1981-06-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which is more than pressing and urgent; it is critical. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) received the following telegram from Restigouche, Quebec:
An immediate intervention is requested to bring about a just solution in the problems facing the Indian people of the Restigouche reserve in the province of Quebec and their present jurisdictional dispute with the Premier of the Government of Quebec.
Furthermore, we request that you direct the Minister of Indian Affairs... to immediately visit the chief and band council of the Restigouche reserve and the other assembled Indian delegates from across the country.
The explosiveness of this situation at Restigouche is mounting by the minute. Just as I entered the chamber I was informed that another invasion of the reserve is imminent. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Prime Minister immediately despatch the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Restigouche in order to make every effort to settle the dispute before the situation becomes violent.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. An Ottawa journalist, Frank Howard, reports the following conversation when he telephoned the headquarters of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa yesterday:
Me-Je voudrais parler avec M. Robin Sears.
NDP Woman-He's in a meeting.
Me-Pardon?
NDP Woman-He's not here.
Me-Je voudrais parler avec Robin Sears.
NDP Woman-Just a minute.
(At this point the line was cut and I was switched to a second person).
Second NDP Woman-What do you want?
Me-Je voudrais parler avec M. Sears.
Second NDP Woman-He's in a meeting! (louder)
Me-Pardon?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


David Kilgour: I am coming to the motion, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure this kind of crank preamble cannot be allowed. Does the hon. member have a motion?


David Kilgour: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the NDP consider engaging a bilingual telephone receptionist at its national headquarters.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a policy of the chartered banks is to offer on home mortgages a maximum interest rate of 3 per cent on the property tax component of monthly home mortgage payments, compared with a 16 per cent plus interest rate offered on savings accounts, and in view of the fact that this policy not only blatantly discriminates against the home owner but also renders to the banks millions of dollars in excess profits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House deplores this practice of the chartered banks which gouges the Canadian consumer and urges them to review their existing policy with the purpose of returning to the consumer of a home mortgage a rate of return on his dollar which is fair, rather than continuing a practice which serves only to increase their own profit margin at the direct expense of the home owner.

June 19, 1981
5.0.	43


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
NAVIGATION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity, and I am sure my motion will have the unanimous support of the House. In light of the federal government's guarantee that a facility would be provided on the Fraser River for the removal of navigation and fishing hazards to replace the snag removal vessel the Samson V, in light of the government's total failure to provide such a service since the removal of the historic vessel from its duties last year, and in light of the hardships already faced by Fraser River fishermen due to federal fisheries department closures and fishing restrictions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House instructs the Minister of Public Works to find a replacement facility immediately to take up the task of clearing the Fraser River for navigation and fishing.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas yesterday a prominent group of Canadians of all political persuasions, representing the Committee for the Canadianization of the Oil Industry, came to Ottawa to demonstrate support for the National Energy Program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni):
That this House commends the activities of this group and invites other Canadians to demonstrate their support for this vital national policy.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LEADER OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Canada is today faced with the worst economic conditions since the depression, adversely affecting all Canadians, in particular those on fixed incomes, small businessmen, farmers, and home owners. Yet the Leader of the NDP has abrogated his responsibilities as the elected representative of his constituency of Oshawa in order to deal one-sidedly with internal politics in El Salvador.
In view of the fact that the self-proclaimed central American expert has at every opportunity taken up the time of this House with matters of little interest or concern to his constituents, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Leader of the New Democratic Party be instructed to give up his seat in this House and seek a permanent position with Socialist International, a move that will be welcomed with open arms by his revolutionary friends in Cuba, and would allow his constituents in Oshawa the opportunity to elect someone who was interested in and able to represent their interests in Ottawa.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the government's response to the urea formaldehyde foam insulation problem is nothing more than a $5 million public relations job which does nothing to alleviate the distress of the 100,000 Canadians who are affected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Government of Canada own up to its legal and moral responsibilities and help those thousands of Canadians who trusted the government's advice and insulated with UFFI, and who now find themselves faced with either a threat to their families' health, or Financial hardship.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Jif a 1
I [DOT] ipi
iiif
June 19, 1981


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, since 1971 it has been the policy of the Canadian government to announce Wheat Board initial prices prior to seeding. This year Senator Hazen Argue, minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, stated that there would not be an announcement of initial prices until seeding was completed. Seeding is now complete, and 1 therefore move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House instruct the government to announce immediately the Wheat Board initial prices for the 1981-82 crop year so that grain producers may be in a better position to plan their financial affairs for the remainder of the 1981 growing season.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and I hope I will be supported by my colleagues to the right here, although they obviously have other ideas about Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) politically desecrated the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) by rejecting Progressive Conservative and NDP amendments designed to give to the Minister of the Environment administrative authority for environmental studies provided for in the government's Crown lands gas and oil development legislation, Bill C-48. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Minister of the Environment resign from the cabinet since much of his authority has now been usurped by his colleague, the minister of energy, and thus he no longer has any real mandate either in the government or in this
House.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) politically desecrated the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts)-


An hon. Member:: It is the same motion.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -by rejecting PC and NDP amendments designed to give to the Minister of the Environment administrative authority-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -for environmental studies provided for in the government's Crown lands resource development legislation, Bill C-48.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of the Environment resign from the cabinet since much of his authority has now been usurped by his colleague, the minister of energy, and thus he no longer has any real mandate either in the government or in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

D)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the "bleeding heart" of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), CIDA, provided Grenada's communist government with $475,000 to build a garage-its vehicles could not stand being out in the heat-but the same government will do nothing to protect Canadians who are being evicted from their homes into the cold because of exorbitant interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House reminds this Liberal government that charity begins at home and that Canadians of all colours are more important than "red" trucks.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 19, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport has done it again. After putting a $5 fee on light aircraft landing at metropolitan Toronto airport, he has now completely banned light aircraft for a further seven hours per day from landing at that airport. Is there any possible justification for that order, other than just keeping light craft out of the airport?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should check with a number of his friends on the other side of the House and those on this side who complained about the noise at night in the area. This is the reason we tried to control the use of the airport during night hours.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW SITUATION
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, the minister should know that the hours being prohibited are daylight hours-in the morning and in the afternoon. Perhaps the minister is in the dark, but it really has nothing to do with aircraft flying in the dark. It is simply a matter of keeping them out of there during some fairly busy hours. I say "fairly busy", not exorbitantly busy hours. Perhaps the minister would take a moment to look into the situation to see if he could come up with another answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will in this particular instance but, generally speaking, general aviation at main airports in Canada presents a problem in terms of the maximum use of the airports by scheduled travellers. In every instance of which I am aware, be it in Vancouver, in Toronto or what not, there is an idea of rationalizing time in order to maximize the use of the airport by scheduled aircraft.


AVIATION SAFETY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the advisory committee the minister appointed for the implementation of the Dubin report. In the tabling of the terms of reference, it is quite clear that the minister established the committee for the purpose of advising only rather than implementation.
In view of the fact that ten aviation associations have taken serious objection to the process and to the terms of reference, is the minister not now prepared to amend the terms of reference to give a clear mandate to that committee to implement the major recommendations of the Dubin report, rather than simply to review the work of the Dubin inquiry and to advise the minister?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have said a number of times that the purpose of the advisory committee is to implement the Dubin report. However, I have said that 90 per cent to 95 per cent-I have used figures of this kind-of the Dubin report might be implemented in the legislation which I hope to introduce in the autumn.
On the subject of the air associations which came to see me approximately two weeks ago, I told them that I would see them again if we deviated substantially from the Dubin report. I will explain myself: if the legislation we prepare for the autumn deviates substantially from the Dubin report, I committed myself to see them again and to debate the subject extensively with them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, since the minister's own terms of reference indicate that the committee is an advisory committee rather than an implementation committee, I think that the terms of reference clearly speak for themselves.


MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the other point which is in contention is the apparent conflict of interest of some of the members of the advisory committee. I bring to the attention of the minister one Bernard M. Des-chenes, who is also perceived in the industry as having a conflict of interest inasmuch as he is a legal member of the Aircraft Accident Review Board, the very subject of which is part of the Dubin inquiry. Would the minister not reconsider the appointment of Bernard M. Deschenes along with those of other members of the committee who were, in fact, subjects of the investigation by Justice Dubin?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is a basic difficulty in the question. The Dubin report will not be implemented by the advisory committee. The report will be implemented by the government as a whole through the Minister of Transport. That is a fundamental truth which the hon. member neglects to take into consideration at this time.
I have created this advisory committee not to implement the Dubin report of its own capacity but to advise me, as Minister of Transport, and to advise the cabinet, how to implement the report. I think there is a basic misunderstanding in the question raised by the hon. member for Vegreville.
June 19, 1981


VIEWS OF GROUPS IN INDUSTRY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is very clear in the minds of those who represent the aviation industry that, first, they want the implementation team to be provided with clear terms of reference which should be directed solely toward the most expeditious and unqualified implementation of the Dubin Commission recommendations and, second, that the implementation team be given a proper balance by the inclusion of representatives from interested participants in the Dubin Commission. The minister has failed on both counts to satisfy the aviation industry. After all, they should be the experts in this matter since their views are represented in total by the spokesmen for the ten different organizations which have met with the minister on different occasions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is sufficiently experienced in these matters to know that the proper way to have implemented the Dubin report would have been to rely exclusively on the department. But because of the consideration that justice should be seen to be done-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The department which is being investigated?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -I have created the advisory committee, which is not the normal practice in these matters. The advisory committee is working extremely well and much faster than one could have even hoped. In the coming weeks I will be in a position to detail what part of the Dubin report we will be implementing in the legislation in the fall. The hon. member will be pleased by the work done by the advisory committee among whose members there is a pilot and a lawyer who is very experienced in these matters and who does not have a conflict of interest.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about Deschenes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: He does not have a conflict of interest. He is in the business of advising on legal matters pertaining to the investigation of accidents and incidents.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. I hope that I can anticipate a more courteous reply than the one I received the last time I directed a question to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, our $700 million broadcasting corporation is being crippled. Thousands of Canadians are being deprived of news and entertainment, especially those in
Oral Questions
northern Canada, because of an eight-month strike by Radio Canada journalists and a live-week management dispute between CBC and its NABET technicians. Surely this dispute cannot go on for ever. If it does the CBC could end up like the Toronto Telegram of the Montreal Star.
Is the minister currently meeting with CBC president A1 Johnson, or has he met with him recently, in order to ensure that the CBC bargains in good faith so that the strike can be settled before the upcoming economic summit conference? If he has not been consulting with Mr. Johnson, can the minister tell us why not?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I would like to be very courteous in my answer to the hon. member. The last time he asked me a question, the reply was "No." The next time, I will say, "No, thank you." Perhaps it will not hurt his feelings.
I would like to tell the hon. member that I have, indeed, been following the matter closely. I met with the president of the CBC this week and reviewed the CBC's position on the question of the strike. As the hon. member knows, there are about 22 or 23 bargaining units within the CBC. There are about 17 or 18 which have come to terms with the CBC during current contract negotiations. Just last week the CBC settled one of those important contract negotiations with the STRF, which is the French-speaking technicians' unit of the CBC. The French-speaking technicians accepted the offer which was negotiated with the CBC. We are all hopeful that the CBC will be able to come to terms with the English-speaking technicians as soon as possible.


POSSIBILITY OF UNION BUSTING
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, is the hon. minister aware that the issue is no longer one of simply independent production or increased Canadian content? NABET has given in on that. The CBC has half a loaf, and now it wants the whole loaf, including the use of in-house independents and the use of independents in jobs normally assigned to NABET technicians. What is likely to happen if this is allowed is that the best of NABET people will go independent, and the number of CBC technicians belonging to NABET will dwindle. This is really a question of union busting. I would like the minister to look into that part of it and discuss the matter thoroughly with President Johnson to see that President Johnson himself is, in fact, aware of it, and that it is not something which he does not know about and his negotiators are pushing.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member has been very supportive of the CBC in the past, and I know that he is still most supportive of the CBC, in a general way. I have reviewed the matter with the president of CBC this week. He repeated to me that he has given guarantees to NABET that there would be no loss of jobs on the part of

June 19, 1981
Oral Questions
NABET employees, and that the number of in-house hours of production would not be diminished. If the hon. member has other points he would like me to bring to the attention of the president of the CBC, I would be more than pleased to do so.


BROADCASTING OF SUMMIT CONFERENCE IN JULY
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, turning back to the coverage of the July summit, the minister knows that only the CBC has enough technicians to act as host broadcaster. However, the minister should know that as host broadcaster contingency plans include the use of the CTV technicians, that strike-breaking is forbidden in the CTV-NABET contract, and also that the technicians and broadcasters and similar supportive unions from the U.S., British and European networks will support the CBC-NABET strike at the summit.
Since the Minister of Labour's own conciliator has already supported NABET's position on jurisdictional matters and has supported the NABET stand, will the minister use every reasonable means to achieve a fair and just settlement in the weeks to come?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously the role of the CBC is to negotiate with the union, and the chairman of the present CBC is, of course, interested in achieving a reasonable and just settlement for all parties concerned. It is quite obvious that all of us in this House and all the people in the country would like to see the strike settled as soon as possible. There are matters of importance at issue. Hopefully, as a result of the ongoing negotiations which I trust will proceed at a brisk pace, we will be able to have the strike settled before the summit is held.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I hope I get some better answers from him than my colleagues have this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I have in my riding one of the great disasters of federal policies in this decade.


Some hon. Members:: You are!


Thomas Scott Fennell: No, no. The government has left a disaster of 18,000 acres.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: This has left the people in the riding in a state of anxiety. It is similar to T. S. Eliot's "Wasteland". The minister's predecessor, in four months, came up with a policy on that land. That is the Pickering-question mark-airport. This minister has had 16 months to do something about this. Would the minister please present to this House a long-term program of what he will do with the illconceived Pickering airport?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this will be done in the early days of next week.


LEASING OF EXPROPRIATED LAND
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, we heard that around the middle of May. I should like to make a small suggestion in a brief supplementary question. Would the minister consider putting this land into long-term lease and encouraging young farmers-at least looking after part of the agricultural community-allowing them to lease this land and also putting the minds of all my constituents at ease?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is exactly the purpose of what I am going to announce next week. I do not know if I can put all the electors of the hon. member at peace because they may have other reasons to be troubled. As far as rental duration is concerned, however, they should be at peace next week.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In answer to my question in the House on June 8 the minister stated that he had no intention of referring the matter of the recent prison riots in B.C. which, I might say, now involves three institutions, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Outside the House on the same day, the minister apparently told the media that he was considering a reference to the committee. May I ask the minister if we can expect a reference in this particular matter in order to try to get to the root of the problem as far as the institutions are concerned?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am not contemplating suggesting that the matter be referred to the justice committee. I do not as yet have the reports of the special inquiries that are being conducted into those three incidents. When I have the reports, I believe that the necessary action can be taken within the mandate that the Correctional Service of Canada already has. If issues of a policy nature arise of the sort that the justice committee might want to turn to, that would be a possible course of action. I really do
June 19, 1981

believe, however, that the recommendations that will be made by the special inquiry will fall within the present mandate of the Correctional Service of Canada,


REQUEST FOR RELOCATION OF MATSQUI INSTITUTION
Alexander Bell Patterson: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the municipal councils of Abbotsford and Matsqui have unanimously voted to request that the Matsqui institution be moved out of the area and have indicated this by a telegram to the minister that is still awaiting a reply, can the minister advise the House if he will give careful and serious consideration to this particular request made by the councils of those two communities?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to consider moving those institutions. Wherever they are moved to, they remain, and the problems associated with them are problems that Canadians have to face up to and with which the Correctional Service has to deal. I do not see how we solve these problems of incarceration simply by moving an institution, at great expense, from one part of our country to another.
The approach I should like to take is to reduce, as much as possible, the risks to the surrounding community. I do not think that is achieved simply by picking up the problem of one community and making it the problem of another community.


PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. One year ago today-I think it was on a quiet Friday-I asked the Minister, in fact I warned the minister not to approve the pre-build of the Alaska Gas Pipeline as there were not sufficient iron-clad guarantees in place for the financing of the whole line. Last night, one year later, there appeared the following headline in the Toronto Star, "Jittery Bankers Put Alaska Gas Pipeline in Jeopardy". So we are a year down the line and still no further ahead, in spite of the iron-clad guarantees.
What new scheme of iron-clad guarantees does the minister propose to bring forward so that we will have iron-clad assurances and guarantees that will finally get the whole pipeline built from Alaska and that we do not have a permanent pre-build pipeline that just sucks out Canadian gas?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the arrangements and assurances that Canada can provide have been provided under the treaty and under the implementation of the pre-build project. A lot of progress has been made in the last few months. The rest of the issue lands in the hands of the United States
Oral Questions
authorities, utilities, and producers concerned. A lot of progress has been made in this regard in the last couple of months. An agreement has been reached between the producers and the utilities in the United States as to the financing project and participation by producers in the project. This plan is being proposed now to the banking community and the financial community. Some requests have been or will be made to Congress to make adjustments to allow producers to participate in the project.
These are very encouraging developments. Obviously the financing of the project is still being debated and discussed. We will see how this evolves. There has been significant progress in the last few months. When the President of the United States was here a few months ago, he reiterated the commitment of the United States administration to completion of the project, which will be of great benefit to Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, compared to what the minister told us last year, he just does not look credible on this issue at all. Perhaps I shall have to ask him the question a year from now.


NORMAN WELLS-NATIVE COMMUNITY INTERESTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me ask the
minister about another matter with respect to his credibility, Madam Speaker. Today he is meeting with representatives of native and northern people with respect to the Norman Wells Pipeline. In the government's bill on oil and gas in the north, Bill C-48, the minister specifically excludes Imperial Oil's $640 million expansion at Norman Wells. How is he going to tell the native people today that the bill is neutral toward their interests, as he has been telling the committee? What does he propose to tell them that will give them some iron-clad guarantees that there will not be this expansion right over their native land claims?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have already had a meeting with representatives of the aboriginal peoples this morning and we reviewed this issue. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member knows, some of those representatives would like to suspend or avoid the application of Bill C-48 to themselves.
In effect, by amending Bill C-48 and making sure that Norman Wells does not come under it, we are answering, at least in part, some of their concerns, in that the Norman Wells situation would not be affected by Bill C-48. I explained that to them this morning. I said that the amendments that will be introduced to Bill C-48 will make it quite clear that, as far as the Canada Oil and Gas Act is concerned, Bill C-48 does not affect the agreement under which Norman Wells is operating. The people in the Western Arctic can be assured that nothing is changed by Bill C-48, concerning Norman Wells, at the present time.

June 19, 1981
Oral Questions NATIONAL SECURITY


INFORMATION RELATING TO FRANK SALES
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, yesterday outside the House the Solicitor General left the false impression that I have taken secret papers that I was not entitled to and not returned them when requested, in an untrue, crude attempt to divert attention from the real issue, that the government should be declassifying and releasing these old security cases so that everyone can understand the problems involved. My question, therefore, is for the Prime Minister who should have knowledge of this case because it first appeared in public print in Toronto newspapers in 1979, and has been repeated elsewhere since.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House why all of the information in the government's hands concerning an ex-Department of National Defence employee named Frank Sales, who now, I believe, lives in Victoria, B.C., who allegedly admitted giving Canadian secret information to the Soviets from both our Moscow embassy and our Tel Aviv embassy, who was never prosecuted but was later rewarded with a government pension-why all that information and all those files should not now be released in full?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter and see if I can make any statement on it to the House.


LEAK TO TORONTO STAR NEWSPAPER
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question, then, is to the Solicitor General, if the Prime Minister does not want to sully his hands with these matters.
Why would the Solicitor General go outside the House yesterday afternoon and make allegations that if I had any information whatsoever about what I called an "inspired leak" to the Toronto Star of two weeks ago, about certain allegations concerning ex-Ambassador Watkins, why I would not make those representations to him in private, give that information to him in private, when yesterday afternoon, five minutes before he went out to the press and said that, I did just exactly that in this House, in that corner of the House?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to the subject we talked about in that corner of the House. I was referring to the fact that there are some materials missing from the records of the ministry and the RCMP. They were shown as having been given to the minister's suite, and there is no record that exists in our files showing them as having been returned.
I was not talking about documents that a minister either generates in his own office and puts "secret" on them or about those he receives from one of his colleagues. I was referring to official secret and top secret documents generated within the
government. If the hon. member will simply indicate that he does not have such documents, or copies of such documents, that will be the end of it.


Mr. Trudeau:: Go ahead.


EXPLANATION FOR MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, what I was referring to in my second supplementary question to the Solicitor General was an allegation that he made outside of the House yesterday, namely, that if I had information about what I called the inspired leak to the Toronto Star two weeks ago, which was published in the Friday and Saturday editions, that I should have the courage to tell him privately what that information was when he knew full well five minutes before he went outside of the House to say that I had given him exactly that information. What is the explanation for what I consider a very terrible breach of confidence on the part of the Solicitor General to that allegation?


Mr. Clark:: Have you sought them?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I invited the hon. member to make a statement on a very important matter touching secret and top secret documents. In so far as our discussion in the corner was concerned, he can make his statements about what took place. We did discuss that subject but I am not satisfied that we got to the bottom of it.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. Yesterday the government announced that the Canadian Olympic Association received some $1.2 million in compensation for losses resulting from the boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate to the House how the $1.2 million was arrived at, if he has that information, and does that amount cover the so-called costs incurred by the Canadian Olympic Association?


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Canadian Olympic Association is in a unique position in that it chooses the athletes to go to the Olympics. Also, the Canadian Olympic Association voluntarily chose to carry out the boycott of the Olympic Games in 1980 on Canada's behalf.


Charles Joseph Clark: Have you sought them?


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you have the documents or not?
June 19, 1981

As to the way the amount was arrived at, we calculated that the Canadian Olympic Association would have raised $1.2 million from private sources had the athletes been able to attend the Olympics, and the government, through this department, decided to compensate them for that. I might point out that in view of the fact the hon. member represents a farming community, this coincided with the $81 million that we provided to the farmers who suffered losses incurred by the situation in Afghanistan.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I hope the Canadian Olympic Association is more satisfied with the $1.2 million than the farmers are with the $81 million, because in effect the farmers are being shortchanged by some $20 million in terms of the amount of money they should have received.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said before that $72 million would be good enough.


DATE OF PAYMENT
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the parliamentary secretary. Can he indicate when that money will be handed over to the Olympic committee? Could the parliamentary secretary also tell us what the $1.2 million will be used for?


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, we would hope that members of the Canadian Olympic Association will disburse this money to the athletes as they see fit, but it will surely go to the training of many of our athletes who are preparing now for the next Olympic Games. This money will be put into their hands in a matter of days.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. When the Canada Water Act was passed in the early 1970s it was with the understanding that the act would cover environmental problems in the Ottawa River basin. But such measures have never materialized. The minister informed me recently that no such federal legislative authority gives his department jurisdiction over these interprovincial waterways.
Because of the great importance of the Ottawa River basin to both eastern Ontario and western Quebec, is it the intention of the Minister of the Environment to bring in legislation that will provide jurisdictional authority to enable the federal government to address environmental matters with relation to important interprovincial waterways such as the Ottawa River?
Oral Questions


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, we do have legislation under review and we are considering legislative initiatives to strengthen and clarify the mandate of the Department of the Environment. I would be happy to look at the very interesting suggestion which the hon. member has made as we undertake that review.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. Can he advise the House who made the decision on the $1.2 million which is to be handed over to the Canadian Olympic Association?


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that we did not have all the money we would have had had we had Loto Canada at our disposal-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Are you promoting gambling?


Gilbert Parent: -the decision to give the $1.2 million to the Canadian Olympic Association was made by the minister in consultation with other members of the cabinet and his other advisers.


USE TO BE MADE OF GRANT
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I am surprised, and I say through you to the parliamentary secretary, and to the Prime Minister if he is listening, that here is a perfect example of giving $1.2 million to 12 or 14 people who will have cocktail parties across the country, and yet a mass participation, such as the Western Canada Games which is requesting $166,000, has been refused by this particular cabinet.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member that members of the Canadian Olympic Association are held in higher esteem by this side of the House than by either the hon. member or his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: I would say that members of the Canadian Olympic Association have, through the years, served this country, and the athletes of Canada well, and I am sure they
10798

June 19, 1981
Oral Questions
will be able to use this money for Canadian athletes to better our already good performances, in future Olympics.


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Prime Minister's speech to the Liberal party in Manitoba. On June 3, 1981, in Winnipeg, he said:
We've announced that a Parliamentary Committee will be established to study and make recommendations on how to make the Senate and House of Commons more effective-
No announcement has been made in the House of Commons that I am aware of. Is it the intention 'of the government to establish such a committee? Does the government have in mind a parliamentary task force in the sense that we have experienced task forces thus far?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the matter was announced as part of the government's program in the Speech from the Throne and I want to remind the hon. member of that. We intend to carry forth with that idea in the way it was expressed in the Speech from the Throne.


INTER-PARTY CONSULTATIONS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. This will involve the preparation of terms of reference for that task force or group, as well as representation. Could I have the undertaking of the Prime Minister that before terms of reference are placed on the Order Paper there will be an opportunity for consultation, with input from the opposition parties on those terms of reference, the composition, and number of members of Parliament who would be involved in such a task force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to think that a task force is necessarily the way in which it would be set up, but I think his suggestion about previous consultation is a most excellent one, and I think it would correspond to the wishes of the government to make sure that any reforms of this House or in the other place should at least begin with a decision to consult on the scope of that work and the general orientation. I will make sure the hon. member is consulted as well as the House leader of the NDP about such a committee, either through the House leader on this side or directly by officials who will be working with the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
As the minister knows, over 30 Canadians are being held prisoners in Peru. Many of them are still waiting for their trial after more than a year. A number of those prisoners have declared that they were interrogated and sometimes beaten up and mistreated by the Peruvian police in the presence of RCMP officers. Could the minister say precisely what is the policy of his department with respect to the role played by the RCMP during such interrogations by foreign police officers? Does the minister also intend to order an inquiry concerning the statements made by, in this specific case, Canadian prisoners in Peru?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I do not need an inquiry into this case because I have already questioned the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about this, and I can deny categorically that RCMP agents were present during the incidents described by the hon. member.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I trust the minister will be prepared to release to the House the full details of these inquiries. A number of these same Canadian prisoners who are presently languishing in prison in Peru have stated they were approached by agents of the RCMP in Peru, after their arrest, and urged by them to sign prepared written confessions. Will the minister explain just exactly what the relationship is between the RCMP and local police forces in Bolivia, Chile and Peru, and specifically why the RCMP is apparently involved in attempting to extract written confessions from Canadian prisoners in Peru?
[ Translation]


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, again I categorically deny that the RCMP have brought such pressures to bear on Canadians in Latin America. I should like to say to the hon. member, because I believe it is true, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police co-operate in foreign countries with police officers of other countries to fight against drugs. That is being done mostly in Latin America which, generally speaking, we consider as a major source of the illegal drugs entering Canada.
June 19, 1981


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, with advancing technology allowing the proliferation of channels, there is a danger of further decreasing the ratio of the few existing child-oriented TV programs. Would the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications voice the recommendations of the Commission of the Year of the Child that priority be given, if necessary, to creating a special channel on a national network to provide children with programs which would aid their education, expose them to new cultures, provide appropriate entertainment, and so fill a vacuum that exists in the broadcast spectrum relating to young people?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's suggestion is an excellent one. I would like to tell him that there is a children's social programming service operating on some 15 cable systems at the present time. It is the Galaxy system which is a four-hour per day, seven-day a week service provided to the Canadian satellite network by the Ontario education and communications authorities. In February of this year the CRTC heard an application by CSN for a specialized channel which would have included Galaxy. This request was turned down because the CRTC felt there were a number of policy issues associated with that request that have to be examined further. However, in the denial the CRTC did encourage further applications along the lines of the Galaxy proposal.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development relating to a motion under Standing Order 43 raised earlier by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, having to do with a very difficult situation at the Restigouche Reserve.
The minister will know there has been a representation to the Prime Minister by at least the president of the Union of New Brunswick Indians, and probably other native groups, requesting that the minister visit the Restigouche Reserve. Would the minister indicate if he has any plans to visit, either personally, or have senior officials of his department visit the reserve today or this weekend? While he is answering I wonder whether he could also tell us if there were any members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police involved in any way in the incidents that began last week at the Restigouche Reserve, and would he outline to us the extent of the federal presence now in monitoring the situation existing at that reserve?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition I would say that as of very, very recently the Quebec region of my department has been in touch with the Quebec government requesting in effect the adoption of a mediating role, and requesting that government to sit down with the Indian leadership at Restigouche to see if a solution can be worked out.
In a few minutes I will be meeting with Sykes Powderface of the NIB. He was endeavouring to see me this morning but I was tied up at another meeting. We will endeavour to see if there is anything further that I or my department might be able to do to resolve this really very unfortunate situation.
May I say as far as the RCMP are concerned that I have examined the situation. The RCMP were not directly involved. This was mainly an operation, as the Leader of the Opposition perhaps knows, of the QPP. There were some officers adopting a watchdog role, if you like. There were some RCMP officers on the fringes, so to speak, especially on the New Brunswick side, but as far as I am aware at the moment, they did not get involved directly.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General who has of late been interested in documents. He will know that as far back as 1945 and 1946 there was a committee set up by the then Privy Council to examine the problems arising out of the Gouzenko affair. I am wondering whether he is able to indicate the composition of that committee and whether it kept records of its meetings.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I should like to take note of that question. I will answer at the earliest opportunity.


AVAILABILITY OF COMMITTEE'S RECORDS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, this was a committee of officials to advise the government of the day on matters arising out of the Gouzenko revelations. While the minister is doing that, I wonder if he would find out whether records of these meetings were kept and are intact, and why those records are not now available for public view?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will try to answer that question, but I should take the occasion to point out that until recently there was no systematic recording system of documents within the Privy Council Office or of meetings at the level the hon. member suggests, so it may well

June 19, 1981
Oral Questions
be that minutes were kept of the work of this committee which met back in 1946 and 1947, about which the hon. member is asking, with no record having been kept of the fact that there were minutes.
I will look and try to find the minutes. Elowever, it will be very difficult to know whether minutes ever existed because of the way records were kept at that time. Nowadays if a document is there or not there, there is a record of its having been generated and of its being in existence. From what I have learned so far, there was no similar type of recording system back in the 1940s. I will do the best I can on that.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask an economic question and direct it to the Minister of Finance. I welcome him back from the OECD. I want to speak to him about the policy of his government of tacitly accepting usurious interest rates.
I want to give an explanation. This morning I checked with chartered banks and consumer finance companies in Ottawa and found that the lending rate of the chartered banks now is about 22 per cent to their better customers and 21 per cent on fully secured loans, whereas the consumer finance companies lend money at 24 per cent. It appears that the government is involved in a policy at Avco and Household Finance interest rates but with nothing beneficial to consumers.
In view of the fact that the minister has approached the chartered banks with respect to home mortgage forbearance, I would like to ask him whether, with respect to the consumers of Canada, who are under great stress regarding repayment of loans at the present rates, he is prepared to intercede and use his good offices on their behalf as opposed to only on behalf of the mortgage holders of this country.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am glad the opposition has returned to a discussion of the economy. I wondered whether the hon. member would get to that today.
I am ready to tell the hon. member that the Canadian banks have already provided an assurance not only to assist mortgage holders-or at least to be considerate of their need of homes, in the present circumstances-but also to assist farmers and small business. These three groups were the subjects of my discussions with the chartered banks. I already have under consideration whether it is desirable to seek similar assurances from other institutions in the country, and I will therefore give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the consideration the minister will give because there does not seem to be
any possibility that interest rates will be going down for a very substantial period of time.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is involved very intimately with the economic development committee of the cabinet and who should be one of the leading spokesmen with respect to policy in this country.
I want to quote a statement made by the minister on October 23, 1979, in the House of Commons. The quotation is to be found at page 510 of Hansard. The minister said, and I quote:
-government bear the responsibility for the damage these interest rate increases are doing and will do to the economy, particularly to small business, the farmer and the consumer.
The minister has now been in his portfolio for a year and a half. He told Morton Shulman that any time interest rates went over 14 per cent he would resign. Has the minister put forward any policies with respect to reducing interest rates, or is the minister now going to resign after not being able to have any weight at all?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend has correctly stated what transpired in the interview in question. In any event, there was a considerable period after this government came to office when interest rates declined and when they remained behind those in the United States. In addition to that this government has taken substantial action on this issue, and I make particular reference to the extension of the small business development bond program.
Finally, when the Canadian people look at the damage which was done to the economy and would have been done to the economy if my hon. friends had stayed in office, I think they will be very pleased to see the continuation of the present government compared with the mess on the other side of the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the parliamentary secretary that fitness and amateur sport is receiving $32 million from lotteries this year-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Madam Speaker: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 19, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fifty-third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
* *
*


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,171, 2,220, 2,305 and 2,306.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are any trade delegates in the employ of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if so (a) how many (b) how many are based in Canada and which countries did they visit in the last year?
2.	Are Canadian businessmen invited to join the delegates when they travel and, if so, what means are employed to ensure appropriate knowledge of such trips?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: In so far as
the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Two hundred and twenty-nine trade commissioners and 166 commercial officers posted in 67 countries.
(b)	In addition, 81 trade commissioners presently posted in Canada, many of whom will have travelled outside of Canada including 67 countries where we maintain posts.
2.	Canadian businessmen frequently visit foreign markets with the support of the Department of Industry, Trade and
Order Paper Questions
Commerce under various programs for participation in fairs, missions and export market studies. When participating in fairs and missions, they are usually accompanied by representatives of the department. In all cases, our officers at the posts provide assistance. Businessmen are informed of the various programs in which they can participate through contact with the department's regional offices and business information centres across the country and branches in Ottawa, contact with provincial trade and industry departments, and direct advertising.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) Did a CBC employee identify himself as a member of the staff of CBC Radio and approach a delegate or alternate from Leeds-Grenvilte at the recent Progressive Conservative annual meeting and inform the person that he looked unhappy and did he ask him why (b) did the delegate or alternate reply that he was very happy and did the CBC employee state to the delegate or alternate "Don't you think this is the worst organized convention you have ever seen?" (c) did the delegate or alternate advise the CBC employee that he disagreed with him entirely and, following this statement, did the CBC employee express disgust and depart elsewhere?
2.	Is it the policy of CBC to instruct or to allow employees to ask questions designed to provoke statements from members of other political parties that would damage such parties and, if so, what are all the reasons?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The CBC has no way of identifying which, if any, of its employees had the conversation cited in the question.
2.	If the conversation quoted in part 1 of the question did take place, the CBC would not condone the expression of a personal opinion of that kind by one of its on-duty employees. However, in the context of an interview, it is in the nature of interviewing for broadcast or print that a reporter will try to elicit as much information as he can from his interviewee, and in the course of such interviews it is possible that the interviewee will volunteer statements that others might consider damaging to their cause or group. In this latter context, CBC news policy would not be contravened.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Mark Starowicz employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, if so (a) what is his position (b) does he have any control or authority of any kind over the content of CBC national news broadcasts or telecasts and, if so, what are the details (c) has he ever received security clearance and, if so (i) what are the details (ii) by whom was the clearance given (d) at any time was his security clearance in question and, if so, what are all the details?
2.	(a) Did Mr. A1 Johnson, president of the CBC, play any part in the appointment of Mr. Starowicz to his present position and, if so, what are the details (b) what are the names of all persons who were involved in this appointment?

June 19, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Executive producer, TV Current Affairs.
(b)	Mark Starowicz is involved with the development of the new program which will follow "The National" after its move to 10 p.m. in September, 1981. He is not connected with newscasts.
(c)	Not applicable.
2.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as those referred to in the question. The background to this custom is explained in the answer to question No. 2,530, November 6, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: L Does the CBC maintain a parliamentary liaison officer in Ottawa and, if so, what is the (a) person's name (b) annual salary and all costs involved with maintaining this officer?
2. With reference to the answers to various Order Paper questions concerning the CBC which include the phrase "It has not been customary to require the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to provide such details of its internal management and administration ...", for what reason does the CBC maintain a parliamentary liaison officer if it is not prepared to make full disclosure of its operations to Parliament?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) The CBC maintains a parliamentary services section whose members co-ordinate the CBC's day-today relationship with Parliament.
(b) With regard to salaries and costs, see the reply to parts (a) and (b) of question No. 2,530, November 6, 1975.
2.	The CBC does disclose information about its operations, with the exception of certain categories of information relating to its internal management and administration. See the reply to parts (a) and (b) of question No. 2,530, November 6, 1975.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Knowles:: Is there no minister to speak on this bill?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was an arrangement whereby the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would be the lead speaker followed by someone from the New Democratic Party, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) would be here this afternoon to respond on behalf of the government.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm what has been told to us by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. The minister has excused himself. He is unavoidably absent today because he is on other business. The parliamentary secretary will be responding for the government at this stage.
We are at the last stage of a very infamous and, I would say, contemptuous move by this government regarding this particular bill. On the initial debate we had about half a day on a Friday so that the bill could get into committee, with the understanding that there would be witnesses and a full examination, but there was a deadline. More witnesses appeared than had been forecast.
The net result was that the committee had very little negotiating and discussing of the proposed amendments, as we did with respect to many other important bills. The deadline resulted in almost a guillotine falling on the amendments to the clauses as they were considered in the committee. I am not faulting the chairman of the committee in any way. It was just a matter of logistics. There was no time to put or consider any amendments in the committee. There was no time for negotiating any amendments or developing negotiating positions with regard to some very contentious matters contained in this bill.
The net result is that the government shut its eyes to almost all questions of amendment except with regard to a ceiling on advertising in newspapers and inserts. However, that was a minor point, albeit very important to the weekly newspapers. There was very little else of any consequence. It dealt a little with distributors of cosmetic products, shifted the incidence of the excise tax, but for the rest of it the government's reaction has been entirely negative. Therefore, by mutual consent it would almost appear, the New Democratic Party and ourselves
June 19, 1981

filed some 135 amendments, many of them duplicates, as provided for by the rules. The Chair reduced this number to 49 possible amendments for a vote, but realistically 35 votes.
In the interest of sanity with regard to voting, it was agreed that an effort would be made to concentrate votes on the more important amendments. As a result, last night we had 12 votes. The House does not often vote that long but 12 votes plus a number of verbal votes in just over two hours is a pretty good record. If hon. members feel they were abused in any way last night, I would remind them that when the Income Tax Act was amended in 1970 we voted from eight o'clock in the evening until 2.30 in the morning in order to get through a much more voluminous act. Those things happen from time to time.
Having finished that anecdotal background I want to reiterate that we are today in the closing stages of a black chapter as far as discussion of very important matters is concerned. The government had no business introducing closure under Standing Order 75c as it did. We had only discussed the report stage in a general way for two ordinary days and one short day. Now we are coming down to discussing individual amendments. Somehow somebody, maybe the government House leader-in his usual precipitate way he likes to see debates of one day for any and all bills, with one speaker from each party; that has been his predilection from the time he landed in this House-but somebody panicked over there. We would have made essentially the same type of progress but with an opportunity to discuss a matter which is before the courts this week, that is the legality of the petroleum and gas revenue tax and whether it is a direct infringement upon provincially-owned property. We would have been able to explore in much greater detail the implications of the 30 cents a thousand cubic feet excise tax on natural gas, including export gas.
The government does not get away with the sham of saying: "Oh, no, we are not putting on an export tax on natural gas". They put it on for everybody. And for those unreconstructed Liberals and undeluded Canadians bemused and befuddled by the government's programs during the 1980 election, with their so-called Canadian price and attacks on the 18-cent excise tax proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was minister of finance, that tax did not apply to home heating fuel, including natural gas. There was a refundable portion for farmers.
We have heard the tripe which has come forward from the government benches in that regard. Deliberate misrepresentation, Mr. Speaker, in and out of this House. The refunds due to fishermen: again, misrepresentation in and out of this House. There was the total refusal to refer to the rebate for lower income families, including all those senior citizens who moaned on television: "Oh, I will not be able to go and see my children or grandchildren any more". Nonsense! This bill imposes a tax of 30 cents a thousand cubic feet on natural gas, an 8 per cent tax on revenues from both petroleum and natural gas, and the indexing of a tax on liquor, wine, beer and
Excise Tax
tobacco which is a self-generating snowball that shows the government's vested interest in increasing inflation.
That is the record and the policy of this government with regard to the public and petroleum prices. Not only has there been an increase in the cost of a gallon of gasoline of 60 cents in a very short time, far in excess of what had been proposed-


Mr. Kelly:: Wrong, wrong.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -but more increases are coming.


Norman Kelly: You are wrong.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who is not in his seat, is hollering.


An hon. Member:: That is Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the prices we are totally right. They are far in excess of what anyone ever anticipated and are the result of the excesses of this government.
We have a so-called Canadianization contribution of $1 a barrel to change Petrofina to Petro-Canada. Now we see who is going to line their pockets and who have lined their pockets with this deal, which has not produced one additional barrel of petroleum for Canada. This has caused tremendous equity losses by Canadian oil companies and the Canadian oil industry at large. The neophytes and the socialistic bureaucrats in Ottawa are behind the program on the grab on funds. They have an absolute desire and passion to control the petroleum industry and resources of Canada, notwithstanding the fact that aside from the expropriation of the Canada lands, the federal government does not have one iota of interest in those natural resources.
We are being asked, without any debate yesterday, about the petroleum and gas revenue tax and how it will affect the development of the Canadian industry. It is a straightforward revenue grab. If we look at the amount of money which has fallen into the federal coffers since December, 1979, if we look at the percentage of every dollar obtained from the price of a barrel of Canadian crude and from an equivalent measure of natural gas, we will see who has benefited from the increases in prices. It is not the petroleum companies; it is not the producing provinces. It is the Government of Canada that has discovered a herd of well-producing milk cows to which it wants to attach every teat and every grip it can to cover its ineptitudes in other programs, such as the idiotic continuation of depending upon foreign oil and paying subsidies of billions of dollars per year, which will increase.
There is stabilization now because the price has not risen, but the government is paying for junk from Mexico. Canadian refineries are refusing to accept it. I am not able to describe it because it is not polite to use such language in the House. It is being sloughed off on the Canadian government. It is the same situation as in 1973 when the former minister of supply and services, Mr. Goyer, paid $33 for some spot oil in some panic

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
buying. The stuff had been going around the world for a long time because of its high sulphur content. No one would buy it, except the ducks and drakes in the Canadian government. Eventually it was sloughed off at a tremendous loss to Canadian taxpayers.
These are the same people who are now buying from Mexico and trying to shove it down the throats of Canadian refiners who are saying, "No thanks, it is not fit to be refined". This is the way the brains of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources run the Canadian oil industry. They should know better. They cannot tell the difference between one grade and another at the pump, yet they want to control the Canadian petroleum industry. They want to fatten up Petro-Canada.
Petro-Canada has distinguished itself by the number of employees it has handled and by participating in the race to see who will have the highest building in Calgary. This race is at a cost of millions and millions of dollars, all to be paid for by you-know-who-the poor Canadian taxpayer. It will be well over $50 million for an office tower at the same time as $ 1.46 billion for Petrofina, which is at least half a billion too much.
Members opposite are handling government funds, and there is no control. The poor people of central Canada bought themselves a real pickle when they bought that deal. To think that the government of Ontario lines up behind it. What a miserable delusion! Boy, they will really have to skate to get out of that mess!
I do not want to review everything in this bill; some of my colleagues will deal with particular subjects.

I would like to see this morning all the members from Quebec call the editors of their weekly newspapers to justify their vote on amendment No. 20 last night. These editors are having a convention, and they know what they had suggested to the government. Some of them have privately opposed the provisions of Bill C-57 concerning newspapers and advertising content. Well, we supported, yesterday evening, amendment No. 20 of the New Democratic Party, because it was nearly identical with our own.
We had shared the amendments among us, and naturally, the members opposite voted in their usual sheep-like manner without asking themselves what they were doing, but now they will see what will happen. The hon. member for Willowdale. (Mr. Peterson) should be interested in the use of alcohol as fuel and the possibility of experimenting with alcohol manufactured from vegetable products without having to provide a security of $5,000 or $25,000, as well as temporary licenses which can be withdrawn. Under the terms of its program, the government seems to be afraid of stills and the possibility that they could be used to manufacture spirits rather than alcohol to be used as fuel. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the government will encourage the illicit manufacture of spirits for drinking purposes if it continues to increase its taxes in this way! We shall also see tobacco and cigarette smuggling like there was after the war when an excessive tax was levied on tobacco. There is
some smuggling going on. It begins to be interesting when you see what it costs in the liquor stores. Of course, provincial governments follow suit. Then, in a year or so they will wonder why they have problems apart from illicit stills and tobacco and cigarette smuggling. No, Mr. Speaker, this is an effort on the part of the government to squeeze out every available penny. There is an increase in the airport tax. There are tax increases everywhere in this bill. But hon. members opposite do not protest. Nothing is said over there to oppose excise tax increases provided in Bill C-57.
It is amazing how the Canadian public has become inured to the idea of indexation of taxes. In the question of this additional tax on alcohol and tobacco the Minister of Finance is taking a mere $60 million. Has there been one word of protest from the Canadian public? No. I suppose they are too busy consuming it. It is amazing.
The administration says that it needs the money. Why? Because it has put in place programs and money is needed to carry them out. Who on earth says you put programs in place First and then scramble about to get more money? You spend money when you have it, not before. It is like "Travel now and pay later". Or it is like "Gamble now and pay later". If you tell the public the hard facts of life, as my colleague from Newfoundland did when he was minister of finance, people object. They have been lulled into living in a clouded cuckoo-land, the land of the lotus-eater, if you want to use another metaphor. They have been lulled by the bread and circuses put forward by the administration since 1968. All we get is more bread and more circuses.
What do hon. members think a subsidy on fuel oil and gasoline is? It is a straight giveaway. It is jam an inch thick. We are the only people who have increased our consumption of gasoline and oil. Our cousins to the south, who are much more mechanized than we are and who we thought were more profligate with gas and oil, have reduced their consumption by 20 per cent. Instead of our doing that we buy their Cadillacs and big cars and see how quickly we can burn the rubber. They are muscle cars. Every young guy and woman wants to have a Corvette or a Trans-Am. Why shouldn't they? They are encouraged by subsidized gasoline prices. It is too much to pay 18 cents a gallon more so you eliminate the subsidy as far as our general revenues are concerned. But since that subsidy has been put in place we have paid well over $20 billion as a charge on the public purse. How was the first part achieved? By placing an export tax on oil and petroleum products shipped from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the United States.
In the mid-1970s it was interesting to see the government taking with one hand and giving with the other. It took money from the Canadian petroleum industry and the producing provinces and gave it to the OPEC countries. If man could devise a more witless policy I would like to see him try. We are now paying for that and this is why it is relevant to this bill.
June 19, 1981

These are the programs for which the government says it needs more money. It almost makes you want to break down and cry when you see the mismanagement, the misrepresentation and the befuddlement of the Canadian public and the fact that they stand by and clap. They do not know when the knife has gone into their backs or when the purse has been cut from under their arm by this government. This bill is a perfect embodiment of fulfilling that type of program. There will be billions of dollars spent per annum as a result of this bill. Who will pay? The dear old unsuspecting Canadian public who have been befuddled, beguiled and lied to.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and natural gas, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for the reconsideration of Sections 43 to 47 inclusive and Sections 60 to 117 inclusive respecting the excise tax on natural gas and the petroleum and gas revenue tax, for possible amendment and report back to this House.
I do not want to take any further time because unfortunately there is a guillotine which falls at five o'clock. Is it private members' hour today?


Mr. Nystrom:: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They even steal that, under the guillotine. Therefore, under those circumstances I will curtail my remarks immediately. I trust that hon. members will pay attention to those areas which were not debated hitherto in this House, and that they should be persuaded as to our amendment, because that part of it certainly requires another good, long look.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to rise to discuss the points included within Bill C-57. Unfortunately, it is for the last time. I must say that I will be looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) later this afternoon as he replies to the points raised by the previous hon. member and myself.
First of all, I want to indicate that this bill is clearly the work of a very desperate government, a government which is desperate to acquire additional funds from just about any source possible. One is hesitant to walk slowly about Parliament Hill this day for fear that a tax will be slapped on one's back in some way or another. However, it is certainly the reflection of an insensitive government and a government which is inconsiderate to the point of arrogance.
When I say that the government is insensitive, it must be recognized that we have been discussing 135 amendments over the last number of days. I think it begs the question, why would anyone feel motivated to put 135 amendments before the House I think the short response to that inquiry would
Excise Tax
clearly indicate that this has been an ill-conceived piece of legislation, that adequate thought, discussion and reflection did not go into the preparation of this bill. It is a sloppy bill. It is a careless bill. It is really a bureaucratic statement reflecting the vocabulary, and the views of a heartless bureaucracy.
When one looks at the terms which have been used in the last number of days in discussing Bill C-57, one notices that a great deal of the critical vocabulary lacks a human element. The humanity of Bill C-57 has not really been considered. We use terms such as "excise tax," "PGRTs", "CPIs", "marginal manufacturing tax," "indexation" and so on. But how often do we ask ourselves, how will this bill impact on Canadian individuals, on Canadians per se?
At the outset, I want to congratulate the chairman of the finance committee, who saw fit to invite a whole number of witnesses to the committee to discuss and react to the proposals set forth in Bill C-57. In the committee we held 23 different sittings and listened to briefs from the city of Medicine Hat, from the Hobbema Four Indian Band, from the Canadian daily newspaper publishers, the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, the Brewers Association of Canada, Dome Petroleum and many more. We also received countless written briefs indicating the concerns of individual Canadians and different organizations as to the proposals encompassed in Bill C-57.
What did we do with all of these witnesses? How did the government react to their concerns and proposals? I might add that these were not individuals or organizations or agencies attempting to avoid legitimate tax. These were voices from Canadian society, coming forward in the finance committee to say "This is an error. Have you considered the ramifications of this particular legislation?" Indeed, it became clear in those discussions that we had not, and that the government per se had overlooked a number of critical areas.
Therefore, the 135 amendments were an effort on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to meet the concerns of and react to the issues raised by these countless individuals, organizations and agencies before the finance committee. They reflect the concerns of the oil and gas industry. The small business communities spoke out loudly about their concerns regarding the marginal manufacturing tax. The educational and scientific communities spoke out regarding their concerns on the importation of research facilities and appliances. The small independent newspapers of Canada spoke out regarding a number of their concerns relating to Bill C-57, as did the handicapped of Canada, the artistic community in Canada, the construction industry of Canada, wineries, distilleries, breweries and many more.
It is unfortunate that we have had to use this particular procedure to bring to the attention of Canadians the fact that this is an ill-conceived bill. It will be a slap in the face to many Canadian individuals and groups. I cannot believe for a moment that Bill C-57 was discussed in the Liberal caucus. I cannot for a moment believe that there was a thorough airing of Bill C-57 with Liberal backbenchers, and even within the Liberal cabinet, because if there had been, how could the

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
members of the Liberal party impose a 9 per cent sales tax on the disabled people of Canada, those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who fight for their lives every day of the year and who experience discrimination in a variety of ways? Yet here is a gesture from a government which is obviously insensitive to disabled Canadians.
Why do I say that? Recently, the government decided to pay some attention to the disabled of Canada. This is the International Year of the Disabled and the government has set aside $1 million to assist disabled Canadians across Canada. One million dollars were to be distributed to the disabled of Canada. The provinces responded as well. Does Your Honour know where the leadership came from? It came from the provinces, not from the federal Government of Canada. In the province of British Columbia alone there have been requests from the disabled of that province in excess of $12 million. The federal government saw fit to spread $1 million across the entire country. Surely, the federal government could have indicated its concern for the disabled of Canada in this very special year by at least matching the grants of the individual provinces which are prepared to contribute. Yet a paltry $1 million is to be spread across nearly 25 million Canadians to assist and recognize the plight of the disabled.


An hon. Member:: Where is the tax on the disabled?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The tax on the disabled is what I want to refer to in this bill. This bill says that if someone has a leg brace on one's ankle or foot, or if one has a deformed or malfunctioning ankle or foot, one is not subject to the 9 per cent sales tax on that brace. But if you require a brace anywhere else on your body, the neck, back, thigh, elbow, knee, you are going to pay a 9 per cent sales tax. You will be taxed on what the government presumably considers a luxury item.
Mr. Speaker, the disabled of Canada wear braces on their necks, backs, elbows and so on, and they do not consider them luxury items. What is the difference between an ankle brace and a hip brace? Yet the goverment intends to impose a 9 per cent tax on braces other than for the foot or ankle. That is meaningless and silly, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously an oversight in the legislation but it was brought to the attention of the minister by both parties on this side of the House. It is obviously a clerical error. In this Year of the Disabled, surely such an oversight could be corrected.
The Liberal party voted against that amendment, however, and I know the reason was that they did not know what they were voting on. Surely hon. members opposite should not vote against an amendment designed to treat fairly people who have disabilities in a part of the body other than the ankle. Yet they did, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I say this is a sloppy piece of legislation. Hon. members opposite have not considered the implications of it carefully enough or perhaps not at all.
I will give another example which is perhaps a little less problematic when one considers the disabled. I refer to the
artists of Canada. I am sure that as a regular part of our lives all of us visit art galleries and are concerned about supporting and assisting the art community of Canada. Just the other day the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said in the House that it is important that we encourage the artistic community in Canada and my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), also said that we should be seriously encouraging this community.
It is recognized internationally that works of art should not be taxed, that the artist who creates a sculpture or paints a picture should not be taxed on that item, in an effort to encourage that kind of talent and creativity. It is the kind of thing that will reflect Canada's present past and future and we want to support it.
With this legislation the government will tax artists in Canada who create original prints, such as members of the Eskimo Co-operatives in northern Canada whose prints are considered highly valuable works of art around the world. They are not posters such as are found in Canadian Tire stores or Woolworth's, with pictures of fancy ladies or Elvis Presley or Superman. There is a difference between a Superman poster and an original artist's print, surely. We tax the Elvis Presley and Superman posters, and we should because they are manufactured by the hundreds of thousands. They are not the creation of a particular artist. An artist produces perhaps 20 or 50 prints from his original and the work is supervised by him. Now the government proposes to tax the original print and thus it would not be considered an art form in Canada.
Hon. members opposite voted against an amendment that would exempt the original print, recognizing it, as all other countries do, as a work of art which should not be taxed. The Liberal caucus voted unanimously to tax the artists of Canada who produce original prints. Hon. members opposite smile. It is beyond me, Mr. Speaker, how anyone could consider an original print as a mechanical reproduction and thus taxable. It is a reflection of the carelessness with which the bill has been approached by members opposite and of the insensitivity of the government to the people. It affects thousands of struggling artists. There are very few rich artists in Canada today; they commit themselves and their lives to their profession. Surely we should recognize them and encourage them.
I want to deal now with a matter that is very close to members of this party, Mr. Speaker, and that is the small community newspapers that really reflect the views, the issues and concerns of the communities. They are not part of the national chains that often reflect the point of view of central Canada or large metropolitan areas. With their editorial restrictions and so on, the large chains often reflect a certain ideology. Instead, I am referring to the newspapers in communities of 2,000 or 5,000 people that struggle to make a living. They act as the voice of the community and raise issues of local concern. They advertise for the local entrepreneurs and make people better aware of their business. Surely we should encourage the small independent newspapers. Other countries have all sorts of legislation which recognize the role
June 19, 1981

they play and assures their place as a vibrant expression of the community voice.
In Canada we see the growing monopoly of newspapers and the expression of the community voice being thwarted. This legislation will place a greater burden on those very small and often unprofitable operations in small communities. I appreciate that the government has adjusted the advertising and news ratio from 75 per cent to 80 per cent. That is a small step in the right direction but, as we have pointed out many times, the definition is an arbitrary one. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) indicated in the House that it was arbitrarily set at 80 per cent and could be 90 per cent or 100 per cent.
There are two fundamental problems with this approach by the government, Mr. Speaker, that have not been discussed adequately. The content rule discriminates against small independent community newspapers in many ways. It will raise administration and production costs for them proportionately more than it will for the large metropolitan newspapers, many of which have access to computers. The computers help reduce the cost of production, but small community newspapers cannot usually afford such technical innovations.
The large metropolitan newspapers have greater flexibility to adjust their news content. The breadth and diversity of culture in our cities provides proportionately more news material for the dailies than is available to the independent weeklies that are the community voice. The large chains can afford the specialized staff to cover, for example, the much broader range of sporting events.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1:00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when we rose for the luncheon break I was commenting on the role of small community newspapers and why the government should be doing everything possible to encourage the development of small community newspapers to ensure that we, as a nation, work as hard as possible to avoid the monopolistic type of newspaper reporting that we see emerging in Canada. We should work against the merging of newspapers which will restrict, if you like, the voice of Canada to fewer and fewer newspaper companies. It is in all of our interests to ensure that as much freedom of speech as possible exists in Canada, which is reflected in small community newspapers probably as much as through any other medium.
I mentioned that the large metropolitan newspapers are not quite so worried as the smaller newspapers about the 80 per cent arbitrary figure set for the ratio between advertising and news. The large chains can much more easily afford the news content of the newspapers because of the specialized staff they
Excise Tax
have. For example, staffs of the larger papers can cover a much broader range of sports events, art exhibits, craft fairs, drama festivals, film and play reviews. Also they are able to provide reports on the latest fashions, business and finance and in depth, specialized analysis of topics in areas such as foreign affairs, science and technology, gardening and so on.
The second major implication of this legislation derives from the distinction drawn by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) between news and advertising or, as the Minister of State for Finance said, between information and advertising. With interest rates hovering now in the 20 per cent range and the cost of living rising above 12 per cent, some of the best news people can read today in a newspaper advertisement is a flyer informing them of the relatively good buys in meat at the corner store or that winter clothing is being reduced 30 per cent at McAllister and Howard, or that building supplies are reduced for the weekend at a certain building supply company.
I suggest that this is the kind of news which the consumer of Canada is interested in hearing about.
I do not mean this in a flippant or casual way. When the Minister of Finance stands up in the House and says that he is fighting inflation by increasing interest rates, by actions which result in decreasing the value of the Canadian dollar, which result in an increase in the cost of living for Canadians, is this the kind of news Canadians want to hear? Wouldn't they rather hear that the Sorrento market is going to be offering substantial sales that weekend for different foods? That is the news Canadians would rather hear. In a highly inflationary environment where there are significant costs associated with acquiring market information, the market's performance is improved and the cost of living for Canadian families is reduced when consumers are better informed about the availability and price of goods in different marketplaces, the location of sales, etc. It may be ironic that a member of the New Democratic Party is defending measures that will improve performance in the marketplace, but. indeed, 1 have often felt that in the traditional sense of the term, the best friend of the new enterpriser in Canada is the New Democratic Party; the best friend of the free enterpriser.


An hon. Member:: That does it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If we look at this from the point of view of Canadian families, they benefit when Canadian small businesses and Canadian newspapers, can reduce the cost of living and save money. We on this side would like to see measures that would strengthen the small newspaper community rather than additional hurdles such as this particular legislation places on those small independent newspapers of Canada. We should go beyond Bill C-57 and consider removing federal excise tax on informational advertising flyers and supplements which are not produced for distribution through newspapers for the same reasons I have articulated earlier.
Enough of community newspapers for the moment, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk for a few moments as a western Canadian member, as a member of the House from that part

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
of Canada who is becoming very, very concerned. Some months back we saw, when the voices of concern in Quebec were growing in volume, the federal government in its wisdom taking a number of steps to recognize that concern of the people in Quebec with their feelings of alienation. Right or wrong, a number of steps were taken, and we see from the results of polls and referenda that in fact the people of Quebec responded to that at least perceived sensitivity by the federal government.
I am talking about a growing feeling of alienation in western Canada. I am not pleased to see or say this, but there is a feeling in western Canada that this particular government is insensitive to the concerns of westerners. Recent polls carried out over the last number of months have indicated very clearly that those westerners who see the federal government as not doing very much for them relative to other areas in Canada are looking more and more favourably at some other political arrangement.
I am not talking separatism. I do not believe in that for a moment and I do not believe many western Canadians do, although 10 per cent do. I would ask members opposite how many people in Quebec would register in a poll as being separatists. I suggest it is not much greater than 10 per cent, so when we talk of only 10 per cent of westerners registering that complaint we are talking of a significant number of people who are concerned about the way Ottawa, this particular federal government, is treating westerners.
What is the federal government doing about this? What kind of gestures or policies is the government implementing to show western Canadians that, indeed, it is sensitive to their concerns, that it recognizes westerners have a special set of concerns in that part of the country and is meeting them?
I do not want to get into a large elaboration of the western development fund that was held up as the gesture by this particular government to westerners, but where is that western development fund and what is it? By this piece of legislation we are debating today, what this federal government is doing is taking $38 billion from western Canada, laundering it here in Ottawa and returning $4 billion. That is the kind of perception, right or wrong, that is emerging in western Canada. From the information I have, I have to articulate that $38 billion is being collected by the taxes we are levying today on natural gas and oil. That $38 billion is to be taken to Ottawa, laundered and sent back through a pork-barrelling system to the extent of $4 billion.


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is the kind of perception western Canadians have. Right at the moment there exists infrastructure for this particular government to assist the west without the politically orientated western development fund. In principle we on this side oppose that kind of approach. Already the infrastructure exists to get money into western projects. I do not have to articulate anything other than, let us say, the DREE program if we are serious about this.
What does the PGRT do? Really, when you look at what the PGRT is, you will clearly see it is a revenue grab by the federal government. It is clearly the imposition of a royalty on a certain energy resource.
One has to ask the question, why is it that the federal government has selected only a restricted number of energy resources to tax? Why is the federal government not taxing hydroelectric power? Is it because of the implications of that move in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec? Why is the federal government not taxing uranium as an energy resource in Canada? Why is the federal government not taxing coal as an energy resource in Canada? These are legitimate questions a member of Parliament would want to ask. Being from western Canada one becomes slightly suspicious when one sees a particular resource that is restricted to perhaps three provinces being taxed and not the other energy resources. That certainly begs the question why. People wonder why there is a growing sense of alienation by westerners.


Mr. Evans:: I explained that to you last night.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We will be looking forward, as all westerners will, to the answer as to why it is that hydroelectric power is not being taxed while oil and natural gas are. It seems to me that western Canada very, very clearly is being discriminated against.
Members have previously spoken more eloquently than I of the precise result of these taxes being levied. What kind of a government would identify a number of wells, let us call them marginal or stripper wells, and say that because of the policy it is prepared to implement it is going to close down all those wells? And there are thousands of them. I grew up in the Turner Valley oil fields of southern Alberta and I know what a stripper or a marginal well is and the importance of the role those old wells play today in our move toward energy self-sufficiency. Yet under this particular legislation those wells are going to be closed. Those marginal wells will be closed because they are expensive to operate and this new tax being levied makes the difference. We will see wells that could successfully be providing us with energy resources for years to come being closed off because they will no longer be economically viable. Why on earth would a government want to do that? We will wait with eager ears for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to stand up and explain why this government is closing off the marginal, stripper wells in western Canada.
There are many other items one could speak of, including the whole matter of indexation that we on this side find a repulsive concept to be introducing. The Government of Canada is saying it is going to index the taxes on alcohol, including wines and beer, and tobacco. Does that not tell Canadians that this government assumes inflation is going to continue at the present rate if not higher? Does it not demonstrate clearly to Canadians that it is necessary to index these particular commodities because the government knows inflation is going to continue?
June 19, 1981

What else does it do? If the value of the Canadian dollar drops relative to the Swiss franc, or relative to the currency of a number of countries from which we import materials in the sub-group within the CPI, that will result in an increase in the price here in Canada. If, for example, by implementing the PGRT there will be an increase in fertilizer costs and in chemical costs to farmers, which will result in an increase in the price of grain, which will then mean an increase in the price of beer and food-and the same applies to products of the vineyards-this will result in an increase in the sub-group within the CPI which will bring about an increase in terms of the taxation levy on those commodities.
We are introducing the PGRT, on the one hand and guaranteeing, on the other hand, that the taxes we levy on certain beers and on tobacco will be increased. We are guaranteeing it. This gives the government a vested interest in inflation.


Mr. Young:: And it never has to be accounted for publicly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my colleague the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young), says, it never has to be accounted for publicly. It is a way to sneak in or bootleg tax in behind the scenes. The government never has to appear before Canadians to tell them this tax is to be raised. Canadians will never know.
A very reasonable request was made by the Alberta natural gas co-ops. Because of their complex procedures and the time it takes to send out bills and get them back from our post office system, the co-ops said they want to have 90 days to submit their taxation payments. They said they would pay the tax. They said they do not like it, but they said they would pay it. However, they want a 90-day period. Otherwise they have to go to the banks and borrow at exorbitant interest rates. All hon. members of this House will agree that interest rates are exorbitant. The co-ops will have to borrow from the banks to pay federal tax.
The Tories and New Democrats in this House agree that this is unfair. It is an unfair requirement of the gas co-ops of Alberta or anywhere else. Let us give these people 90 days to pay their taxes. Surely that is not an unreasonable request, yet hon. members opposite unanimously said no. They are going to force these people to go to the banks of Canada to borrow money at very high interest rates-the highest in Canadian history-to pay their federal taxes.


Mr. Orlikow:: They claim they are friends of co-ops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And they claim they are friends of co-ops in western Canada and elsewhere. What a myth!
I want to refer to the motions put forward last night respecting the creation of ethyl alcohol. The creation of ethyl alcohol on the farms of this country makes nothing but good sense. Other countries around the world are demonstrating leadership. In their efforts to bring about energy self-sufficiency and in their efforts to reduce costs for transportation fuels, they are encouraging farmers to use their marginal agricultur-
Excise Tax
al lands to create alcohol for use as transportation fuels. Is that unreasonable?
I understand that before the end of this decade Brazil plans to have virtually 100 per cent of its transportation fuels coming from ethyl alcohol derived from converted vegetable material. Brazil is taking energetic steps in this regard. Canadian farmers need an alternate source of income. They need to take advantage of land which is not used to produce food. Their marginal land could be cultivated, and crops which could be converted into ethyl alcohol could be grown. Why not? This government has just completed a series of examinations of alternate forms of energy. Why not say to the farmers of western Canada and other parts of Canada that this is an opportunity for them to grasp? The government should want to provide this opportunity for them. However, there has been no consideration of that at all.
Finally, I want to mention a provision in this bill which, quite frankly, is unacceptable. That provision is the tax on dynamite used in the construction industry. As a member from British Columbia I am very aware that when townsites are built a great deal of blasting is required in order to provide the infrastructures for factories, houses, warehouses and so forth. Dynamite is important to the construction industry. Construction components have traditionally been exempt from federal sales tax, and this has encouraged the industry. I credit the government for that, but why are we changing it now and telling contractors who use dynamite, which is a major component of their construction costs, that dynamite will now be taxed? Why is the government making this change and moving to tax that construction component? We will listen anxiously to hear why on earth we have selected one construction component and left other components exempt from federal tax.
I have left my most challenging comments for the end, and I know others will take this up. I see that my time is drawing very near to an end, but I want to mention the marginal manufacturing tax. In principle we agree that, in order to encourage Canadian manufacturers, this marginal manufacturing tax makes sense in certain areas; there is no question about that. But the way it is implemented is indicative of the approach of this whole piece of legislation.
One day some people in my riding received notices saying that they were now manufacturers. They were probably not aware of that, but they were told they were now classified as manufacturers. They were told they could not take advantage of manufacturing grants by the federal government but that for taxation purposes they were marginal manufacturers and should change their prices because of this additional tax. They did that.
Four days later they received another notice saying that the government had made a mistake and that there were changes and so forth. They telephoned their member of Parliament asking what was going on with this marginal manufacturing tax. I had to say that I was not aware of the details. I told them to telephone their regional taxation office, which they did. The regional taxation office was also not aware of the details. Here we are imposing a tax and asking people to

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
co-operate but it is impossible to get information on this marginal manufacturing tax anywhere.
I use this matter as an example to show that this piece of legislation, Bill C-57, is ill-conceived. The people of Canada see this as an insensitive piece of legislation. It is sloppy and unnecessary. That explains why 135 amendments from this side of the House were required. The people of Canada will be very disappointed when information about this bill gets out. It will be a sad day for Canada, and hopefully for this government, when people, manufacturers, newspapers and other become aware of the details of this legislation.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a wide range of comments from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I know the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap has to leave to catch a plane to go back to his riding. I would therefore like to respond to the issues he has raised first, and then I can turn my attention to the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton West, as time permits.
A number of issues have to be dealt with when we are talking about taxation generally and this piece of legislation in particular. After all, the bill does deal with the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. The excise tax is a percentage tax. It is a flat tax; it is not a progressive tax like the income tax. It is a tax which applies everywhere to everyone at a percentage rate. It is not part of the wealth redistribution mechanism which is associated with the income tax. That is an important distinction to make. We are talking here about a flat percentage tax which applies equally everywhere irrespective of income levels or any other considerations.
On the other hand, the income tax is the progressive side of our tax system. It taxes the wealthy much more heavily than the poor and gives us the fiscal ability to redistribute income. This excise tax-


Walter David Baker: Is a regressive tax.


John Leslie Evans: It is a regressive tax, of course it is. No one ever said it was not. The sales tax is a regressive tax.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a regressive government.


John Leslie Evans: All taxes that apply equally irrespective of income are termed regressive. The distinction is quite clear. It should be kept in mind when we talk about these kinds of taxes and their impact, because that is the nature of the tax.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Regressive Liberal party.


John Leslie Evans: Now, argument can be raised-and if hon. members wish to do that at some point in time the government would certainly be willing to listen to what they have to say-regarding eliminating altogether taxes of this nature. However, that is not the case we are dealing with here. We are talking about a tax which applies equally everywhere.
This bill contains amendments to this act. It is not a new act, let us make that clear; it is amendments to an act. Why do these amendments come forward, as they have since 1978? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was then minister of finance and he brought forward some amendments primarily because of inequities in the tax system. There were people who were not being treated fairly. What I mean by that is that if it is a flat tax it applies equally to everyone, but it did not apply equally to some. The minister at that time, in bringing in these amendments, was trying to ensure that all people pay their fair share of this particular tax.
In 1979 the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), then minister of finance, brought forward amendments to the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act for precisely the same purpose-to close loopholes and improve the equity of that particular tax. Again, in April of 1980 the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) brought forward amendments to those acts, some of which had been proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West.


Walter David Baker: You are not suggesting it is a Crosbie index, though?


John Leslie Evans: No, 1 am talking about certain proposals. Then again in the October 28 budget the Minister of Finance brought forward further changes to these acts. All of those proposals that had been brought forward, a great many of which were implemented, are incorporated in Bill C-57, amendments to the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, the first bill of this kind to my knowledge to be before this House in some five, six or seven years.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the hon. member for interjecting. He was not by his remarks suggesting that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was going to the principle of indexing those excise taxes? I want to make it clear-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


John Leslie Evans: I welcome the hon. member's interjection, my neighbour and friend, because if I left that impression I did not intend to.


Mr. Cullen:: He probably would have.


John Leslie Evans: My friend the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) says he probably would have. That would be imputing motives and I cannot do that in the House.


An hon. Member:: Bud can.


John Leslie Evans: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton can if he wishes.
So, Mr. Speaker, there were amendments brought in over a long period of time by ministers from both sides of the House, because when they examined these two acts they found there were anomalies, loopholes and inequities. The amendments were therefore designed to try and ensure this particular tax applied as it was supposed to be applied, so that all pay their
June 19, 1981

fair share equally and equitably. That is the basic principle of an excise tax. You may agree or disagree with it, but that is the principle and that is what the amendments were meant to do; to plug loopholes or make application of the tax more equitable. Those were the reasons for the amendments, regardless of by whom they were proposed.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can look at some of the specific criticisms levelled by the opposition at the government for the ways in which changes were put forward. Specifically, I will try and deal with the various concerns brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
It was pointed out by the hon. member at the outset that the government had given inadequate thought to the legislation. I hope I am wrong, but I think the reason the hon. member felt that way is that when the bill was put forward to committee a great many people wanted to make representations. Now, to my knowledge this is the first tax bill ever referred to a standing committee of the House, at least in recent history. Tax measures and measures dealing with supply are always dealt with in a Committee of the Whole.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Never again.


John Leslie Evans: As a result, Canadian citizens do not have an opportunity to make representations except through their member of Parliament. When you are dealing with a tax bill and it goes to a standing committee and representation is asked for, it is not surprising that you get people who want to make representations. However, Mr. Speaker, it is also not surprising that you have representations because you are dealing with taxation, and any time you do that you are saying flat out that you are going to take something away from someone in order to finance programs or whatever. Someone is going to have a tax imposed on them that they did not have before, or they are going to be heavier than before. Of course, others might have a reduction in taxes. However, if I am a businessman, consumer or ordinary citizen and I find that a new tax is going to be imposed, or my taxes are going to be increased, I will want to make representations.
It does not surprise me at all that Canadians made representations. However, the question we as parliamentarians have to ask ourselves, which we did in looking at the representations that were made, is this: in light of the principle of tax equity and fairness is the burden being placed on this group of Canadians unfair? Is it inequitable? Is it heavier than the burden being placed on others in the same occupation, profession or industry?


An hon. Member:: Yes, it is.


John Leslie Evans: That is the guiding principle, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Terrible Liberals.


John Leslie Evans: That is the question we asked ourselves and which guided us in determining whether or not certain proposed amendments could be acceptable.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you put it all on the west, then?
Excise Tax


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that has to be the foundation upon which the government determines whether it will accept this amendment, whether it will or will not make this change. Because to make that change would take some of the proposed tax burden off this group but leave it on others. As a result these people would be unfairly treated relative to other Canadians in the same field.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some of the groups that came before us said that because of their particular circumstances they should be treated differently from others doing precisely the same thing as they do. That is what parliamentarians were doing in committee, and I think we did our job well in asking: is the request being made by this group fair and equitable in light of the nature of the tax, the principles we are dealing with, or is it unfair? Would it give them an advantage which other groups do not have and as a result put them in a favourable light within the over-all tax system? That is certainly the kind of thinking I tried to bring to bear, and I am sure that the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap, the hon. member for Edmonton West, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton and others tried to look at these requests for change, amendment and exemption in that way. Clearly, Canadians looking at the same thing from different points of view are going to come up with different conclusions, and that is the reason for the 135 proposed amendments by the opposition. I think 49 were actually unique because both opposition parties had areas of similar concern, and as a result they proposed overlapping and duplicate amendments.
The concern over the impact of these taxes upon Canadians is precisely the concern of the government which gave rise to the amendments in the first place. The government did not sit down in isolation and say that it should change this tax in this area, for whatever reason. In the vast majority of cases, representations were made to the government regarding the impact of the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. These representations showed the government that at that moment the tax was being imposed inequitably, that some groups were bearing a heavier burden than other groups of Canadians. As a result the government brought forward amendments to try to remove the inequities. This process goes on all the time. We change the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act and the sales tax in some way to try to maintain the original principle of equity which was established in the first place.
Let me go down the list and look at some of the representations. For example, the Hobbema Four Indian band came before us and said that it should be exempt from taxation because of the nature of its relationship with the Government of Canada. The band felt it should be exempt for all time in the legislation. Because of that relationship, the band received the essence of its request; the tax does not apply to the gas produced on the Hobbema Indian reserve or on any other reserve.
It asked us also whether we would say once and for all that the government would never tax gas on Indian reserves. We

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
said that this was not the piece of legislation in which to include such a broad exclusion of any taxation ever, but it is the place to say that the excise tax will not apply on Indian reserves. We did it in response to the request of the Hobbema Indians. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said that we did not respond to the demands of the Indian bands. I say that we did respond-the tax will not apply to them.
The second area in which I was interested was the representations of the scientific and university communities. They said that because we were separating the excise tax from the Customs Act, so that the two acts would no longer determine the nature of the tax, some of the technical equipment they used for research and teaching purposes in the universities would be taxable. The other side of that is: by exempting the goods imported by the scientific and research communities from any tax or duty, in essence we were ensuring that Canadian manufacturers would never spring up to produce those kinds of goods. Because of the competitive advantage of the very large multinational producers of some kinds of scientific equipment, in terms of their sale forces and so on, the research facilities in Canadian universities were not aware that very similar goods were available from Canadian producers.
In the case of the marginal manufacturing tax, we wanted to ensure that importers did not have a competitive advantage vis-a-vis Canadian producers which create jobs for Canadians; we wanted to do the same thing with regard to scientific equipment, but they were being put at a competitive disadvantage to imports.
For the purposes of economic development, we said that Canadian producers should be put on an equal footing with the imports and that they should be given an additional advantage. As a result the tax was changed and our scientific equipment manufacturers will benefit from it. It will mean long-term jobs for Canadians in highly paid positions.
I do not apologize for doing that. I used to be a university professor and I know the costs and the troubles faced by the universities. I am saying that in the vast majority of cases there are Canadian-produced goods of equal quality which will do the job as well. Now those Canadian-produced products will be in a position to compete fairly and effectively.
I cannot indicate the background of the tax on the handicapped, but certainly if there is an anomaly in the tax which cannot be clearly justified, I assure the hon. member we will reconsider it before the next budget. I am not making any promises, but I will tell him that right off the bat.
I met with representatives of the artistic community with regard to lithographs. It was a problem area from the outset in terms of this particular tax. The difficulty was coming up with an equitable definition of an original print. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap made a very valid point. He indicated that original lithographic prints signed and numbered by the artist are totally different from Elvis Presley posters and such. The creative process runs from the individually created, one-off print all the way to multiple copy prints, mechanically produced prints, and the ones reproduced on an offset press. The difficulty which Revenue Canada is now trying to work
out with the representatives of the art community is how to define "original". If someone makes 5,000 copies of a print, then signs every one and numbers them from one to 5,000, do they qualify or not?
The Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) are continuing to work on this particular problem. It will be considered for adjustment in the coming budget within the context of "original". We do not want to tax original art, but we do not want to say that something by art community standards, or even very loose standards beyond the art community, would possibly fall into that area and not be taxable. We want to avoid that and the art community wants to avoid it. We are working with them to arrive at a clear definition to ensure that the tax does not apply unfairly to artists who are lithographers as opposed to others.
Turning to the area of newspapers, this point was raised at second reading and at report stage by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap. As well, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised it this morning. I should like to deal with the concerns of both members in that regard. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap said that we should encourage small, independent newspapers. I could not agree with him more. I am sure no one on either side of the House would disagree. There is nothing in this piece of legislation which will impact in any way upon the ability of small, independent newspapers to operate profitably and to operate as they have in the past.
At one time a newspaper was defined to be any publication in which there was no more than 70 per cent advertising. I believe it was in 1978 when this area was questioned in the courts and it was eliminated, for whatever reason. When this particular legislation was brought forward the question we were trying to get at was if you have an advertising flyer which contains absolutely no printed words by an editor, a writer or by anyone, is it a newspaper? And is it then subject to the tax-free provisions? That is the question we were asking.
What was the original intent of exempting newspapers from taxation? The intent was that we wanted to have free and open access to information for Canadians. We wanted Canadians to be able to hear the criticisms of anyone who wished to set up a newspaper or a radio station, within regular guidelines, that is, the limitations associated with airwaves, etc. We wanted to give Canadians the broadest possible access to different ideas, to criticism of government and of the business community and to criticism of each other. That was the original intent many years ago. I think that intent must be considered with regard to what is going on here.
Let us look at the definition which has been proposed. It says that if any one issue of newspaper is more than 90 per cent advertising, then it is not tax exempt. That certainly cannot be considered unreasonable, since I think all of us have some concept of the difference between news and information. Advertising is certainly information but should advertising in
June 19, 1981

that form be tax-exempt? It is not tax exempt when you see it on television or when you hear it on the radio. Why should it be tax exempt because it is printed on a piece of paper? If the intent of a publication is to be a newspaper-and I think we can all agree on the general concept of news-then let us not exempt those things which do not fall into some very reasonable definition of what a newpaper is.
Another aspect of this matter is that if any one issue is more than 90 per cent advertising, then it is taxable. If more than half of all the issues in a quarter of a year are more than 80 per cent, then it is taxable and it does not fall into the exemption. But that means 49 per cent of the issues can be 80 per cent advertising and that 51 per cent can be 79 per cent advertising, which means an average of 85 per cent advertising over the quarter. And it is still exempt from tax. In a 15-page newspaper you are talking about very little news and an awful lot of advertising.
I think our definition is fair. The Quebec weeklies and the weeklies in the rest of the country have looked at the question. They have said that they are still concerned but it looks as if they will be able to live quite well within that definition.
As I mentioned earlier in the House, when this issue was raised before the Senate committee the Quebec weeklies brought in a sample of ten newspapers-and this was before we had the more generous exemption provision. This was when the rule was 75 per cent. If your paper contained more than 75 per cent advertising, then it was taxable; if it was less than 75 per cent it was not. The Senate committee went through the ten sample newspapers which were placed before it and not one of them would have been taxable under the 75 per cent rule. Now, with the more generous 80 per cent on 50 per cent of the issues, or 90 per cent on any one issue, it is virtually certain that the dailies will not be affected by this tax. That was the intent. The intent is to plug the loopholes but not to affect the legitimate operators. This is precisely what I think this measure will do.
With regard to the inserts, I tried to explain this once before. Advertising inserts have always been taxable. The tax is the manufacturers' excise tax which applies to printed material. What has happened over the last few years is that newspapers found out that, because of the newspaper tax exemption, if printed material were inserted into a newspaper and distributed by the newspaper company, it was tax exempt. But if it was distributed by a group of boy scouts or a small distribution company which hired young people to distribute the material in the neighbourhood, it is taxable.
There is a company in my riding which hires young people in the neighbourhood to distribute material. A flyer came around the other day from a distribution company asking whether young people were interested in distributing advertising material for such companies as Shoppers Drug Mart, the A & P, IGA or Home Hardware. It offered to pay something for this work. It is an opportunity for young people to make money. They do not have to be newspaper carriers; they can earn money by distributing flyers from time to time. It is not a regular job but one which supplies some income for
Excise Tax
young people. The government was approached some time ago by a number of these small distribution companies which indicated to us that, because the newspapers were not taxable and the newspapers could take this printed material without the tax and distribute it, then they were at a significant competitive advantage over the small, independent distributors. We said that if the tax is on printed material then the nature of the distribution system should not have any impact, on the grounds of equity, as to whether or not the tax is paid. Newspapers should pay the same tax as the small distribution companies pay.
That was the basis of the discussion surrounding this issue and it seems to me to be fair and equitable. It is not a tax in any way, shape or form on newspapers. It is precisely what it has always been. If the newspapers choose to move into a new area of business then they should not expect that they can carry their tax-free status under their arm and say that because they are newspapers and are competing in this new area of business therefore they are tax-free, while anyone else carrying out this undertaking is taxable. I think that is a legitimate objection for the government to raise. There is no doubt that this is not an attack on the freedom of the press in any way. That is the biggest red herring I have ever seen drawn across the path of any piece of legislation.
A point was raised about gas co-ops. The gas co-ops in Alberta came to us and said, because of the nature of their distribution system they do not get paid by those who purchase gas from them until at least 40 or 45 days after the gas is purchased from the original supplier, at which point the tax is applied. What the gas co-ops would like to see is the payment of the tax being delayed for 90 days after receipt of the gas so that they would not have to carry inventory and finance it. That sounds reasonable on the surface. The problem is that every business in the country carries inventory in one form or another and every business person in this country has to finance that inventory.
In the case of the co-ops, if we were to say that because they are co-ops, or because they are nice people, they do not have to pay the tax for 90 days, then there is no reason or logic why any other businessman should not pay the tax until after 90 days. We have said that all our business people must pay this tax after 30 days, and why should it be different for gas co-ops in Alberta. That was the reasoning which took place in the minds of the government.
We said, "No, I am sorry. We cannot do that, because if we do it for you, automobile dealers will say that we carry inventory and pay this tax before we get paid by the people who buy our cars." When gas distributors, such as Consumers' Gas, here in Ontario, or B.C. Hydro-or whichever company distributes gas in British Columbia-buy gas and store it for winter use, they pay the tax when they receive it. They are distributors; they are not the producer. They would be saying, "We hold this inventory of gas and we should be exempt from paying that tax until we sell it to the consumer."

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
The problem, when one gets into tax legislation, is that one is dealing with something which is extremely complex, and matters of equity are not clear, they are not easily seen. One has to look beyond the surface into the depth, the meaning, the effect, the implication and the impact of the tax before one can determine whether a request for relief from one group is equitable in light of the over-all tax system.
There were other issues which were raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West. I am not sure how much time I have. I think I have ten minutes. The hon. member for Edmonton West raised the question of the legality of this tax at the outset of his comments. I think he implied that in this House we were passing a tax which had been ruled illegal. That was another red herring. This particular tax, the gas tax, the gas export tax or export side of the tax-


An hon. Member:: It is not the export tax.


John Leslie Evans: The export side of the tax-


An hon. Member:: Oh, I see!


John Leslie Evans: -has been ruled by the Alberta court of Appeal to be illegal if it is applied to one of three wells which are owned by the province of Alberta and which have not exported one cubic foot of gas to this date. It is a hypothetical case. If one of these wells were to produce a cubic foot of gas and it was exported, could the federal government's tax apply? That is the case. There could be very peculiar circumstances. A well might be owned by the province, transported by the province to the border, and never change hands until it crosses the border. That kind of question might be considered. The court of appeal in Alberta said that in that circumstance this tax could not be applied. It is now being appealed. However, there is certainly no question that in other circumstances, the federal government has the power to apply a tax on natural gas, whether it be exported or whether it be consumed here in Canada. The honesty of that particular case, I think, should be well known by Canadians.
The hon. member for Edmonton West also raised an issue which I do not really want to deal with in depth because it does not specifically apply to the legislation. However, he mentioned the fact that this is a tax on natural gas, and the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) did not have a tax which applied to natural gas, and that as a result, Canadians will pay far more for natural gas under this government than they would have under the other. I really think, that is a mug's game, in all honesty. However, the fact of the matter is that the price of natural gas under the government of the hon. members opposite was tied to the price of oil, and the price of oil was to go to 85 per cent of world price in 1984, and that would have pulled up the price of gas. Therefore, one can take one point of view and run down the line with it. If one forgets about all these other factors, one can wind up with one conclusion which is not necessarily correct. It tends to have a misleading effect on the understanding of Canadians.
The issue of indexation has been raised. This government has been accused of trying to profit from inflation, that we are going after this particular area unfairly, and that we are imposing a tax which will grow exponentially and will take money out of the pockets of Canadians. First of all, all taxes take money out of the pockets of Canadians. I have explained this before. When we are talking about indexation, what are we doing? The alcohol and tobacco tax has always been a flat tax, in dollar terms. In other words, the tax was explained in the following way: the federal government tax or the provincial government tax, because both place taxes on certain products, will be 35 cents per pack of cigarettes. That is an example. That being the case, it was a very unusual tax. A fixed dollar levy is a tax which does not apply in many other areas in our society. Most taxes are on a percentage basis. The sales tax in Ontario is 7 per cent. The manufacturers' excise tax, which was formerly 12 per cent, is now 9 per cent.
There are other forms of taxes. The income tax provides that if one makes a certain amount of money, a certain percentage of that will come to the federal government and a certain percentage will go to the provincial government. The taxes are stated on a percentage basis. These two taxes, alcohol and tobacco, are stated on a dollar basis. As a result, as the price of the product goes up, the tax stays precisely the same. To keep the same tax burden on those products, every couple of years we come back and say, "Let's see. We're going from 35 cents to 40 cents a package of cigarettes or from two cents to eight cents on a bottle of beer", whatever the impact, but we keep coming back and changing the dollar amount. The logical thing to do is to change it to an ad valorem tax and to say it shall be a percentage. Whatever the price, add on 8 per cent or 10 per cent or whatever, and that is the tax. That keeps the tax at exactly the same percentage burden as it has always been. The way to do that is to do exactly what we have done. It was such a good idea that the hon. Frank Miller in Ontario, of the Conservative party, immediately brought in the same legislation for the Ontario tax.


Walter David Baker: That does not make it any better.


Mr. Blenkarn:: It is not the same legislation either.


John Leslie Evans: I am saying that it is fair and equitable way. The tax is tied to the sub-index of alcohol, and the tax will increase in the same proportion as the price, and will stay the same, with the same percentage burden, as it always was.


Walter David Baker: It is a bad example.


John Leslie Evans: If the hon. members opposite say that that is indexation of taxation, then they should be against the income tax, the sales tax and the manufacturers' excise tax, because they are all stated in percentages and they will all have precisely the same impact which the indexation of this particular tax has because of the nature of the tax.


An hon. Member:: Trying to kid the troops now?
June 19, 1981


Walter David Baker: We index the income tax to the benefit of the taxpayers.


John Leslie Evans: We were not talking about the indexation of the income tax. That turns it around and it goes the other way.
Cosmetics was another area which was brought to our attention. The difficulty there was that the government had moved the incidence of the tax to the cosmeticians level because of the understanding that the cosmetician was, in fact, a wholesaler. We found out that such was not the case, and we responded because it is a manufacturer's excise tax, after all, and the tax should be collected at that level. The cosmeticians said, "Look. We use these products, whether they be shampoos or other forms of cosmetics, in our beauty salons. Therefore, we are a retailer of these products, not a wholesaler. Therefore, the tax should not be applied on our sale price. It should be applied on the sale price of the person before us." We said, "That being the nature of the cosmetics business here, which we are talking about at this time, that is fine. Therefore, that tax should be back there."
The amendment was put forward, and we met their concerns. Therefore, when a group could show that there was not equity in this particular legislation, when they could show that the government was imposing a tax unfairly on them which was not being imposed on another group under exactly the same circumstances, it was changed. The government has examined these taxes very carefully and has tried to make sure that they are applied equitably and fairly to all Canadians.
I support the bill 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened patiently for 40 minutes to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) saying that this government is so fair that it can say, in effect, "We are the heart of human kindness; we are the people of equity and reasonableness."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Thomson: That is a joke. It would be laughable if it were not so sad. I think the parliamentary secretary actually believed what he said. Bill C-57 imposes a gas tax that discriminates against one industry in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The gas tax is applied to one industry; is that fair and reasonable? Is that equitable? That is a petroleum gas revenue tax that has wiped out all of the marginal oil production in western Canada. That industry is no longer producing because it is losing money. The petroleum gas and revenue tax has virtually crucified and wrecked the industry.
It is clear to most Candians that we are running out of oil and that we desperately need to find some alternative energy resources or we will have to produce a lot more oil. Surely, in the short run, we have to produce more oil. We should be encouraging, not discouraging, the oil and gas industry.
Excise Tax
The parliamentary secretary talked about jobs in the scientific area of the industry that could be done quite well in Canada, and I do not dispute that. I would ask him to remember, however, that the National Energy Program has cost this country something like 60,000 jobs.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Nonsense.


John William Thomson: How can anyone claim to be concerned about jobs while implementing a program that will cost the country 60,000 jobs? That is just the start.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Nonsense.


John William Thomson: Is it nonsense? The government will not listen and will not believe the facts.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We know the facts.


John William Thomson: I invite hon. members opposite to come to my riding of Calgary South to see the devastating effects of this program, or to Red Deer or to Bow River. They should come out and see what is happening to the oil industry in western Canada.
I want to address my remarks this afternoon to the impact of Bill C-57 and the petroleum gas and revenue tax on the oil and gas industry. The National Energy Program has received as much debate as any piece of legislation to come before this House, in my memory, since Mr. Benson's white paper on taxation. Indeed, I would say that the National Energy Program is probably as disastrous as was the Benson white paper on taxation, and is very likely more so.
It has taken me some time to realize that the National Energy Program is not a program at all. It is part of an over-all design by the Liberal government to control all aspects of the Canadian economy. It has nothing to do with energy. The oil and gas industry just happens to be first on the list for government control.
How can the Liberal government be so callous in its approach to the Canadian economy, the Canadian worker, the Canadian consumer and the Canadian householder? I have come to the conclusion that the Liberal government does not really care. It is flush with power and believes it can run roughshod over the Canadian people. I think there are those in the Liberal cabinet who have said, "We are not going to be around for the next election, so let's bite the bullet and push Canada as far down the socialist road to nationalization and federal government control as we can get away with." That is the purpose of the National Energy Program-nationalization and federal government control. Those are the primary objectives of the Liberal government, not only with respect to the oil and gas industry but the whole of Canadian society.
I have spent a good deal of time examining the pricing situation in the oil and gas industry today-the price of gasoline, of crude oil at the pump, royalties, and taxes taken by the federal and provincial governments. I have the benefit of over 20-years experience in the oil and gas industry.

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
The energy dispute in this country could be solved tomorrow morning by adding a nickel to the price of a litre of gasoline; 5 cents a litre and the problem could be solved, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal cabinet knows that, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) knows it and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) knows it. They do not want the conflict resolved as long as they can lead Canadians to believe that Alberta is the fall guy. The Liberal government does not want this energy dispute solved. It believes it can lay the blame for the energy conflict in Canada at the feet of the Alberta government. This is a lie; it is a deception. We could move to 75 per cent of world price at the wellhead and the government could have its 25 per cent share of that price. That could happen tomorrow morning by raising the price of gasoline by 5 cents a litre.
If this were done, Mr. Speaker, it would mean that revenues flowing to the federal government in the form of corporation taxes from the oil industry, would triple. The fiscal deficit could be reduced by $3 billion. We would have 75 per cent of the world oil price at the wellhead tomorrow and the federal government could increase its revenues by $3 billion and thereby reduce the fiscal deficit by $3 billion. This would cost the Canadian people one nickel per litre more at the pump tomorrow morning.
In Toronto today, regular unleaded gasoline costs 36.7 cents per litre. At a downtown Ottawa service station the other night, I paid 42.3 cents per litre for regular unleaded gas. Mr. Speaker, 36.7 cents per litre is equal to $55.30 per barrel at the pump and 42.3 cents per litre is equal to $64.15 per barrel at the pump.
The world price for oil today is $43 per barrel. That is what we are paying in Montreal every day, to buy 400,000 barrels of oil. If we take 75 per cent of the world price of oil, that is $32.25 or half the equivalent cost of a litre of gasoline at 42.3 cents at the pumps. If we add one nickel per litre at the pump, we would be paying the equivalent of $64.15 per barrel; and 75 per cent of world price of $32.25 would be half the cost we are paying at the pump.
A price of 42 cents per litre would allow the federal government to move to the wellhead price of 75 per cent of world price. The Alberta government would have to reduce its royalty from 42 per cent to 35 per cent of the wellhead price. Other provincial governments would have to freeze their taxes at the present level. Is it too much to ask this government to raise the price of gasoline a nickel a litre so that it can solve an energy dispute costing 60,000 jobs and putting out of reach any hope of attaining self-sufficiency for the Canadian people? The federal government would triple its revenues. It would get 25 per cent of the wellhead price, and the oil industry will be able to get on with the job of Finding oil. Yes, that is too much to ask because the federal government does not want to solve the problem. It is no longer a question of price or revenue sharing. The problem has nothing to do with price and revenue sharing. The problem is that the federal government wants to control the oil and gas industry, and it wants to do it two ways.
It wants to take a royalty, which is exactly what the petroleum revenue and gas tax is. It is a royalty on a provin-cially-owned resource. The government then wants to distribute that royalty in the form of grants as the federal bureaucracy deems appropriate. The object is interventionism. This is government bureaucratic control. What we will hear is "line up at the public trough, fellows. We will tell you where to look for oil, and we will tell you if we like you and what you are doing. Maybe if you are a good Grit, we will give you some money to look for oil because we know where to find it better than you do". The federal government bureaucracy will be the oil finders in this country. They will take it from you with one hand and give it back to those they see fit with the other.
The other main objective of the National Energy Program is nationalization under the cloak of Canadianization. The government has made a lot of Canadians believe that this is Canadianization. It has nothing to do with Canadianization. The acquisition of Petrofina had nothing to do with Canadianization; it had everything to do with nationalization. It is a government-controlled, government-owned company. I say to the Canadian people, or to anyone who wants to listen, "do not be fooled by this Liberal government". The federal government can disclaim all it wants that its aim is not nationalization, but its actions and its legislation in every area confirm the government's intent to intervene in your life, to control your life and to control every aspect of this economy.
The National Energy Program is a tragedy. This statement has been expressed before by many other people. It is a tragedy for this country of staggering proportions. Not only does the National Energy Program deny Canadians the opportunity to be self-sufficient, it denies them the opportunity for an improved standard of living. It is burdening Canadians with the highest interest rates ever experienced in this country.
Hon. members may well ask, how does the National Energy Program relate to our high level of interest rates? We have high interest rates in Canada because we must follow the level of U.S. interest rates as long as we have to borrow money to cover our fiscal deficit and the debts we incur with other countries on trade. That is why we have to have high interest rates today. The governor of the Bank of Canada has said that. We cannot lower our interest rates. If we do, the value of the Canadian dollar will go down and our rate of inflation will go up. There is probably some consensus in this House on that point, if on no other.
But interest rates in Canada could be lowered by 5 per cent. Interest rates could be lower than they are now if the government took the following four simple actions. Our interest rates would be lowered by 5 per cent, perhaps not immediately but certainly within a period of one year. I will cite the four actions.
First, the government should move the price of oil to 75 per cent of world price which will reduce the oil import subsidy by $3.5 billion. That is all the government has to do. People will have to pay a nickel a litre more at the pump. By doing that we can reduce the federal subsidy that we are paying for oil
June 19, 1981

imports by $3.5 billion. Why does Canada want to pay $5 billion of Canadian workers' wages, our wages, for imported oil from Saudi Arabia and Mexico? What in heaven's name are we thinking about when the Canadian economy is on the ropes? Why do we want to pay $5 billion to people outside our country? It is madness. Therefore, I repeat, Canada should move the price of oil to 75 per cent of the world price and so reduce our import subsidy by $3.5 billion.
Second, we should move the price of oil to 75 per cent of world price to stop the $4 billion or more flowing out of Canada. I suspect there is a great deal more money than that flowing out of this country as a result of the National Energy Program. I know that in the oil and gas industry alone because of the National Energy Program $3 billion is leaving Canada for the United States and being used to look for oil there. I also know that the Germans are no longer investing in oil and gas in Canada. I know many foreign investors do not like what is going on here. They do not like what is happening to the Canadian economy, nor do they like the interventionist approach of this government, and they want to get out.
Again I say that if we moved the price of oil to 75 per cent of world price tomorrow morning, the entire attitude toward investing in Canada would be changed, not only of foreigners, but of domestic companies, Canadian companies. Do hon. members realize that the National Energy Program hurts our own domestic Canadian-owned companies far more than it does the foreign-controlled companies? The larger companies that are foreign controlled and foreign dominated can ride the situation out. The situation will not hurt them because they have downstream operations and chemical operations. But the small Canadian-owned oil and gas independent operators cannot ride out the situation. The small companies are the ones going to the United States with their money, their people and their drilling rigs. Therefore, we should move the price of oil to 75 per cent of world price to stop this hemorrhaging.
Third, if we move the price of oil to 75 per cent of world price, we would reduce the federal fiscal deficit by $3 billion by increased corporate taxes on the oil industry. As I have said, moving to 75 per cent of world price, or $32.25 a barrel tomorrow morning, would allow the government to take 25 per cent of that price and increase its share of corporate taxes by $3 billion a year.
Fourth, we should move the price of oil to 75 per cent of world price, drop the petroleum and gas revenue tax and allow world price for the oil sands plant. Alsands and Cold Lake together amount to an investment over the next five or six years of over $20 billion. More likely that figure will be $25 billion or more. If we dropped the petroleum revenue and gas tax and gave the oil sands plants just what we are paying to the Mexicans and Venezuelans, we could proceed almost immediately with the two plants which are going to produce 280,000 barrels of oil per day for Canadians for the next 25 years. That means a $25 billion capital investment alone over the next 5 years, which amounts to another $4 billion to $5 billion a year.
Excise Tax
In summary, we have four actions which the government could take right away, and I suggest those four actions would have the consequence of so strengthening the Canadian dollar that we would not have to keep Canadian interest rates at the same level as the U.S. interest rates since the need to defend the dollar would be at a minimum. I am absolutely convinced that if the government took those four actions, we could have interest rates 5 per cent below the level today.
We cannot solve our inflation or interest rate problems in this country simply by monetary means, by controlling the rate of money supply. That is impossible. What we have to do is to reduce the federal fiscal deficit. Until the government comes to grips with its own demands on the money market, inflation in this country will never be solved.
The effect of those four proposals I made would be a reduction in the federal fiscal deficit of $6 billion; a $3 billion increase in corporate income taxes and a $3.5 billion reduction in import subsidies. Inside one year we could reduce the federal fiscal deficit by more than $6 billion. I do not know how much the rate of inflation would go down as a result of *reductions of those kinds, but I think it would be darn significant.
Furthermore, think of what would happen. Do you know that the government is paying out $10 billion a year in terms of interest costs on its debts?


An hon. Member:: It is $12 billion.


John William Thomson: Pardon me, $12 billion. I stand corrected. It is $12 billion in interest costs on the money the government has borrowed. The government went to the bond market the other day and paid 16'/s per cent for its money. Let us just assume we could reduce interest by 3 per cent. Think of what a 3 per cent reduction in interest rates would be on $80 billion. That is another means of reducing the deficit and thereby reducing the rate of inflation.
The current wellhead price per barrel of oil is $17.75. This is shared as follows: $6.42 of that goes to the producer, the fellow who goes out and finds it and puts all the equipment in place to get the oil to the surface; the Alberta government takes $7.56 out of that $17.75; $2.63 per barrel is paid by the producer in the form of corporate taxes to the federal government, and on top of that the petroleum gas revenue tax proposed in this bill will take another $1.14 per barrel, which I might add is non-deductible for tax purposes.
I can tell you now that I left the oil and gas business three years ago and I know that you cannot find oil for $6.42. Nobody is going to look for oil at $6.42 a barrel. Incidentally, a producer in the United States now, after windfall taxes, profits and everything, gets close to $25 a barrel. What man in his right mind would go and look for oil here when he knows he cannot make any money at $6.42 and he can go across the border and get $25 a barrel? That is the madness and the insanity of this National Energy Program.

June 19, 1981
Excise Tax
The finding cost for conventional oil in Canada is probably well in excess of $10 a barrel, and it is certainly much higher than that in the frontier and offshore areas. The petroleum and gas revenue tax we are talking about here this afternoon is totally counterproductive to our objective, an objective which I think should be foremost for Canadians today, that is the objective of self-sufficiency.
Many people have said we cannot depend on the Middle East, and that is true. I think all of us know what a critical situation the Middle East faces. But, do we really want to commit Canada to Mexico and Venezuela, apart from the Middle East? Does this make any sense when we have the reserves here in Canada? Does it make any sense to rely on foreign sources of crude and have our economy controlled by foreign interests? That just does not make any sense.
The government forecasts through the National Energy Program a reduction of 20 per cent in crude oil use in Canada by 1990, and the government says this reduction can be accomplished by off-oil incentives, namely, conservation and substitution of natural gas for oil. Let us just look at that for a moment.
To achieve a 20 per cent reduction in crude oil demand means that over the next ten years we will have to reduce consumption per unit of economic output by 50 per cent, and that is taking into account a normal growth rate in our gross national product of 3.2 per cent a year. Let us hope we can get somewhere near that because we will not achieve that this year. It also means a reduction of 30 per cent in the per capita oil consumption, the consumption of every Canadian over the next ten years, taking into account normal population growth. That means every Canadian will have to reduce the use of oil products by 30 per cent over the next ten years. It also means that all our manufacturing concerns using oil today will have to reduce their usage by 50 per cent.
I do not think there is a credible authority I have yet read, including the minister of energy and officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, whom I have repeatedly questioned, who can supply me with a factual base for that forecast reduction of 20 per cent. They do not have it; it is a pipe dream and they know it. Ask the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask our own energy minister to give us the support for that 20 per cent reduction forecast. It does not exist because it is a myth, a falsehood.
I have said this is a major reduction over a relatively short period of time, and I have been generous. It seems to me something will have to give. Either the economy will have to grow at less than the projected levels or, more likely, our oil consumption target will be exceeded. Therein lies the problem, because that is what I think is going to happen. I think that forecast is just a bunch of baloney. I think our need for oil will far exceed that presented in the forecast.
Let us assume that the demand has not grown, by 1990 and this again is a highly contentious assumption, and using the National Energy Program's most optimistic supply forecast, which does not provide for any frontier production but does include oil sands production, Canada will experience a shortfall by 1990 of 330,000 barrels per day. That is making the assumption, which is highly contentious, that demand does not grow. Furthermore, it is also based on a very optimistic projection in the National Energy Program.
Let us make another assumption. I say it is very doubtful that we will have any oil sands production by 1990 by virtue of the National Energy Program. As a matter of fact, it may very well be that we will not have any oil sands production, at least from Cold Lake and Alsands, because they are really getting ready to walk away from those projects. They just do not make any economic sense. When I first came here two years ago, the Cold Lake plant was to cost $6 billion, and today it is going to cost $12 billion. The cost of the Alsands project has gone from something like $4.5 billion to $11 billion. Here we are, still arguing about whether they should get $43 a barrel. It is crazy. In any event, I and most authorities do not think there is a chance in the world that we will have any oil sands production by 1990. If this is the case, we will not be experiencing a shortfall of 330,000 barrels a day but rather one of 740,000 barrels a day.
To put some numbers to that, the Canadian Petroleum Association estimates that the cost of these additional imports due to the National Energy Program will be $180 billion. That is a staggering figure. It is twelve times the current fiscal deficit. It is two-thirds of our gross national product today. That is what it will cost over the next ten years, and it will increase our total import needs to the staggering sum of $270 billion.
I am trying to bring a point home here; I am not trying to exaggerate. This is what knowledgeable people are telling us, and the government will not listen. It is all wrapped up in its interventionist and control philosophy. It does not want to look at the economic realities of this country. It does not want to deal with the fiscal deficit. It does not want to deal with interest rates, as I have said before. But I say I do not think this nation can stand payments of the magnitude of $270 billion without incurring at least serious long-term damage.
The Canadian economy is under severe strain. Productivity has been declining for the last two years, and much of our manufacturing industry is no longer competitive. Canada at this time desperately needs at least one healthy and vigorous industry which can get us moving and can move us ahead in the right direction to fill the gap and to put us in a competitive position where we can sell our products abroad. However, the National Energy Program is wrecking an industry which could provide that growth and could improve the standard of living of every Canadian over the next ten years.
I am not asking for something because I belong to the oil industry or because I am from Calgary South. I am saying that, given an opportunity, that industry can improve the standard of living of every Canadian.
The damage done by the National Energy Program to other sectors of the economy today is difficult to measure. I referred to 60,000 jobs, but there is no question that the National
June 19, 1981

Energy Program has seriously hurt the oil-servicing industry, and it is just beginning to have an impact on eastern manufacturing concerns. How can a government so callously sacrifice the jobs of Canadians for the sake of its interventionist policies? That is what really gets to me. At a time when Canadians are losing their homes and businesses by the thousands we see a government transfixed in its pursuit of a socialist philosophy which has failed in every country where it has been tried. I say this is tantamount to criminal negligence.
In conclusion, I suppose it is only fair to say that in 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us the way things will be. He said we have not been able to make the free market system work; the government will have to take a larger role in running institutions; that means there is going to be not less authority in our lives but more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 3.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings pursuant to the order made Tuesday, June 9, 1981 and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading and passage stage of the bill.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is agreement among the parties that the recorded division be deferred until 9.45 p.m. on Monday, June 22, 1981. Is that agreed?


Walter David Baker: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker. That is the essence of the agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.
Human Rights


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Orders Nos. 18, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36 and 41 stood by unanimous consent.

Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre) moved: that Bill C-242, to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move that Bill C-242 be read the second time and sent to committee. The explanatory note in Bill C-242 points out that the 1979 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended to Parliament that, and I quote:
-sexual orientation be added to the proscribed grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The purpose of this bill is to implement that recommendation and to extend the same principle to all areas of federal activity by making the appropriate amendments to the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Criminal Code.
I should add that following this report, Mr. Fairweather, the chairman of the commission, appeared before the constitutional committee to urge that protection from discrimination be extended to all Canadians, regardless of sexual orientation.
My purpose in presenting this bill is to help ensure that a minority group, which is estimated to number about two million people in Canada, has the same access to employment opportunities, to housing and to public services as do their fellow Canadians.
I am aware that the issue of sexual orientation is not a high priority for the majority of Canadians at the present time. It does not rate in the public mind with inflation, high interest rates and the restructuring of Confederation to give some provinces more rights than others, but it has become an important issue to those Canadians who are concerned about human rights, and since it deals with a phase of human rights which most Canadians ignore, I would like to tell the House how my own interest in the subject came about.
Before I ran as a candidate in the last two elections in Vancouver Centre, I had very little interest in the homosexual community and no awareness of the extent of the discrimination against this minority group. My attitude, if I thought about the issue at all, was a mild sympathy that these unfortunate individuals were not heterosexual. I believe that this attitude is common among those Canadians who consider themselves to be moderate, tolerant citizens.
However, during my campaign I came to know members of the homosexual community in my riding and became aware of

June 19, 1981
Human Rights
some of the very real discrimination they face. When he was prime minister, the leader of our party, the hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), asked me to develop a policy position on the issue of homosexual rights. After my election in 1980, I formed a Human Rights Advisory Council with representatives of the homosexual community to help meet my campaign promise to introduce a private member's bill to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Given the dismal failure record of private member's bills, our objective was, and always has been, to have the subject matter of this bill sent to committee so that the homosexual community across Canada can share with their fellow Canadians some of their experiences, frustrations and hurts before a three-party parliamentary committee so that this issue could be fully aired by all who have an interest in it.
I want to use my time today to share with you some of the things I have learned on this issue as the MP for Vancouver Centre, which has a large homosexual population. First, I learned that minority problems that have been highlighted recently in the press, for example, police raids and so-called gay-bashing, are not reflective of the majority of homosexuals who are neither criminal nor outcasts of society and who feel they deserve the protection of the law.
The second thing I learned was that several of my friends and colleagues were members of the homosexual community, a fact previously unknown to me since the issue had never arisen. One environmentalist was known to me as professionally very competent before I was aware he was homosexual, and the quality of his work has not diminished in my view on learning of his sexual orientation. I still rely heavily on one of my public relations advisers because of the excellent quality of the advice offered, and not just on this issue. A doctor friend of mine who told me he was bisexual remains, in my eyes, a loving, caring person. An acquaintance that I disliked before I learned of his sexual orientation, I still dislike to this day. I make the point, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of Canadians probably do not care about the sexual orientation of their friends or colleagues. They may have concerns as parents, as landlords, or as employers, but within their own family and friends they are relatively indifferent to it. It is only when we become personally aware of the discrimination that this minority faces that we become concerned. Let me give you some examples.
In my first year as an MP, two young men came to see me to tell me that they had been stopped at the U.S.-Canada border and turned back because in their luggage was the address of a homosexual club in Seattle. They were not concerned about being refused entry to the U.S., but they wanted me to have their names removed from the U.S. immigration's computer. I could not believe that two young Canadians without criminal records, contributors to their community, would be banned from the U.S. because they were suspected of being homosexual. But in checking with the U.S. consul's office in Vancouver I found that this, indeed, is the case. The U.S. does not allow suspected homosexuals to enter the country. It is reassuring to know that Canada changed its attitude
on this issue in the 1967 Immigration Act which removed the barrier to homosexuals seeking entry to Canada.
In another case a young man told me that he had been compulsorily released from the Canadian Armed Forces without any opportunity to have access to the nature of the information which led to his dismissal. Instead, he was visited by two military police, taken to a Holiday Inn and interrogated by another military policeman for some time. At the end of the interrogation he was told that although there was no breach of security involved, he would have to resign his commission because he was a homosexual. My constituent emphatically denied that he was a homosexual and said there were no grounds whatsoever to the allegation. The file shows that the military police told my constituent that he was not to discuss the interrogation with anyone whatsoever. He later found that his telephone had been wiretapped.
It stretches ones' credibility to believe that in this country a Canadian citizen can be picked up by the military police, have his phone tapped, be interrogated and dismissed without any access to the information on which the dismissal was based. I would like to add that this man's professional record was deemed excellent by his commanding officers. I will call him Captain X, because he wants his privacy respected. One superior wrote:
Captain X has earned the respect of my staff by his professional attitude towards the completion of his responsibilities. This in turn has revealed him to be a dedicated officer with good perception and excellent potential.
Another commanding officer wrote:
Captain X's service was outstanding.
Another wrote:
Captain X's performance was excellent, he was a definite asset on this exercise and his participation was appreciated.
This man is now in the civilian labour force looking for a job, wondering with considerable anxiety if the unknown allegations on his military record will prevent him from getting a job in his profession. I cannot convey to you the extent of his anxiety and his desire to clear his record so that he can be a functioning member of our society.
Still another constituent of mine, whom I recommended for his job, recently told me he had resigned because the company for which he worked did not appear to realize that he had a long term, stable homosexual relationship, and he was in daily apprehension of being fired when his employers became aware of the fact. Now his fears may be unfounded. He passed his company's security test and quite possibly the company took the legitimate view that his homosexuality was not a company concern, provided his work was good. But he could not stand the suspense of living in this shadow world.
Members of this House will probably be aware of the case of John Damien who was fired in 1975 from his position as a racing steward with the Ontario Racing Commission, a job he had held for five years, because he was homosexual, even though his employers admitted that he had performed his job well.

These constituents of mine, Mr. Speaker, do not want special rights. I do not like the term gay rights, because it assumes that the homosexual community wants something extra. That is not correct. What they want is protection, tolerance and the human rights enjoyed by other Canadians. The whole basis of human rights legislation is that society should respect the diversity within it.
As George Hislop, a member of one of the homosexual associations, told the Constitution Committee in December:
We are not asking for more, we are asking for the same. We are asking for the right to be able to say, without fear, I am not heterosexual.
I think it is important to bring forward the fact that we really do not know how one's sexual orientation is determined. It is believed to be a combination of a variety of elements, biological, social, environmental. But we have reason to believe that once sexual orientation becomes part of one's basic personality, it cannot be easily changed. Nor can it be contracted, like measles. Freud, the father of psychoanalytical theory, wrote:
It is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function . .. many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals ... it is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and a cruelty too-
There are some people in Canada who view the issue of homosexuality as morally reprehensible. They are, of course, entitled to their view, but I do not believe that is the majority of feeling among Canadians. A Gallup poll conducted in June, 1977, suggests that 52 per cent of Canadians polled supported the extension of civil rights to homosexuals, while only 30 per cent were opposed. This was a statistically small sample, and possibly a more impressive measure of the prevailing attitudes is the long list of religious and secular organizations that have gone on record as opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They include the Anglican and United Churches and, the government of Quebec which in December 1967 amended its charter of rights and freedoms to include sexual orientation as an unfounded motive for discrimination. In addition to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, provincial human rights commissions in four provinces, Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario, have recommended that the human rights legislation be so amended.
Despite this measure of support, there are some very real concerns voiced by many Canadians about extending human rights to homosexuals. One concern is the teaching of young children by homosexuals. But, Mr. Speaker, the issue here is morality, not homosexuality. As Mr. Hislop said before the Constitution Committee:
We are not asking anyone be given a hunting licence to prey on anyone else. We have a Criminal Code to protect people from unwanted, unsolicited sexual advances.
As a parent I am much more concerned about the fact that under our existing Canadian law there is no adequate protection for children from sexual exploitation by adults, heterosexual or homosexual. I am hoping that Bill C-53 which is before
Human Rights
the House of Commons will give legal protection to young children from sexual advances by any adult. As a mother of two children I worry far more about whether my children pass their grades, whether they drink or smoke pot, whether any of us will survive their adolescence, or whether they will smash themselves in a car accident. The issue of their exposure to homosexual teachers is not on the top of my list of concerns.
I should add that the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and other colleagues, such as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), are not wedded to this bill. There may well be other alternatives. The hon. member for Rosedale suggested that possibly the protection of homosexuals from harassment and discrimination might be dealt with separately in human rights legislation, rather than being added to the proscribed list. These are the concerns and issues which must be faced. These are arguments which are best dealt with before a three-party parliamentary committee which could hear both sides of these issues.
In summary I should like to quote the words of our colleague in the Ontario legislature, Sheila Copps, who proposed an amendment on May 15, 1981 which would include anti-discrimination in this area. Because of time I will abridge her remarks. She said:
I do not ask you to wear a turban to allow free expression of various religious beliefs in our province. I do not ask you to live in a wheelchair to understand that the disabled must get a fighting chance at jobs and accommodations in our province. I do not ask you to condone a sexual orientation different from your own. I ask you to consider that if we are to survive as a free nation we must cast aside all differences in guaranteeing freedom from discrimination.
That freedom from discrimination for all Canadians is the basis of the bill before the House today.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I commend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) for presenting this particular bill and endeavouring to see to it that at least the subject matter of the bill, if we cannot agree with the clauses in it or the format in which it has been drawn, is dealt with by the committee.
In this day and age despite the 52 per cent figure she quoted, although admittedly from a small poll, it takes a great deal of courage to raise an issue such as this. As she said, in the minds of some people it is considered to be morally reprehensible. I do not share that view. I share with the hon. member the view on the right of these people to have the same rights, nothing additional, as are available to all Canadians.
I had a similar experience to that of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I really did not give too much thought to the situation. Probably I was as guilty as the next person in telling homosexual or gay jokes, making fun of the limp wrist or the way we thought they talked; in any event, the stereotype. When I was practising law, an individual came to see me. He had been thrown out of his own home. He had gone to his church in the interest of receiving some guidance or help. He was mildly rebuked and in effect told almost the same thing he had heard from his parents-''Let us get you to a psychiatrist or a doctor; let us get this disease or sickness cured". He attempted to obtain a job, to be forthright and honest and to

June 19, 1981
Human Rights
come out of the closet, but no one would touch this individual. I spoke with him as a lawyer; he wanted to know his particular rights. I looked up the legislation and indicated that he did not have the same rights as I. Subsequently, that individual committed suicide.
I felt a heavy onus because I was unable to help him. He did not want anything extra. He simply wanted to be accepted and to have the same rights and benefits which I as a heterosexual enjoyed in the community. He was looking for guidance and help from his family which, unhappily, turned him down. Then he turned to his church for assistance, and again he was turned down. He did not really know where to go for help other than to do what his family told him-"Go to see a doctor and get this sickness cured". Of course the doctor told him what he had already known. But he was prepared to follow the advice of his parents, and subsequently met his tragic end.
Within almost a week a similar type of representation was made to me, and that individual is now dead. Although he was killed in a car accident while driving alone, no one can really say whether or not the individual killed himself. On the basis of the way in which he conducted himself while in my office, there is strong evidence to the effect that that is exactly what happened because society was not prepared to accept his particular sexual orientation.
I remember as a child that we used to have names for people who came from foreign countries and could not speak our language. We called them "DPs" and we looked down upon them. It seemed to me that mental midgets in that day and age, as in this day and age, needed someone to look down on or to take advantage of, at least in their perception. There was a tendency to make jokes about people who spoke broken English. Quite often it was a fellow French Canadian who attempted to speak the English language or an English Canadian who fractured the French language. There was a tendency to show discrimination.
Even today it is a sad commentary on great stars such as Johnny Carson and Carol Burnett that they see fit to participate in discrimination by performing skits which hold old people up to ridicule. Someone must get to those people who are, after all, leaders in the cultural field to explain to them that such jokes are just not funny any longer. Hopefully we can change the thinking of people to accept other people for being different yet equal. In many cases we know the strength of the handicapped person.
I think the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) read a splendid article by Miss Green which appeared in the report of the task force on the handicapped. She spelled out the strength of the handicapped person and the hurdles they have to overcome. In her article she indicated the things that she could not do, as well as her toughness. Unhappily this is not the case with many people who are too old, who speak languages differently from others, who are handicapped, of different colours or sexual orientation. They do not have the strength they need to help them overcome the hurdle of the mental midget in Canadian society. Until we can change that
situation, until we can change the thinking of people, a change in the law will not do it.
In my view implementation of this bill would certainly be a giant step forward. I commend the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its chairman for leadership in this field. After all, it is a field about which it is easy to make jokes. It is easy to taint people with a particular image such as "the protector of', etc. If we do not show the leadership of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and of Sheila Copps in the provincial legislature, we will not be accepting our responsibilities.
In my view it is very easy for a government to take action to help people who are handicapped, blind, deaf or mentally retarded. Various steps have been taken at provincial and federal levels of government in the interests not so much of protecting people but of giving them the same rights you and I enjoy.
Bill C-242 is an act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is sponsoring. It would ensure, by amending the Canadian Human Rights Act, that individuals would not be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation in matters of employment, in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public, and in the provision of commercial premises or residential accommodation. As the hon. member said so eloquently, it is not asking for more; it is just asking for the same treatment.
I do not think there is any question in anyone's mind that the present government is known for its concern about human rights. The mere establishment of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and other government actions are evidence of this. Proof of this can be seen in the proposed charter of rights and freedoms which the government hopes to see incorporated in the Constitution. However, it is too simple to equate a government's concern over human rights with legislative initiative. Although no one can honestly gainsay the government's legislation record in the area of human rights protection, the various programs designed to enhance human rights and carried out under its auspices, cannot be ignored.
I would like to refer to various programs carried out in the public service. In this respect reference can be made to the efforts undertaken to increase the participation of certain groups at various levels within the public service. One of the most disadvantaged groups in Canada is that of the handicapped. To facilitate their access to the public service the Public Service Commission has acted, in co-operation with other government agencies, to remove some of the existing difficulties, if not outright barriers, facing them in the areas of recruitment, selection and advancement.
It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Centre comment on the situation of the homosexual who may or may not have been a homosexual but who at least had documentation in his luggage indicating the site of a gay bar in a city in the United States. We do not practise that kind of
June 19, 1981

discrimination in our immigration laws. I found it incredible that in the old immigration act there was a provision that an individual who was epileptic was considered by some to be mentally deficient or to have something terribly wrong or terribly catching. In our immigration law there was still a prohibition against someone coming into the country who suffered from epilepsy. Happily that provision was ignored by most officers in the field and officers at the border. They, in effect, were breaking the law by allowing these people to enter. Fortunately, we were in a position to change that law. We must change the thinking of Canadians. As recently as the second last immigration act we had that kind of provision in our legislation. So we cannot say that we are Simon Pure in this particular area. Much remains to be done.
Native people are another disadvantaged group. In order to give effect to a statement made in 1971 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the government would assist all cultural groups to overcome barriers to full participation in society, the commission has devoted a considerable amount of attention and effort toward increasing the amount of native participation in the public service. Similarly, the commission has sought, in line with a government commitment, to foster the employment and advancement of women in the federal public service.
The commission is also aware that groups might be disadvantaged on a regional basis. In 1973 the black employment program was set up in the Atlantic region. This began a long term effort to reduce the historically rooted disadvantages of the black community in Nova Scotia.
I mention these efforts, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that probably there is more genuine support and sympathy for that kind of change in our legislation than there will be for the kind of legislation and ideas proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre today. I commend her for raising this subject. It is a delicate and difficult one, but it is one which must be aired in the House of Commons if we are really to do our duty as members of Parliament.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill presently before the House and to commend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) for her initiative in introducing this important bill, as well as to commend the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).
I hope to be not too long, because, of course, I have no intention of taking part in any attempt to talk this bill out. Naturally, I commend the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) on his remarks. I will be looking with great interest at the response of Liberal members opposite to ensure they put their money where their mouths are and that they do not talk this important bill out. If they are serious about the principles underlying this bill, even though they may have different views in terms of the specific details of it, I know they would not for a moment seriously consider talking this bill out. I know that at the very least they would want to see the subject matter of this bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Human Rights
As has been pointed out by the previous speakers, this is a subject which has been addressed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its last two annual reports, those of 1979 and 1980. The Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that all legislation at the federal level in Canada should prohibit any discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was not a recommendation which was made just on the spur of the moment. In fact, it was a very detailed study which was conducted before this recommendation was made.
Why was it felt that this particular subject should be considered? In 1978, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in response to a letter from a gentleman who was active in the gay community in Ottawa, stated that this was a subject which should be discussed before it was included within the context of the Canadian human rights act. He indicated he believed that the appropriate means of dealing with this issue was to have the Canadian Human Rights Commission study the question and, following that, the commission could make recommendations for government action. I would like to quote from a letter which the Prime Minister wrote in February, 1978. He said that it was necessary that there be "further comprehensive examination of the problems which might be involved. It is for these reasons that the Minister of Justice has proposed that the question be examined by the Canadian Human Rights Commission which could then make recommendations for further government action".
That study was completed, of course, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission made its recommendations on two separate occasions. They have been met with silence. No action has been taken by this government to implement that very important, very basic recommendation.
What is the purpose of the bill before the House this afternoon? Essentially, as the title indicates, it seeks to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation wherever that might occur within the federal jurisdiction in Canada. I noted with some interest, Mr. Speaker, that the first clause of the bill would seek to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to prohibit discrimination in the bill on the grounds of sexual orientation. There was an opportunity for the Conservative party and the Liberal party, if they were serious about including prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to act. That opportunity came when, at the constitutional I moved committee hearings on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I moved an amendment which would have prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in clause 15 of the charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. That would not have applied just at the federal level but, of course, would have applied at all levels-federal, provincial and municipal.
What was the response of the Conservative party and the Liberal party to my amendment? The vote was 22 to 2 against the amendment. While I commend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for her personal initiative in introducing this bill before the House today, I must say that I wish her

June 19, 1981
Human Rights
party had taken that position when they had an opportunity to vote on this proposition before the constitutional committee.
What was the response of the constitutional spokesperson for the Conservative party when this issue was raised? I should perhaps quote what he said. He said that he did not believe we should go too far where we want to hang every barnacle and every eavestrough and every coat of paint on a charter of rights. In voting against this amendment, which would have included sexual orientation in the charter of rights, the constitutional spokesperson for the Conservative party suggested we were dealing here with barnacles and eavestroughs.
We are dealing, of course, with fundamental human rights. Surely that is the issue before the House today. It is a question of basic human rights. Can a person who is of a different sexual orientation be arbitrarily fired from his or her job with no recourse? Can he or she be removed from their place of residence with no recourse whatsoever? Can he or she be denied access to services or goods, access which is afforded to all other Canadians, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation? That is the purpose of this bill as I understand it.
As I have said, I welcome the proposed amendment to the Canadian Bill of Rights. However, I regret that this sentiment was not supported by the Conservative party and by the Liberal party when they had an opportunity to do so in the course of the debates on the Constitution of Canada.
The other amendments in the bill relate to the Canadian human rights act and would include a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the Canada human rights act itself. Once again, we certainly welcome that provision. The final sections of the bill referred to prohibition of discrimination in the Criminal Code itself. They would repeal sections 155, 156, 157 and 158 of the Criminal Code, and would also include within the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code a prohibition of hate propaganda on the basis of sexual orientation.
I note in passing, and I am sure that it was an oversight on the part of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, that in repealing section 155 of the Criminal Code, she would also repeal the offence of bestiality. I am not quite sure that that was the intent of the hon. member, but that is certainly the type of technical detail which could be examined by the committee if the subject matter of this bill were to be considered by the committee, as I certainly hope it will be.
I have referred to the Criminal Code, and there are a number of provisions in that code which I believe should be considered. One of the provisions which the hon. member has not addressed is the section of the Criminal Code relating to bawdy houses. We all know the recent history of the raid in Toronto by some 200 policemen, armed with crowbars and sledge hammers, into a number of bath houses there. We know of the agony which that must have caused, not only to the 330 men who were involved but also, of course, to their families and friends. What was their offence? There was no suggestion of any prostitution or of any payment of money. There was no
suggestion of the involvement of juveniles. Their offence was engaging, behind closed doors, in an act which is legal. Certainly, in this day and age, people should not be subjected to that kind of harassment and intimidation for something like that. That kind of raid, and a law which would tolerate that kind of a raid, a raid which has been referred to as bully-boy tactics by at least The Globe and Mail in its editorial, should certainly be addressed in any consideration of the Criminal Code changes which should take place in that area.
There are a number of other changes as well. I mentioned the hate propaganda provisions in the bill, and those are good provisions. We welcome them. As we know, there are certain forces in this country which we have seen operating, particularly in the recent municipal election in Toronto, which would deny the right of gay men and lesbian women to exist. What can the impact be? What might the impact be on a young person living at home who perhaps receives one of these scurrilous leaflets which suggests that such people have no right to exist? Surely, in a society which is tolerant and which believes in civil liberties and human rights, young people should not have to grow up being afraid to even express their own sexual identities. Of course, that is the way it stands now. A bill such as this cannot change attitudes; but what it can do is to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at any level in the federal government.
What are some of the areas which are covered by this bill? One of the areas which would be covered would be the Canadian army. I was recently approached by a young woman who was a private in the Canadian army, based at Canadian Forces Base Borden. She indicated that she was subjected to tyranny-I use that word advisedly-when it was suspected that she might be a lesbian. In fact, as it turns out, although of course it is really irrelevant, she was not a lesbian. However, what was done in these circumstances was to harass her, was to take her in and subject her to interrogation by the security police, by military police, without any form of charge; to go to her friends, to go to her boyfriend, to visit her neighbours and to suggest that, in fact, this girl was not worthy of continuing in the Canadian Armed Forces.
What is the policy of the Canadian Armed Forces? They say that homosexuals and lesbians must not be permitted in the Canadian Armed Forces. Why is it? I quote the following from a letter from former Admiral Falls, which Admiral Withers has adopted as his policy:
Because in such a milieu persons having unusual behavioural traits may attempt to inflict them upon others, there is only one method of assuring our servicemen and women that their rights will be respected: by denying employment to homosexuals.
Of course, if there is a particular behavioural trait which is inflicted upon another person, that is a criminal offence; but to deny men and women the right to serve in Canadian Armed Forces merely because of their sexual orientation must surely be wrong.
There was one other excuse which was given by Admiral Falls. He stated:
June 19, 1981

As a matter of fact, experience has shown that the presence of homosexuals can be most disruptive. Such disruption often takes the form of physical attacks on the homosexual(s) concerned, and it is possible to prevent this sort of thing only by avoiding the employment of homosexuals in the first place.
Where have we heard those arguments before? We have heard them with respect to blacks and with respect to other minorities. We would like to employ them, but they are not very popular and they might be hurt. That kind of reasoning must be rejected. That is one of the purposes of this bill.
There are other provisions in the bill as well. I will not go into them in detail. However, we certainly know, as has been pointed out by other hon. members, that the Quebec human rights act has been amended, and I believe it was in 1977, to ensure that at the provincial level there will be no discrimination in that province on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, what we are talking about here is a fundamental question of human rights, of the right to live and the right to love without fear of persecution, without fear of discrimination, without fear of the loss of one's job, one's livelihood or one's home and without fear of being denied access to goods and services. We are talking about the right of young people in Canada, for example, not to be afraid, not to have to be silent, and not to have to conceal their own identities. We are talking about a fundamental question of basic civil liberties.
As I say, I commend the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in taking this important initiative. I welcome the support of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton. I can assure the House that certainly all members of this caucus will support this initiative.
1 await with interest the response of the Liberal party to the suggestion that this particular bill or, at the very least, the subject matter of this bill, should be studied by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, because if they talk this bill out, what they will be saying is that persons who are discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation deserve no protection whatsoever. 1 challenge them to send out that message to the people of Canada.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to commend very sincerely the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) for airing this extremely important issue in the House of Commons, and particularly for her wisdom in framing it under the human rights legislation because, in fact, what we are talking about is a question of fundamental human rights. However, to many the question of homosexuality is a moral one. In the last seven years in which I have been in this House, I have noticed an increasing tendency on the part of some sectors to seek legislative solutions to what are essentially moral dilemmas. I do not for one moment advocate or even imply that there should be total separation between the moral and the legislative process. Indeed, I believe the legislator or the politician, if you will, can have a prophetic role to play in fostering the moral health of society.
The point I am trying to make is that surely the most basic of all moral tenets is to do unto others what you, yourself, would wish to be done unto you. Yet this most basic of all
Human Rights
moral tenets is not being upheld, particularly as it regards the homosexual community.
There is a growing feeling that "wrong" must be punished even before that wrong has been properly defined or even proven. In such cases, one must fear for the very existence of justice. Bill C-242 is before the House simply because a certain segment of our community needs to be protected against discriminatory practices. Mention is made of employment from which this segment can be and, indeed, very often is, precluded because of its sexual preferences. I find it sad and passing strange that in an age of cultural, social and scientific enlightenment, this question even needs to be debated in the House at this time.
Let us consider what has happened in the past. We can ask ourselves, if Pope Julius II had given credence to the rumours and conjecture surrounding the sexual preferences of Michelangelo and had prohibited Michelangelo from working, would the whole world not be the poorer for lack of the Sistine Chapel.
I might even ask myself if the Dominican priests, who have never in history been known for great liberalism, had denied access to the Church of Santa Maria Delle Grazie in Milan, would all of us now be denied the beauties of the Last Supper by Da Vinci.
I have before me a list prepared by researchers of the U.S. National Gay Task Force, supplemented by the almanac of researchers which includes names of celebrated persons who were both homosexual and heterosexual; in short, bisexual. I shall refer to only a few of these people, Mr. Speaker. What would have happened to society if they had not been allowed to work because of their sexual preferences? Would we have been denied the poetry of Sappho and of Emily Dickinson? When we speak of homosexuality, we must also include the females, the lesbians. We would have been denied the powerful and innovative writing of Gertrude Stein and Virginia Woolfe; the philosophy of Socrates and of Aristotle; the military achievements of Alexander the Great and of Richard the Lion Heart; the statesmanship of Queen Christina and of Frederick the Great. Our children would have been denied the fantasy and sheer beauty of Hans Christian Andersen, not to mention the wit of Oscar Wilde. This is just a short list of what we would have been denied if our ancestors had been only as "enlightened" as we think we are today.
Let me stretch this point to a consideration of the nature of homosexuality. The article 1 now cite appeared in the Toronto Star on February 17, 1981, following a week of often devastating criticism levelled at the homosexual community in my own city. It was written by Joan Sutton and is entitled "Taking a Good Look at Homosexuals". I should like to read this into the record in the hope that it will help change some of the attitudes now all too prevalent in our society. It reads as follows:
What is a homosexual?

June 19, 1981
Human Rights
To many people in Toronto, a homosexual is someone to hate, someone to ridicule, someone to ostracize, someone to push around, someone who should not be allowed to even live in this city.
I am always puzzled by any kind of group labelling, be it of Jews or black or homosexuals. I have known many homosexuals over the years. Some of them I liked, some I didn't. But the liking or the disliking had everything to do with what kind of people they were, and nothing to do with their sexual preference, which is none of my business.
I suspect that most dislike of homosexuals is based in ignorance or fear, so I asked Ron Longevin, a research psychologist at the Clarke Institute, to answer some questions. Longevin is involved in a program that is examining the origin and nature of homosexuality.
He says, "We are still several years away from having all the answers. We cannot tell you for sure what makes someone become a homosexual, but we can tell you what does not.
It has nothing to do with having a dominant mother and a Milquetoast father, as is popularly believed. That may be true of some homosexuals who turn up in psychiatric clinics, but it is also true of some heterosexuals in the same situation."
Longevin is convinced that when research is completed, it will prove that homosexuality is linked to brain waves, blood chemistry, and hormones.
He says, "Homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and it is important for the public to understand that. People think that it should be easy for someone to change a sexual preference pattern but it is not. The true homosexual cannot change his erotic preference-I have yet to see a case where, no matter what was tried, there was any true change."
Longevin says there is no way that a person can be seduced into a life of homosexuality. "We have to differentiate between isolated homosexual behavior, and having a fixed preference for one's own sex. There is an important difference.
"According to the Kinsey studies, about 25 per cent of the population has had a homosexual experience at one time or another. It's common among boys in school, or jail, or other situations where men are separated from women for a long period of time. But once those men go back to a normal life, where women are available, their real preference for heterosexual sex prevails.
"About 4 per cent of men, however, have a fixed sexual preference for their own sex. The percentage in women is still unknown. That preference cannot be created, and it cannot be taken away."
Longevin says "Homosexuals fall in love in the same way the rest of us do. There is an idealization of the partner, and an emphasis on romance. And when a relationship ends, there is no difference between a broken-hearted homosexual and a broken-hearted heterosexual."
Because society has ostracized the homosexual community and tends to joke about its attempts to create stability and exchange public marriage vows, there is a tendency to promiscuity and one-night stands that leads to a higher incidence of venereal disease.
"Until homosexuality can be institutionalized, there can be no constraining norms. I suspect that the young heterosexual would also go from partner to partner, if there wasn't some expectation on the part of society to marry. When the homosexual gets older, he has a need for some stability, and he can be very lonely."
Longevin says the true homosexual usually feels revulsion about the idea of sex with a woman: "When he's a teenager, and begins to realize that he is gay, he may try very hard to date women to prove that he is not, but he will have an aversion to that. The married homosexual will have sex with his wife, but he doesn't enjoy it. It's a job, a chore that he compares to masturbation. Sometimes he gets through it by fantasizing about another man."
Accepting the inevitability of the sexual-preference pattern is essential to any true understanding of the homosexual community. Longevin says, "When I started out as a clinician, I had read all the theories, and I saw homosexuals as people who were sick. I soon discovered that they are just like the rest of the population-some of them are sick, some are normal. My perspective on the problem has changed completely.
"There is no one personality that is a homosexual. They include laborers, teachers, politicians, priests, some very fascinating people. Some of the greatest geniuses the world has known, including Leonardo da Vinci and Tchaikovsky
were homosexuals. They have an important contribution as people to make to society and it is a shame to persecute them and alienate them."
Longevin wishes that we would see homosexuals as people rather than queers. "I suppose it is easier to want to destroy than to understand, but when we try to suppress homosexuality we only create rebels."
I can understand why some people might feel repulsed by the idea of homosexuality. But I am convinced that the hate and intolerance that was unleashed last week within the straight community poses a far more serious threat to the soul of Toronto. Labelling and hating groups can get to be a habit, and that could destroy this city.
The purpose of my intervention is not to condone homosexuality but to deplore, in the strongest possible terms, what amounts to a vicious hate campaign against those who are different from me. My purpose is to urge that the homosexual community be accorded the same rights and responsibilities as other members of our society.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate ends in approximately six minutes. Would the hon. member be candid enough to indicate that the real purpose of her talk is to talk this bill out because she and her party disagrees with it?


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I think it is against the rules of the House to impute motives to any member. If the hon. member has something meaningful to add to this debate about the homosexual community, I would suggest that he get on with it instead of wasting his time and everybody else's by trying to impute motives to others.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member finished her speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, in the approximately five minutes remaining, I wish to speak in favour of the bill in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). I commend her for wishing to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that the homosexual community can have a forum in which to discuss openly issues concerning themselves and to make a case for the protection of their rights like any other group of Canadians.
Before I get into some of the issues, and I know time is extremely short, may I say for the record that I was informed by a member of the Liberal caucus that the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) and the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) were here, either having volunteered or having been assigned, to talk out the bill. We have heard two members of the Liberal caucus-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, the rules of the House forbid the imputing of motives. This is the second time this matter has been brought to the attention of the hon. member. I suggest that the hon. member get on with his speech.
June 19, 1981


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of imputing motives, it is simply a statement of fact with respect to two speakers, and we will soon see that it is the case for the third speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre when he rises to speak on the bill.
We now have three minutes left. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has stated the case far better than I am capable of doing. I would simply like to move: that the subject matter of the question be referred to the justice committee for consideration.
However, I predict that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre will stand up when I sit down and finish the job begun by the other two members of his caucus.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. member would like to move that the subject matter be referred to the committee. But I think his motion, as it was read, was incomplete and inadmissible.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) wishes to see the subject matter of this bill referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I am sure that unanimous consent would be accorded to frame that motion in the proper terminology, and the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) would not want to impede that motion from being passed by talking out the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call attention of hon. members to the fact that if hon. members wish to move a motion, they are at liberty to do so. The rules require that the motion be put in writing to the Chair. At this stage no hon. member appears to be observing the rules. Therefore, under the circumstances, the Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Kelly).


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, it is my role this afternoon to offer a detailed technical analysis of a number of clauses of the hon. member's bill, specifically clauses 5 through 8. But before I do so, I would like to comment briefly on the challenge issued by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who said, as members of his party are often wont to do,
Human Rights
that if we do not agree with their interpretation of this bill, it must mean we are against either the substance or the attitudes expressed in the bill. He reminded me of arguments that children often bring to bear in debate with people senior to them, that if you do not agree with me on this argument, then you do not love me.
I point out that there may be many areas of agreement between him and his party and myself and my party but it does not mean, because I do not vote in favour of this bill, that I do not share or sympathize with him in the larger areas. I do, and we do. This is a very complex bill.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Send the subject matter to committee.


Norman Kelly: For that reason, I want to look at a number of clauses and share with the House some of my personal feelings about the contents of those clauses.
The principle that the state has no business in the bedrooms or boudoirs of the nation is a valid principle. It is one with which I am sure all members of this House would agree and with which I think most of the public would agree. But as with all principles, there must be limiting conditions. For example, the limiting condition neglected by clauses 7 and 8 of Bill C-242 which, in effect, repeal the offence of gross indecency-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. According to interpretations normally extended, private members hour has now expired at this point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the interest in this debate and the several very good speeches that have been made, would there be unanimous consent for us to proceed until five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to continue the sitting until five o'clock this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.46 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 22, 1981