under our particular rules this report will be responded to by the minister in question. In fact the Minister of Transport, under the rules, has an opportunity to respond up until April 29 of this year.
What we are faced with is an opportunity for the minister to look at the report, a report which was detailed, a report which brings up a number of issues and questions. He is looking at that and will respond to it.
I do not think it is necessary for us to take up the time of the House today since we have taken a great deal of time on the issue in the past. The report will be responded to. I can assure the House of that. Therefore, I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
January 22, 1990

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-52. The improvements in tax

Government Orders
assistance for retirement saving that it provides are an important part of a major series of pension reforms that have been introduced in recent years. All are aimed at improving income security for Canadians in retirement.
The improvements in the tax assistance removes serious shortcomings in the present system, which penalize some taxpayers and give undue advantage to others. Canadians will find that the new measures improve their ability to plan their financial future and assure a reasonable level of income security in retirement.
Tax assistance for pension and retirement savings is based on a simple principle: within clear limits, income set aside for retirement should not be taxed when it is saved. It should be taxed only when it is received as a pension. By allowing taxpayers to defer tax on savings and on the growth of those savings in the years before retirement, the tax system provides a valuable incentive for Canadians to arrange for their financial security in later years.
New limits in the tax assistance system will give millions of Canadians a better opportunity to attain income security in their later years. The reform introduces a uniform limit on the proportion of earnings that are eligible for tax deduction when they are saved for retirement. This will give all working Canadians, regardless of their employment situations, equal access to tax assistance.
The system will become more flexible. For example, taxpayers will have up to seven years to make up their allowable contributions for any one year. New provisions will also guard against unintended or excessive use of the system particularly by higher income individuals. This will strengthen control of costs to the public treasury.
These improvements constitute another important step in the government's pension reform program, which has enjoyed support in its broad principles and provisions from most members of this House. It is a program that has moved forward steadily with the co-operation of the provincial governments in a process involving extensive consultations with business, labour groups, the pension industry and individual Canadians.
The importance of pension reform has become increasingly clear in recent years as the baby boom generation advances towards retirement age. In coming years,
the proportion of retired people in our population will greatly increase.
Members will recall the main pension reforms already adopted to meet this challenge and deal with shortcomings in the pension system. These reforms include improvement of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and the Spouses Allowances Program, changes in contribution rates to make the financing of the Canada Pension Plan secure, and important improvements and minimum benefit standards of private pension plans.
The tax assistance system is one of the three building blocks in our retirement income structure. The first block, which assures all senior citizens a minimum income, consists of an old age security pension and the associated guaranteed income supplement and spouses allowance. The second block, which guarantees a basic level of earnings replacement after retirement, is made up of the compulsory Canada and Quebec pensions plans, to which all employers, employees and the selfemployed contribute. The third block consists of individual and employers' sponsored provisions for retirement income. Tax assistance for retirement saving helps Canadians increase their retirement income to the level needed to avoid disruption of living standards when they retire.
The basic way in which tax assistance works remains unchanged. Tax is deferred, both on the contribution to a registered plan and on investment income earned within the plan, until income is paid out on retirement.
These tax advantages are no small matter. Today, they cost the federal government $5 to $6 billion a year in foregone tax revenue; they cost the provinces an additional $3 billion. Canadians strongly approve of tax assistance, however, because nothing is more important to individual lives or to the social fabric than income security in retirement years. At the same time, Canadians want the system to do the job fairly and effectively.
The tax advantages provided to retirement saving should be designed to complement public pension programs by assisting Canadians to build the target level of pension income that will permit them to maintain adequate living standards after retirement. Since work-related expenses, income taxes, and saving requirements all usually decline at retirement, earnings need not be fully replaced. A pension of 60 per cent to 70 per cent of
January 22, 1990

pre-retirement earnings is generally considered to be enough to avoid serious disruption of living standards.
The present system of limits on tax-assisted savings is not well structured to help Canadians build target pensions. It provides widely different savings limits for individuals in different employment situations; it provides few opportunities for individuals to make up for saving shortfalls in prior years; and it provides some taxpayers the ability to obtain excessive tax deferrals by using various tax planning techniques.
In short, the existing limits are both unfair and inflexible. The result is that they deny many Canadians reasonable opportunities to build a target pension while permitting others to enjoy excessive tax benefits.
Just to demonstrate how the proposed changes will introduce a fair system of limits in place of an unfair one, I must first explain one or two things about retirement savings plans and the existing limits that apply to them.
There are two basic types of plans. Most pension plan members belong to the defined benefit plans. These plans are subject to limits on the benefits they can provide, but no direct limit on their contributions which can vary from year to year depending on investment returns.
The other basic type of a plan is a money purchase plan which has a defined level of contributions, but no fixed level of benefits. Some pension plans, all deferred profit-sharing plans and all registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs, as we commonly refer to them, are money purchase type plans. These plans are subject to contribution limits.
One of the main problems with the existing tax assistance limits is that the contribution limits on money purchase plans do not correspond at all closely to the benefit limits on the defined benefit plans.
As an example, consider the limit of $7,500 on RRSP contributions for someone who has no pension plan at all. In terms of the pension that this level of contributions will buy, it is less than half as generous as the $60,000 limit on pension benefits under a defined benefit plan. Moreover, for anyone with earnings above about
Government Orders
$40,000, a lifetime of contributions at this RRSP limit will not be sufficient to build the target pension.
Thus, the current limits place many Canadians at a serious disadvantage in savings for retirement. This includes many of those who are dependent on RRSPs, a group that includes the self-employed and employees without pension coverage.
For employees covered by money purchase plans, the situation is no better. For these plans, a limit of $7,000 applies to the total of employer and employee contributions including supplementary RRSP contributions. In contrast, a high income member of a defined benefit plan yielding a pension of up to $60,000 can supplement this pension by making annual RRSP contributions of up to $3,500. And, as I will elaborate in a moment, some taxpayers have been able to do considerably better than this.
A second key problem with the limits is that individuals with low levels of saving in employer-sponsored plans, whether they be money purchase or defined benefit type plans, often have little opportunity to compensate by saving more on their own behalf. Where an employer contributes only $500 to a money purchase plan, for example, the employees total contribution limit becomes $4,000 instead of $7,000.
The way to overcome these problems is obvious: put everyone on an equal footing. That is what the new system does by establishing uniform limits on tax assistance, whether pension saving is measured in terms of contributions or promised benefits and whether it takes place in one plan or more than one.
Over a career, the saving of 18 per cent of earnings a year should produce a pension equal to 2 per cent of earnings for each year of pensionable service. Over a full career of 30 to 35 years, that level of saving-free of taxation-will therefore build the target pension of 60 to 70 per cent of earnings. Accordingly, the new system limits retirement savings and tax assistance plans to this level, 18 per cent of earnings.
Just as important, the new system ensures that the 18 per cent limit is available to Canadians regardless of their employment situations or employer-sponsored pension arrangements. It does this by setting annual RRSP limits equal to 18 per cent of earnings minus the level of saving in employer-sponsored plans. In this way it permits taxpayers to use RRSP contributions to sup-

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
plement pension savings up to that uniform limit of 18 per cent.
A fair system also requires consistent dollar limits on saving in different plans. To match the existing pension limit of $60,000 on defined benefit plans, this means a contribution limit of $15,500. Thus, it is proposed to raise the dollar contribution limits to this level to provide comparable tax assistance to those saving through different types of plans.
However, to limit tax assistance to high income earners, the contribution limit increases will be phased in over a transition period to 1995, and the maximum pension limit will be frozen during that period of time. As a result, the maximum earnings eligible for full tax assistance at the 18 per cent rate will fall from 3.5 to 1.5 times the average wage. Members may note that this change is very much in line with a recommendation made by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform in 1983.1 might say at this point that most of the changes to the pension system came from the recommendations of that committee which was chaired by a friend of mine and former colleague, the Hon. Doug Frith, the then member for Sudbury, who spent a considerable amount of time on pension reform in the early 1980s. I think the House should recognize the contribution made by Doug Frith and his colleagues from all parties to the legislation that we are debating today in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Now he is in the private sector making money.
The phasing-in of the new contribution limits will start in 1991 and be completed by 1995. For money purchase plans, the maximum contribution will be increased to $12,500 in 1991 and by $1,000 a year thereafter until it reaches $15,500 in 1994. The RRSP contribution limit will be increased to $11,500 in 1991 and will also increase by $1,000 a year reaching $15,500 in 1995. Once this phase-in period is complete, the dollar limits will be adjusted by increases in the average industrial wage in the same manner as the maximum covered earnings level is adjusted under the Canada Pension Plan.
Another major shortcoming of the existing system is its inflexibility. Individuals cannot make up for missed
saving opportunities. As we all know, it is not always possible to put aside a set proportion of earnings for retirement each year. Another element of inflexibility is the absence of opportunity for employees to make up for loss of benefits upon job termination, a serious shortcoming in our mobile society.
The first of these problems will be met by a new carry-forward provision. Taxpayers will be able to take advantage of unused deductions for up to seven years. This is very important for the small business person who may be starting out in business and does not have moneys that he can contribute to his RRSP in the early years of establishing his or her business. However, as they progress and the business becomes profitable, they may have extra funds to establish a retirement program for themselves and will have that carry forward from the years when the earnings were lean and they did not have that opportunity.
This would also apply to young families who are starting out and buying homes and perhaps devoting a lot of their money at the beginning to purchase the home and get established but in later years have some money to invest for retirement income. This carry-forward program is very important. It also applies to farmers who may have lean years and good years and will have that carry-forward program on the RRSPs. We believe that this is a major plus for the pension reform.
The second problem will be addressed by providing special additions to the RRSP limits of those who lose benefits on termination from a pension plan. The extra contribution opportunities will help them make up for such losses. If they had a pension plan that was very good in one company and went to another company where it was not as good, they can now make up the differences with the RRSP. This is a much fairer system.
I have already noted that we have proposed to restrict tax assistance to high-income earners by freezing the maximum pension limit until 1995. The reform of the contribution limits also eliminates a variety of opportunities that have permitted taxpayers to obtain excessive tax deferral advantages. Let me point out a few of these.
First, the codification of the maximum pension limits in the Income Tax Act will bring an end to a growing number of exceptions that have been made to the limits.
January 22, 1990

It is important to note that the purpose of the new rules is not to limit the pensions that employers can provide.
Rather, it is to limit the benefits that can be provided on a tax assisted basis. The limits will apply to all tax assisted plans in Canada. This means, for example, that modifications will be required to federal public sector pension plans, including plans for MPs and Senators to bring them in conformity with the tax assistance limits.
Second, the rules will eliminate opportunities to double up on the tax assistance limits. Under the existing rules individuals have been able to make additional contributions for years of past service even though full RRSP contributions have already been made or full pension benefits have already been credited in those years. The existing rules have permitted taxpayers to make excess contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars in this way.
Third, an important part of the reform already implemented in 1988 eliminates opportunities for taxpayers to obtain full tax deferral benefits on saving outside RRSPs. This change addressed a weakness in the tax rules that permitted employees of non-taxable employers to contribute unlimited portions of salaries to plans that provided the same tax advantages as RRSPs.
Fourth, taxpayers with sufficient resources to enable them to defer receipt of their pension incomes have been able to generate pensions well above the pension limit by transferring pension income into an RRSP. For example, by rolling ten years of pension payments into an RRSP someone entitled to a maximum pension of $60,000 at age 60 could produce a pension of $120,000 at age 70.
All these loopholes chiefly favouring high-income taxpayers will be closed by the uniform limits and the codified rules that will be included in the Income Ihx Act. The rules will require tighter accounting for pension contributions than in the past. Tkx free transfers and rollovers that would effectively violate the new tax assistance limits will no longer be allowed. The proposed changes in tax assistance limits will be of particular benefit to the self-employed and to employees who are either outside employer sponsored plans or belong to plans with low-level benefits.
Government Orders
The changes will also benefit those whose plans cover only a part of their earnings or who have part-time jobs. Many Canadians, especially those starting out in employment or facing fluctuations in earnings for any reason, will find the seven-year carry-forward of unused RRSP contribution room a great advantage.
The federal revenue costs of the change in the RRSP limit is expected to be $300 million to $350 million a year. But this will be offset by gains from the removal of the excesses in the present system. The reform should not result in any net revenue costs for the federal or the provincial governments.
Employers will bear some additional costs for the accounting required to make the new system work. In view of the importance of retirement income security to Canadians and the significant revenue costs of tax assistance, the government believes that this burden is reasonable. Once the system is in operation the compliance costs will be only about one-sixth of one per cent of the total federal and provincial tax expenditures on assistance for retirement saving.
Since taxpayers will not improve their tax position by saving through one type of plan rather than another, their choice of plan will depend on questions of merit and suitability rather than the best way of minimizing taxes.
These changes crown a program of pension reform in which Canadians can take comfort and pride. They represent our Canadian belief both in sharing burdens for the common good and making sure that individuals have had the opportunity to look after themselves. The new system of limits on tax assistance for retirement saving is a step we must take so that Canadians can, with confidence, look forward to providing adequately for themselves in the years ahead.
I might say as I mentioned earlier that the committee in the House of Commons in 1983 made a report. Since then there has been a great deal of consultation on pension reform. This is a combination of that consultation. We believe that it is a very good bill. We believe that it is a thorough bill.
It is fair, it is flexible and we are hoping that we can get this bill to committee as expeditiously as possible. It is a technical bill, containing many, many pages. We are hoping that it will be examined in committee in great detail, so that we may assure ourselves in the House of

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
Commons that we have done the right thing and that this pension reform will be in the long term of great benefit to all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


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 ad-journement are as follows: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn (Mr. Fisher)-Public Service Alliance of Canada; the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons)-Fisheries; the hon. member for South West Nova (Mrs. Campbell)-Fisheries.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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 the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, we just want to take a few minutes to discuss this bill at this stage in the parliamentary process because, as is well known to the minister-and I listened to his presentation with a great deal of interest-this legislation is extremely complex. We believe it is imperative that we take all the time required in committee to hear representations from experts.
I understand and agree to some extent with the minister's comments that this is an attempt to put to rest some inequities in the existing system and to try to make it easier for some people to participate in this type of savings program. However, I am not sure that that is going to be the result. But I think we would be well
advised to listen to those people who are going to be in a position in a very professional way to look at Bill C-52, all 100 pages of it.
There is an aging population in this country and many people are aware of the need to prepare themselves as adequately as they can for their old age. We know that these issues are becoming extremely complex when a piece of legislation such as this is brought forward and includes a guide. It is not a guide for applying the bill or describing the very technical nature of how best it can be applied, but a guide for ordinary Canadians. It is some 60 to 70 pages long. I think that demonstrates the complexity involved in the legislation.
I would suggest that we will all be looking forward to the opportunity to be provided to us in the finance committee of listening to people from various walks of life, such as accountants. I think it is fair to say in looking at the legislation that although the minister may be well founded in his optimism that this is simpler, I suspect that when you have legislation this complex that accountants will discover loopholes that will provide some opportunities for people to achieve what perhaps the government has been trying to prevent.
I suggest that since the legislation has been brought forward that there have already been some presentations made by people who suggest that there may be some problems with the legislation with respect to equity. But I prefer to take the time that is required to listen to what people who have vast experience in this field have to say.
It seems to me that there are basic questions that have to be addressed. For example, what will it cost? If there are savings for some segments of society, so that they can set money aside and it is protected in terms of tax impact, what is it going to cost Canadians in terms of tax loss, if in fact there will be any?
I am sure the government will have some statistics in addition to the short term figures which we recognize have been provided, but what happens after 1995? Is there any indication as to what it will cost? At the same time, who will benefit? Who will be able to take advantage of the changes that are being brought forward, and is that in the general public interest?
Obviously, there were inequities, there were people who were benefiting from the existing system. Will they be hurt? Are we bringing everybody up to a level or are

January 22, 1990

we taking some people backwards? Are we making it more difficult for some and easier for others?
Obviously, there has been some talk that some people will be favoured, the self-employed and people who are not presently in pensions. The raising of the limits will provide some opportunities for people who have sufficient funds to be able to take advantage of those new limits.
I am concerned about whether the reform to the RRSPs is consistent with other reforms that are being proposed by the government. For example, let us look at the GST situation. There has been a great deal of concern about the lack of indexation for credits to low-income families. Once the indexing system with respect to the RRSPs is implemented, how does that fit into our system of fairness and equity as we try to reform a number of these elements of our financial support structure in this country?
The GST comes up even when we are talking about RRSPs. We are looking at some changes that will come into effect at the same time. What will the impact be of allowing people an opportunity to set more money aside, thus reducing their disposable income and consumer spending at the same time as we bring in the GST? Has the department of finance or the government looked at what kind of impact this could have on our economy in 1991? What I am suggesting is that we will look forward with a great deal of interest to a very open and thorough hearing about all of these aspects from people from across the country who will want to deal before committee with this legislation.
I am sure the minister understands that the committee will have to take a substantial amount of time in order to cope with the various elements that have been raised in this bill. There is a great deal of concern among public sector employees as to whether or not there is going to be some negative results for them as a result of this reform.
We in the Liberal Party are looking forward to an opportunity to listen to Canadians. We hope that people with the expertise will come forward. I especially hope that senior citizens and senior citizens groups and people in the public sector as well as the private sector will make certain that before we deal with this piece of legislation
Government Orders
again that they will take the opportunity afforded to them to come before the committee to make their arguments.
I would heartily recommend to anyone who has any feelings about the impact of reform of the Registered Retirement Savings Plan legislation to make sure their MPs are aware of them. If people have specific questions, they should make sure they bring them before the House of Commons and are heard because those people coming before committee tend to have a very particular perspective. They are dealing with specific issues of importance to them and the rest of the Canadian public have to take care of themselves. We do have the time to deal with it adequately.
It is going to require a great deal of homework on the part of many people because accountants, financial consultants and financial advisers have had enormous difficulty with the existing legislation. Many people suggest that although there may be the resolution of some inequities with this legislation that, in fact, it is becoming more complex rather than more simple.
In closing, I would suggest very strongly and urge Canadians who are concerned about roll-over provisions and how they are going to respond to this new legislation, to get in touch with their Members of Parliament and write letters to them as soon as possible. They may have some special quirks or specific circumstances that they are aware of that we could overlook.
Hopefully, after the process in committee we will be able to come back to the House with some very specific recommendations. I would be very surprised if there are not a number of amendments to the legislation. I think it is a little early to discuss that yet because certainly my feeling is we should be listening to Canadians and providing them with an opportunity to be heard before the Standing Committee on Finance.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, in looking at Bill C-52 it is fairly apparent that this is a bill with which I personally have some difficulty in my experience as one who invests in Registered Retirements Savings Plans. It also causes concern when one considers it from the perspective of where we, as Canadians, should be going and looking to the future and making sure that all Canadians, as I

Government Orders
believe this government has stated in some of its material, are looked after in their golden years.
In looking at the bill and analysing it and looking at the broader perspective, I cannot help but wonder whether this is the thrust that we should be taking. I wonder whether we should be concentrating a little more on the broader perspective.
I find it very interesting that the minister who is shepherding this bill through is the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs. If we look at the agenda that we have had before us over the last year in Parliament and as far back as 1984 with this particular government, the fact that this minister is the one shepherding this bill one can say it is a comment on where legislation is going. A lot of this can be tied into the privatization thrust and the government's broader agenda. I would like to come back to this later.
First, let us look at what has been happening over the last year. We look at the free trade agreement and some of the forces of harmonization that have already started occurring. I would suggest that this move toward the further privatization of pension funds is another step away from Canada Pension and Old Age Security. Canadians have looked on these plans with some favour for a good number of years, ever since the original Canada Pension Plan and since 1926 when the original Old Age Security came in.
Look at what happened in the past term with the unemployment insurance bill. Again, we see a move away from public sector into privatization and harmonization with the free trade agreement. We see the clawback bill, Bill C-28, that we just finished debating prior to Christmas. Once again, we see the start of that breakdown of universality, the move toward privatization.
Now we have a Registered Retirement Savings Plan bill that, on the surface, appears to be for those in the upper-income levels or upper middle-income levels. It appears to be a bill that is innocuous, and something that perhaps we need, but if we take in in the over-all plan it seems to fit in a mesh with that thrust toward privatization and harmonization that I predict we are going to see more and more in the coming session through the upcoming budget and into the next few years under this particular government.
Let us look for a minute at exactly what the bill is proposing. The government tells us that it is going to be a new system. When one looks at the the proposed
legislation we can see that it is a complex bill, one difficult to understand even after reading some of the explanatory notes given to us by the government. My friend in the Liberal party who just spoke mentioned the loopholes. There is a reason why the tax lawyer's dog is called Loophole and that is because that is the job of tax lawyers. It is to look for exactly those types of loopholes that we, as Canadians, who can afford to pay for them, can use. The more complex the legislation, it seems to me that there are more and more loopholes that we will be able to use within the legislation.
The key element of the reform in this particular manner, of course, is changing the limits. Presently, it is $7,500 per year to scale up ultimately by 1995 to $15,500, while we lower the limit to 18 per cent from 20 per cent. Who, in fact, does that help? Dropping on the one hand the percentage and increasing on the other the maximum, we see that the maximum works out ultimately to somewhere in the area of $86,100 at 18 per cent. That makes up a very small percentage of Canadians which this bill will help.
Let me look at figures of those who has been using the registered retirement savings plans in the past. The government has admitted as much in some of the materials it has put out when it asks its own members in one of its documents whether this is a help to the rich and another slight to the poor. The answer, of course, as the government has recommended to its members is that, no, in fact, those who are less well off do not use registered retirement savings plans.
I think the figures bear that out. But the government has missed the point once again. Let us go through some of those figures. All are based on the number of tax filers contributing to the registered retirement savings plans. If we look at those between $10,000 and $15,000, we find that 11.2 per cent of those who file tax returns, in fact, contribute. If you go lower, $5,000 to $10,000, only 3.7 per cent actually contribute to registered retirement savings plans. In the $20,000 to $25,000 range, it is 26.6 per cent, with an average contribution of $2,060.
Then we' see it start scaling up until we reach in the $50,000 plus range, 57.8 per cent of those tax filers purchase into registered retirement savings plans with their average contribution being $4,700. It is obvious that first of all, those with less income have to use that income to live on and do not have the ability to pay in toward a registered retirement savings plan, but they can


January 22, 1990

and should be able to pay into a Canada pension and old age security.
Under this new plan in the first year, at $11,500, the minimum income required for that is $63,888. Now, very few of our people have that kind of money. It is interesting to note that the figures show that 5 per cent of the population have 20 per cent of all of the income. They derive 27 per cent of the benefit of tax deductible contributions to RRSPs. It seems to me there is an unfairness built into the registered retirement savings plan system. Something more has to be looked at. In our society it seems that through legislation and other measures like the proposed goods and service tax there is a greater split developing in Canada between two groups. We are having two groups; the split away from the middle income earners toward a rich society and a very poor society with few in the middle.
All of the legislation we have seen seems to go this way. The goods and services tax, for instance, has been proposed in order to get rid of the manufacturers' sales tax. As we go across Canada and hear submissions in the finance committee, we hear that the ones who are going to be hurt by this tax, because it is a regressive tax system, are those in the lower and middle-income areas.
Those who are going to benefit again are the large corporations and the wealthier in society. The argument is that the wealthy consume more and therefore they are going to be taxed more. The fact is that they spend much less percentage wise of their income on consumable goods and services than those with lesser incomes. That is the regressivity of this.
Everything, I would suggest, points to a total ignoring of those who are most in need. Should we not be looking at a system, through our systems that we have already set up, in Canada Pension and old age security, where we know regardless of our income levels that we can live above the poverty line in our golden years? Those are available to us now.
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
Government Orders
wealthier person in the Canadian society who will 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.
When you look at that $350 million that on the one hand is going out and you recognize the hypocrisy of this government, that on the one hand says: "Well, we are going to claw back from those with the higher incomes over $50,000 who get old age security, because they do not need it". On the flip side, we give them more tax breaks through registered retirement savings plans and we whittle away at our universality and our universal programs. Again, where is the fairness?
It is interesting in looking through the government's pension reform communications book for members and looking at some of the communications messages that they are telling the members to send out to note some of the key things of pension reform. The existing system is unfair and needs replacing. I agree totally. It is unfair and, yes, it needs replacing. But where do we look in this legislation? Well, obviously it is unfair to those with the most money. And it needs replacing because the people in power who have the money want it replaced. They want a bigger benefit.
Well, I suggest that we are looking in the wrong place for that fairness and the wrong direction in the replacement. I have given an idea that perhaps we should be increasing our Canada pension, our old age security, so that we do not have the need as we do now, of a guaranteed income supplement.
Let us go on with these communications messages. The new rules will ensure fairer, more flexible and more cost effective tax assistance. Again, fairness. Where is the fairness for those in need? Yes, there is flexibility again for those with the money.
Is it cost effective tax assistance? It certainly fits in with the agenda of this government toward privatization and getting away from universality of our social programs like old age security and the Canada Pension Plan, but again it does not help those who need the help.

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
We do not need to make the rich richer, but it would be nice to be able to help those who need the help. We see further that the new rules will enable more Canadians to achieve income security in retirement, thus helping to meet the challenge of an ageing population. Once again, who does it help? The people in the lower income brackets cannot afford to pay into these plans to get the tax benefits. When they reach 65 years of age and retire, they are doomed to poverty.
We have less than 25 per cent of their income now covered through the Canada Pension Plan, et cetera. Would it not be nice to be able to look forward to knowing that you would get 50 per cent of your income replaced through a Canada pension system, to know that you would be living above the poverty line instead of in abject poverty?
Further, the government goes on to say that the new rules complement measures the government has taken to strengthen Canada's retirement income system. We have seen how strong our retirement income system is as far as the old age security goes. The strength simply is not there.
We have started now by kicking the door open to the total disintegration of universality in our old age security system. Are we starting an attack now on the Canada Pension Plan? I hope not, but I wonder, is this part of the Conservative agenda for the future of Canada? To encourage us to invest in our golden years is one thing, but to cause us to live in poverty for the majority of us is totally another.
I go on in this brief and it becomes the pattern that I was talking about. The puzzle, the key pieces all start fitting together. We turn to the next page and we see the existing system is flawed and in need of reform. Where have we heard that before? I seem to remember, since the last budget, hearing about this flawed system. It is a pattern of this government to try to convince us, the average Canadian, that what we have and have had in the past is flawed and then to start just destroying it.
Yes, many of our systems are flawed but they need to be strengthened. They need to be renovated. They need to be built up. They need to be improved. They do not need to have the very foundations that hold the structure eroded. That is what is happening with this government in many of the pieces of legislation that it is bringing forward.
We talk about some of the various systems that we have. We know that they are not going to be in existence for long if this government remains in power. The start was with the clawback. The original start was in 1985 with the original attempt to deindex pensions. We know what happened there. The government backed off because of major pressures.
I am not saying that we should not have a registered retirement savings plan. What I am saying is that plan should in fact be as the government says, a fair and flexible plan but not a fair and flexible plan for those in the $80,000 and $87,000 brackets. It should be a fair and flexible plan for everybody with the opportunity to live as you age in dignity, to have the opportunity to know that you are going to put three meals a day on your table when you are a senior, to have the opportunity to look forward to some degree of comfort in your declining years. That is not what we are seeing here.
Some of the provisions of this bill are reasonable provisions but they also are flawed. An example of this is the seven-year carry over. It is a provision that in some cases makes sense if we heard what the minister of privatization said in his speech. It gives the opportunity, if you have had added expenses one year and cannot afford it, to carry it forward. It makes sense to be able to do that and appears to be a little fairness.
There is also a twist to that that we have to be careful of. It can lead to abuses again by those most able to afford to fluctuate where they invest their money.
Let us look again at some of the other things this bill offers. It offers, I would suggest, a problem to some of the small and medium sized businesses which presently have pension plans for their employees. Because of the nature and the complexity of this, it has been predicted that some of these people will leave their present plans in droves because they can no longer fit within these and will simply collapse them and go to a group RRSP as opposed to some other method of deferred profit sharing or registered pension plans.
There is proposed a problem in terms of matrimonial breakdown. I have dealt in the past with matrimonial problems in my professional capacity. I know that one thing some people who separate have to deal with is the division of assets and pension plans. One proposal that could cause some problem is the one under subclause 146(16) to prohibit the transfer of retirement income
January 22, 1990

under an RRSP unless it was amended before 1990 to provide for the transfer.
Those in wedded bliss at the present time might not necessarily recognize that there is a potential problem for them in the future and that in three to five years after 1990 there may be some need to look at where we are going. We have closed that door, so I am simply flagging that a bit to show that there are problems within the bill.
If we are going to keep the registered retirement savings plan bill I would suggest that the levels be lowered to make it fairer and easier for middle income and lower income Canadians to invest. We should be looking at a tax credit system instead of at a tax deduction system as we have now.
Who does that benefit? That tax credit system will benefit the poor or lower income earners, but it is not a desirable thing for those with upper incomes because in a tax deduction system they get a lot more benefit for each $1,000 amount they invest in a registered retirement savings plan.
In 1983 the parliamentary task force on pension reform recommended the conversion of deductions to credits. It noted in that report a most important fact, that the tax benefit is worth more to those with higher incomes, which means that its effectiveness in encouraging people to save for retirement is strongest in the upper income groups and much weaker in lower and middle income groups.
We do not believe that government need concern itself with the adequacy of replacement incomes for those in the upper income groups. We believe that substituting a tax credit for the current tax deduction would serve to retarget tax incentives toward those in the lower middle income range, thereby providing the means to meet one of our major concerns regarding coverage.
It also appears that the Canadian Labour Congress, the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Advisory
Government Orders
Council on the Status of Women strongly support conversion of RRSP tax deductions to tax credits. I suggest that is something which should perhaps be looked at.
When this bill was originally brought by the government before Parliament back in 1986, it was in essence in the same form that it has been brought in this time. In an editorial on October 16, 1986 in The Toronto Star it is interesting to note that it was said that if the Minister of Finance had $300 million to spend, he would do better by putting that amount in the guaranteed income supplement which tops up old age pensions for the needy. An injection of $300 million into that program would enable the government to pay an additional $30 a month to more than 600,000 elderly single women who have no source of income and who are now living below the poverty line.
Another point is that the Minister of Finance calls this proposed tax break a key element in the government's plan for comprehensive pension reform, but in enriching tax deductions for the wealthy he mocks the government's stated commitment to provide more for those in greatest need and at the same time has pre-empted his promise of meaningful tax reform.
I think those comments made in October, 1986 are very true. Today, in 1990, things have not changed. We still have problems within the system and there still are ways of getting around some of these problems.
I look further at the bill and I wonder to whom can we look? Who needs to be helped in this pension reform? I have talked about the needy, the poor, the middle income earners, but what I have not spoken about is women. I think it is very important to note that over the last few years there has been a continued feminization of poverty, that more and more of our population of women are falling further and further behind.
Again, when I speak of poverty and we think of a broad spectrum, in fact what I am speaking about to a great extent are women and children. With the agenda that we have seen before us over the last few years those people sink further and further into desperation.

Government Orders
It is interesting to note that in 1986 women made up 56.1 per cent of all low income Canadians, compared to 57.3 per cent in 1981, emphasizing what I have just said: the feminization of poverty.
It is also interesting to note that only 16.5 per cent of female taxpayers or approximately 1.3 million women contributed to RRSPs in 1987, compared to 24.1 per cent of male tax filers or approximately 2.1 million. So there is a two to one ratio in this situation. This figure actually inflates the number of females who contributed to RRSPs because it is based on women who actually filed tax returns.
Women represented 39 per cent of the total number of RRSP contributors in 1987, contributing 32.8 per cent of the value, while men made up 61 per cent of contributors and held 67.2 per cent of the value of all RRSPs.
We know that women continue to earn considerably less than men. I think the figures show somewhere in the area of two-thirds of what a man makes and they cannot afford, in many cases, the luxury of contributing to a registered retirement savings plan.
Where is the fairness for women? It is a problem. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the government that that problem could be partially solved by more fairness in the Canada Pension Plan and the old age security.
In a political context, let us look back at what has happened in the old age security bill, the clawback bill that I have referred to. I have also referred to the hypocrisy of the clawback.
A representative of the Canadian Council on Social Development said that we are starting to replace a progressive and visible benefits system with hidden subsidies that are in fact regressive. For example, we may eliminate the OAS, the old age security benefits, among higher income people but for the generation who will be seniors when this measure has its full impact, we are more than replacing them by increasing the limits on RRSP deductions and by putting in place a capital gains exemption. These kinds of measures provide high levels of subsidy, higher than the cut in old age security to high income people.
Once again I emphasize that we are not looking at solving the over-all problem. This government is reacting to political pressures of those who brought them
here. It obviously goes by the adage: "You dance with the one what brung ya". That is what is happening. The government is dancing to the tune played by those wealthy Canadians and wealthy corporations on an agenda that is bound to increase the problems within Canada as far as income levels go. As I said, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is what we are bound to if we continue down the path we have started with this government.
I cannot see that we have accomplished anything by helping those with higher incomes live beyond the wildest dreams of those with lower income levels in their retirement. That is what we are looking at in this particular bill. We are assisting those people with high incomes to continue to live in a style and in a manner that could not even be touched by most Canadians. That 5 per cent or less of Canadians seem to be controlling what is happening in Canada.
In conclusion, I simply say as a member of the New Democratic Party that I can see the value of registered retirement savings plans in the over-all scheme of things. I fully believe that we should be looking at what was fought for in 1926 with the old age security and the later Canada Pension Plan debates. We should be looking at a system that is fair for all Canadians, not just the Canadians who can afford to purchase that fairness. I believe that the government should look at that when it talks about fairness, flexibility and expansion of systems.
As this bill sits before this House I cannot support the it.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill which is being called part of a pension reform package. I think the New Democratic Party has an honourable tradition in Canada of being the party that was probably the most instrumental in ensuring that pension schemes for the elderly were brought in. I would like to refer to one of the most distinguished people who worked for Canadians, who was talking about his hopes for the Canadian pension system.
What I like most of all about the Canadian pension plan, about the two-stage plan which we are now deploying for Canadians in their years of retirement, is that we are trying to reach a position where we are providing pensions that are adequate. I do not suggest that the levels which will be achieved by combining the Canada Pension Plan at its best with old age security at its present level are really the last words in adequacy. At least we are talking about pensions of quite a different
January 22, 1990

order than that which seemed to be accepted a few years or decades ago.
I hope that having accepted the principle that retirement security should be based on adequacy we would go on to improve that basis and find ways and means of raising the level of our pensions so that all Canadians can look forward to retirement in decency and dignity. Of course this was the Hon. Stanley Knowles who was speaking in 1964.
I think that his hopes for adequate universal pensions have not been fulfilled and this bill is nothing but a travesty when compared to what was intended. This bill has nothing to do at all with providing adequate pensions for ordinary Canadians. This bill is designed solely to help the rich. I think it is interesting that it is not only supported by the Conservatives, but it also is basically the same types of proposals the Liberals proposed in 1983.
As most of you are aware I am a social worker by background. I work with people on the lower end of the income scale. Canada has a large number of elderly even today in spite of our pension plans who are living in poverty, particularly women. This is going to escalate dramatically in the next two, three or four years for two reasons: first, the cost of housing has become intolerable in Canada, particularly for people on fixed incomes. The elderly on minimum pensions, old age security, GIS and minimum company pensions simply cannot afford the housing costs that are now developing in Canada. They are also going to be hit with the new GST.
This bill is not about designing a universal, guaranteed level of income for all seniors. Let us look at what it does. What it means is that by 1995 people who earn $86,000 will get a tax benefit of $15,000 and, in reality, a cash payment of $7,500. Right now-and it is not progressive-at the same time it is being increased for people on high incomes it is being decreased for people on low incomes because of dropping the percentage.
Let us take a look at what happens as you change from the 20 per cent to the 18 per cent by various income brackets. Right now if persons on a minimal income of $20,000 could afford it-and not many of them can-they
Government Orders
could contribute $4,000 into an RRSR In 1995 when it is 18 per cent, they will no longer even be able to contribute that amount. They will only be able to contribute $3,600. At the same time persons earning $86,000 today can contribute only $7,500. In 1995 they will be able to contribute $15,000.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about diminishing the opportunity for saving for retirement years for those on low incomes while at the same time increasing it dramatically for those on higher income. In 1995, with this tax system a person earning $20,000 will get a tax-back credit of $1,200. But the person with an income of $86,000 is going to get back $7,500. What kind of a country is this that gives the wealthy $7,500 and the poor $1,200? Obviously, it is Conservative country.
It is not now equal if you contribute to RRSPs. If you are in the highest tax bracket, for every $1,000 you contribute you get $450 back. If you are in the lowest tax bracket, if you can afford to contribute, you get $264 back. Who can afford to contribute? We keep talking as if this is going to help, in some mystical way, the person who is on a middle or low income. That is absolutely nonsensical because people on middle and low incomes do not have the cash to put away.
Right now only 20 per cent of all Canadians are using RRSPs. We have here a bill that is talking about a tax benefit for 20 per cent of the people, but really it is not 20 per cent of the people because only 5 per cent of people earning under $15,000 use RRSPs, but 57 per cent of people earning over $50,000 use RRSPs. What we really have is a bill aimed at helping people who are earning over $50,000. If that is the best way the Conservatives feel they can provide adequate pension programs I am utterly stunned.
This is a bill that favours men. Women are the group that face poverty in this country the most. In my work I have seen women who are financially unable to maintain themselves in the community by paying rents and are desperately trying to get into care facilities because their food and shelter will be paid for there. They cannot afford to rent an apartment in Vancouver or Toronto.

Government Orders
They cannot afford to buy food so they desperately try to get into a care facility.
It is a most pathetic thing to see a woman who could maintain her independence in the community, who could have a quality of life, being forced to humiliate herself by trying to get into an institution because it will look after her.
We have to remember that it is women who earn minimal wages in Canada. In 1967 women earned only 46 per cent of what men earned. It 1986 it had gone up to 57 per cent. That is an improvement. The women are not the $86,000 wage earners, they are the $15,000 wage earners, so they are automatically put at a disadvantage with this type of system. They are not going to be the beneficiaries of this.
I think we have to look at alternatives. My colleague has already mentioned one. The government is going to blow another $350 million on this to help those rich, $86,000 people have a nice holiday in Dominican Republic or Jamaica or Florida or wherever they go. Why not use that $350 million and add it to the Guaranteed Income Supplement? Let us give those 600,000 women in Canada, who now have no other income other than Old Age Security and GIS, $30 a month more. Do you not think that they deserve the $30 more than the person who has an $86,000 income deserves another vacation in Hawaii?
This bill is also about the privatization of Canada's pension system. Increasingly companies are abandoning company pension plans. There has been a reduction from 1984 when coverage in the labour force by company pension plans was 39.9 per cent. That is a bloody low percentage as it is, but by 1987 that had been reduced to 36 per cent.
Part of the reason is the costs. It has been estimated that there is going to be a $60 million to $70 million initial start-up cost for employers in initiating this bill. According to the vice-president of the Canadian Life and Health Association, small businesses are fleeing pension plans in droves. They can afford a pension plan, but in the new pension environment why would they put up with the hassles of a pension plan when the federal government has offered a perfectly viable, less demanding alternative; group RRSPs. The new tax rules with the pension adjustments and pension adjustment reversals
seem likely to be another administrative nightmare which will squeeze more pension plans out of the system.
It is not accidental. I think there is an intent to privatize the pension system, and part of it is that RRSPs are a big source of investment capital. Really what the Conservatives want to do is give the wealthy a tax break, a tax loophole where they can accumulate investment capital, whether that is investment capital that is lent to corporations or whether it is RRSP self-administered investment capital. It is simply a system through which the Tory government, with the passive support of the Liberals, is saying that it is okay if the wealthy increase their wealth.
Let us look at a few of the alternatives. We have $350 million extra to spend with this. It has been estimated that this year alone RRSPs will cost $10.8 billion of government money in lost taxes. Remember, most of that is going to people earning over $50,000, it is not going to the people earning minimal wages.
Let us do two or three things in the area of pensions; let us look at changing the rules and let us make it a tax credit system so that if the wealthy contribute $1,000 and the poor person contributes $1,000, they both get the same tax relief, they get the same tax money back in their hand. Why shouldn't the poor be allowed to accumulate more money? In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that what we really should do is reverse it. In 1995, if the person who earns $86,000 makes a contribution they should get a tax benefit of $4,000 and the poor person should get a tax break of the $7,500. Let us reverse it. Let us reverse it. Instead, make it that the poor or the minimal income earner is given money back rather than the wealthy. That is the first thing. Let us at least make it a tax credit system. If not a tax credit system, let us be bold enough to go even further and make the benefits to the low and middle income person more.
Second, let's increase our Canada Pension Plan. This is the universal program that is designed to ensure adequate universal pensions for all Canadians. It is only because the rich do not want it that we do not have it. We could be doubling and tripling our Canada pension plans. It would certainly make some of the big life insurance companies a little uneasy because they would not have all these private pension plans floating around.
January 22, 1990

Let us also look at programs that allow people who are not in the conventional labour market to contribute to pensions, including the Canada Pension Plan. There have been discussions about making it possible for women who have chosen to stay home to be part of our pension plan system on a systematic basis, something which they cannot now do.
I see that the Speaker is indicating that my time is up. I would therefore like to sum up by saying that I cannot support this legislation. I think it is a piece of legislation that the Tories have concocted to pay off their wealthy friends handsomely. It is not pension reform. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing adequate levels of income so that people may live in dignity when they retire.
We have to go back to the words of Stanley Knowles and bring in a true pension reform program.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech and I wondered if he was speaking on the same bill as is before the House. I must say that I see all sorts of areas here where loopholes have been closed in this tax reform. He mentions it benefiting the rich. It seems to me that the tax assistance to high income people will be curtailed by this bill. I wonder if perhaps the member could point out to me where he sees that benefit to the rich. It seems to me it is quite the other way around.
I look at the area of assistance for young families who now, when buying a new home, would not have an opportunity to make the maximum contribution to their pension plan because all of their cash is going into the purchase of a home or savings for a home. Today that opportunity is lost. With this tax reform such a young family, or a young woman going out on her own, or a separated family that needs that extra cash, rather than losing that opportunity to put money into a pension, they have a seven-year carry forward which gives them that opportunity. That is only one aspect as I read through this bill.
It seems to me that many loopholes for high income earners have in fact been closed. This new tax reform in this pension bill makes it much fairer for all Canadians right across the board.
I enjoyed the nostalgia trip back to 1964 with Stanley Knowles, but I wonder if the member might want to talk about this bill in 1990.
Government Orders


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, not only would I like to talk about in 1990,1 would like to talk about it in 1995 and all the years in between. Does the hon. member really believe that he can hoodwink the Canadian public by saying that we are going to give a $1,000 tax credit to people earning under $20,000 and a $7,000 tax credit to people earning over $86,000? That is money back. That is the same as the government taking it out of its pocket and sending them a cheque. That is what this bill is all about. That is what this bill is all about. It makes it possible for the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
The member talks about the young couple buying a house. This government has made it impossible for young families in this country to buy housing. The high interest rate policy that it has continued to carry on means that families who are earning even $30,000 and $40,000 cannot afford to buy a home. The government did away with the RHOSP which at least enabled people to save a little money for a downpayment.
The member stands up and talks about these people who are buying a house. If they are buying a house in this country they probably are earning over $50,000 or $86,000. They are not the single parent on a wage of $18,000 a year. What do single women in this country earn? They do not earn $86,000. They are the ones who are working at the $5 and $6 an hour jobs. That is not going to get them into the tax brackets that this piece of legislation is intended to benefit.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Surrey North for his comments with respect to this legislation and for putting it in the context of our approach to the whole question of tax reform in this country. As the hon. member has noted, the 20 per cent of Canadian families with the highest incomes ended up with 41.8 per cent of the total income pie and the 20 per cent of families with the lowest incomes got less than 5 per cent.
What this legislation would do, of course, is make that even worse. An individual who earns $20,000 a year would get an annual tax break of about $1,200 but someone who is making more than $86,000 a year would get an annual tax break of $7,500 a year. So this is regressive tax reform.
I must say that I am disappointed in the Liberal Party. It is not surprising, I suppose, that they are standing with the Conservative party on this legislation since, of course, it is very similar to legislation that they tabled in 1984. We had hoped that perhaps on this policy, as on so

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
many other policies, we might have seen a change of heart by the Liberal party.
We remember that it was the Liberal party, for example, that was responsible for the testing of cruise missiles in Canada. Somewhere along the way they changed their position on that. I had hoped that perhaps on the question of tax reform they might have had a change of heart as well. But no, they still remain the captives of the corporate elite in this country. I challenge the Liberal members in this House to stand up and defend tax reform which gives more to a person making $86,000 a year than it does to a person who is living below the poverty line. Is that really Tory and Liberal tax reform?
I want to ask my colleague from Surrey North if he might just elaborate on the whole question of equity in the tax system. In fact, we are talking about $350 million of income that we are forgoing. There are merchant seamen who served this country with distinction during World War II who have been denied a fair pension plan. The Speaker is aware of this as are members in this House. If we have $350 million to deal with a fairer taxation system, why do we not finally start treating our merchant seamen with some dignity and some respect? Why do we not start treating our railway pensioners with some dignity and some respect and bring in a much fairer system of pensions for railway workers?
I commend the member for Surrey North for bringing to the attention of the House, and through the House all Canadians, the silence of the Liberal party with respect to this tax reform and their complicity with the Conservative party. Also, I would ask the hon. member if he would elaborate on his views with respect to equity in the pension system in this country and on what he might do, and what we as New Democrats would do for a fairer pension system that would benefit those who are struggling below the poverty line today.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The question of equity is a major one. The vehicle we should be looking to is not tax loopholes through RRSPs but the whole issue of the adequacy of our two basic pension programs; the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security. What we should be doing is
increasing those, not bringing in such nonsense things as clawbacks. We should be increasing the universal portion and broadening the base on which Canadians can contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, increasing the benefits under the Canada Pension Plan for employees and employers to contribute. We have to find mechanisms by which people who are not in the conventional workforce are able to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
Equity is a major issue which is developing in this country, not only in terms of adequacy of pensions, but in terms of taxation. Repeatedly we see the government bring in programs that reverse the equity of taxation.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate and I want to comment on the remarks of the member from Burnaby. Some people are very short-sighted in this world. Shortsightedness seems to come in different things. Often people listen to others before they comment on what they have said or what they are going to say. It would do the member for Burnaby good to listen rather than to speak about what the Liberal policy or position is.
When I look at Bill C-52 I find that there are many areas of it that raise concerns among my colleagues. When I look at goals of pension reform plans I have to think about what the object is. When we look at pension reform we have to look at a program that would bring dignity and comfort to those in their senior years in any country and any civilization. That really has to be the ultimate of where we are heading with this reform or any pension reform.
The government has the challenge to provide legislation which will be fair, which will provide an equitable situation for all Canadians and which will treat all Canadians equally. I believe that to be a very important part of the challenge the government must put forth in legislation.
The pension plan today needs reform. There is no question that there are many difficulties that many senior citizens are experiencing. The National Council on Welfare has stated that 600,000 senior citizens today in Canada live below the poverty line. Many senior citizens live many thousands of dollars below the poverty line. We not only have 600,000 below the poverty line, we
January 22, 1990

also have senior citizens who are as much as $3,000 and $4,000 below.
They are experiencing difficulty today because of inflation. We have gone through many years of high inflation. We have experienced all kinds of inputs from government expenses and from business sector profits, all of which have created a larger need for dollars to be spent in our society. Many of our seniors are definitely having their incomes eroded through inflation. Therefore, the legislation presented should give comfort and dignity to seniors and should meet the needs of our senior citizens fairly and equally.
I believe that Bill C-52 does not meet those needs. I do agree with some of the speakers who have said that the bill seems to give benefits to the rich. It does not address the problems that the low and middle-income people are experiencing and it does not address the needs of many future situations that we will find in Canada.
Approximately 40 per cent of our workforce are not able to receive money from registered pension plans. Certainly we have the Canada Pension Plan, we have support programs, but in reality those programs do not give our seniors enough to live well on after retirement. Certainly the need for other support programs is there and we must look at that very carefully through any legislation that we bring forward.
We also know that 40 years from today the number of people over 65 will have doubled from today's figures. Because people are living longer today and because we have gone through the baby boom and the baby boomers will be retiring, we are going to have a much larger population of seniors and we are going to have a proportionately much lower number in the workforce. The result is that there is going to be a tremendous stress for dollars some place along the line to make sure that there are programs in place to support all of those who will be retiring today and in the future. If we do not come up with proper planning and proper programs today, then I think the future does not look good for low and possibly middle-income Canadians.
Bill C-52, a bill for pension reform, leaves open, I think, three questions that one must answer; what is
Government Orders
being proposed in the bill, who benefits from the bill, and does that bill meet all the needs of our Canadian people.
On close scrutiny I think the bill is to raise certain amounts of money that are set aside through contributions by people in today's workforce and going through 1995. Today's limit of $7,500 will increase so that people in the specified income brackets will be able to contribute $15,500 to pension plans by 1995 or, the other restriction that is on that, 18 per cent of their income, whichever figure is less. My mathematics seems to be correct. As many others have pointed out this afternoon, if you can put $15,500 into that fund, and if it is put in on the basis that it is 18 per cent of your income, the upper limits of the program are allowing people with $86,000 a year incomes or more to contribute to the fund at full tax rebate when they put the money in.
It is clear then that it is people who are making $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 who are getting the large benefit of the $300 million to $350 million that the government is setting aside because of the tax losses it will have when the program is instituted. We are not only talking about people with $60,000, $70,000 and $80,000 incomes. If they have those kinds of incomes they must also have 18 per cent of that income to put into a pension fund, which means that they really need to have an excess of many thousands of dollars that is not spending money that they put out each and every day.
It was questioned a little earlier whether a young couple starting out will be able to put money into those funds as the limits go up to $15,000.1 think about a young couple working in Toronto. With the types of mortgages they have to acquire and the expenses they have to pay, I cannot see that young couple having $15,000 or $16,000 to put into an extra fund in a few years.
I also have to point out that not only is it a problem for young couples living in Toronto, but any young couple with today's living expenses would have to make a tremendous income to have one-fifth of its income set aside to go into a plan.
I look at average Canadians as their children get older and start to school. School expenses and other expenses having to do with having a family are again going to stop

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
the average Canadian from participating in this major benefit.
It is not a benefit for the average Canadian. It is a benefit for those with very high incomes who are not spending it all. They have extra dollars.
With respect to the seven-year forwarding of the plan, a person right at the maximum of that seven-year forwarding is making $86,000. He could, over a seven-year period, be in a position of being able to have $100,000 in one year dropped into a pension fund and avoid taxes on that completely.
People with huge business deals who are getting tremendous profits from certain investments, and having all of this money coming in at one time are able to dodge the taxes on it. I think that is a major loophole. I think it is a loophole in this proposed legislation which is not going to be shared by the average Canadian. It is only going to be shared by the very wealthy.
The people at the other end of that scale, the low-income Canadian, is restricted to 18 per cent through Bill C-52. Today, he can invest 20 per cent. The fellow who really worked hard and got all the RRSP investment that he could will be cut back by $500 at the low level. He will be cut back 2 per cent and not be able to invest the same dollars as he could have the year before.
What we are seeing is a program that will aside more for the wealthy, more tax gains for the wealthy, but lower tax benefits for the less privileged, those with lower incomes.
Indexing is another point that has been brought forward. We have heard enough about indexing. We heard about indexing with the GST. According to the government it was not fair to totally index or fully index tax credits. It was not fair to fully index the tax thresholds. Thus the lower-income people get only partial indexing for the benefits they are going to receive.
However, on the other hand, the benefits that the very rich will receive in this particular bill are going to be fully indexed. It really is a mistake to give full benefits, full indexation to the very rich from 1996 on, while the poor will only receive partial indexing in the other programs.
We hear about the clawback system. There is a clawback because when somebody gets up to such and such a level we are going to take back some of the benefits that we are giving in old age security and family allowance. Why are we clawing this back if we have those extra dollars that we can fully index when very well off people get tremendous tax benefits out of this legislation? Why is it that the government treats low and middle-income families in a much different way than it seems to treat upper-income families and yet at the same time claim the treatment is fair? I have a major problem with that.
Talking about tax brackets, if one makes a very high income and is in a high tax bracket, each tax dollar that one contributes to a fund will in fact bring higher returns than if you are in a low tax bracket. The difference has been spoken of again today several times. I believe it should well be reiterated.
For every $1,000 a person in a high tax bracket puts into this program he will receive a tax benefit of $450. However, for every $1,000 the low-income people put into it, they will only receive $264. There is a real disparity here of close to $200 per contribution.
I think if we are going to be very fair we should consider one of the strong proposals that did come forward in 1984. It was that we have a tax credit system. Through that credit system we would make certain that all of those benefits would be averaged evenly. So when the low, middle or upper-income person puts dollars into an RRSP they would get the same benefit back. I believe that equal treatment for all Canadians is extremely important and very fair to our system.
We talk about costs. The government estimates from $300 million to $350 million. I have heard some estimates as high as $500 million for this program. Certainly, the experts will be able to give us the background and information on that.
But it is still a problem. In the last six months we have heard about our deficit and our debt. We have been told that we are going $300 billion or $350 billion in debt. We have been told we have to cut back. We have been told that we cannot fully index programs because of the extra costs. At the same time, we are going to fully index tax benefits which I see would go the wealthy. We are going
January 22, 1990

to put out $350 million to help very well-off Canadians with their tax supports.
At the same time I would also point out that our government in the last year has come up with 31 tax increases. The GST is on top of that.
Why penalize low and middle-income people, lower their benefits from what they could put in now at 20 per cent to 18 per cent and at the same time increase the amount of money that well-off Canadians can put in?
Another point that I think is reasonably important as I look through the legislation is that it really does not take into account many of the people in our population today who have part-time jobs who are coming into a social situation where the dynamics of jobs is changing. More and more people are on part-time incomes. I think that is a reality within our whole structure. I believe that any pension legislation should address those particular types of questions.
We have a workforce that is very mobile. Workers move from one area to another. They work in different locations. Why did we not address portability of pension plans from one employer to another to another?
We have a new terminology that has come into the legislation called "pension adjustment". That pension adjustment will be either calculated by Revenue Canada, which tells people how much they will be able to put into the plan, or it will be calculated by the employer. It will be given to the employees or the workforce at the end of the year when they are paying into these plans. But the problem is if you run into a difficulty or a dispute about how much you can put into a program you are certainly going to be in a very difficult situation. I say that because I do not know of Revenue Canada ever holding up any time and letting people file later. You will be into a situation where you have a pension adjustment that you do not even know about when you start into the year that you are paying the taxes.
The correlation of times when we are putting the GST into place while at the same time bringing this into place will drain many dollars from our economy. It is going to create more of an impact. It will pull our economy down more, slowing it down. Everybody in this country is really concerned about the slow down in the economy presently-
Government Orders
I have heard too from the minister that our goal is pension income between 60 per cent to 70 per cent for the average Canadian. If we stop and look at the figures, we realize that many low-income Canadians do not have that extra cash to participate in RRSPs. If they do not have that extra spending power to become involved and do not work where pensions are offered, then we encounter another dilemma.
We have the dilemma that the only pension benefits they will be entitled to in the future in many cases is what they get from the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan and from the supplementary benefits. Not having other pension plans they will be the ones who are stressed in the future. They do not have the capital to buy into programs today.
Again, I do not think that we are dealing with the really crucial issue that is facing our pension system, and that is the dilemma faced by low and middle-income families who do not have that extra dollar.
To illustrate that point further, in 1986 we talked about people with $15,000 incomes, only 5 per cent of whom could contribute to RRSP programs. However, at the same time in the same year those with $45,000 incomes 61 per cent could contribute.
I will run that by hon. members again. Only 5 per cent of people with $15,000 incomes could contribute. Out of those with $45,000 and above incomes, 61 per cent of the people contributed. That is a real disparity in ability to pay and to buy into plans. We know that exists from the dollar and cent discrepancies and free cash that people have to spend.
I would like to wrap up my thoughts with a couple of points that were brought out by the government.
The current RRSP contributions as stated by the government are somewhat unfair. But our government continues to treat people equally unfairly. It seems to me that the policy here is more a policy not to help the poor and those who need extra support on retirement but to help the more wealthy.
People need fair treatment. I believe it is very important in our society and that should be the goal of pension reform. I do not believe that this bill brings that fairness to bear. I do not believe that this bill really deals with the

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
major problem, that is, those with low and middle-incomes and their retirement years.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of the hon. member for Essex-Kent. They were certainly a little different than what we were led to believe was the position of the Liberal party.
My first question to him would be this. Were his remarks representative of the Liberal party and in fact will the Liberal party be opposing this legislation?
One has to keep in mind that the government claims, and it appears now to be correct, that many of the proposals in this legislation originated from the pension reform proposals of Mr. Marc Lalonde, the last Liberal minister of finance.
If the hon. member's comments are indeed representative of the Liberal party, then the Liberal party has changed somewhat in its position vis-a-vis pension reform.
My second question to him is this. While he very eloquently exhibited the unfairness of the system in terms of tax benefits, that because it is a tax deduction rather than a tax credit, those with higher incomes will of course receive much greater tax benefit from their pension contributions than those in the lower-income brackets who are paying a lower rate. I did not hear him talk about the importance of a universal pension program.
We know that with the Conservative agenda, part of the privatization agenda is also the privatization of the pension fields. Our speakers and our position has always been that we need a public pension system that provides an adequate pension for every man and woman in this country when they retire. I would really be interested in hearing the position of the Liberal party on that. Can we hear from them a reaffirmation of the importance of a public pension system, rather than relying on the trickery of the new right agenda?


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate standing and being able to answer the questions that have been brought forward.
My comments were very much directed toward inadequacies that I see in the legislation. The Liberal party, being the open party and the straightforward party it is has very clearly decided as well that we would like, as Mr. Young said, experts to come in and look at these very
specific points that are being brought up. We would like to examine all of that legislation very carefully.
Without question, it is so important that we state the viewpoints, the concerns we have, and then be willing to listen to the experts and their comments with regard to those problems.
So my viewpoint very clearly is the viewpoint of the Liberal party, and the Liberal party wishes to have those issues brought forth to the Canadian public. But I think it is also in part a responsibility of any opposition party to point out where they feel there are weaknesses and concerns, and let those concerns be heard.
I feel that, yes, I am very consistent with the viewpoints I have and my colleagues have with regard to this legislation.
Second, you bring us back to 1984, and ask that we visualize things in 1990 the way they were in 1984. When we talk about the disparities that I see here, I realize that my colleague, Mr. Lalonde, brought forward legislation that would bring the levels of taxation contributions up to $15,500. As well, that was good in 1984. However, in 1984, we were not facing a $350 billion debt. We were not facing huge government cuts. We were not facing the policies that we are facing today. As a result, I would say that you cannot compare oranges to oranges over time. Things do change. I believe that in this particular case things have changed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, certainly the opportunity of asking questions gives one the ability to get more revealing statements on the record. Of course, what is unfair today, certainly was not fair back then. To be sure, I really do not believe what the hon. member is saying about back in 1984. He said that the country could afford unfairnesses more then than it can now. That is what the member is saying.
The member, in essence, in his remarks stated the unfairness in the proposed changes. He stated the unfairness in having a tax deduction rather than a tax credit system that allows those in the higher income groups to benefit more than those in the lower income groups. Of course, those who pay no tax at all are not going to benefit at all. They are not going to get any tax benefits out of these proposals.
His remarks were very much to that point. Unfortunately, I also find that he was unable to clearly tell the House that his remarks really represented the Liberal
January 22, 1990

party and that the Liberal party will be voting against this motion and against this bill when it comes up.
We are certainly watching with great interest to see how the Liberal party will vote when it comes time to do so. When everything has been said and done and all their rhetoric has been given, it is how we vote that really indicates where we stand on this issue.
The other point I want to make is that the hon. member did not respond to my third question. It was with respect to his position on the need for a universal public pension system as the basis of the pension system in this country, as opposed to the privatization of the pension system. If he would care to, I would certainly like to hear his comments on that topic as well.


Jerry Pickard: I really appreciate standing up and answering the member from Regina, Mr. Speaker. I found it fairly significant that the member stumbled over this tongue several times as he was talking about fairness and unfairness. Maybe part of what he was saying was not quite accurate.
If you recall the legislation and look carefully at it you will see that a tax credit system was suggested in 1984. That was a clear point that I brought forth today and that you said was not. That was the 1984 position.
As we look at the programs, we see that there are times when things look very prosperous from one perspective. However, what I pointed out were very clearly examples of direct unfairness in the program. I feel they are there. I am not saying the legislation in 1984 was perfect, but it was not the same legislation that is being brought forth today.
I do not know that you can ask me to comment on the 1984 legislation and today's legislation and compare the two. That is not the point that we have here. The point is what is fair, and I mentioned the tax credit system in my words. 1984 brought that forward. I see no inconsistencies in what is being said today.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House and make my first speech of this decade. In this context I just want to explain the political context in which I am doing that. This bill, Bill C-52, which amends certain provisions of the Income Tax Act governing tax assistance for retire-
Govemment Orders
ment savings, sounds quite innocuous. But we must look at it in the whole political context.
For instance, in December, on the last sitting day of the House, we saw the clawback of old age pensions. We saw the clawback of family allowance. This suddenly takes on a more sinister appearance. That is what I want to address my comments to this evening. I think all of us in this House have to look at the long view of where this government is going. What may seem to be somewhat innocuous on first reading is in fact a very complex bill. So you have to be very firm minded even to attempt to read through the bill. That it is the political context.
I think it is quite stomach-churning to think of the hypocrisy of clawing back old age security, a measure which we passed in this House on December 22 in the name of deficit reduction while increasing tax deductible contributions to RRSPs. This will be done at a cost of $300 million to $350 million of taxpayers' dollars. It is clear the hypocrisy is quite enormous. It confirms the view of the clawback as a device to eliminate universality and not simply as a mechanism to reduce the deficit.
This bill cannot be seen in isolation. It is all part of the plan. As my colleague for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt pointed out, the minister who is shepherding this bill through the House is not the finance minister. Nor is he the Minister of National Revenue. No, he is the minister responsible for privatization. That kind of gives you a little clue as to the intent of this bill.
What we in the New Democratic Party are doing, and I think increasingly so, is demonstrating that we are the real opposition. Not only are we opposed to this government's legislation, which is our duty as an opposition party, but we also have the alternatives. I think that that is clear on this first day in this new decade. We are on our feet in the House demonstrating again that not only can we oppose this government, we can propose alternatives.
The alternatives proposed are not new. They are ones that are consistent with our principles. Unlike the Liberal party, we do have principles by which we live. That is how we distinguish it. The Liberal party has a very interesting persona. It is a chameleon-like persona. When members of that party are on this side of the House they become very progressive. They take on our hues because of their proximity to us. However, I think this bill demonstrates, because of its similarity to the Liberal bill which was introduced in 1984, the same intent. That is to say, it makes sure that the big spenders and the big income earners get protection so that they

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
can save money and not contribute to the tax system. It is the lower and the middle-income people who pay the burden of the taxes in this country. There is no justice in that.
We in the New Democratic Party are firm in our principles that we are opposed to that kind of tax reform.


Mr. Milliken:: They don't buy RRSPs in that party.


Lynn Hunter: I can hear that the Liberals are getting a little antsy because we really do have the alternatives. All they have is the rhetoric. As my colleague for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has just pointed out, it was the same with the GST.
I want to talk about our alternatives because we have some. It is that pension coverage provided by RRSPs is offered by the universal, fully indexed and fully portable Canada and Quebec pension plans. The money being spent on the changes in Bill C-52 would be much better directed toward a significant expansion of the public pension system, thereby ensuring that those low and middle income people do have security in their old age.
That is what this is supposed to be about. That is what those of us on this side of the House-at least at this end of the House-believe the tax system should do. The tax system is a means of redistributing wealth so that those people who have the most can contribute the most to the welfare of us all.
Bill C-52 certainly does not do that. It protects those people. It shelters their money so that they do not have to pay their fair share of the tax burden.
I think we also have to understand the kind of paranoic concern that has been generated by the government on deficit reduction. The minister responsible for privatization stood in the House today and gave his reasons why this is such a good idea and why we should all go along with this. We should consider that $350 million is not going into the tax system because of this measure.
Why is this government using the bureaucracy of government to protect those income earners in the $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 or $90,0000 a year bracket? Why are we using the mechanism of government to protect people who can look after themselves very well? If they believe in the free market system, then let them look after themselves. Let the tax system provide benefits for those who have more difficulty in looking after themselves.
It is somewhat curious that when we are talking about deficit reduction and how we have to be really hard nosed about government spending, that they are using tax dollars to shelter the wealth of those high income earners. I say tax dollars because it is the government bureaucracy that must do this.
We need a fully public pension system that does protect people. Bill C-52 does absolutely nothing to eliminate poverty among our seniors. What we are really about is providing good government. It should be good government, minimal government, so that it is not protecting those people who can protect themselves very well. It is protecting minimal government so that we are talking about not encouraging people to get involved in government. I am talking like a Conservative. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of this bill.
I would be very interested in hearing the responses of government members' to my criticisms. I am hoping that they will be up on their feet and asking me questions afterwards. They seem to want to do it now rather than later.
I want to point out what has been pointed out by other members. This Bill does increase the polarization between the rich and the poor. This is going back to the political context in which I started my address this evening. It fits in. This is what the government is doing. It is increasing that polarization so that that shrinking middle class is going to be under attack more and more. The middle class are either going to have to find some means of getting into the higher income bracket so they can be protected by this government or, more likely, they
January 22, 1990

are going to sink into the lower income brackets. It is happening with the GST and this bill is absolutely consistent with that.
We have to ask ourselves as politicians why there is that sinking element of public trust in what we are doing here when you see this kind of hyprocrisy that we are faced with on the first day of this sitting of the House of Commons in this new decade. It makes me quite angry.
When I came here as a Member of Parliament I had very high ideals about the kind of work we were here for. I still have those ideals, but I have a growing sense of cynicism about the intent of many others in this House.
I want to close off my comments on the subject of how this bill relates to women. At its annual general meeting in May, 1988, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women endorsed a resolution to support, upon divorce or separation, the mandatory and automatic equalization of all pension credits and RRSPs between spouses for their years of cohabitation. I am going to refer to my colleagues at this end of this side of the House consistently. I think we have to do that because the liberals in their chameleon-like pose are trying to move over, if not literally, at least philosophically when it is convenient for them to do so.
The continuing feminization of poverty is something that has to be addressed. This bill does nothing. How many women do any of us know who make $86,000 a year? I challenge members to name or even to think in your consciousness how many women you know who make $86,000 a year. It would be an interesting statistic for someone to look and and see how many women do earn that. In, contrast, I can think of many women who earn $15,500, which is the amount which would be sheltered if this bill is passed. I think members could think of many who earn that much or less.
It is good for the public to know, whenever a bill comes before the House, just who benefits and who loses. It is very clear from this bill who is going to benefit. It is also very clear who is going to lose. Those people who are already over-taxed are going to have to pay in order that those in the very high income brackets can shelter their money. It is almost disgusting what this government is about with this bill. But it has a beautiful unity with everything else it has achieved since it was elected. It does have a consistency and it is something that I know
Government Orders
that we at this end of this side of the House will be opposing with all our might in the months to come in this decade.
In conclusion, I hope that the Liberals in their chameleon-like stance will oppose this bill.
As an aside, I also want to talk about listening to the experts to whom the Liberal member from Essex-Kent referred. The experts are not those people who are going to be appearing before the committee. The experts are those people who are trying to live on $15,000 a year, the amount that would be sheltered if this bill comes into force.
I encourage that committee to bring in those people to talk to committee members so that they can really understand what real reform of the tax system is about.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my hon. friend a question. I agree with the designation of the Liberal party as a chameleon-like entity, but the hon. member's argument was somewhat ostrich-like in the sense that she was putting her head in the sand on three absolutely essential elements of any pension regime for any country.
Let me just ask her this so I can make sure that I understand her policy. Is she saying that under no circumstance should we have tax assistance for pensions in this country? That is my first question. If she is saying that, is she then denying the inflationary effects that this would cause, because as you know tax assisted pension planning is deflationary in a major sense and if you tried to do it without some tax assistance you have a major inflationary push in the country?
Third, if I understand her correctly, is she saying that all pensions should be provided through the public purse for Canadians under a certain level of income? Is that her position?


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that a member of the government is in the House and is willing to ask questions. I think that the questions which have been posed to me are somewhat mischievous in nature. I think he knows very well what I was intending to say.
Of course we believe in tax assisted pensions. But as I pointed out at the very beginning of my address, the real intent of the tax system and the pension system is to assist people in their old age. The tax system is a means of redistributing wealth.

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
Excuse my naivete, but I thought it was to redistribute the richer income to the lower income. I did not think it was the reverse. That is what this bill will do. Those people who cannot afford it, who do not have the kind of capital that they can shelter, who do not have the means to be able to shelter their money are the ones who are going to have to be paying to make up the gap. The sum of $15,500 will be lost to the taxpayers. Where is that going to come from? It is going to come from the lower and middle-income people in Canada.
Of course the Liberal government and Conservative government have made it very clear throughout, consistent once again-I do have to admire that they are consistent-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: More than you can say for the NDP.


Lynn Hunter: There seems to be a lot of raucous comment back here, Mr. Speaker. Obviously we are a little fractious on our first day back in the House. You will have to forgive us.
There has to be a good pension scheme. We have a universal pension scheme, thanks to the New Democratic Party and its urgings over the years, but we also now have a big problem with poverty among seniors. As I pointed out, this bill does absolutely nothing to address that. I would like to remind the minister that if we are talking about the role of government in society and what that should be, it should be to help those who can least help themselves, rather than helping those who are doing quite all right already.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a question or comment.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was amused to hear the hon. member's speech because I know the New Democratic Party's penchants for pensions. It is not long ago that Mr. Stanley Knowles who sits at the table in this House was on his feet daily asking about pensions. Here we have the New Democratic Party taking this new view about pensions. After all, the purpose of registered retirement savings plans is to encourage people to provide for their retirement, to provide pensions for themselves. Mr. Knowles was always in favour of increased pensions for everybody. He wanted everybody to have more money on retirement. The purpose of this bill
is to ensure that people save money so that they have generous pensions at the time they retire. Here we have the New Democratic Party apparently opposed to this scheme, and it is a pension scheme. This very much surprises me.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Are you in favour of it?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am trying to talk about logical consistency here, because we heard that we were inconsistent in some way. We are consistent throughout. It was the New Democrats that were inconsistent and I want to go back to that.
The other thing is the New Democratic Party spokesman who was just speaking said that the $7,500 limit apparently was satisfactory, it was the increase of the limit that was causing offence.


Lynn Hunter: I can't recall saying that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Well, if one is going to be logical in dealing with the pension issue, if these tax deductions are the problem, if that is the difficulty, why are we allowing these deductions at all? If it is all to be in a public pension that is to be paid out of taxes, then let us say so.
Here we have:"Well, this bill is bad because it increases these limits", and yet leaving things as they are apparently is all right. No, she did not say that. I agree, she did not say it, but it was implicit in the criticisms of the bill.
If the whole idea of RRSPs is bad, let us say so. I do not think it is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing. I am sure that the former leader of the New Democratic Party who is gone and has taken a very nice job where he earns a substantial salary is pleased at the idea of an RRSP. I am sure he would find it most attractive. He is not yet at the age where he cannot contribute and he might find it a bonanza. If the members of his party are going to be consistent they have to be ever so careful about criticizing the notion of registered retirement savings plans. I invite the hon. member, perhaps, to address the issue of what her former leader is now doing.


Lynn Hunter: My former leader is also very consistent. He is continuing his work in human rights and democracy development in the world. He is also very firm in his desire for real reform of the tax system so that his income will be taxed to the greatest extent so that he can contribute to real tax reform. I would say that does
January 22, 1990

distinguish him from other former leaders from both the Conservative and Liberal sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Willowdale.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, let us have no illusion about what this bill is about. It is a tax bill to help the rich.
This bill means if you have an income of over $86,000 a year you will be able to deduct from your income in any one year $15,500. That is a saving to you as a taxpayer of about $7,000 to $8,000, depending on the tax bracket you are in.
Now, does this bill benefit the poor? Mr. Speaker, patently it does not. A person who is earning $25,000 a year today can deduct up to 20 per cent of their income or $5,000. They do not get a big tax saving. It is not 50 per cent because they are not in a 50 per cent bracket. Under this bill their deduction would be cut back to $4,500. They would be able to contribute less on a tax-free basis or a tax deductible basis to their pension plans than they can today. That is one way in which the rich are benefiting immensely and the poor are being cut back by this particular bill.
If people such as those to my left in the NDP look on this bill as a panacea to pension reform, or if any member of this House believes that this bill is an attempt at pension reform, lest any Canadian think that this is an attempt at pension reform, this bill does not meet any of the criteria set out by Mr. Douglas Frith in a 1983 task force report on pension reform. It does nothing for portability of pensions. It contributes very little to the indexing of pensions. It does nothing about the 93 per cent of the private sector pension plans which do not have indexing provisions. It does nothing about homemakers' pensions.
We know there are many Canadians who have to stay at home either to look after a spouse, a child who is under 18, or a relative who is disabled or ill. There is nothing in this bill which allows contributions toward a pension plan for that person who has to stay home to look after these relatives or family members.
What is so anomalous in this bill is the government's attitude toward retirement income for Canada's seniors. We know that one-sixth of Canadians live below the
Government Orders
poverty level. The first biggest group living in poverty is children and the second biggest is single senior citizens.
How do we go about encouraging Canadians to provide for their own retirement during their working productive years, if they have sufficient incomes to set aside any money for savings at all? In other words, they are above the level of the working poor. How do we encourage these Canadians through the private sector system of pensions to set aside enough money so that they can provide for their own retirement without depending on the public purse?
Let me tell you what this government is proposing with this bill. If, for four years consecutively, persons earning the $86,000 put aside the $15,500 at a 10 per cent interest rate, which is fair today, and did nothing more with that money, in 30 years they would have $1 million to retire on. If instead of doing it for four years they did it for eight years, that person would be able to retire and have the income from $1 million worth of capital in about 25 years' time. For such persons to become millionaires, it does not even require that they put away for more than four or eight years, and one can take the combinations down from there.
That is fine for the rich. What is it doing for middle and low income families? It is not helping them. It is working against them. What is also anomalous is if you do save during your working productive years, if you do have enough money to put aside for your retirement, if you scrimp and save and do not take vacations or buy luxuries, if you do not consume your income but you put it away and save, you are frugal, parsimonious or prudent, this government is saying to you the moment your income hits $50,000 this year or about $35,000 in the year 2000, it is going to take away your pension under the old age security. It is going to take away your entitlement. In other words, this government is saying: "Don't bother saving, spend it now, because if you save, we'll get it back from you".
This is in addition to the fact that in terms of hitting the poor, we have seen a consistency on the other side of the House. We have seen cut-backs in unemployment insurance, cut-backs in the time that a person is entitled to payment for UI, an increase in the time that they have to work in order to become eligible. We have seen them taking some $2 billion of government contributions out of unemployment insurance and imposing this burden on

January 22, 1990
Government Orders
the backs of the workers and of the small business employers.
We have seen a government that does not fully index its own provisions in the Income Tax Act. We know that it has not fully indexed the clawback provisions for senior citizens who are receiving the Old Age Security. The goods and services tax credit that they are proposing is not even fully indexed. As that tax applies, we all know that inflation will deteriorate year after year the position of the poorest Canadians.
They have not fully indexed the refundable child tax credit. Again, in conception, a good tax measure designed to help the families who need it most. Again, it is being eroded by inflation because this government does not have the compassion or humanity to fully index it.
Yes, let us be very clear. This program will help the rich and the almost rich to achieve self-sufficiency in retirement if they do not squander their money. As indicated, in only 25 to 30 years, a person having taken advantage of the maximum contributions, be it for four or eight years, can have $1 million in capital and live off the income. It is doing nothing for Canadians at the lower end of the totem pole, for the working poor, for those in poverty, and for those who do not have the money to put away.
When you are in a lower than 50 per cent tax bracket and you put money away for your retirement, as frugal, prudent Canadians will do, the government does not contribute 50 per cent through tax savings for the poor. It might contribute 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent. It is only when you are in the upper class tax brackets, the rich tax brackets, that the government is contributing a full 50 per cent.
I wish, in retrospect, the government had considered in this time when we must be prudent with taxpayers' money the real needs of Canadians who are retiring. The real needs lie not so much with the rich and the well-to-do, they lie with those living in poverty. That is where their priorities should have lain, in fully indexing pensions, in making pensions available to homemakers, in providing for rollovers, so that pensions can be transferable. This is the question of portability. Even more so, addressing the retirement needs of our seniors
who are living in poverty or the people tomorrow who will be our seniors living in abject poverty if this government continues.
I would like to make one more point, Mr. Speaker. This government is fond of saying that they have no money for any public purposes in Canada. This is the government that is prepared to see Lumonics sold to the Japanese and to see Connaught sold to the French government. This is the government that is cutting back on research and development, that is cutting off grants to our best doctoral and post-doctoral students in the sciences. It is cutting back money to the NRC. This is a government that has even cut back tax advantages to small Canadian corporations that might want to undertake research and development. They do not have the money, they said, to help a key company like Connaught stay Canadian. They are happy to see it go into the hands of the French government.
We have in Canada over $25 billion in registered retirement savings plans and pension contributions, all of which have been partially paid for at the expense of the taxpayers. Surely some of these funds could be put to valuable public work. Surely some of these funds could be invested in Canada's technological and economic future. Surely, because these funds are tax paid, we could insist that just a small portion of them every year, maybe 1 per cent or 2 per cent, be directed to help struggling Canadian companies, threshold firms, become world players. These are some of the things that we should be thinking of.
In conclusion, let me say that this bill does deal with the real problem of poverty in retirement. This bill helps the rich. It helps the almost rich, but it does not address the true retirement needs of Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Willowdale is well known for his erudition on matters relating to pensions and the speech we have just listened to is an excellent example of his fine presentation and clear thinking. I know he has listened patiently to some of the speeches made this afternoon, particularly by members of the New Democratic Party who seem to get very confused on the issue. Has the member done any studies on the various attitudes of the New Democratic Party toward this kind of bill?
January 22, 1990


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The member for Kingston and the Islands touches a sore spot. I have undertaken hours and hours of diligent research in the libraries, in dusty tomes,, I have sought for their rationale, I have sought for their wisdom and 'ere I searched all day, it was as if I had searched all day for two grains of wheat hidden in two barrels of chaff, and 'ere I found them, it was not worth the search.


Mr. Gauthier:: I would like to join with my colleagues in the House in congratulating my friend from Toronto for making this very great contribution to this debate. I just want to follow up on the question put by the member from Kingston.
I was here and I heard the great presentations put forth by our socialist friends concerning RRSPs. I am just wondering if, in his search for the truth, the member from Toronto has found out if members of the New Democratic Party have given up on RRSPs and that they are all going to cash them in and turn them over to the charities of their choice so that we are sure that indeed their principles are that they will not save any money for their retirement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that note, we will call it seven o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose for being on the late show today comes out of a question I had asked in the House on November 24.
The question was directed to the President of the Treasury Board who happened not to be in the House that day. It was answered by the Minister of Finance who assured me that some time during the following week the President of the Treasury Board would get back to me with an answer to my question.
The substance of my question was: When would the government, particularly the Treasury Board and the
Adjournment Debate
good offices of the President of the Treasury Board, be used to bring fairness to the ongoing negotiations with respect to hospital services people, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and civil servants of the Government of Canada on the question of parity between workers on the east coast and those on the west coast as it affected ships' crews so that on both sides of this great country of ours they would be able to get the same wages for doing the same work? I asked whether or not the Treasury Board would use its offices to expedite the proceedings, get on with the bargaining, get the striking ships' crews back to work and try to make sure that the hospital services people were negotiated with fairly as well.
The President of the Treasury Board did not get back to me the next week and he did not respond in any way to the employees either. I guess the answer that came back was: "No, he was not willing to use his offices to try to prevent any further strife within the Public Service and to alleviate the problems which had arisen with respect to the hospital services workers". The hospital services workers went on strike, and I would suggest they were probably forced to strike because of the inactivity of the Treasury Board and the President of the Treasury Board in exercising his responsibility.
I would like to point out that prior to November 24 and my questions in the House I had written a letter to the President of the Treasury Board with copies to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of National Defence because these different departments were involved. In that letter I pointed out that I had four major concerns. The first one was that of designation. What we were dealing with in this case were employees of the Public Service of Canada, members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, union members who from the time they were able to belong to unions had been prevented from going on strike on the basis that the government- not just the Progressive Conservative government but its predecessor Liberal government as well-had designated them as essential services.
That may strike some people as being not all that bad, but when one considers that in the case of these two groups of people as many as 110 per cent of their total numbers were designated as essential, one gets some kind of an idea of the lengths to which the government was willing to go to treat these people badly.

January 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
In this letter I also asked the minister to use his services to expedite the bargaining situation and to get on with it. The striking ships' crews were providing emergency services, yet the government was trying to intimate that these people were behaving in a irresponsible manner. I would like to point out that the hospital services workers, subsequently having offered to provide services during the strike, were turned down. This brought great distress particularly to people in veterans' homes.
I would like to point out that even though the government did not avail itself of the offer, those people who later went on strike went to the different hospitals in the communities to succour veterans and inhabitants of these homes in order that the distress which they experienced because the government had moved them out of their homes was not too severe. This was much appreciated by the families of the veterans involved, I would point out.
I certainly did not receive any answer from the minister, and I still have not received an answer. I asked for many other things as well with respect to that whole bargaining. We have received very, very few answers other than the back to work legislation brought in by closure.
I see my time has expired.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to put my hon. friend out of his misery.
The government has been engaged in collective bargaining for the ships' crews group for approximately two years. From January 1988 until March of 1989 many bargaining sessions were held both directly with the union bargaining team and with the assistance of mediators appointed to assist the parties.
In March 1989 the ships' crews group as well as 26 others reached agreement with the employer. These settlements were reached voluntarily and were submitted to the union membership for the ratification. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the union bargaining team voluntarily accepted the settlement, the ships' crews membership did not. Since the spring of 1989 the parties have met on many occasions in an attempt to
reach a settlement on the outstanding issues, but all to no avail.
In October and November of 1989 the ships' crews group was engaged in conciliation efforts with an independently appointed conciliation board. This conciliation board could not bring about an agreement between the parties and in fact made no recommendations for a settlement because the parties were so far apart.
In addition to the aforementioned efforts further mediation attempts were made in December, 1989. The Treasury Board, for example, offered a comprehensive settlement position but the union bargaining team rejected this offer and continued to demand a settlement that would be far too high for any reasonable and responsible employer to accept.
It is important to note that the employer's settlement position in December rejected by the union included parity of wages for eastern and western based ships' crews effective the date of signing of a new collective agreement. This delivered on a commitment made in the House by the President of the Treasury Board to provide wage parity for this group of employees. In addition, this commitment of the employer has been confirmed in writing to the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board for use in the forthcoming conciliation board process.
Despite the employer's undertaking to achieve wage parity, the union continued to insist on substantially greater monetary improvement. This is precisely why Bill C-49 was required. It put into place a fair and equitable process for resolving the outstanding issues. The parties will have an opportunity to present their respective positions to an independent conciliation board that will have the authority to render a binding decision to resolve the outstanding issues should that become necessary.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, when I first raised this question and then gave notice that I was not satisfied with the answer, I had no idea that the Prime Minister this very day in this House would help me demonstrate just how dissatisfied I was and why I am so dissatisfied.
People around this country by now have seen that answer from the Prime Minister. There is, he says, no crisis. He says that the people in Atlantic Canada ought to be grateful. Grateful? Grateful for what from this particular government? For shutting down communities? For gutting UI? For gutting job creation? For allowing
January 22, 1990

overfishing to go on five years without a peep from this Prime Minister, and five years later he can stand there and say there is no crisis?
I hear the neat little distinction he makes. There is a crisis in the fishery but there is not a crisis in Atlantic Canada. Where does he think the fishery is? Who does he think shipped 80 per cent of our groundfish, caught it and shipped it before he wiped it out by letting the foreigners walk all over us?
Of course any crisis in the fishery is a crisis in Atlantic Canada. The problem is that he is not here. I understand that. He is a busy man.
The Minister for International Trade should be here responding to this issue. Where is the gentleman from St. John's West? The member for Winnipeg South is going to respond to this fishing issue, this overfishing issue? What an insult to the people of Atlantic Canada.
Where is the parliamentary secretary for fisheries? Where is the minister of fisheries? Where is the Minister for International Trade and all the other people who have the solutions to this terrible problem? Are none of them here to tell us what the Prime Minister means when he says there is no crisis?
I will give the member for Winnipeg South some idea of the dimensions of this particular tragedy.
In one area of the zone that is controlled and monitored by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, that organization recommended no fish be taken this year. Yet, the Spanish and the Portuguese, realizing just how cowardly and how spineless this government has been so far in dealing with foreign overfishing, have continued their pillage of fish stocks even when they were told that no fish should be taken. Do you realize that according to DFO figures last year that in 1989 there was a quota of 13,000 tonnes of cod set for them and they took 63,000 tonnes? They took almost five times what they were supposed to take.
Why is it that everybody except the Prime Minister knows there is a crisis? I will tell them why. It is because they are living through it: they in Gaultois, who are under threat of losing their homes, communities and
Adjournment Debate
their loved ones, not to mention their jobs and their livelihood; they in Grand Bank; they on Shea Heights near St. John's; they in Trepassey; they in Canso, Nova Scotia; they in Lockeport, Nova Scotia. They know there is a crisis and all the bafflegab and words from the Prime Minister today and all the fine written speeches like the one which I am sure we will hear in a minute, when I sit down, will not put groceries on tables in Gaultois, Grand Bank, Shea Heights and Trepassey.
Two of those areas are in the jurisdiction of the Minister for International Trade, the member for St. John's West. Why does he not convince his people that there is a crisis? I say to him that it is not for the lack of trying. I understand, John, you have done the best you can, but that is the real tragedy: nobody is listening to the junior minister for trade, nobody is listening to the member for St. John's West. Perhaps that is why they are not here. Perhaps they have given up altogether. That is the word back in Newfoundland and that might be the honourable thing for the gentleman for St. John's West to do.
More to the point, this is an unfolding national tragedy. This is a disgrace of international proportions that we should stand idly by as a Canadian government and allow the Spanish and the Portuguese, aided and abetted by the French, to wipe out entire stocks of groundfish and other species. They will not be there for future generations. They will not be there to be caught by the Spanish or by the Portuguese or by anybody. They will be gone. Why? Because this government, through its silence and lack of action, has stood idly by and aided and abetted that raping of our fish stocks, wiping out jobs in plants and wiping out jobs in boats.
I appeal to the government not to respond with another pre-scripted few words but to say to Atlantic fishermen and plant workers: "We hear your plea at last. There is a crisis and we are going to rise to it". If the government will say that and do that, I will be the first to rise and applaud government members.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the hon. member opposite that the parliamentary secretary for fisheries has asked me to respond to this question because the

Adjournment Debate
parliamentary secretary was tragically forced to return home to his riding this evening to attend a funeral.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans informs me that he has not yet received the final report from the independent review panel created to assess the new scientific information on the northern cod stock. The interim report was received mid-May.
Early in 1989 there were serious changes in our view of the northern cod resource. New scientific data and more sophisticated assessment techniques led the Canadian scientists to believe that the total cod resource available was significantly smaller than previously thought. Although we still believe that the stock increased in weight between 1976 and 1986 it tripled rather than increased five-fold as had been estimated by the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee in 1987. This is also a slower increase than estimated by the task force group on the Newfoundland inshore fishery in 1987.
In response to this unexpected information the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans revised immediately the 1989 total allowable catch down from 235,000 tonnes as a precautionary measure from the preliminary figure of 266,000 tonnes. This level ensured for 1989 the conservation of stock at its recent level.
The conclusions of our scientists and of Dr. Harris' panel will have a significant impact on management measures in the future. Northern cod is vitally important to the livelihood and future of thousands of fishermen and plant workers and to the viability of the Atlantic groundfish industry in general. It is for that reason that a comprehensive examination of all possible facts which may affect the state of the northern cod resource is very important at this stage. We cannot afford leaving any stone unturned at such a crucial time.
The independent review panel which is chaired by Dr. Harris from Memorial University of Newfoundland was instructed to conduct a comprehensive examination of all possible factors which may affect the state of the northern cod resource, of the data used in establishing scientific advice and of the methods used to determine this advice. The panel was given a broad mandate to ensure that reliable scientific advice will be available to manage the fishery in 1990 and beyond.
As members will be aware, the interim report of the panel was delivered on May 15, 1989 and confirmed the lower size of the stock. During the summer the panel received submissions from the public and held public hearings. This public debate was an important element of the review and the panel is now finalizing its report. The final report from the panel will be made public after a review by the minister and appropriate consultation. Also, as is normally the case, consultation with the fishing industry will take place at a special meeting of the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee and a meeting of the Atlantic Council of Provincial Fisheries Ministries.



Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that frustration was felt by the Liberal member who spoke about there being no Atlantic representative here for the government to answer. I appreciate having heard on northern cod but my colleague from Newfoundland spoke on foreign overfishing.
I am speaking on an area that I think has to be answered. I asked in October what kind of help there was going to be for the communities of Lockeport, Digby, Argyle and the many thousands of people who are out of work since last June. The minister at that time has no response.
He says there will be assistance coming and it has not come. There is no direct assistance that I have seen come into Nova Scotia in the form of helping the community. It is not financial assistance that people want. They want to fish in Nova Scotia. Those coastal communities want a living. It is not like the Prime Minister said here in the House today, that the future in Atlantic Canada is bright. Perhaps the future in Atlantic Canada is bright, but I have lived by the sea all my life, and fish are a natural resource that this government will deal with to come forward with a plan of action that will secure the prosperity of the Atlantic coast.
There are three areas where this government fails. One is a management plan.
In my supplementary question to the minister in October, I said please transfer from the offshore some of the species that they will not use in those coastal communities near Lockeport, Digby, and Argyle, all are 4BWX and 5. He said no at that time. Yet his own official
January 22, 1990

in reporting on December 20, 1989, to the fisheries committee said he did not like to see fish left in the water.
There was 5,000 metric tons: 1,000 metric tons of haddock, 3,000 metric tons of pollack, and the rest in cod that was left in the water by the offshore as of the middle of December. Yet this government would not allocate in September, October, November or December to the inshore communities that were so dependent on that fish. That is one area.
The management plan incorporated in 1990 the same errors that were there. The second thing that management plan does is allow a boat allocation. That does not make any sense. Most fishermen who have not fished for six months are only going to go after their 20,000 pounds per trip or 10,000 per trip for the best of the fish. They will have to do that in order to survive the year that the management plan proposes again for this year. That deals with the management plant.
The second area the government is not able to deal with is marketing. We have nothing from this government except its allocation of 100,000 metric tonnes of underutilized species for development purposes. Since 1985 there has been a decrease in any marketing ability for the Department of Fisheries, except as it relates to providing intelligence for shaping the minister's policy.
There is no new incentive for helping the firms that do not have the resources to conduct market studies in the underutilized species. In fact, with the free trade agreement we cannot even do that or we might offend the U.S. For our natural resource that is in trouble, we have no backbone as it stands in a market development strategy for fish in Canada. One only need to look at the lobster fishery. We have to watch what is happening with no assistance directly related to marketing for fear of offending the Americans down there.
I have looked at what the Americans are doing. They are talking about our fish as if we do not have any health inspection or any other inspection. They have ads that say: "You would not want to eat this fish". Our govem-
Adjoumment Debate
ment is not doing a thing to counteract billions of dollars in an industry that we have in existence.
We in the opposition see no one over there taking the initiative to go ahead and countervail that. I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has got to look at who is presently fishing underutilized species. It is a European market that is using that. Well, why can we not develop that market? Why do we have to see foreigners here as an irritant to us when we have the capacity offshore.
We have the capacity onshore to go out and fish and process the underutilized fish. If there was any incentive as has been in the past to develop markets in this area, you would not have the present situation in communities like Lockeport. You would not have us begging the Russians who are within our 200 mile limit to land their cod, their haddock and their pollack to our plant. We would be fishing those underutilized species as the Russians are here fishing. Sure, we have to develop markets. Yes, we may offend Americans.
I just want to say that I have seen the hardest of hardships as as result. I cannot stand to see a Prime Minister of this country take a natural resource like fish, a renewable resource like fish, and say to the people in the east that we have nothing to look at except the bright side of what else there is on the east coast. There are whole sections in Atlantic Canada that are hurting, that are not able to sustain the direction of this government's policy. Yes, I say to the farmers out west, you may have $1 billion of financial aid to help you but I do hope that at the end of your drought that it won't be the big companies that will provide the direction to this government as we are beginning to see happening in the east at the sake of all those coastal communities and those fishermen.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member's question. As the hon. member is well aware, this government is veiy concerned about the people in Atlantic Canada. The Prime Minister is very concerned about the people in Atlantic Canada and their well-being.
Tb this end the Prime Minister created a special committee of cabinet to address exclusively the problems particular to Atlantic fisheries. The committee has in turn convened two task forces, one for northern cod and the other Scotia-Fundy groundfish, to take stock of the

January 22, 1990
Adjournment Debate
resource situation and the impact of diminished supply on the people who make their livelihood from it.
The scope of their investigations is broad enough to address alternatives within the fisheries and the regional socio-economic settings in which they take place. The task forces will be reporting their findings in due course and any subsequent measures this government may implement will take their advice into consideration.
Of course we are concerned about the impact of reduced groundfish availability on fish plant workers in the Scotia-Fundy region. This comprises a major part of the work of that the task forces are undertaking. It is also why we are encouraged by the way the larger companies have cushioned the impact of this situation by spreading the work around several plants in the region.
Private sector firms are showing that they understand their responsibilities and that the responsibilities are fundamental to the operation of the free enterprise system. As a consequence, the number of outright plant closures for the remainder of the season in 1989 in the Scotia-Fundy region has been kept to a minimum. Plant
closures in other communities have been, by and large, intermittent, temporary, and very much in keeping with the pattern of seasonal activity typical of the Scotia-Fundy groundfish fishery. Most workers will qualify for unemployment insurance to supplement their earnings as they usually do in a normal year.
National Sea Products closed its Lockeport plant for a number of reasons. In addition to the publicly stated concerns that the corporation has made about the impact of inadequate groundfish supplies on its business, the company has been taking measures to improve its overall operating efficiency. A reduction in the company's quota is only one explanatory factor. The closure was a business decision which the government cannot second-guess.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 23, 1990