Jerry Pickard

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have noted that the Alberta government set up a committee to examine the marketing structure in the west. They produced the report today at noon. It was not a written report. It was a news conference where the committee did not give the federal government any information about what it had looked at and what it had studied.

We presently do not have written information. We only have a news conference. It is very difficult to respond at this time when we do not have the information that has been put forward.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that all initiatives of the government have been to create positive co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.

I do not question the initiatives that have been taken to create a positive relationship not just with the provinces but with all the stakeholders in the country. To illustrate this I might use this point. In the last two weeks the minister of agriculture has gone across the country to bring national leaders together in a forum. He had the national leaders put forward their concerns with agriculture. He had them look at the opportunities that could come from those difficulties and develop a creative plan under which we could put forward recommendations to overcome them.

As he did this exercise two weeks ago, he did a similar exercise in six regions across the country, bringing in all the provincial leaders at the same time in the agriculture, agri-food and finance industries. He has gone out of his way in order to bring in all of those concerns and put them together so he can set federal direction in order to answer the problems we have in the agriculture and agri-food sector today; develop new markets, develop new opportunities, everyone moving in a direction on-side and supportive of each other.

This type of action certainly is not mentioned by the opposition. It does not recognize the value of bringing all of these groups together, having one strong voice to make certain the agriculture and agri-food industries speak as a group in order to develop opportunities and a business plan for the future. That business plan, which the minister is working on right now, shall be prepared

and ready hopefully by June but through the summer at the latest. We will then see how we can move together.

The incorporation of industry, provincial governments and the federal government's viewpoint is critical. Again, it is not easy to have 13 areas of government all agree. It is a process that must be done very carefully and reasonably in time to make certain that all voices are heard and considered on a fair basis.

My response is yes, there is a tremendous amount going on. We all should be very excited about those opportunities of bringing everyone together, getting rid of the overlap and trying to iron out the system. It cannot be done in one year. It has to be done carefully over a longer period of time, and that is the direction the government is taking.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I am sharing my time with the member for Durham. I also would like to congratulate you on attaining your new position in the chair. I look forward to working with you over the next couple of years. Congratulations.

The throne speech to open the second session of the 35th Parliament is a basic statement of Canadian values, along with a blueprint that recognizes how we must form partnerships and organize for the future.

We know that government cannot isolate itself from the people it serves. We cannot as a government work in a vacuum. However, what we can and must do is establish a framework from which partnerships can develop and prosper. Partnerships with Canadians and the numerous groups and organizations representative of all walks of life are very important to recognize those divergent values and ideals.

In part, the throne speech indicated the government's commitment to the economic renewal of rural Canada in a way that is tailored to the needs of rural Canada. In particular, my area of Essex-Kent is very happy about that.

For those who reside in my constituency and for all Canadians living in small urban and rural communities that dot our map the government is continuing its efforts in recognizing the needs of rural Canada. This type of commitment will help ensure that rural Canadians are able to participate fully in the Canadian economy.

This statement for the future builds on initiatives commenced over the last two years, initiatives such as the rural secretariat within the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This secretariat, first established in 1994, is developing partnerships within government agencies such as Industry Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation to help access government services and programs.

The Canadian rural information service, a secretariat and Agriculture Canada partnership, has become a clearing house for rural information and responds to rural Canadians' requests for services they need. The initiatives reach out to all of us.

The throne speech spoke of expanding access to the School Net and community access programs to increase technology use in rural Canada. It provides opportunities for our most valuable resource, our country's youth, for youth development, youth opportunities, youth jobs, regardless of where young people live. There are some examples of the partnerships in which we will engage to ensure future prosperity of all regions. In rural Canada we have already seen the benefits of the partnerships between the government and its citizens. We look forward to increasing such initiatives.

The last federal budget announced an adaptation and rural development fund, called ARDF. The estimated $60 million annual budget in ARDF will assist farmers in their desire to diversify their operations, become more profitable and develop new markets.

In Ontario, ARDF is being viewed as an opportunity to help the agriculture sector adapt itself to a rapidly changing environment.

The commitment of the government as outlined in the throne speech to rural Canadians is not merely lip service but a very reasonable approach to building our nation. Building on current initiatives, it is anticipated that the rural secretariat will play a lead role in developing partnerships with federal agencies, with provinces and with rural stakeholders.

This commitment is also a recognition that rural development is not limited to the agriculture and the agri-food sector. Today's technology applications, and its unknown limits of tomorrow, require us to ensure access to new information infrastructures so that rural Canadians have the tools to create jobs and generate growth opportunities.

The government also remains committed to rationalizing federal services. The throne speech referenced our interest in developing a national food inspection service that would combine various food inspection branches both as a cost savings and a service improvement. Federally, food inspection is undertaken by the ministries of agriculture, health and fisheries and oceans.

Food inspection is a shared responsibility. Therefore we are anxious to explore ways in which partnerships can be arranged with the provinces so that we can move forward and create a truly national food inspection service. Inspection at the primary and processed food protection levels will serve two purposes. It ensures Canadian consumers purchase quality products that are without doubt among the best products in the world. It will also provide uniform standards for all of us.

Recently the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food met with his provincial counterparts where all expressed a keen interest to move forward in these initiatives. Last year the minister consulted with Canadians, producers and the industry on these initiatives. It is in partnership with all stakeholders that we will be able to redesign our system, streamline the inspection process, improve efficiencies and become cost efficient. Our real competitive edge for the future will result in these types of partnerships.

The government, from the beginning of its mandate, has recognized that governments do not create jobs, rather employers create private sector jobs with the vast majority of new jobs being created by small and medium size business. For our part the government must create an economic climate necessary for businesses to flourish.

A cornerstone of our economic program is the reduction of the deficit. It is not the slash and burn deficit reduction technique that many people have witnessed in this country. It is a process that makes the transition safe and reasonable for all Canadians.

Our approach, and the Minister of Finance has stood fast in his commitment to this, has been to set reasonable short term targets, establish goals that while they challenge our initiative, do not break the economic backs of public and private sector partners, and deliver a balanced and reasonable approach to the divergent needs of economic development and fiscal restraint.

We remain committed to reducing the deficit to 2 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product by 1997-98. When we achieve this goal we will have reduced the deficit as a portion of our economy by two-thirds, the most successful deficit reduction in the history of Canada. This achievement will be good for all Canadians. It will mean we have brought our spending out of that spiral of continual upward movement into a reasonable form that Canadians can handle.

In terms of business investment, the private sector will respond positively to the deficit reduction program. By continuing to bring our country's financial house in order, we will create the economic stability that will encourage consumer and investor confidence to increase.

At the same time, it is necessary for the government to foster a relationship both with the private sector and our provincial counterparts so we can collectively invest in economic growth and job creation. The throne speech reflects that partnership, giving young people an opportunity to put education and enthusiasm to work and gain valuable job experience. Co-sponsoring with business and labour, new initiatives put young people to work.

Every effort has been made for the government to reach out to every sector of the community and identify partnerships that will be positive for our nation. As I indicated in my opening comments and reiterate now with my last few words, the throne speech has set the stage for Canadian governance in co-operation with all of us.

We can see, as certain initiatives have developed, how it is possible for partnerships to be successful. From history we have learned that governments cannot and must not proceed on their own without the co-operation of all Canadians.

In the coming months and years, as more partnership initiatives are introduced and implemented, I am sure we will as a nation reap the benefits of the positive course of action set by the throne speech.

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the issue before the House. Even though I cannot support the bill at this time, the protection of personal information is a matter of concern for all Canadians and deserves a comprehensive response.

The bill the hon. member has put forward does not do enough to stop the kinds of privacy invasion Canadians are complaining about. While I share the concerns expressed by the Reform Party about the abuse of personal information in the context of direct marketing, if Parliament is to intervene with new legislation, we had better be sure that we are doing that which addresses the most broad problem of fair information practices.

Here are some areas where I feel we need change. The bill would only apply to corporations. Businesses that engage in the practices are often individuals or small partnerships and would not be covered by the legislation. It applies only to a narrow range of corporations engaging in the federal regulatory activity. It includes those in the banking, telecommunications and broadcast industries but not small entrepreneurs. Consumers want similar protection across a range of provincial and federal jurisdictions. They do not want to figure out who would be responsible.

The bill does not resemble anything now available in the provinces. It gives us no basic model to suggest to the provinces and would be an odd patch on the already spotty quilt of privacy protection. It does nothing to solve the problem of operators setting up outside our jurisdiction, such as in the United States. Technologies are changing and developing quickly these days and information is being collected and massaged in new and different ways.

The bill addresses only the issue of peoples' names appearing on lists or nominative lists as the practices are referred to in Quebec privacy legislation which covers the private sector. With information management systems changing daily it may soon be out of date to talk about lists.

Information travels everywhere and can now be vacuumed up automatically. It is no longer necessary to hand someone a computer tape to trade information. We can simply configure a computer system to make the required links.

When we address the protection of personal privacy we want to talk about the use of personal information in the broadest possible ways. The rules we come up with should address every sector of the economy, not just the direct marketing industry. Personal information is a vital commodity in just about every business from banking to telecommunications to health care.

We need necessary rules for all sectors tailored to meet the special needs of each one. Instead of working on the bill we should support the work that has been going on for several years at the Canadian Standards Association or the CSA. A consensus committee passed a model of privacy code in September of this year, the result of three years of work in the committee with representation of industry, consumers and federal and provincial governments.

The concept behind this model code is that each sector of business industry would take this set of fair information practices and apply it to its own information holdings. They would be accountable for what they did with personal information but they would have some input into the process.

The Standards Council of Canada will soon publish this code of fair information practices as a national standard for Canada. This is a first among developed countries that have addressed the issue of data protection. It is the first time that protection of personal information has been looked at in the context of standards. In this information age that is a very useful way of looking at the matter.

The CSA privacy code has the support of a broad range of private sector organizations, including the Canadian Direct Marketing Association. On October 3 the president of the Canadian Direct Marketing Association called on the Minister of Industry to produce legislation in the House that would use the CSA standards as the basis for legislation federally. He suggested that the federal government encourage the provinces of Canada to do the same in their own jurisdictions.

Much of the information that Canadians are most concerned about is information over which provinces have direct control. For instance, medical and educational records are provincial matters. The privacy commissioner of Ontario released a letter to the Minister of Health last week wherein he expressed deep concern regarding the provisions of the omnibus bill 26 now before the Ontario legislature. That bill would permit the opening of private medical records and release officials from liability for their disclosure.

As the commissioner pointed out in his letter, 92 per cent of Canadians are expressing concern about the misuse of their personal information. It is great concern to them. Unfortunately it is not all protected by law. We in the federal government must do our part to protect consumers' personal information, but we must also start a much broader discussion with the provinces about the issue. Only Quebec, as my colleague from the Bloc has pointed out, has moved to protect personal information held in the private sector.

Canadians deserve and want more protection for their personal information than is offered in the bill. I understand the issue is being studied by the departments of industry and justice with a view to developing solutions that will work for the protection of personal information in all sectors of the economy across the country.

It is a huge and complex issue because the increasing availability and use of personal information and consumer files to target service delivery affect virtually every sector of our economy. Protection of personal privacy is identified as one of the foundations vital to the network world into which we are moving.

The Minister of Industry established the Information Highway Advisory Council to advise him on how to make the most of new possibilities brought to us by the communications network. It focused on the issue and Industry Canada has produced a number of studies. The council consulted experts and produced the following recommendations on privacy.

The federal government should act to ensure privacy protection on the information highway. This protection shall embody all principles of fair information practices contained in the Canadian Standards Association draft "Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information". To this end the federal government should continue to participate in the development and implementation of effective national voluntary standards based upon this model code.

The federal government must take leadership in the implementation of these principles through the following actions.

In co-operation with other levels of government that share responsibility for various sectors of activity on the information highway, it should establish a federal-provincial-territorial working group to implement the privacy principles in all jurisdictions.

It should create a level playing field for the protection of personal information on the information highway by developing and implementing a flexible legislative framework for both public and private sectors. Legislation would require sectors or organiza-

tions to meet the standard of the CSA model code while allowing the flexibility to determine how they will refine their codes.

In co-operation with the CSA working group on privacy and other interested parties, the government should study the development of effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms.

The government should establish a working group to co-ordinate the development, demonstration and application of privacy enhancing technologies for the provision of government services and information.

The government should update and harmonize appropriate privacy protection policies, legislation and guidelines applicable to its operations and to the delivery of government services and information.

Industry Canada should establish a working group-

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on November 27 the Prime Minister introduced three initiatives for change in how government works in Canada. It is important to remember that these changes are not constitutional changes in themselves. Rather these initiatives respond to how Canadians want their government to respond to the realities of Canadain the 1990s.

Canadians want the government to move forward, to respect the needs of our people, to make government more accessible. In the wake of the Quebec referendum, Canadians expected the federal government to make good on its commitments to maintain a unified country.

Canadians recognize the need for governments to remain focused on the issues of importance; issues such as employment creation, consumer and investor confidence, government spending and control.

Canadians also recognize that initiatives on distinct society, regional veto and manpower training will permit the government to fulfil its obligations to Canadians without allowing the country's agenda to be hijacked by those who wish to further their own personal agenda of destroying rather than building our country.

These unity incentives are a very important first step. These initiatives are also an effective way of dealing with the concerns of Canadians and of building partnerships with all regions of Canada, while at the same time not reopening the whole constitutional debate.

The proposed actions are consistent with what Canadians want and are the most expeditious way of achieving those goals. For many of us, both inside and outside government, constitutional discussions gave rise to concerns of lengthy, protracted debate without meaningful resolution.

Bill C-110, the act respecting constitutional amendments, does not raise these concerns. Evidence of this can easily be found in how government reacted to the issue of regional vetoes. By responding quickly to the concerns of B.C., the government has modified its regional veto to include British Columbia as a separate regional veto. This action flows directly from the commitment to listen to people and to introduce actions that bring people from all regions together.

The act, in its present form, would require the consent of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, the Atlantic and the prairie regions before any constitutional amendment can be proposed in Parliament by the Canadian government. This is, in effect, a guarantee that each of these five regions will have a general veto in areas where they do not already have a specific veto. This authority, simply put, will allow any one of the five regions to stop an amendment from the outset.

This bill keeps a commitment to all Canadians for increased protection within the Canadian federation and it recognizes the Constitution and its amending process is of interest to all parts of the country. By recognizing a regional veto for the province of British Columbia, the government is recognizing the existence of a uniquely Canadian west coast situation.

British Columbia, with its size, population, location and economic development, constitutes a region of interest that requires its own recognition on regional issues. By extending this regional veto power to British Columbia, the government is reaching out to

Canadians, acknowledging the variously uniquely Canadian situations and bringing us closer together by helping this part of Canada survive and strengthen its loyalties.

In a recent Regina editorial, the unity initiative was referred to as having solid potential and the Prime Minister's olive branch to Quebec could do what eight years of constitutional debate did not. This is an indication that the prairie provinces recognize the importance of a federal government that actively pursues addressing the regional interests of Canadians. The inclusion of B.C. in a veto power builds on an initiative and a decisive act that can be a valuable component of national building.

In the same editorial, the Prime Minister's actions were described as swift and bold in the government's accommodation of Quebec. These are again descriptions that could justifiably be used to describe the government's movement to address the B.C. situation.

The unity initiative promoted by the government is much more simple than the Charlottetown accord of 1992. Today's bill is much more concise and limited in its scope, yet it moves to achieve certain goals that have been sought by regions. Even in Quebec, sovereignists like Mario Dumont believe that this is a new, much simpler proposal and should be judged on its own merits.

Before the proposed veto change for B.C., a Vancouver editorial commented on the Prime Minister's unity package by saying: "It is an offer of tangible, substantive change that even Bouchard will find hard to discredit". Now that the B.C. veto is being promoted in this package, one can only assume that certain of those reservations have now been looked upon and completed with B.C. coming into the union with a veto.

In Edmonton an editorial comment suggested that the Prime Minister "did all he could within the powers of his government" in reference to Quebec's uniqueness and the veto rights. Yet it was this government that once again rose to the occasion by finding a way to enhance western Canada's position, not at the expense of others, but in recognition of British Columbia.

One can easily detect the concerns and desires of our Canadian regions. If one listens and acts in a comprehensive way, the same regions will recognize that efforts are for the benefit of the whole and do not jeopardize or favour the position of one region over another. Simply put, the veto proposal and the added recognition of British Columbia says to the provinces that no constitutional change will occur if regions oppose. This is more than any province has today and the inclusion of B.C. as a separate veto does nothing to favour one over another.

The Edmonton Journal noted: ``Albertans cannot have something for nothing. Life, as we know it, would not end if Alberta lost the provincial veto it never had''.

Many Canadians recognize that unity initiatives are probably about as far as government can reasonably go in the political climate of the 1990s. It is the recognition of the desires of Canadians and a response to the same within the context of Canadian society and will be acceptable by law. It will also give Canadians a chance to view the Constitution before any changes occur.

The proposals for a regional veto try as best as possible to acknowledge that the country has great variation of population densities. It would be much easier to divide the geographical area without the need to regard the population of the regions of the country. But this is not possible in Canada. What is possible is to pursue and find a compromise that will address the regional concerns within the context of national programs. The regional veto is a logical attempt to balance the will of our regions and its populations.

In central Canada editorial opinion suggests that the regional veto is a move that recognizes the reality of the country and its population. It is the recognition of what Canada is and what we stand for and how best the government can deliver these services is the driving force for change. It is not the government proposing change for the sake of change, but rather change for the sake of addressing concerns of Canadians.

There was also an observation in a central Canada newspaper that the unity proposals allowed us to test drive the concepts of them without enshrining them in our Constitution. Perhaps this is the most telling observation of Canadian society. We are a people that do need to be prepared to accept change. We must accept change, not one region over another, not with the idea of the contempt of change, but we must make certain that our drive forward is to unify the country, what we can do to help Canada and Canadians survive in this ever changing society.

[Committees Of The House, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill C-61, the agriculture and agri-food administrative monetary penalties bill.

After very fruitful discussions with departmental officials and all others concerned, I am proud to report the bill with several amendments.

I also would like to thank all committee members for their co-operation, and the staff and departmental officials who expedited the discussions very well.

[Petitions, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of presenting a petition from several people in my riding requesting the Minister of Human Resources Development to continue funding for agricultural employment services.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in rural Canada there is a tremendous concern about agriculture employment services. These services do a great deal to make certain that agricultural communities throughout Canada can provide labour and work in those communities.

Farms very much depend on this service. Through federal government studies, we see that 55 per cent of our farm communities feel there would be a large problem within the sector if they did not have some type of agricultural employment service.

In my riding of Essex-Kent, in the Leamington office alone we have approximately 3,670 placements annually. The office expense is approximately $189,000. The cost per placement or per job for the federal government is $50. In my community it generates $4 million worth of labour earnings.

That $4 million justifies those placements dramatically and certainly cuts back on the cost of government across the board. The Chatham employment office has very similar statistics with 2,500 job placements annually.

This service is extremely important to both employees and employers. As the federal government has done studies on seasonal work it realizes that people with $15,000 incomes will draw on the federal and provincial governments in excess of $5,000 in support payments. With seasonal work, each dollar that is paid to a worker is reducing both the federal and provincial costs. This is extremely important to all in Canada.

The agricultural service provides quick placements for labour when a crop is ready to be harvested, planted or when some other service is required. People have to be readily available and placed into those jobs.

In my riding of Essex county and in Kent county it is a 12-month a year service with greenhouses operating all winter, dairy farms with crops having to be harvested through the summer, in the spring and the fall pruning and harvesting. These are very important and add diversity and part time labour all year round.

The minister's working group has cited that this is one of the most successful examples of meeting seasonal labour demands in the country in its studies. It cites that it is a very timely, important industry for the agricultural market to make our seasonal industries operate properly.

It is very clear that as CEC is in transition at this time it would be unable to pick up the slack if agricultural employment services were withdrawn. I think it is very important that the minister review this scenario and attempt to meet the rural needs.

There is absolutely no question when I look at the minister's approach that I am pleased he has decided he will set up a committee to investigate and operate within the structure and possibly reinvestigate the funding that may be possible for the agricultural employment service. It is important that we look at this for all rural communities throughout Canada and make certain our agricultural industry is successful and prosperous.

[Underground Economy, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Mississauga South for his interest in bringing this important subject to the House. There is absolutely no question our Minister of National Revenue and members on both sides of the House are very concerned about the direction of our underground economy. The issue has the focus of all Canadians and is very important to all Canadians across the country.

The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less revenue there is for governments. Underground economic activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more of an unfair system in taxes when the underground economy flourishes.

For many individuals and businesses the underground economy has become a convenient way to avoid paying taxes, not to pay their fair share. When these people take their financial transactions underground they are failing to support Canada's social and economic programs. These people do not pay for the services they use. Instead other Canadians are forced to pay more. Other Canadians are forced to pay for those who participate in the underground economy.

I am very surprised the member for Calgary Centre suggested and almost condoned the underground economy and gave reasoning for it. It is serious to all Canadians that no one condone the practice. It is certainly not morally sound or fair to Canadians.

People who deal in the underground economy may feel their financial situation justifies the actions. It may be because they have not had a raise in several years. It may be because they feel the taxes are too difficult for them to comprehend. It may be just because of basic greed. They see it as cheating the tax department. It is not a simple matter of cheating a victimless tax department. It is cheating friends, the people who live next door

and the people who do business in the community. It is cheating every Canadian, forcing them to pay more in an unfair system.

I ask members as well as all Canadians to consider the real cost of the underground activity. The cost is large. It shows up in reduced essential services, higher taxes than we would otherwise be paying, unfair competition and a reduced standard of living to the honest taxpayers.

How does the underground economy affect the legitimate businessman trying to be competitive? The Canadian Homebuilders Association is concerned. Home renovators who evade taxes have an unfair advantage over other home contractors. Right from the start, honest businesses are at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot offer the consumer the same deal offered by someone who will not collect the taxes. The end result is that legitimate businesses face unfair competition and jobs are lost.

We must not forget dishonest consumers. Dishonest consumers who take a lower price and pay cash are cheating the system. They are becoming party to the evasion of taxes. These same consumers benefit from a full range of government services but are not paying their fair share. All they have done is take part in the transaction which jeopardizes our health, education and other essential services. This is simply unfair and very short sighted.

The motion before us suggests the government educate the public and encourage its participation in addressing the problems. I agree Canadians need to know the facts about the seriousness of the underground economy and what it is doing to hurt Canadians. I also agree governments cannot solve the problem alone. We all must take part and fulfil our responsibilities.

The government has recognized solutions to this problem it is now facing are not in isolation by themselves. We must understand the problem and its consequences. It is for this reason that in November 1993 the Minister of National Revenue made education a fundamental element to address the underground economy.

During this past year, officials of Revenue Canada have actively been consulting with individuals and associations across the country. Revenue Canada is seeking support of groups and individuals throughout the country. With the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, for example, the department established a working committee to investigate the causes of the underground economy, to examine audit techniques and identify training that would assist in tracking down unreported or under reported income and identify the opportunities for reducing the cost of the administrative burden for compliance for businesses and individuals.

These groups are taking the message of the risks of dealing in the underground back to their memberships. Every citizen and every business has a role to play in eliminating the underground economy. Individuals can start by refusing to deal with businesses and trades people who ask for cash payments. Businesses can do their part by turning down demands to do work off the books by making sure that does not happen.

To ensure everyone is aware the government is serious about prosecuting those who deliberately defraud the system, the Minister of National Revenue is publicizing convictions for tax evasion. The increased publicity has had a deterrent effect. The number of voluntary disclosures received by the department in which people have come forward to correct their tax affairs has doubled in the past year. In addition, the number of referrals received from people each year providing the department with leads on potential tax fraud has risen to about 19,000.

I am confident we are making the right progress in dealing with the underground economy and I am hopeful all Canadians and all members of the House will applaud the efforts of the member for Mississauga South for stimulating this debate in the House.

I urge members of the House to carry the message back to their constituents. I urge the members of the House to actively seek solutions for the underground economy and create a better and fairer nation for every business.

[Agriculture, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In recent weeks we have read about the projected closures of all agricultural centres across our rural communities. These services provide a very vital service for agriculture in Essex and Kent counties as well as other rural areas.

What will the minister do to maintain agricultural employment services across Canada?