1984-04-03

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to honour the commitment made both in 1974 and 1981 by Canada's Secretary of State to develop, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, a comprehensive government action policy with respect to the voluntary sector and urges the Government to provide an immediate incentive to Canada's 40,000 registered charities by implementing the give and take tax credit proposal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion on behalf of the Official Opposition, on behalf of my Party, I do so more in sorrow than in anger. I say sorrow because, after 10 years of promises, of suggestions, of the development of a comprehensive working relationship between Canada's voluntary groups, we are at a stage at which gathering in Ottawa today and yesterday are representatives from 125 of Canada's major national voluntary groups and organizations. They are meeting in a state of frustration and a state of disillusionment about any appreciation on the part of the Government of Canada of their role and their potential for the future of our country. Happily they are meeting with their eye on the future, continuing to try to interpret and advocate to the Government their concerns, their potential and their outlook.
Among the senior executives and leaders of groups from across the country are Canadians with experience in the health care area, the cultural areas of Canada, areas of amateur sports, areas of international voluntary agencies, the religious community, environmental groups and others. They are from what we have come to call a sector of Canadian life, the voluntary groups, the non-profit sector which represents some
40,000	groups and is larger than the number of manufacturing units in Canada.
It is not my intention merely to beat the wind in negative terms, Mr. Speaker. I believe that rather than curse the darkness it is better to light a candle. Therefore, our motion today suggests that the Government enact a proposal which has been before it for nearly a decade-a proposal to provide tax credit. This proposal has its roots in the life of the voluntary agencies of Canada.
For those who are entering into the spirit of today's debate and may wonder just who is involved in this voluntary coalition, let me remind Members of the House and the public that, beginning alphabetically, the list of 125 agencies include the Anglican Church of Canada, the Arthritis Society, Association Canadienne D'Education de Langue Fran?aise, and Association Canadienne pour la Sante Mentale. It goes on through the Boy Scouts, the Canadian 4-H Council, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, Learning Opportunities for Women, the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Red Cross, the Council for Business and the Arts in Canada, Girl Guides, UNICEF and the United Way of Canada.
That will give some idea of the fact that there is no Canadian community without the presence of a voluntary group providing a unique contribution to our way of life. We are trying today to encourage public understanding and to encourage the Government to take this sector seriously. We are asking a fundamental question for Canadian public policy. How can we support, enable and encourage Canada's voluntary sector to play its full role in the development of the Canadian community?
S)
It is ironic that after ten years, leaders of the voluntary agencies should be meeting at this very time, on this very day, in Ottawa, with representatives of the Macdonald Commission. On this morning's agenda the topics for discussion are: the future delivery of human services; the role and domain of the voluntary sector; government and voluntary sectors; nation building and the political process; future role of voluntary sector in Canadian unity; the recognition that society should give for voluntary work; the view and role of the voluntary sector in the redefinition of work for the long-term future; the mechanisms required to provide adequate funding, financial management and accountability. These are all subjects which were first introduced for public discussion more than a decade ago by the report entitled People in Action. I have looked through this report, Mr. Speaker, and I find the recommendations for 1976 are the same ones which are being presented today as if somehow they were new.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as we begin our debate today, my colleagues will reflect in their comments upon the input of national voluntary organizations with respect to health care, culture and youth, showing that Canada's voluntary sector operates in the setting of a world community. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Shridath Ramphal, in speaking to the coalition leaders at the Conference of

April 3, 1984
Supply
National Voluntary Organizations, pointed out on Sunday evening that our world has become demoralized, that hope has diminished. He said that internationalism is in decline and a new militarism is in ascendancy. He struck a note of urgency about today's world and a note of pleading about Canada facing it with a sense of purpose and moral commitment.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, today's question is one which all Hon. Members of the House will want to face. It is a question, unfortunately, that the present Government has not been preoccupied with. The first meeting of this coalition of voluntary agencies ten years ago heard the then Secretary of State announce that he was seeking a whole new relationship between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector. He announced the establishment of a national advisory council on voluntary action to undertake a full study in government and voluntary sector relations. The report, People in Action, is now a distant memory. Five Secretaries of State have followed and, with the exception of the Hon. David MacDonald, the current Government has placed responsibility for voluntary action in the hands of four Secretaries of State.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a recurring trend in government's approach to this concern, in its approach to the fundamental question I have posed. That trend is a complete dissonance between words and deeds, between rhetoric and action.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), has raised in the House the issue of voluntary action since 1974. Hon. Members will recall that my Private Members' Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in order that it look at incentive tax proposals. However, that reference has not been called before the committee and, therefore, representatives of the voluntary sector and voluntary groups across the country cannot come to testify before it and give of their expertise.
Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. At the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations' most recent plenary conference, Consultation 81, which was held three years ago, the then Secretary of State, now Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), pledged to the voluntary leaders from across Canada, and I quote from his published statement:
I am committed to the development of a comprehensive federal Government action policy developed jointly with the voluntary sector.
The current Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) latched on to this rhetoric early in his incumbency. At a conference of the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy in Toronto in November, 1982, he announced this:
With this in mind I intend to place this matter before cabinet. My plan of
action has five objectives.
His first objective was:
To determine the legal and fiscal framework within which Government and the voluntary sector can work together.
What has happened as a result of these words? Thirteen months later, in December of 1983, the Throne Speech picked up the same rhetoric, speaking of, "Canada's massive, diverse
and vital voluntary sector". The speech went on to promise, and I quote:
The definition of a registered charity under the Income Tax Act and related matters will be referred to a joint parliamentary task force.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State has tabled today a motion regarding a joint committee of the Senate and House. However, I believe, to be consistent with his own words, that the frame of reference of this joint committee must be broadened to address not only the legal framework but also the fiscal framework. A tax credit proposal should be part of this reference. It should be studied by this committee, not just the definition of charity. The Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations' brief to the Macdonald Commission had a number of comments to make. It spoke about the mood of Canada's voluntary leaders. Here is what they said to him a few weeks ago:
The voluntary sector displays imagination, initiative and drive, and is full of ideas for improvement of the Canadian community in the future. This sector is threatened, not by change, but rather by neglect, misunderstanding, ignorance and a consequent absence of consistent and supportive behaviour on the part of government.
The immense contribution of voluntary action to the economy and democracy is often merely assumed, is taken for granted, and is thereby largely invisible in quantifiable terms. Government has demonstrated all possible support short of actual help. Key structural changes, which will enable the voluntary movement to respond to the challenges of the coming decades are important, not only to the tens of thousands of voluntary groups in all parts of Canada, but is fundamentally important for the future of Canada.
In the choice, Mr. Speaker, of futures that the voluntary leadership of our country placed before the Macdonald Commission, they contrasted two alternative scenarios for Canada in the year 2000, a polarized Canada or an integrated Canada. They said that the voluntary sector is a key player in an effort to build an integrated Canada. I support their contention. My Party is committed to strengthening the voluntary sector because we also see voluntary groups as key players in the Canada of tomorrow. We see the role of government as creating the conditions whereby groups in the community can play their full role in the country's future. We have to create incentives and eliminate barriers to full participation in national development by each of the social partners. It is for this reason that we believe in incentives to the private sector to do the job it can do best, that is, to create jobs and innovate with technology so that more wealth can be created and distributed within Canada.
In my Party, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to be persuaded that the voluntary groups across Canada are large employers of lower and middle-income Canadians. We do not have to be persuaded that they offer many less advantaged Canadians a bridge to employment, to participation. We do not have to be persuaded that they are a tremendous engine for training, learning and for citizenship in Canada. Voluntary groups are also the most highly labour intensive part of Canada's service sector. We are now at long last beginning to get the statistics. This is a tribute to the leaders of the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations who have continued to dig away and press the Government to have Statistics Canada begin to
April 3, 1984

collate information about the impact of these groups on Canadian life.
In terms of the commitment of my Party, Mr. Speaker, during the leadership convention my Leader said:
A complete review of the Government's social programs, with a view to saving money wherever possible, will be a major priority of my Government. Encouraging greater participation of the voluntary sector in delivering our social programs is one way of doing just that.
-Canada's voluntary sector is an untapped resource that not only can reduce government spending, but can actually create jobs in the process.
-most of us in this room are volunteers. Our Party could not survive without them and neither could any other political Party. Let's have Canadians do things for ourselves, instead of having governments and bureaucracies do it for us.
In our Party we want to encourage a balance between the three sectors in Canadian life; government, the private sector and the voluntary sector. This is the balance which the current Government has allowed to erode and which we are committed to restore. This is why we are committed to a fundamental realignment of the tax treatment of charitable giving. We are committed to the principle of a charitable tax credit. We are committed to creating a tax environment which will offer equitable incentives to all taxpayers to support their charities. We want more funds to flow into that sector from taxpayers to whom, as members and supporters, these tens of thousands of organizations will be properly accountable.
Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, we want to place government in the role of silent partner through the creation of a fair tax regime in which all Canadian taxpayers will enjoy similar incentives. This applies to the corporate taxpayer as well. The voluntary leaders of Canada have noted in their Macdonald Commission brief that small business does not have the same incentive to support charities as does big business. We will change that. Our goal in this reform is simple; to enhance the capacity of the voluntary sector without increasing its dependency on government.
In their proposal and submission to the Macdonald Commission, the coalition leaders have outlined what they have termed the give and take tax proposal, which is based on this incentive principle. They have said that the fundamental problem for individual charitable giving is that the current tax treatment of charitable gifts by individuals is highly inequitable because it is based upon a deduction principle. The cost to taxpayers of their charitable gifts varies inversely with their taxable incomes. They have reminded the Commission that, typically, a taxpayer paying $15,000 in tax who makes a $200 gift to a charity will be able to reduce his tax payment by only $60, whereas a taxpayer paying $60,000 in tax may reduce his tax payment by $100 or more, depending on his province of residence. The cost of the same gift to one of these taxpayers is almost twice as large as the cost to the other.
This must not be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker. The situation is inequitable, unjust and unfair. In the proposals that the NVO have outlined they have suggested a way of bringing equality in giving and also a mechanism which will encourage support to this vital part of our national life.
Supply
Therefore, in moving this motion of condemnation of the Government for failing to put in place a comprehensive policy, may I also place before the House a motion which allows a positive action to encourage Canadian volunteers and the groups in which they participate.


Mr. Bockstael:: One of the proposals made by these charitable organizations was that the standard $100 deduction that is applicable to all taxpayers should be abolished. Is the Hon. Member in favour of that? I understand that in the most recent Budget this $100 deduction will be eliminated for the year applicable to the 1984 tax year. Is that part of the proposition that the Member was making?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) for his question. He may recall that in a publication outlining that give and take tax proposal, which was circulated to all Members, there was an acceptance that the $100 tax deduction be appropriately removed as part of the package of encouragement. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) introduced the Budget, the leadership in the voluntary sector were aghast to discover that there was take but no give. In other words, removing the tax deductible $100, was really the equivalent of an $80 million tax grab. There were no incentives.
There was general agreement that the $100 tax deduction was not serving the purpose for which it was originally intended, but since no new incentive was put into the system for small voluntary organizations, each donation must now be receipted. Given rising postal costs with no offset for special postal rates by the Government as part of a comprehensive program, and given this increased bureaucratic implication with no new incentives for additional giving, this has been seen as a negative action. There would have been no disagreement if it had been part of the total package.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by these charitable organizations was that 50 per cent of any amount a corporation or individual would donate would be deductible from income tax. It seems that this would remove a great deal of revenue from the federal Government. Does the Hon. Member not believe that this could lead to an imbalance if large corporations or individuals with high incomes were to decide to donate all of their charitable funds to one organization, such as the United Appeal, while donating nothing to the cancer society, for example? It could create great imbalances for these various organizations. That is the way it strikes me, and I wonder if he could comment on that.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it would be important for the Hon. Member to study in some depth the information which Canada's National Voluntary Organizations have documented. For example, they have a full discussion paper dating back to May, 1980, entitled "Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving". In their outline, they never suggest that there would not be a base limit and that it would be wide open. The suggestion is to bring some equality.

April 3, 1984
Supply
I believe the Hon. Member was referring to the estimating of costs. In their estimates the voluntary agencies felt that in fact for the first two to three years the Government would actually benefit, just as we have seen it happen with the political tax credit where it has taken a number of years for people to begin to make those changes. This is, of course, in relation to the removal of the $100 standard deduction from which the Government would actually benefit for the first two or three years.
While there are some risks involved in moving into a new system, the question is whether more self-reliance can be encouraged through the strengthening of these groups. For example, let us consider the cost to Government of producing training and retraining programs. The Ross report, which was commissioned by the Secretary of State, indicates that the cost of training and retraining in the voluntary sector is approximately one-third the cost of training under government programs. If we are looking at the outlay from the public purse for youth programs, training and retraining programs, there is a cost effectiveness built right into the system. There is a large amount of public funds for training being channelled into special targeted areas encompassing an entire network of groups. For example, the YMCA and the YWCA have been training youth for years. I believe that allowing them to take the risk of obtaining more corporate and private donations through some incentives in this area must surely be, in the long run, cost effective in terms of the public purse and in terms of the stability of our country.


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, my question does not concern the core of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) but is a side consideration. At one point in his remarks he compared the role of a Member of Parliament to that of a voluntary worker. I was intrigued by that comparison because I always thought that Members come here because they are forced to do so by their electorates and not on a voluntary basis! I was also intrigued because I thought that when Members who come here do not behave like professionals, they are punished by being relieved of their income, which is not a characteristic of voluntary work. While recognizing the attractiveness of the comparison, I ask the Hon. Member if he would care to expand on it.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe my comments were related to political Parties and to the role of Parliament as being an extension of the political Party process, which is a voluntary activity. When we examine our Canadian citizenship and the exercise of Parliament and elections, they are dependent upon the participation of Canadians in the process. Behind each Member in the House there are people who will give of themselves to their country as an expression of their citizenship.


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would certainly like to thank the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for raising this important issue today. I think it is of interest not only to Members of Parliament sitting in the House but in fact to all Canadians.
Canada is experiencing a transition in its economy and social structure, whose signs surround us. Some segments of our population find themselves disadvantaged by the current combination of transient factors and must take action to make known their needs, views and possible contributions to society.
Women, youth, the handicapped, the ethnic and language groups, the elderly and natives, all have their particular problems when each seeks, in the concept of Canada, a welcoming reflection of themselves.
It has been a Canadian ideal to accept and respect differences while providing all with equitable access to the social, economic and political institutions and systems of Canada. Although the current economic and social realities put strains on this ideal, I believe we will be able to overcome them and mutually accommodate each other, adapt and move forward together.
The Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations is to be congratulated, especially today when it is having a conference in Ottawa at this very moment that we are debating the issue of voluntary sectors in Canada, in its continuing efforts to bring representatives from all sectors together in order to better understand voluntary action, to exchange ideas and stimulate the thinking on future possibilities for voluntary groups and voluntary action. It is that kind of discussion which I appreciate as it can make an essential contribution to the evaluation of progress on voluntary action and the identification of emerging issues and solutions for consideration.
The Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations in fact, has come into its own as a national voluntary organization helping us all to focus more clearly on certain issues. It is with great pride that the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, since 1975, since the inception of the coalition, has contributed largely to its annual financing. In fact, more than two-thirds of the annual budget of the coalition is provided through a contribution of the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada. The meeting of the coalition at this very moment in Ottawa is financed through contribution of this Department.
This is the fifth major conference of this type organized by the coalition since its inception in 1975. Along with other national voluntary organizations, the coalition has constantly stressed the importance of voluntary action in a variety of formats, including more recently presentations to the Macdonald Commission, as the Hon. Member referred to previously.
As Secretary of State and the lead Minister for voluntary action, I can appreciate the importance of these efforts. Voluntary action is central to my mandate in two ways. It is a means for various groups with which I deal to organize themselves and thus better communicate their views to the government and to the public. It is also a basic phenomenon of our democracy and an essential manifestation of citizenship.
Although I am partly preaching to the converted, Mr. Speaker, it is useful to recall the value of voluntary action if
April 3, 1984

only to have my words reported to others for whom voluntary action is a new or unfamiliar concept. In doing so, I hope at the same time to indicate the importance of the role which the Government of Canada sees for voluntary action and voluntary groups in our society. Voluntary action by individuals and the work of voluntary associations combine to form that part of our socio-economic life referred to as the voluntary sector. The scope and impact of the voluntary sector in Canada is highlighted when one considers that it includes the efforts of millions of individuals and thousands of groups and organizations. The spirit of voluntary action provides the impetus for creativity and interventions in all aspects of our social, cultural, political and economic life.
As I have noted elsewhere, in 1979 about 2.7 million Canadian volunteers donated the equivalent of approximately
200,000	person years of work, which is more than all the forest industries in Canada provide on an annual basis. In 1980, the revenues of voluntary organizations, which were registered under the Income Tax Act as charities, equal 11 per cent of federal government revenues. Approximately 175,000 jobs were generated directly. These and many other interesting perspectives can be found in the 1983 report by Mr. David Ross, which was published by my Department and released in January, 1983. The impact of voluntary action goes beyond what mere numbers can convey. Volunteers also play a critical role in identifying needs, advising on plans, and interpreting and evaluating programs and services of both the public and the private sectors.
Voluntary associations advocate for and present the views of minorities, communities and public interest in the legislative and regulatory and policy-making processes. Voluntary associations serve as a buffer against the impact of unemployment and social dislocation. They enhance the individual self-worth and improve citizens' capacity for self-reliance. Voluntary groups mobilize community resources to provide facilities and services not generally available from Government programs. They provide meaningful and satisfying work for both paid staff and unpaid volunteers. Voluntary organizations play a significant role in improving Canada's international relations through the provisions of international aid and technical assistance to developing countries. Through structures, such as community development, corporate groups in communities undertake innovative activities which enhance their socio-economic life without heavy dependence on Government funding.
In recognition of the intrinsic value of voluntary action to Canadian society, I and my colleagues have decided to reaffirm our commitment to encourage, facilitate and promote such action. To this end, I have put forward a set of guiding principles that have now been adopted by Cabinet. I would like these principles to be well noted, Mr. Speaker, as they will form the basis of Government policies of encouragement to voluntary action and will guide its actions in this area.
These four principles are as follows: First, respect for the autonomy and independence of voluntary action. Voluntary action is characterized by freedom of action and self-manage-
Supply
ment. Its activities and priorities should be self-determined and freely undertaken.
Second, encouragement for self-reliant development and self-sustaining growth of individual-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, you have made a point a number of times during debates that Members were not allowed to read prepared texts but were to speak in the debates as debates are supposed to be spoken to. I have waited with a great deal of patience, but it would appear that the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) is reading from a text. Perhaps instead of reading from a text he should pass the speech around and we can all read it.


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, it irks me to see how the Member opposite is behaving. There have been several occurrences where, as soon as a Member on the Government side reads from a prepared text, Members opposite rise to express their indignation and ask the Chair to put a stop to this practice. On the opposite side of the House, there have been a number of times when we saw Hon. Members reading their speeches. We could intervene as well. Mr. Speaker, we shall have to decide once and for all what attitude should be taken in this House. We on this side of the House have had the courtesy to let Members opposite read their speeches, and I saw this happen several times. Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how Hon. Members opposite have the nerve to rise so often in the House to apply the Standing Order in question to Members on this side, when we at least have the courtesy to refrain from doing likewise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The decision is not very hard for the Chair to make. If Hon. Members would refer to Citation 310 in Beauchesne, they would see that it clearly indicates that a Minister of the Crown who is making a statement of policy is allowed to read from a text.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the interpretation. I was essentially reading a policy statement containing four principles which the Cabinet has adopted following a recommendation that I made in recent months. I can understand the point made by the Hon. Member, but there is no doubt that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Waterloo read from notes. I listened to him very carefully, even though I was in another room because I had to deal with an urgent matter. But with the indulgence of the Chair, I will read the second, third, and fourth principles, and then speak extemporaneously because I know the subject and I can quote at length. However, I thought it was in the public interest for people to know the principles of the Government. If they agree, they could go ahead and continue with their good work.

April 3, 1984
Supply
The second principle to which I was referring, Mr. Speaker, is encouragement for self-reliant development and self-sustaining growth of individuals, communities and voluntary organizations whereby they take the initiative to find and maintain the resources necessary for their own survival and development.
The third principle is co-operation as a basis of a relationship between government and those involved in voluntary action in common pursuit of Canadian societal goals.
Fourth, and last, is mutual accountability of Government and those involved in voluntary action for the efficient use of public funds. These are the four principles which have been recently adopted by the Cabinet.
The next initiative which we had taken following the concern expressed in the Throne Speech of last December was to give notice yesterday in the Order Paper of a motion to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to examine and report upon the legal framework of voluntary actions, with particular reference to the following. I am happy to quote the three objectives of the new proposals of the Government so that Hon. Members can discuss those points of concern in their further discussions. The objectives are: The adequacy of the definition of charity under the Income Tax Act to reflect current societal realities, the limits to be set for advocacy activities of charities registered under the Income Tax Act, and the appropriate nature of public support for groups which have as a primary object the advocacy of public interest.
[ Translation]
This Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons will serve as a forum where various voluntary agencies in Canada can express their views on changes that are necessary. As the Hon. Member pointed out, it is extremely difficult to give a definition of a charitable organization, and I know whereof I speak, because of a study I am very happy to release today, a study we had done by Mr. Neil Brook of York University, in which Mr. Brook gives an exhaustive assessment of the manner in which legislation in Great Britain and the United States has addressed itself to the problem of defining what is meant by charitable organizations. I am releasing the study today so that the voluntary agencies can prepare their briefs and submissions to the Special Joint Committee, notice of which is given in today's Order Paper.
I am also announcing today the new criteria for grants and contributions approved by Treasury Board last Thursday, March 28, further to a recommendation made by the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations in its previous briefs.
I am also releasing today a study by Arthur Drache- [English]
-on the tax status and tax treatment of non-profit organizations in order that a Bill be put before this House on the status of non-profit corporations. Those studies have been financed
through grants by the Department of the Secretary of State. The various organizations will be able to avoid a waste of money and time trying to put together that information. Those two studies are essential for the work of the special joint task force that will be established, I hope, with the co-operation of all Parties of this House.
I can announce today that the Government of Canada has approved $200,000 more for the budget to further promote voluntary action in Canada. The criteria for the use of that additional money will be announced later today when I have the opportunity to address the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations in Canada.
Moreover, in the last year, we have been working, with the co-operation of the voluntary sector, in assisting Statistics Canada to develop a basis for data essential to understand and have a better view of the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada. A study was released last January on the economic impact, but that must be further implemented if we are to know more of the kinds of avenues, approaches and initiatives that should be taken.
[ Translation]
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the Government initiatives I have just described illustrate the Government's efforts to establish a mechanism that will make it easier to define fiscal policies, that will give all voluntary agencies in Canada a chance to be heard by this Parliament, a chance to take the measures that are necessary to adjust Canada's tax structure to the need for voluntary agencies to remain autonomous and to develop, and to the general needs this country will have to cope with as a growing and prosperous society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guiibault):: The Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) mentioned the fact that he wished to release documents. Does he intend to table them now?


Serge Joyal: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: If he does, it will require the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the documents enumerated by the Secretary of State being tabled now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Agreed.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) whether the special task force on the voluntary sector will also be mandated to look at the whole question of what is legitimate advocacy activity for a registered charity. In response to a recent presentation that I made to the House, the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged that the system the Government is using does not only leave many grey areas, but in fact so much confusion and doubt exist that we are hurting the registered charities very badly. Can the Minister give us some information on that as well?
April 3, 1984


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) for his question because it goes to the core of the difficulty of defining charitable organizations under the present Income Tax Act. There is no doubt that if we are to give way to the objective of addressing this issue, one of the first priorities the task force will have to address will be essentially to look into the kind of balance that should be achieved between the advocacy initiatives and the other initiatives that pertain to the nature of the voluntary associations involved. That question is very difficult, as I referred to briefly in my remarks.
In Great Britain many studies have been made on that particular aspect in the last 30 years. To my knowledge, there have been four studies in Britain in the last 20 years. There has been exactly the same kind of concern in the United States, how to achieve a balance between the advocacy initiative and the whole concept or notion of charity.
As the Hon. Member knows, in the last years, we have seen the development of new kinds of voluntary associations which have as a primary purpose the advocacy of special lobby initiatives of government on general public opinion, advocacy for public interest as such. That has very little relationship with the old definition of charity. The definition of charities in Great Britain dates back to the 16th century. That is a primary focus for the special task force in order to help Parliament make a decision on the new phenomenon that we have confronted with Revenue Canada. There are presently some court actions because of some refusals due to the difficulty of addressing that phenomenon. That is why today's Order Paper bears a special notice of a motion to establish a task force to help us achieve that kind of balance.
I hope that the Hon. Member, who has experience in this area, will be a member of the task force so that significant recommendations can be made.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I find it extraordinary that the Minister would announce in his speech that an extra $200,000 will be devoted to voluntary organizations and tell us that this day, perhaps in a few minutes, he will make another speech outside the House in which he will state how that money is to be used and what the criteria are. I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister would not inform the House first of the criteria for the $200,000 and the areas within the voluntary organizations that will receive it.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I was reading some principles and criteria a moment ago when I was interrupted by one of the Hon. Member's colleagues. Therefore, I do not know where the Members opposite stand on that. Do they want the criteria or not? I do not want to play politics on that issue because it is an important issue. I know the Hon. Member's genuine concern for voluntary action in Canada as well as for many issues at the international level, for which I commend him. I made reference to that in my speech.
As I said briefly in my speech, the Government of Canada is concerned about the importance of the development of that
Supply
sector and the perception that Canadians should have of their own involvement in voluntary organizations.
As has been shown through reports and public statements of many groups, after a certain period of time one finds that it is always the same individuals who volunteer. There is a need to attract a great number of citizens to volunteer work. The essential purpose of the new money is to ensure that voluntary groups will have an opportunity to attract a larger membership and make a greater appeal for contributions. The areas of concern are those that meet with the priorities of our society, especially the social needs of Canadians. There is no doubt that we are going through a difficult economic time. Organizations which appeal particularly to social needs of Canadians will certainly be among the first ones to be considered. On the other hand, there are other organizations which try to foster better understanding among Canadians and a greater level of tolerance.
In his own province, the Hon. Member has seen difficult situations arise in past months and years. We must address those issues and make Canadians more aware of the differences that exist among groups and regions in Canada to make sure that tolerance and respect for human rights is a Canadian objective. Those are a very few of the objectives which will be open to groups to follow according to their own genius, philosophy and objectives. However, we will try to do our utmost to bring to the attention of as many Canadians as possible the need for voluntary action, their roles as individuals in that movement and their capacity to build upon our society.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for the information which he has tabled. I know that all of us who are concerned about the issue will find it helpful. However, I would like to echo the reservations of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). While there is no voluntary group in Canada which is not short of funds, I would like to suggest to the Minister that the fundamental request of voluntary leaders as I hear it is for fiscal independence. I would suggest to the Minister that despite the fact that the money will be welcome, it is a move in the wrong direction.
As I mentioned in my intervention to the Canadian Centre for philanthropy, the Minister in his speech spoke eloquently on the subject of the legal definition, of a charitable organization, one with which we agree, and also spoke about the question of fiscal incentives. I regret that because of his other responsibilities, we did not have a chance to discuss my question to the Minister in terms of the draft notice, but through the House Leaders it was suggested to him that not only the legal framework but the word "fiscal" should also appear in the preamble so that the tax incentive proposals can clearly appear on the agenda of the joint committee.
Second, I would like to suggest to the Minister that in an amendment to number three which I proposed through the House Leaders, the suggestion with regard to primary objects of advocacy was to make two classes of voluntary agencies in

April 3, 1984
Supply
Canada. From my own years in the voluntary sector I know, for example, that one day we may be required to advocate a change in policy and the next day we may be raising funds to meet a need. If the committee indicates that we must have a tier system in Canada, so be it, but why should that be stated in the terms of reference for the task force?
I have one other question to ask in relation to the task force, and it is an important question in terms of the legal framework. Will the Minister speak to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and ask for a moratorium on the pursuit of voluntary agencies by officials from Revenue Canada under the definition of charity until such time as the committee reports? As the Minister knows, at the moment many cases are being brought to public attention of voluntary agencies being told to change their charters, definitions and purposes. Until this matter is solved, it seems to me that there ought to be a moratorium on that.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his three questions. I will deal with the last question first. I will certainly pass on the Hon. Member's points to the Hon. Minister who is responsible for Revenue Canada.
There is no doubt that the Minister is aware of the intention of the Government to establish a new definition that will take into account the reality in Canada, and there is no doubt that the Department of National Revenue officers are well aware that Parliament, in the forthcoming days and weeks, will try to achieve a better definition to help guide Canadians in that regard. There is no doubt that the parliamentary committee will have an opportunity to hear not only from voluntary-sector representatives but from government officials as well. It will call upon the Department of the Secretary of State and other Departments which are interested.
I see that my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), is present in the House today. An important report is published yearly by his Department dealing with that issue. I am quite sure that Revenue Canada will have an opportunity to state its views in that parliamentary forum.
The second of the Hon. Member's questions dealt with the terms of reference of the special joint committee. I have taken note of his concern-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Minister but the time for the question period has expired.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if Members of the House would permit the Minister to complete his comments and permit him to receive a question from a member of the NDP. I think it is important to have this exchange.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister to complete his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Serge Joyal: In his second question, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the terms of reference of the special joint committee. I would like to reassure him that there is no doubt that there is a direct relationship in fact between the definition of charity, which of course bears its own consequences in terms of fiscal treatment, and the general kind of public support that should be allowed to charities or voluntary organizations in Canada. In fact, if he would read the third paragraph of the terms of reference which deals with the appropriate nature of public support for groups, I think he would see that it is very clear that it will encompass the overall framework within which the voluntary sector is acting in Canada.
It is impossible to define charities according to the phenomenon of today and the impact on the financial status of those national organizations or according to their capacity for self-reliance. There is no doubt in my mind that they are very closely related. Voluntary groups which will have an opportunity to appear before the special joint committee will certainly have an opportunity to stress that direct relationship.
Dealing with his first question, I do not disagree with the Hon. Member that the objective should be self-reliance. That is the overall policy that we would like to achieve. By its very nature, the voluntary sector is a self-sustaining kind of-

-activity supported by the members of the community or by the individual.

However, I think there is room for government support in specific areas where in fact additional help from public sources could give a wider perspective. In my mind, seed money will in fact always remain necessary in order for groups to try to achieve their objectives. There is no doubt that groups will certainly have an opportunity to raise additional money and be self-autonomous. However, in my mind there will always be room in Canada for seed money to help those groups and associations meet their objectives. Many of those groups are national in their scope.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question. He has said some very good things about the Government regarding the independence of voluntary organizations. That sounds very good, but in fact, Mr. Speaker, since 1978-and I will go into some detail on this a little later- Revenue Canada has been picking and choosing among voluntary organizations. It has been telling a number of voluntary organizations that when they advocate something as part of their overall program, they are jeopardizing their tax credit position. I will not go into detail, but the Planned Parenthood organization has had such difficulties. Oxfam is now having difficulties and some of the church organizations are having difficulties.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have seen some very strange choices in some of the economic think tanks. The Fraser Institute is one of the most partisan institutes. I am not suggesting that it does not have a right to its opinion but it is one of the most partisan think tanks in the country. It is able
April 3, 1984

to give tax receipts to people who make contributions, but other organizations such as the alternative policies groups and Canadian Dimensions, which are not nearly as partisan as the Fraser Institute, have been turned down. I would like the Minister to be able to tell us that not only will they talk about organizations being independent but they will deal with organizations and let them be independent.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's concern about the need for very clear guidelines for the definition within our legislation of what a charitable organization is, especially one that would be or is registered under Revenue Canada. There is no doubt that that is the very basis of the Government's decision to establish a special joint committee.
As the Hon. Member said, in the last year, we have seen a grey zone arising out of that new phenomenon where, besides some initiatives to lobby on grounds of public interest, other groups have continued to perform their usual functions for which they were first established. That is a new phenomenon and it is part of the kind of society that we have to address. There is no doubt that until that new phenomenon finds its way into legislation with clear guidelines more adapted to the present situation, the difficulties that the Hon. Member has mentioned will remain. That is why I call upon him and his Party to join us in this House to establish this special joint committee as soon as possible. In that way, we will open clear and fruitful discussions on the necessity of defining charitable organizations within fiscal legislation and the kind of guidelines that should follow from those changes to the Income Tax Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate our Party, the NDP, with the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). We have always made it clear that we believe that the basic needs of the people of Canada, whether they be health, social services or the arts and culture, should be met through funding by governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. At the same time we realize and accept the plain fact that no government, no matter what its philosophy, could provide all the support which worth-while programs deserve. We have always given strong support to the voluntary sector for the wide range of extremely worth-while and necessary activities and services it has provided to large and small communities in the country.
Voluntary groups in Canada, which include churches, associations and foundations, have historically played an historic role in providing badly needed services to the sick, the poor, the disabled and the uneducated. They were doing that 40 and 50 years before governments accepted their responsibility for providing those services. Today, federal, provincial and municipal governments have established a good record of support in such fields as scientific research, the arts, sports and music.
DEBATES	_________ 2665
Supply
All of these groups have support from government but could not have accomplished as much as they have without the financial support and without the time given by hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens.
Let me illustrate what I am talking about. In the field of health important contributions have been made to research into cancer, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and kidney research. For the arts, voluntary organizations and their members have provided thousands of hours of assistance and hundreds of thousands of dollars for activities in the fields of music, ballet and theatre. Programs for hockey, baseball, track and swimming could not exist or progress as they have done without the financial support and the time given to them by hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens.
Coming from a multi-ethnic constituency as I do, I realize the contribution made by the ethnic organizations in maintaining and promoting the cultures which they, their parents and grandparents brought to this country and all of which go to making it a better country in which people of all races and religions can live.
The voluntary organizations have been concerned about the treatment they have received from the federal Government for a number of years. They have been calling on the Government to change the Income Tax Act so that in respect of contributions given for charitable purposes, the Act would not be slanted, as it is now, to benefit most those on higher incomes, those who need the benefits the least. They have called on the Government to change the laws in regard to charitable contributions in order to help people on lower incomes who make those contributions, to give them an incentive and an opportunity to contributions, to give them an incentive and an opportunity to contribute as they would like to and are able to.
Two suggestions were made by the voluntary organisations to the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). First, that the automatic $100 deduction for charitable donations, for which no accounting needs to be given, be eliminated from the Income Tax Act; and second, to permit a 50 per cent deduction from income tax for all contributions made for charitable purposes.
In response to that very reasonable proposal made by representatives of all charitable organizations, the kind-hearted Minister of Finance took away the $100 automatic deduction. That meant that people, particularly those in the lower income bracket, had to pay more income tax and it gave the Government something in the neighbourhood of $80 billion in extra revenue. It continued the present system where the person in the lower or middle income person gets a lower deduction than the person on a higher income. The Hon. Member for Waterloo gave the example of a taxpayer earning $15,000 per year who gives $200 to charity and gets a $60 reduction in his income tax and the $50,000 income earner who gives $20 to charity and gets a $100 deduction. That is typical of the so-called just society that the Liberal Government has always espoused.
We support the proposals which the voluntary organizations have made. We are worried, however, because in this period of

April 3, 1984
Supply
financial stringency we see governments at various levels opting out of the kind of support they have given for necessary universal programs and leaving them to the private sector. For those of us who believe in a more equitable society and who believe that it is the responsibility of government to meet the needs of the people, this is a horrible lesson taken from President Reagan. It is bringing into Canada some aspects of what has been termed Reaganomics.
Let me illustrate, Mr. Speaker. In many cases voluntary agencies are being asked, urged and used by right-wing provincial governments to substitute for government-provided professional services which, up to now, have been paid for by government and provided by unionized and relatively well paid employees. I will give a couple of examples from the Province of British Columbia. In Kamloops, British Columbia, Tranquil Home, which formerly employed 600 staff, has now been shut down by the Social Credit Government of British Columbia. The Government has given the role of caring for young retarded adults and children, which was the job of Tranquil Home, to the Kamloops Association for the Mentally Retarded, with large responsibility for handling cash payment given to homes taking in children.
There are dangerous implications in this, Mr. Speaker, for the patients in that and other facilities who need special services. Also in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, there have been similar cuts in daycare funding by the Social Credit Government. A contract was given to the YWCA, which tried to run the daycare program as best it could. That meant it used non-union help, who were paid very little more than the minimum wage. This attempt failed but marks the direction in which voluntary agencies are being pushed in replacing the jobs of full-time social agency workers.
In the few moments I have left I would like to come back to a question which I raised with the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) and point out the difficulties which have arisen in the somewhat mysterious-and I will use no stronger language- interpretations which Revenue Canada has been giving in respect of the rights and abilities of voluntary organizations to issue tax receipts which can be used in calculating income tax. This is not something which has just happened recently. It started in 1978, and I quote from the NVO report entitled Charity Today and Tomorrow. It reads:
In 1978 Revenue Canada, the Ministry responsible for regulating charitable status, issued Information Circular 78-3, entitled Registered Charities; Political Objects and Activities. The circular outlined examples of activities that Revenue Canada considered 'political' in nature, thereby giving grounds for the loss of denial of charitable status. The circular was widely criticized by charitable organizations as limiting their ability to carry out their charitable objects, particularly in the area of advocacy.
In the circular, for example, the object or action of inducing the Government to take a stand, change a policy or enact legislation for a purpose particular to the interest of the organization was defined as "political activity." charitable organizations pointed out that it is impossible incontemporary society to work for the attainment of charitable goals without addressing government policy that may hinder or enhance these objectives.
There are all sorts of questions, such as abortion and capital punishment, which can lead to difficulties. The Elizabeth Fry Society, for example, might issue a statement urging continued abolition of capital punishment. Suppose there was a Bill before Parliament, as there have been Private Members' Bills, calling for government to bring back capital punishment. The Elizabeth Fry Society could be in difficulties with Revenue Canada. Churches which support various opposition groups to military dictatorships in some of the Central and South American countries could be in difficulty. OXFAM, for example, Mr. Speaker, is being questioned.
This subject is not something which has just come before us in recent months. It has been before the Government since 1978. The Government has refused to take action and has refused to bring forth a policy which meets present needs. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the Government has refused to explain some of the decisions which have been made, hiding behind a section of the Income Tax Act which says that income tax matters must be kept private between the person or organization making a claim and the Department. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we had the ridiculous situation several years ago where I and another Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party tried to question the Minister with respect to the Estimates of the Department of National Revenue. We asked how the Fraser Institute could get permission to issue receipts for contributions which could be used for income tax purposes while other organizations, which have other points of view and in fact are much less strenuous in their advocacy than the Fraser Institute, have not been able to get the same status. We were told by the Minister that he could not answer the question because these matters were privileged.
That is just not good enough, Mr. Speaker. When this committee meets, and I am happy we are going to have a committee, some of us are going to try to find out who made these decisions. Were these decisions made by some bureaucrats who were interpreting laws which, in my view, they had no right to do? Or were they receiving advice and recommendations from the Ministers concerned? These questions strike at the very root of the problem. The Minister has enunciated some very fine sentiments, but we have not seen any action. We want to know whether charitable organizations are going to have the real independence which they ought to have or whether the Department or the Minister, whoever it is, is going to be able to pick and choose as they have been doing until recently.
We in this Party support this motion. However, we want to say to the Hon. Minister and to the Government, we are going to have some pretty tough questions to put when that committee meets.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions, comments? Debate.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be appropriate from now on to call the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) the "two hundred thousand dollar man" because he put a motion on the Order Paper
April 3, 1984

today on behalf of voluntary organizations in Canada and, lo and behold, the Minister made a speech in which he announced he is going to provide an extra $200,000. I do not know where this extra $200,000 came from. It has not been explained. There is supposed to be a shortage of money. However, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Waterloo for his motion. If he would only do this five days in a row, he would have a million dollars for the voluntary organizations in Canada. It just shows you, Mr. Speaker, the power of Parliament.
I want to remind you, Sir, that this motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Waterloo calls for:
-the Government to provide an immediate incentive to Canada's 40,000 registered charities by implementing the give and take tax credit proposal.
The Hon. Member for Waterloo is not asking for a handout. He is asking for an incentive in order that voluntary organizations may be enabled to grow in the fullness of their potential for service to Canada. That is a very important distinction, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that what the Government has done in responding is a sort of cover-up operation. The $200,000 is going to get the headlines and then there is going to be a committee set up, a joint committee of both Houses, to study the question of how far voluntary organizations can go in advocating government policies.
That, of course, is a very controversial question and does need to be studied. However, the Minister knows perfectly well that our Party has been calling for a committee study, a task force study by Parliament, by the Government, not just on the question of advocacy, as important as that is, but a study which would include an examination of tax credit proposals. The Government has rejected that tax credit proposal, and I think this committee is probably going to have a very difficult time in following the terms of reference laid down in the Government motion. It is going to have a very difficult time in opening up the question of whether or not the give and take proposal of the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations is financially credible.
The Government has shirked its duty, Mr. Speaker, in bringing in a Budget last year which took one half of the give and take tax proposal. It removed the $100 tax deduction without bringing in the tax credit. Then it refused to have a study carried out of the tax credit proposal in setting up this committee. And now it adds insult to injury by saying to the | voluntary organizations-and the Minister has probably gone to them right now to make a speech at their luncheon in order to get another headline-that we are going to give you $200,000; aren't we wonderful people? I submit, Sir, that this is a totally inadequate response to the needs of voluntary organizations.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House to Hansard of June 9, 1980, pages 1898 to 1901, where I am reported to have moved a Private Member's Motion calling for the Government to apply the give and take proposal. The heart of my contention was that the Government would come out
Supply
ahead financially if it implemented the elimination of the $100 standing deduction and gave a 50 per cent tax credit for donations to registered charities, of whom there are in excess of 40,000 in Canada. I gave figures, which to this day have never been refuted, which show that over a period of four to eight years the Government would come out ahead.
This proposal is serious, it is affordable, yet the Government's financial experts have been telling people in the Department, who, I am led to believe, are in favour of the implementation of this proposal, that we cannot afford it. I submit again that it is an affordable proposal when everything is taken into consideration.
We have to consider the jobs created by voluntary organizations as they expand their community service. The Minister said today that there are 175,000 jobs directly related to their work. There would be a lot more jobs if voluntary organizations achieved their full potential. I say to you, Sir, that implementation of this proposal, as called for in the motion, would provide an incentive for charitable giving to all taxpayers, many of whom have no incentive at all. In addition, it would make the tax incentives as equitable as possible among all income groups. Currently, higher income taxpayers have a greater incentive than lower income taxpayers. The Hon. Member for Waterloo gave many examples of that, and there are many other examples which could be used to buttress the point. Finally, increased tax incentives would strengthen voluntary organizations.
Who are these people we are talking about Mr. Speaker? Is it some little sideline of Canadian life? Not at all. We are talking about people who go right to the heart of the quality of life, a quality of life that no government of any political stripe can ever hope to foster. As I said in 1980:
There are organizations for the disadvantaged within Canada, the poor, the sick and the needy. There are organizations for all groups, from children to the aged. There are health organizations for research and heart and lung disease, cancer, diabetes, muscular dystrophy, health services for the mentally or physically handicapped. There are religious organizations sustaining and preserving our spiritual values, be they Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Islamic or Buddhist. There are international development organizations providing basic needs to people in the developing countries. There are educational organizations for universities, colleges, adult education, child education, future studies. There are environmental organizations for the preservation and beautification of our air, land, water and cities. There are cultural organizations for native and ethnic groups for art, music and dance. Some voluntary organizations serve national needs, others serve local communities. Many of these needs cannot be met by government or business.
The benefits of voluntary activity extend to the participants, recipients and the community as a whole. For the participant, voluntary activity is a means to become involved in his or her community at a time when other community ties such as the family and the work place are being eroded. Voluntary activity helps a person to develop into a better, happier human being with a greater sense of purpose and understanding.
That was the heart of my submission almost four years ago in urging the Government to implement the give and take tax proposal, Mr. Speaker. I want to emphasize again my sense of real concern that the Government did not do that in the Budget of last year. I am concerned that the Government, in setting the criteria for the terms of reference for the joint committee on voluntary organizations, is not going to study this financial question. I am concerned about the Minister

April 3, 1984
Supply
attempting to cover up on this through his $200,000 donation, which has nothing whatever to do with increasing the capacity of voluntary organizations to increase their own incentives to raise money.
Therefore, I believe that the committee, as imperfect as it will be for the reasons I have outlined, must get at the question of advocacy. Too many organizations today are impeded from reflecting their own expertise and contribution to policy formulation in this country. They are inhibited by a Revenue Canada which has been following an old fashioned definition of charitable activities which precludes any sort of political activity, when we know that today political activity has many diverse elements to it.
I submit that it is wholly appropriate for a voluntary organization with tax status to advocate policies to the Government of Canada and to submit briefs and write letters to Members of Parliament. It is appropriate for them to take those steps which are necessary to put forward their belief in the construction of public policy that meets the needs of society, as distinct from just coping with the problems with more band-aids. Of course, we are not in favour of charitable organizations conducting any activities which are criminal in nature. The law of Canada which permits you and we to demonstrate should be applied to charitable organizations too. They cannot break the law, just as you and I cannot break the law.
Charitable organizations cannot support any political Party or any candidate for office at the time of an election. That should be obvious. Voluntary organizations which have tax status cannot be involved in the political electioneering process which brings Members to this House. They certainly cannot be involved in activities which will benefit the members of the charities or boards in areas having to do with conflict of interest. Those are questions for separate consideration. However, there is a whole field of activity which I submit is legitimate. I hope that the committee will examine this field of legitimate expression of concern about existing policies and the advocacy of new ones.
In the few moments I have left, Sir, I speak about the international side of voluntary organizations. I have had the experience of travelling around the world studying Canadian non-governmental organizations engaged in development projects. There are many such Canadian organizations. Dollar for dollar, they are doing the best human work of serving and delivering development projects at the community level in health, education and marketing services that I have seen in fairly extensive studies of Canada's foreign aid program around the world. I am in no sense diminishing the bilateral projects that build infrastructure. I am not speaking against the major multilateral projects of the international financial institutions, the United Nations systems programs, the UNDP and Unicef, that provide relief and development on massive scales. I urge the Government of Canada to maintain a proper
balance in its aid projects to keep the multilateral ones at an even pace with the bilateral.
There is a special area called Special Programs into which voluntary organizations come. I have been in 17 developing countries in the last five years studying this question quite extensively. It is my belief that on a dollar for dollar basis there is no better return to the Canadian taxpayer than from that money which is spent by voluntary organizations at the local level of human services to which I refer.
Last year the people of Canada, even in a time of economic recession, in supporting voluntary organizations working in the international field, provided $150 million. Those are official figures. There used to be a program called CIDA's Matching Program through which CIDA would match donations dollar for dollar. Yet last year, by CIDA's own figures, it matched only $133 million. It is my submission to you today that the Government of Canada is responding inadequately through the CIDA Special Programs Branch to the outpouring of support by the Canadian people for the voluntary organizations. I would like to see something done about that.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and I were members of the Parliamentary Committee on North South Relations. That committee made about 38 recommendations following an 18 month study. The very first recommendation was lifted out into a special position in our report, which was filed in this House under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) in the fall of 1981. We lifted it into a special place to show that our first recommendation was for increased development education in our country. This was not done so that there would be an advertising program for government programs. We were not thinking about that at all. We were thinking about the need to help the Canadian people under the diversities of development today and about why Canada needs to participate fully. There is a double track need. One might call it the humanitarian need. We will not be able to hold our heads up in the world today if we dare to reduce the elementary programs which we have. We are still only contributing .48 per cent of our GNP. That is a long way from the .7 per cent which the Government has pledged to reach by 1990.
The second track of development education would help Canadians to understand that there is a return to Canada for it. In this year, official development assistance in the Estimates before the House is going up to $2.1 billion. We have exceeded $2 billion for the first time. Of that money spent, $1 billion is returned to the Canadian economy through the purchase of goods and services and other ways through which aid is dispensed. Right across the board, including bilateral, multilateral and special programs, there is a $1 return for every $2 that the Canadian Government spends. That is an important fact for Canadians to understand.
I submit, Sir, that Canadians do not yet understand that there is a return to Canada from our involvement in international development. More particularly, in this time of crises in our country, of which we certainly have several, the crises which have impacted on the developing countries as a result of
April 3, 1984

cutting back development projects in those countries is absolutely catastrophic from a human point of view. Despite the progress that has been made by the aid programs of Canada and other nations within the U.N. system, at present 800 million people, almost one-quarter of humanity, are living on the margins of society. Therefore, I submit again, there is a double track reason. All of that is at the heart of development education. In the parliamentary task force we recommended that one per cent of official development assistance be given to development education. The Government has not responded affirmatively at all. The Government has stalled on this question. The CIDA Estimates indicate that less than half of one per cent of ODA is going into development education. Why is that? Members of this House supported the report and that recommendation. I think the Government really has to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, some of the earlier speakers drew attention to the fact that there was some difficulty in determining the category of non profit organizations and charitable organizations. Others highlighted the legitimacy of the advocacy of certain groups. The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) indicated this morning that he was establishing a joint task force of the Senate and the House of Commons whose mandate will be related to the study of the definition of a registered charity under the Income Tax Act. This task force has been the subject of numerous conferences prior to this year. It was the subject at the third annual conference of the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) if he agrees that this is the proper approach in his view. Does he feel we should have a task force to clarify this and establish a basis on which charitable organizations would be eligible for tax deduction purposes?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I have a very serious reservation about the terms of reference for this new joint committee that are to be found on the Order Paper. They certainly do not include a mandate for the committee to study tax credit proposals. That is not in the motion.
Indeed, it is not just a question of simple omission; it is a question of the Government rejecting the submission of the Progressive Conservative Party. I am not sure if the NDP members were consulted, and I would be interested to hear their views on this, but there was a rejection by the Government of the request by the Official Opposition that the task force be empowered to study the tax credit proposals to get finally at the question of finances.
In answer to the Hon. Member, many people are very much offended in our country by a system that we have in our society according to which, if someone gives money to a political Party, a tax credit is given for it. All Members of the House are familiar with that system. If people give $100 to a
Supply
political Party, they get a $75 tax credit straight from their income tax.
A legitimate question being asked by some is, if such a system is in place for political Parties why is it not in place for registered charities that, in their submission, are doing as much for the country as are political Parties? That is an interesting debatable point which I will not go into now.
The voluntary organizations are not asking for 75 per cent off the $100; they are asking for a 50 per cent tax credit. Of course, that would be affected by the scale of the contributions. It is a much more equitable system.
I say to the Hon. Member that I believe the joint committee that is about to be established as a result of the notice on the Order Paper is inadequate to the total problem that voluntary organizations are facing today, which is not just a question of advocacy and the terms of reference of advocacy and how far one can go in espousing public policy. The committee must also study the ways in which we increase incentives to raise money from the private sector as it has shown the ability to do. Canadians are standing behind these voluntary organisations because they recognize the value of those services.
I believe that the tax credit proposal that the volunteer organizations have put forward for several years, and for which I argued at length in 1980, at least deserves the study by this formal task force now.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Hon. Secretary of State, in listing the guidelines of encouragement for voluntary action, stressed co-operation between government and voluntary agencies. It has been the case in my constituency that organizations which would be part of this group seeking a new commitment that 50 per cent of donations would be exempt from income tax, are also organizations that apply for Canada Works, Summer Works and various schemes that the federal Government puts forward.
Is it the Hon. Member's belief that giving these voluntary organizations a larger share of donations and contributions would obviate the need for them to make further demands on the Government in other areas?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, it certainly might do that. I think that many charitable organizations are sort of being forced into this job-creation program, which is supposed to be set up on an emergency basis, because of their shortage of funds and the needs in their own community. To the extent that we enhance the capacity of voluntary organizations to respond to local needs in the ways in which they are set up, I believe there is a reduced need for the Government to pour money into special job-creation programs. I think the permanent jobs can be created by voluntary organizations.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I want to single out another part of the speech made by the Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). I think he should be complimented and thanked for what he said about external aid.
He emphasized the tremendous growth which has taken place, which people do not sufficiently realize. He mentioned

April 3, 1984
Supply
that we have just passed the $2 billion mark. If growth continues in Canada with GNP at a level of 4 per cent in the next years, we should reach the $5 billion mark by 1990. Too few people realize that.
The second point he made about the return of these expenditures to the Canadian economy is a good one indeed. Unfortunately, I have found that a number of people seem to feel that it is regrettable that so much of it comes back to Canada. Regrettably, there is an ambivalence in the minds of people on that subject. When people like ourselves travel abroad, we find that the receiving countries accept this as a normal and desirable fact, that we will do more when there is something in it for us too. However, again some Canadians do not accept that.
I also want to emphasize what the Hon. Member said about the balance between different types of aid. He was most constructive about this. There are unnecessary debates about it, such as bilateral as opposed to multilateral or different forms of aid, and the Member refused to engage in that theological debate. I compliment him on that.
I wish to give him an opportunity to elaborate on another point. He said that he believed there was still not enough done by CIDA for non governmental organizations of all types. Of course, I am on the other side of this question since what I see being done I find quite considerable. We should all realize that there will be much more available for NGOs if we reach the $5 billion mark. Obviously, to put it quite bluntly, CIDA does not have the personnel to spend all that money, so the agency will have to use more voluntary organizations. Can the Hon. Member expand on this? Does he know of so many non governmental agencies that are waiting to receive money to do some good work? If that is his opinion, would he please illustrate it?


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Guilbault):: The Chair would like to point out that there is one minute left in this question period.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, how can I do justice to such a question in one minute? I will try, and if you have a blind eye for an extra minute, it might help. With regard to the $5 billion that the official government assistance will reach by 1990 there is a point that is extremely important today. I quite agree with the Minister that it has not yet sunk in with the Canadian public in the same way it might have sunk in with the Government. Much more money will become available.
With respect to some Canadians believing that they do not want to emphasize this return to Canada, I would say that it is perhaps the purest position which I can understand. However, experience has taught me, at least, that we are human beings here and it is public money that we are talking about. Therefore, we must understand that in a time of constraint in our own country, it is not wrong for us to show that by participating in development projects around the world there is a legitimate return to Canada. I think that is a legitimate point to make.
However, I would not want that to be the sole basis of public policy in Canada. The first motivation must be the humanitarian approach. Why are we in this? We are in it because we are part of the world and we cannot sit idly by as Canadians, in our country of tremendous resources, space and technology, if we are not prepared to do something to help our world become a better place. I am not only talking about a better place in terms of spirituality and humanity, but a better place in terms of political safety and security, because many of the local wars being fought around the world, and I am afraid some wars still to come, are caused by the sense of deprivation that is endemic in the Third World countries. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth spoke in Ottawa two days ago and he reminded his audience that by 1990, 80 per cent of humanity will live in the developing countries. That is where the need is and that is where our future markets are. Surely the Government of Canada should be responding in positive terms. In my view, going to .7 per cent of ODA should not cause that much concern.
The Minister asked me specifically to name some voluntary organizations. I do not think there are some who are just waiting for more money, and I would not want my remarks to be interpreted by the Minister as asking him to simply throw the money at the NGOs, not at all. I believe there must be a rational process established whereby organizations such as as CUSO are able to grow and can do so in a systematic way.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1978, a train-car accident on Derry Road in Milton, Ontario, took the life of a young woman. At that time the Town of Milton and the Region of Halton requested the Canadian Transport Commission, by way of a resolution, to improve safeguards at the CNR railway crossing. The CTC did not act, and as a result last weekend six teenagers lost their lives at this same railway crossing due to what appears to be a lack of substantial safeguards.
Last night Milton Council unanimously adopted a resolution urging the CTC to reconsider its 1978 rejection. I now call
April 3, 1984

upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to use his offices to arrange forthwith for the erection of cross gates, improved lighting, and additional warning signs at this crossing, before yet another tragedy takes place.
I further call upon the Minister to expand his proposed investigation, by his Ministry's Inspector General of Safety into a full-fledged inquiry, not only concerning the Town of Milton but also with regard to similarly dangerous crossings throughout the country.
Safety provisions must keep up with perpetually changing variables in a community, such as population growth, increased traffic flow, improved road conditions, and subsequent speed limit increases.
Before more needless tragedies such as this one occur again, I urge the Minister once and for all to implement measures to ensure these provisions are current and in the best interests of the safety of all Canadians.
* *
*



MINING INDUSTRY


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, in recent months, asbestos has been the subject of a number of controversies in the United States. Controversies of this kind are having, and will continue to have, a disastrous impact on this very important market.
I am from a region that produces this important natural resource, and I believe it is imperative and, in fact, very urgent that our Government should take a firm and unambiguous stand on this issue by making its position public and thus providing irrefutable proof that asbestos can be used without risk.
At the last international symposium in Montreal, experts pointed out the possibility of, and the need for, using asbestos safely. In fact, a number of Departments have since then agreed, in a Memorandum of Agreement, that asbestos could be used without risk.
Asbestos workers are very upset about the rhetoric on this issue. The people of Asbestos are very concerned and they hope our Government will do everything it can to clarify the situation at the international level, especially among our neighbours to the south. Living and working conditions in asbestos mines are comparable to those in other industries, and I even believe they are better in several ways.
As for using asbestos-based products, I would like to point out to the House and to the Canadian people that we have a medical clinic in Asbestos that was built only a few years ago, using a number of asbestos-based materials. I was born in Asbestos, I live there with my family, and believe me, Mr. Speaker, the air is healthy, pure and good to breathe.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, we are told to tolerate pornography because one man's trash is another man's Shakespeare. I strongly disagree, because a form of behaviour or a social ill is either discouraged or blindly condoned and affirmed by Government.
We have laws forbidding the use and selling of drugs that alter Canadians' minds. So, too, we must also prevent the altering of Canadian minds through pornography.
In Canada today liberal attitudes that tolerate pornography are hiding behind a mask of neutrality. Pornography teaches contempt for, abuse of, and hatred of women and children. There is no place for pornography in Canada today. We in this House cannot be neutral to this assault on men, women, and children.
As I have mentioned before in this House, as a peace officer I have witnessed the violence and degeneration pornography brings to society.
As the Fraser committee on pornography and prostitution meets today in Vancouver, a vast majority of Canadians are calling out for stricter laws against pornography. Yet pornographic video shops continue to open all across our country, including one that opened in my riding just last month.
Let us remember that freedom of speech means freedom of truth, not freedom to slander; freedom from censorship means freedom of art, not freedom of pornography and smut.
This Parliament must quickly pass strict anti-pornography laws.


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



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CELEBRATION OF 25TH ANNIVERSARY

Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, April 2, in the presence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), the St. Lawrence Seaway started a new shipping season. This year, the Seaway will be celebrating its twenty-fifth birthday. In June 1954, after more than fifty years of study, debate and negotiations, there was a ceremony to mark the signing of the Canada-U.S. Agreement providing for the joint development of a navigable waterway and an electric power station. The work was finished on schedule in the incredibly short time of five years. The Seaway proved to be a vital part of the North American transport system and has enormously benefited Canada's economy. Traffic on the deep water section of the St. Lawrence was more than 45 million tonnes last year, and the

April 3, 1984
estimated value of the cargo was approximately $10 billion. The savings to users was particularly advantageous for the iron ore mining industry in Quebec and Labrador and for massive shipping of Canadian grain to international markets. During the last season alone, nearly 18 million tonnes of western grain were shipped through the Seaway. Altogether, more than one billion tonnes of commodities have been shipped on the St. Lawrence Seaway since 1959.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention that the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is a Crown Corporation that is self-financing, acquiring its revenue from toll paid by users. The long term forecast indicates-


Mr. Speaker:: 

CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, last week Chile's military Government started the week by imposing a curfew and press censorship, and ended it by brutally putting down opposition demonstrations, leaving in its wake 38 people wounded and five dead, one of them a 13 year old boy gunned down on his doorstep by Chilean security forces.
Since it overthrew Chile's last elected Government, the military Government has attacked domestic opposition with torture, detention, assassination, and disappearance. Last week's events only show the world the most recent example of the contempt for democracy held by Chile's military Government, and the lack of professionalism of its military forces.
Next weekend the College Militaire Royal, in St. Jean, Quebec, is holding its assault at arms exercices. I was very disappointed to learn that, despite Chile's dreadful record, the College plans to honour Chile's military attache to Canada, Col. Jorge Lucar, by inviting him to attend the exercises as a special guest.
The Canadian Armed Forces pride themselves on their commitment to democracy and on their professionalism. Since the world has been shown yet again that Chile's military has nothing but contempt for democracy, and none of the military professionalism to which our officer cadets aspire, the Government should direct those in charge of the College to cancel their invitation to the Chilean military attache.



FISHING AND HUNTING


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the disastrous effects that the pseudo-conservationist groups are having on all Canadians. These preservationists, as I call them for a lack of suitable words available in this House, tamper and toy with our international markets, and are reducing the quality of life for millions of Canadians. It is we taxpayers and consumers who are footing the bill for these preservationists to galavant around the world on their ridiculous and asinine crusades to save all that is cute.
Anyone who suggests that we succumb to this blackmail is being shortsighted in thinking that they will go away. Trapping, hunting, sport fishing, commercial fishing, forestry and tourism will all be targets of their propaganda. How many billions of dollars and lives does that represent? We must understand that these people are only interested in maintaining a cash flow, and they will not go away until they have sapped every last sentimental dollar from the public and converted mankind into a herbivore, or possibly worse, a herb.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, many young people in my riding are receiving job skills training and work experience at Canadian Forces Base, Shilo, through the Youth Training and Employment Program. YTEP has been well received in Shilo, and I am sure the Program is also well regarded at other Canadian Forces bases where it is offered.
Unlike many of the ineffective, costly programs which came out of last April's federal Budget, YTEP has met a very real need. It is a cost-effective way to provide employment training and experience to many of Canada's young people. It uses existing facilities and, by teaching job skills, the Program prepares young people to compete in an exceedingly tough job market. It would be a shame, therefore, if the Program did not continue for at least another year.
About 5,000 young people are now benefiting from YTEP. If an extension were to be approved by Cabinet, thousands more young people would benefit. The Program could be even more effective if the young people finishing the Program were given the option of entering the Reserves.
The Government's record on unemployment is certainly nothing to brag about, so I would think that Cabinet would want to seize every opportunity to improve its record. I therefore urge the Government to approve the funds necessary for the extension of the Youth Training and Employment Program.
April 3, 1984



INDUSTRY


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, here is the attitude of Progressive Conservative Members towards the development of advanced technology in Quebec. To hear and read what Progressive Conservative Members have been saying during the debate on Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, there seems to be an entirely negative attitude towards the development of the aviation industry. Just read the speeches about Bell Helicopter locating in Mirabel, about biotechnology in Montreal and look at their position on Cana-dair and the Mirabel International Airport. This Party seems to want to restrict Quebecers to the soft sectors such as textiles, footwear and furniture.
The Liberal Party has shown its firm intention of developing this key sector of the industry by spending $2 billion in the greater Montreal area over the last ten months. That shows faith in the future! This means jobs for graduates from the twenty CEGEPs in the Montreal area and the universities in Montreal itself.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Leader of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), said that his Party was "asleep at the switch" when Bill C-169 was passed with all-Party support. The Conservative Leader also said with reference to the legislation:
I didn't see it, and I don't think anyone in our caucus saw it.
That is not true. The facts are the following.
Conservative Party representatives, including at least one Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), were involved in all-Party meetings with the Chief Electoral Officer where these proposals were agreed to. The Conservative Party endorsed these changes after the election of the new Conservative Leader last summer. Hansard also contradicts the Leader of the Opposition. During debate on the Bill, the Conservative spokesperson, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), said:
These amendments to the Canada Elections Act have been discussed, gone over and looked at in meetings I have attended for at least a couple of years now. All Parties were involved in open discussion.
The Conservative MP also said:
This amendment is more severe than is realized ... but we agreed to it... I endorse the changes on behalf of our Party . . . We are delighted to see this legislation go through-
This was said by the Chief Conservative Whip on behalf of his Party and the Leader who appointed him. The words of the Leader of the Opposition can only be understood when we
Oral Questions
realize that the National Citizens' Coalition claims that scores of letters have been sent to the Chief Tory fund raiser, David Angus, and that the Conservatives are losing financial donations because of their support for the Bill. Perhaps the Conservative Leader prefers dollars over facts.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, concern is still being expressed around the world, except in Iran, about the vicious-


Mr. Fisher:: Where's your Leader?


Mr. Nielsen:: In your riding.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The poll should go up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald W. Munro: Name him. He is a Fisher, not after souls either.
Mr. Speaker, concern is still being expressed around the world, except in Iran, about the vicious and unprovoked geno-cidal treatment being meted out by the Government of Iran to the defenceless, law-abiding Baha'i community in that country, during which thousands have lost their lives. I spoke out in protest against this uncivilized conduct in this House as long ago as October, 1981. Persecution persists.
Those of the Baha'i faith are models in any community. Their very faith requires them to love mankind, just as Baha'i means brotherhood. I think this House would support me in urging the Canadian Government to gather support for a motion at the United Nations in protest of this inhuman conduct by Iran, conduct which cries out for condemnation by the civilized countries of the world.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Did the President of the Treasury Board know, when he approved advances to increase the capital of Canadair, that part of the operation of Canadair involves an arrangement whereby General Dynamics Ltd. produces certain defence products in the Canadair facilities, and that the Canadair financial statement improperly includes the General Dynamics

April 3, 1984
Oral Questions
volume in the Canadair sales volume and Canadair gross margins? The effect of including the General Dynamics business in the Canadair statement is to over-estimate grossly the profit of Canadair.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the amounts in question had been approved not only by Cabinet, but if we are talking about supplementary Estimates, also by this House. We are talking about something that has been a matter of decision by Parliament. With respect to the level of detail my friend is seeking, I will be glad to consult with the Minister responsible for the Canada Development Investment Corporation and Canadair, and get back to him.


NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GENERAL DYNAMICS AND CANADAIR
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Treasury Board is consulting, will he determine whether it is true that General Dynamics has been trying to re-purchase the facilities it occupies at Plant 4 at Canadair or, in the alternative, have a modified or changed rental agreement with new equipment supplied by Canadair or it will move its entire production to Texas? Will the Minister find out whether Joel Bell or Senator Austin have done anything on this matter? Will he report to the House what effort is being made by the Government to retain these jobs at Canadair? Why has there been no response to the demand by General Dynamics since May, 1983, for a renegotiation of this transaction? With that transaction outstanding, why did he, as President of the Treasury Board, approve these massive estimates and grants to Canadair?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this support for Canadair is not only a decision of Cabinet, but a decision that has now been confirmed by the House of Commons. I will be very happy to have the responsible Minister provide the kind of information that my hon. friend is seeking.
I am sure that the public generally, not to mention the workers of Canadair, are pleased to see further evidence of the greatest conversion since St. Paul on the road to Damascus, with my hon. friend, on behalf of his Party, now talking positively, for a change, about the future of Canadair and its workers. What a change! I hope it lasts!


GENERAL DYNAMICS INVOLVEMENT INQUIRY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: My final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House why Senator Austin failed to advise the committees dealing with Estimates for Canadair that a good portion of the activities of Canadair involved activities owned, controlled, and operated by General Dynamics? Can he advise the House why the General Dynamics profits in connection with its Canadian operation are shown as Canadair profits, and why indeed the whole of the General
Dynamics-Canadair organization was merged and hidden? Will the Prime Minister give us that information, or is this a secret which we were not supposed to find out?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if it is a secret, I can be excused for not having the answer to the question. I would be happy to take the question as notice, or the insinuation as notice, and try to find an answer.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON JOBS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Five weeks ago an agreement was reached between the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development, Regional Industrial Expansion, a Ministry in the Quebec Government, the Canadair officials, and General Dynamics officials, which will run out on Friday. General Dynamics made the decision that, unless the agreement could be changed, it would shut down Plant 4 of Canadair, and the country would lose 250 jobs. Can the President of the Treasury Board confirm that an agreement will be reached before Friday of this week?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. friend is also part of this massive conversion. There must have been some mass sprinkling, or baptism, on that side of the House which affected their attitude on this subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be very happy to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister responsible. I am very glad to hear the people on the other side finally talking about saving jobs at Canadair, a commitment we made a long time ago, which they should have made a long time ago as well.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, our concern is for jobs in the country. Our further concern is for equity for taxpayers.


PURCHASE OF CANADAIR
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. It is interesting that General Dynamics is still operating under the umbrella of Canadair. Was Canadair sold by General Dynamics on a voluntary basis, or was it a forced sale by the Government of Canada which was anxious to enter into the aerospace industry and General Dynamics was interested in defence aircraft as opposed to civilian aircraft?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, again I would have to ask the Minister responsible to respond in detail to my friend's question. But I think it is a matter of general knowledge that if the federal Government had not purchased Canadair in 1976, there would be no company today, and there would be no jobs either.
April 3, 1984


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. During the past few days glossy brochures have arrived at the doorsteps of millions of households all across the country. These brochures ostensibly refer to women and to youth. However, in reality each brochure contains on page 1 a very glossy photograph of the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that the cost to the taxpayers of Canada for these two brochures comes to approximately a million and a half dollars. Does he think it appropriate for a Minister who is seeking the leadership of his Party to use the taxpayers' money to finance his campaign?


Some Hon. Members:: Leader!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman used the word "ostensibly". The fact is that the substance of those two publications is informative and offers real information which is of use to the taxpayers of the country when taking advantage of the programs of our Department. At the same time as Members opposite complain that we are not vigorous enough in ensuring that the Canadian public is aware of the services and programs we have, they complain when we indeed undertake programs to do exactly that.
If the Hon. Member had looked at the brochures carefully he would have seen that they contain messages from two other Ministers who are not leadership candidates. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if I had been tempted to try to use the publication to advance my own interests, I certainly would not have chosen the photograph which is contained within the publications, because it is a rather unflattering picture of me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is accurate about at least two things. He has mentioned the photograph of himself, and I will not elaborate on that. He is also right in saying that the brochure includes photographs of other Ministers, although they are much smaller in size than the photograph of the Minister and are deeply buried within the publications.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Considering that the Minister who is responsible for this brochure is running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and is the same Minister who brought before Parliament the sleazy creation of a slush fund for jobs for Liberal constituencies, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he thinks it is
Oral Questions
appropriate that the people of Canada, on an involuntary basis, should be financing one Minister's leadership campaign.


Mr. Crosbie:: Slush pump Roberts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the intention of any of the leadership candidates to have the people of Canada finance their campaigns. However, it is the duty of every Member of the House, Minister or not, to discharge his duties as a Minister or as a back-bencher as the case may be. If the Ministers who are running for the leadership are also operating their Departments, they are doing what I asked them to do.


TIMING OF PUBLICATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this situation. One is that a Minister of the Crown, just by sheer coincidence, is running for the leadership of the Liberal Party and is using public funds to obtain additional publicity at this time. The other aspect is that we are in a pre-election period, as the Prime Minister knows, and some parties in the House think it appropriate to collect money from their own members and supporters to spend on themselves. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he thinks it is appropriate to send out glossy brochures containing very little factual information in a pre-election period. This amounts to the people of Canada putting up money, either for one Minister's leadership campaign, or for the intentions of the Liberal Party of Canada in the federal election campaign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to base his case on the fact that this is a pre-election period. It is always a pre-election period, Mr. Speaker. Under our system of government, an election can be called at any time.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear cries of shame from the Tory ranks.


Some Hon. Members:: Please! Please!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now they are saying please. Just a few days ago the Leader of the Conservative Party was begging me not to try to have an election in the summer. As usual, the Tory Party is badly divided and confused.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct a question to the Minister of Finance. He and the Government will have learned of the very painful decision which had to be made by Incoto lay off close to 500 people at Port Colborne. This is demonstrative of the fact that

April 3, 1984
Oral Questions
the mining industry is not participating in what the Minister calls a recovery of our economy, and also demonstrative of the fact that the industry is desperately trying to rationalize its operations and to adjust to dramatically changing world markets. I would ask the Government what it is doing to rationalize its policies and adjust to the circumstances faced by that particular industry.
What is the Government doing, particularly in terms of more innovative tax ideas which would take an inordinate social burden that had been assigned to the industry off of its shoulders, especially in connection with the so-called non-profit taxes, and so on?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, and is indeed correct in saying, that some sectors of the mining industry, not all of them, have been facing more severe difficulties and have known some lag in benefiting from the recovery in prices and in world demand. Some sectors of the mining industry, however, have been doing much better lately. This will obviously depend on the pick-up in the world demand for their particular products.
The Hon. Member knows that the taxation legislation in this country having to do with mining is one of the most generous of any of the industrialized countries. We are trying to keep our tax legislation very competitive with what is happening in the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, measures taken by both the provincial Governments and the federal Government are extremely generous in some provinces. I am not in the position to comment specifically on the situation in British Columbia in particular, compared to the situation in some other provinces. The fact is that there is a limit on how much we can do in terms of tax incentives in that regard. As the Hon. Member knows, we have other programs having to do with manpower adjustments which are also available to help industries or firms facing particular difficulties.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF TAX ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the experience has been that all of the productivity and efficiency gains which have been achieved by industries through these painful decisions have been negated by the Government's heavy tax appetite. I am not so much speaking of the direct taxation which may well compare favourably with their competitors in world markets, but the indirect taxation, the so-called "non-profit" taxes, heavy taxes on energy, fuel and northern living allowances. These kinds of taxes which are such painful impositions on the industry make it exceedingly difficult for it to compete in world markets and to keep its operations going.
Is it the Minister's intention to introduce legislation which would permit the deduction from taxable income of the northern benefits which have been earned? And perhaps the federal Government, instead of using energy as a cash cow, can give
our domestic industry a break with respect to the energy taxes which are imposed on it by the federal Government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I believe if there is one area where a break could be given it is more in the area of royalties imposed by the provinces, which are imposed right at the source. This is a sector where provinces can have a lot of flexibility, if they so desire. These are taxes which are taken right at the beginning of the level of production and would have a beneficial impact if they were to be reduced.
As far as the specific taxes to which my friend referred are concerned, they are taxes of a general nature which are reviewed at the time of every Budget. I had a Budget in the middle of February, and this is the posture I intend to follow for this year.
As far as the taxation of northern allowances is concerned, the Hon. Member knows that I have not changed the legislation vis-a-vis northern allowances. We have not increased taxes in that regard. I have indicated that we would continue with the current remission order.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF ROYALTIES IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief supplementary question to direct to the Minister of Finance on his response concerning provincial jurisdiction and royalties.. Will he follow his own advice and have the federal Government, which has sole jurisdiction over royalties in Yukon and the Northwest Territories, reduce those royalties and put mining back on its feet in those two northern Territories?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the federal taxation levels on northern mines he will Find that they compare very favourably altogether with what is happening in every single province in Canada. As a matter of fact the federal Government is extremely generous in its treatment of the mining industry in the North as compared to any other area in the country. There is no doubt about that.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: My question is supplementary to the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River, and is directed to the Minister responsible for employment and unemployment. Four hundred and ninety jobs will be lost in my riding, and in particular in the City of Port Colborne, in an area where we presently have 17 per cent unemployment. Surely the people in government having to do with the industry were aware that the market for this particular product was drying up. Why then was no research done to


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 3, 1984

determine a new use for this material, or to determine if a new product could be manufactured in the plant at Port Colborne?


John (Moody) Roberts: Although it was not clear, Mr. Speaker, from the Hon. Member's misuse of title, I believe he meant to direct the question to me.
The fact is that we have been in touch on a longer term basis, but also as recently as last Friday, to discuss this situation with the company and to use the services which we have under the Employment and Immigration Commission to assist the company in finding both work for workers and transitional arrangements which will try to respond to the problem.


JOB RETRAINING INQUIRY
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. There has been a lack of initiative by this Government. In the western industrialized world, only Ireland and Iceland invest less than we do in research and development. What will the Government now do, and when will job retraining be available for these unemployed workers in the City of Port Colborne?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there does seem to be a certain lack of knowledge on the part of the Hon. Member. I am not responsible for the entire industrialized world with the exception of Ireland. If the Hon. Member is interested in questions about research and development, they would be more appropriately directed to one of my colleagues. I have already given the Hon. Member the answer to the second question he asked. We were in touch with the company as of last Friday. We are discussing with them, and with the unions, programs which we mount to try to respond to the situation there.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that the United States plans to move quickly ahead on anti-satellite and other space based weapon development and deployment, thereby projecting earthly folly into outer space. In light of the Prime Minister's stated concern about anti-satellite and other space weapons, and his call for a ban on the testing and development of such weapons, will the Prime Minister assure the House that Canada will not only continue to press for such a ban, but also that we will not participate in any way in the testing or development of antisatellite or other "Star Wars" weapons or technologies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without completely endorsing the premise to the question, because in the proposal which the Government has made we
Oral Questions
do make a distinction between high altitude and low altitude anti-satellite systems-well, I see the hon. lady shaking her head. If she wants to know what the Government's policy is, I will tell her that is what it is. There are obvious reasons for that. If she does not understand it, I will tell her sometime.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Cool off. Just walk around the block, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I will do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have not the time to tell the Prime Minister that everyone is laughing at his attempt to differentiate between high altitude and low altitude testing. He only has to talk to some of the experts in the field. However, may I pursue the question with him since I did address it to him in a serious manner, and I would hope that he would reply in a serious manner.


REQUEST THAT CANADA REFUSE TO TEST ANTI-SATELLITE WEAPONS
Pauline Jewett: Will Canada now-not tomorrow, not next month, not next year- say we will not participate in any way, given our abhorrence of the development of "Star Wars" in outer space? Will the Prime Minister give us his assurance we will not participate in any way in the testing or development of anti-satellite or comparable weapons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have stated to the Hon. Member what the Government's policy was. She can accept it, or not accept it. However, our policy is, and will continue to be, to oppose any form of development of anti-satellite systems in high altitudes. That is our position at the beginning. Whether we can move on to-I see her guffaw, Mr. Speaker, and I really do not understand. She should know that there are anti-satellite systems now at low altitudes. Therefore, it is not a matter of preventing them from happening, as she suggests. They exist now. That is why we are starting with what does not exist so that it not be brought into existence. When she begins to understand that, then I will continue the dialogue with her.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of recent statements made by the Minister of Finance in Montreal that he does not feel there is a youth unemployment crisis, or a lost generation, when considering all aspects of youth unemployment, will the Minister tell

April 3, 1984
Oral Questions
the House whether he concurs with the Minister of Finance's acceptance of an 18 per cent to 20 per cent or higher level of youth unemployment?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, when he said that such levels of unemployment were not acceptable.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I find it deplorable that the Minister concurs with the Minister of Finance when we have 45 per cent unemployment in ridings in western Canada where affluence used to exist.


CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT FUNDS
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary concerns the $150 million allocated to youth in the last Budget. Would the Minister please tell this House how that money will be distributed and what criteria are to be used in applying for these funds? We would like to know now.


John (Moody) Roberts: The Hon. Member cannot know right now, Mr. Speaker, because not all of the decisions relating to that $150 million have been taken. However, he will know all the details very soon.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, who answers for the Wheat Board, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Prairie grain farmers face a substantial drop in wheat prices for two main reasons, the soft world grain price and, of course, a highly competitive market. Will it be government policy to maintain the initial price at or very near to the present level for the 1984-85 crop year, thereby possibly having the Government assume some of the risk by putting some money into the pool at the end of the year? If not, would the Government be prepared to implement offsetting deficiency payments to compensate for what appears to be a disastrous pricing situation facing western farmers this particular year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all the Hon. Member has a very pessimistic attitude about the price for grain. I know, and he knows, that at this time of the year no crop is created or lost. All of these things have to be taken into consideration. Some of my advisers are telling me that prices are going to increase because of world conditions, et cetera. Of the things he has suggested, the last one in particular is not being considered, but the other two are.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board said there could be as much as a $ 17 a tonne Canadian price drop
this coming year. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board echoes those concerns. Perhaps the two Ministers can get their act together.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Government obviously cannot allow western grain agriculture to collapse. The fact that farmers have to bear substantially higher transportation costs this year, along with increases in other input costs, on top of the fact that they have had two poor crop years on the Prairies, will force a lot of farmers into bankruptcy. Will the Government live up to its obligation and make sure that the initial prices for the coming year are maintained at not less than the present prices?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that initial prices have always been set in a realistic fashion which is satisfactory to the farmers, maybe not 100 per cent satisfactory, but at least 90 per cent.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I think he knows that prairie farm income is down and bankruptcies are up. Can he tell the House whether he is willing to make the necessary changes to the western grain stabilization legislation which would trigger a payout to prairie grain farmers for the crop year 1983? A lot of grain farmers are asking for this.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am sure the Hon. Member knows that every grain farmer in western Canada does not belong to the Western Grain Stabilization Program. About 76 per cent or 77 per cent belong, so about 23 per cent do not. When he says "farmers", he should say those farmers who belong to the plan.
The Hon. Member knows that we have a report, and I am sure he knows that we are already working on that plan, and we hope to have his co-operation and that of the rest of the House when we present the plan to the House.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is the same answer we have been getting now for weeks from the Minister of Agriculture, and also from the Senator in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to know when we are going to see the changes in that plan. They were promised in the Throne Speech. I suggest he do it now, otherwise all those green hats for the leadership campaign will go to waste.
April 3, 1984


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I put the welfare of farmers ahead of any kind of a campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: As long as the agricultural economy is healthy, the rest of the country goes that way.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When?


Eugene Whelan: He keeps asking when, Mr. Speaker. Soon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Government of Canada support the recent proposals of UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar for gradual steps toward the reunification of Cyprus, including the return of privately-owned properties near Famagusta, at Varosha, to their rightful owners in the Republic of Cyprus?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada has consistently been that the taking of territory in Cyprus is not subject to recognition. The present situation is not based on international recognition or acceptance. It therefore follows that efforts by the UN to bring about a restoration to the conditions and structure on the island, as it previously existed, would be a positive step in that direction. We are watching the Secretary General's initiatives with great interest.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will do more than watch that initiative.


PRESENCE OF TURKISH TROOPS ON CYPRUS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the continued partition of Cyprus represents a serious threat to relations between Greece and Turkey, which could lead to a dangerous impairment of the NATO Alliance in the northern Mediterranean, what representation is the Canadian Government making in Ankara and Washington to facilitate the early withdrawal of 30,000 Turkish troops from Cyprus?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that Canada's commitment to peace and stability in Cyprus is a rather considerable one. We have had a peace-keeping force there for some 20 years. Our position is well known in Ankara and Washington concerning the destabilization of the previous situation in Cyprus by the military action of a number of years ago. Certainly in Ankara and Washington it is known exactly what is our position.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SITUATION OF YOUNG FARMERS IN MANITOBA
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. In response to a recent question he said he was going to take action soon to bring in a payout plan under the Western Grain Stabilization Program. I have spent much of this past weekend meeting and talking with farmers. Young farmers are being forced off the land. Since this last weekend two of those young farmers are no longer farming. They have been forced off within the last 24 hours. Is the Minister's Government unable or unwilling to do anything to prevent the loss of an entire generation of younger farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to say that it is one Minister's or one government's fault, when the previous Government of Manitoba did not do very much either. Agriculture is a joint responsibility. The Hon. Member should consider the amount of money we have loaned people in Manitoba to assist them with advance payments, et cetera. To say that the Government can be the saviour of everyone in that area is not correct. That is what the Member seems to be suggesting in his question.
I met with the Farm Credit people yesterday. I received letters from the Hon. Member's constituency and I also spoke to him. If he has any suggestion on how to save these people, would he please come forward with them? The people from Manitoba are now suggesting by letter that the Government assume ownership of the land, rent it back to the farmers, and then, if the farms become economically viable entities, they be allowed to purchase them. That is what the farmers themselves are writing. I received several letters yesterday suggesting that.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION INTEREST LEVELS
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, trying to pass the buck to the Government of Manitoba in this case is no answer. The farmers want action, and they want it now.
The Minister asked for suggestions. There are two specific things he can do. First of all, if he is willing, he can persuade the Minister of Finance, who for some reason seems very unconcerned about the plight of western Canadian farmers, to abolish the present system of charging 16 per cent and 16.75 per cent on long term Farm Credit Corporation loans. The second thing he can do, if he is willing and able, is persuade the Minister of Finance to abolish the tax on farm fuels.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member ask his supplementary question?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Will the Minister make those presentations to the Minister of Finance?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would like, I am sure we can have a briefing arranged for him by the Farm Credit people who are

April 3, 1984
Oral Questions
in touch with these people all the time. We gave some of these people reduced interest rates as low as 9 per cent and 10 per cent. These subsidized interest rates cost us, I believe, $36 million over a period of two years. Some of these people have not made a payment in two years.
What is the Hon. Member suggesting we do? These people are involved in production entities that are not giving a proper return. These production entities have not allowed them to make payments even with the reduced interest rates. In some instances, Mr. Speaker, if we gave them free money they would not be able to make ends meet under the production entities in which they are involved. That is only in some instances, not in all. I have made suggestions to the Minister of Finance. We are concerned about these people.
The letters that I received from Macgregor, Manitoba, and some other areas suggest that the Farm Credit Corporation take ownership, lease the land back to the farmers and let them stay on the land for three years, with the right to buy it back if it becomes economically viable. His constituents are suggesting that, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member has any different views from his constituents, let him tell me them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, if he will return to his seat. Tamil speaking Canadians are most concerned about what has happened today and yesterday in Sri Lanka. What can the Minister tell the House about that situation? What, if anything, does he feel the Government of Canada can do to stabilize the situation in Sri Lanka?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to report to the Hon. Member on the happenings in Sri Lanka yesterday and today, to which he refers. There has been an ongoing difficult situation in relation to the Tamil population with regard to certain isolated, and some not so isolated, incidents of violence. We have excellent representation in Colombo. Canadian interests are well taken care of. We are confident that the Government of Sri Lanka is doing all it can to deal with the situation.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is with regard to the advertising management group, the Cabinet Committee on Communications. Mr. P. T. Zarry, the Chairman, has been allotted $14 million to advertise 50 Government programs which the public does not know exist. Mr. Zarry is receiving a
salary of $2,000 per day, plus expenses. Can the Prime Minister justify an exorbitant salary like that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this. If the Hon. Member had sent me notice, I might have inquired. I will be happy to take notice of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may have a supplementary question. However, if the Hon. Member is asking for specific details, a question on the Order Paper is usual.


REPORTING AUTHORITY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister can take this as notice as well. Can he also explain why Mr. Zarry reports on his duties to Senator Keith Davey in the other place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that also.


FUNDING FOR SPORTS POOL CORPORATION
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). What authority did the Minister have to borrow $12.9 million from the Crown corporation, Loto Canada, to start up his sports lottery?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, as far as i know, we have not borrowed money from Loto Canada. Certainly not. We are continuing discussions in accordance with our agreement, which is to return to the Consolidated Fund the sums of money that remain in the Loto Canada account.


POSSIBLE USE OF POST OFFICES AS LOCATIONS FOR SPORTS POOL TERMINALS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office, if he would come into the House. Are you allowing-


Mr. Speaker:: Please address the Chair.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Minister responsible for the Post Office, is he going to allow 8,300 of his postal terminals to be betting houses for the new sports pool?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
April 3, 1984


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that this Bill was passed by Parliament and that, therefore, it is not an illegal operation. The Parliament of Canada passed a Bill authorizing the establishment of sports pools in Canada.
About the issue whether the Canada Post Corporation will become associated with the new Sports Pool Corporation, discussions are currently taking place between the two agencies, and I can give the House the assurance that the respective authorities of the two corporations will be publishing the results of their discussions very shortly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplemental to those asked of the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the grain stabilization fund. When is this payout going to be made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the legislation has to be changed, et cetera. The formula has to be approved by the House through the necessary procedures. Unless we have speedy concurrence of the House we would be very lucky to make one in 1984. However, we want to do it in 1984.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr. David Mann, who was a member of the Kirby task force, is a lawyer in Halifax. He is one of the group known as Regan's raiders, by the way. He is doing all the legal work on the amalgamation and negotiation with shareholders for Fishery Products International Limited, the Newfoundland company in which the Government is a heavy shareholder. He has now been appointed to the Board of Directors of National Sea Products Limited, their prime competitor. The gentleman is also the campaign manager for Mr. John Turner in the Atlantic Provinces. I do not know how he does all this.
This is an obvious conflict of interest. Would the Minister give instructions to Mr. Mann that he must either leave the Board of National Sea or give up his lucrative legal business for the government owned company, Fishery Products International Limited?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the most eloquent example of double standards.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: The Member who just asked me a question is the brother of one of the directors that the Government of Canada has appointed on Fishery Products.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mazankowski:: So what?


Pierre De Bané: When the Government of Canada appoints his brother, this is not a conflict of interest. When the private sector appoints a lawyer who has worked in the past for the federal Government as an adviser to me, then he criticizes the private sector for having confirmed the choice that I had made years ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary. The Hon. Member for St. John's West.


Mr. Tobin:: Resign!


John Carnell Crosbie: The fact that the hon. gentleman-


Some Hon. Members:: Resign!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's West has the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Resign!


John Carnell Crosbie: When you are finished all your excitement that somebody honest got in on one of those companies of yours, just relax.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You mean your brother is not honest?


CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. David Mann is a lawyer and his firm is acting for Fishery Products International Limited, owned by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland, and doing all of the legal work. He has now been appointed a director of National Sea Products Limited.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But he is not a Crosbie. What's your problem?


John Carnell Crosbie: He is not a Trudeau either, but that doesn't make him an ass.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Precisely.
2682

April 3, 1984
Business of the House


John Carnell Crosbie: He knows a good thing when he sees it. He knows patronage when he sees it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he were a Crosbie he would be an ass; that is what you mean.


John Carnell Crosbie: These two firms are in competition. Is the Minister going to stop the conflict of interest? I am not on the board of National Sea nor Fishery Products. I am here trying to keep you honest. Will you keep your appointees honest?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that for those companies in which the federal Government has made some commercial investments, some of the board members have been appointed by the federal Government and, of course, particularly with respect to National Sea, the majority is in the hands of the private sector. Of course I can do nothing if the private sector wants to appoint Mr. So-and-So.
Second, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that-


John Carnell Crosbie: How can he be the lawyer of Fishery Products?


Pierre De Bané: -due to the insistence of his own Party, we have decided that those commercial investments by the federal Government will be reporting, not to me as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but to the Minister in charge of CDIC.
Again, if he would reflect on it, he would see that there is no problem whatsoever and Fishery Products is absolutely, totally free to appoint whomever it wants as the legal adviser. Hopefully they will be appointing lawyers from Newfoundland, and maybe some brothers and cousins of the Hon. Member.


John Carnell Crosbie: That would be an improvement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on Monday, April 2, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate this Friday as an Opposition day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 172, 386, 452 and 678.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a FIRA Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: With reference to the latest available figures in the current fiscal year for the Province of New Brunswick, what was the total amount of money allocated to recipients in each constituency in respect to each of the following programs of the Department of Employment and Immigration (a) Youth Summer Employment (b) LEAP (c) LEAD (d) Internship (e) Canada Works?
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration: (a) See below, (b) None, (c) None, (d) The only figure available is for the Native Internship Program. The 1983-84 allocation to the New Brunswick was $114,984 creating employment for 24 native students, (e) See below.
	(a)	(e)
	Summer Canada 1983	1983/84
	(community stream	Canada Works
	portion allocations)	allocations
Carleton-Charlotte	222,400	924,000Fundy-Royal	178,000	739,000Gloucester	430,300	3,000,000Madawaska-Victoria	483,300	1,247,000Moncton	259,200	566,000Northumberland-Miramichi	348,300	1,753,000Restigouche	342,200	1,490,000Saint John	262,200	334,000Westmorland-Kent	279,400	2,471,000York-Sunbury	439,500	358,000
April 3, 1984


Mr. Howie: Are any persons employed by the Public Service Commission and, if so, how many and what is the estimated salary expenditure for the current year, and what were the salary expenditures in each of the preceding two consecutive years?


Serge Joyal: As of December 31, 1983 the Public Service Commission was employing 2,736 persons.
Estimated salary expenditures for current year	$84,524,000
Actual salary expenditures for 1982-83	76,015,000
Actual salary expenditures for 1981-82	68,273,000


Mr. Hawkes: Did the Ministry of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) recently hire a new Director for Fitness Canada and, if so, what (a) is the name of the successful candidate (b) steps were taken to ensure that the competition for this position was open to all qualified Canadians?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and the Public Service Commission as follows:
(a)	Yes, Mr. Michel Bedard was appointed to the above-mentioned position effective February 20, 1984 for a specified period (two years).
(b)	The qualified candidate was selected following a careful examination, by both the Public Service Commission and the Department, of members of the management category via the management resources information system as well as the applicant inventories in which all Canadians can register.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McLean:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to honour the commitment made both in 1974 and 1981 by Canada's Secretary of State to develop, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, a comprehensive government action policy with respect to the voluntary sector and urges the Government to provide an immediate incentive to Canada's 40,000 registered charities by implementing the give and take tax credit proposal.
Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, today's motion deals with the dealings between the voluntary sector and the federal Government. I am pleased to rise once again to talk about this topic. I am proud of the partnership that has developed between our Government and the community groups, particularly those in Mississauga.
I would like to spend a few minutes reflecting on the creativity and the value of that partnership. In my view, there is a major policy thrust, particularly in areas like housing, the arts and multiculturalism, that creates a deliberate partnership between the private sector and the federal Government. There is also a second way that we work with the private sector, that is, by creating new jobs and new opportunities in community development. Third, we have undertaken a program that seeks accountability, flexibility and community growth.
Therefore, I want to talk about these parts of the Government's efforts to strengthen and encourage the private voluntary sector in my riding. I intend to use the Mississauga area volunteer and charity groups as the focus of my discussion. I would like to relate our programs to these specific community efforts because I must admit at the outset that I am very, very proud of the efforts that we are undertaking in Mississauga.
For example, on Saturday night the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and I had a great opportunity to join the South Asian Community when they held a fund raising dinner to help raise moneys for our new Credit Valley Hospital. It would be remiss of me not to extend my congratulations to them for the great effort they made.
I also want to extend my congratulations to the Streetville Lioness Club which held a dance on that same Saturday night, again to raise funds for our local hospitals.
We have seen many community groups across Mississauga use this hospital as a focal point to raise moneys to help develop our community. They have made a vital contribution that has been good not only for themselves but also for our city at large. It would take me far too long to list all of these different groups here and now.
I said at the beginning that there is a deliberate partnership between the voluntary sector and the federal Government in housing, particularly social housing. I would like to make a reference here to Russett Co-Op and to Tecumseh Co-op, both

April 3, 1984
Supply
of which are new social housing development projects in Mississauga. In addition, I would like to refer to the Sam-paguito Philippino Seniors home, which is another private non profit social housing development. As part of those three projects we see over 300 new homes being developed across my city. The two co-operatives are open now and looking forward to their official ceremonies later in June. The Philippino senior citizen's home is currently under construction, and of course we wish them well.
These three projects came about because a particular volunteer had the vision and willingness to undertake the hard work necessary to make these projects happen. These projects reflect the dedication and the community spirit that is so typical of voluntary action. They reflect a willingness to struggle, to spend long hours late into the night, year after year to see a dream turned into concrete and new homes. Then, on the other side, the people of Canada form the other half of the partnership through our willingness to fund these projects through CMHC's social housing program. We provide financial help and management advice to match the voluntary spirit.
I would like to salute the founding members, the founding board of directors and the initial residents in those three housing projects. When those housing projects are opened in my city, the whole city will be far better for it. When those housing projects offer their facilities to the citizens of Mississauga, then all of Mississauga will benefit. This is the kind of creative partnership that we have developed in housing.
As I mentioned to you a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, over 300 new homes were developed in Mississauga in 1983 alone. Over 1,500 new homes have been built across our city since 1980 when I was elected, and over 100,000 new homes have been built under this program across Canada since 1980. This is a partnership, Sir, between people in our city who have vision and determination and the federal Government that is prepared to join with the voluntary sector and make those dreams come true. That is the way the private sector, the voluntary sector, finds help and friendship with the Liberal Government.
There is a similar equal partnership happening in multicul-turalism. Again I am going to use examples from my own riding because I have seen our multiculturalism policy work so very well in my city. There are several heritage language schools open every Saturday morning across Mississauga. I see the Hon. Member for Parkdaie-High Park (Mr. Flis) here. One of his children is enrolled in the Copernicus Polish school. There is also the St. Sophia Ukrainian school, the Frederick Schiller German school, and the Mississauga Croatian school. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the parents in those schools spend hours of their own time making sure those schools are properly established, that proper teachers are hired and Finances are arranged properly? In short, this is typical of the kind of dedication and hard work that people put into all our voluntary activities. Again, the federal Government is there as a partner. We offer them some financial assistance to keep the
doors open. They have their own private fund raising and God bless everybody, they are great at it. But we are there also to provide some additional help. I remember just the other week going to the Chinese Language school in my city. Six teachers are looking through available text books in Chinese dialects to see if they are suitable for teaching in similar schools coast to coast. The federal Government is helping with some of the research costs. I gave them a cheque on behalf of the people of Canada to encourage them. That project will help Chinese parents and children, not just in Mississauga, not just in that one school, but from coast to coast, from Miramichi right to Vancouver Island. In Mississauga we are proud to be a sparkplug in that partnership between the voluntary sector and the federal Government. Let us remember this is the type of voluntary self-sacrificing activity that is typical of so many groups.
Other multicultural programs are relying on the same willingness of people to give their time unstingtingly and to use their imagination to develop ways to help our community and our country. I think, for example, of the Malton Black Development Association. Early in June that association will be holding a seminar on the family's role in Canadian society. That seminar will help immigrant parents to develop ways of dealing with the great stresses between their traditional societies and the new society in which they and their children are living. Here is a group that saw a need. Here is a group that did not want to stay simply as a social group. They wanted to reach into families and into personal lives to make an improvement. Again the voluntary sector was encouraged and supported by a federal Liberal program. I am proud of the help that we extended to them. I want to wish them well in all the efforts which they undertake in preparation for their seminar next June.
I think of other multicultural groups that have done the same sort of thing. The Malton Catholic Community, for example, is a case where the church, community groups, and individual citizens have joined together to help new Canadians who have not yet achieved Canadian citizenship. They are offering classes and telling people how to fill out forms. They are helping people to anticipate the struggles ahead. Above all, they are helping fellow Canadians to assume the vital role of Canadian citizenship. They are doing this as volunteers. We in the federal Government have provided a small grant to help them with their costs.
Take a look at the Sao Salvadore Centre which is helping Portuguese immigrants integrate into Canadian society in Mississauga. Last summer, the Summer Canada grant program was used by several Portuguese Canadians to develop a film strip that will explain to the rest of us how immigrants feel and what difficulties they have when they first come to this country. Service clubs, churches, schools, and other volunteer groups across Mississauga can now get that film strip and see life as a new immigrant sees it, to experience life as new immigrants experience it, all because of students and the people at the Sao Salvadore Centre which had the imagination and sensitivity to develop such a fine program. We were able
April 3, 1984

to help and to be a partner through our Summer Canada grant program.
I am reminded today as well of the Mississauga Canadian-Italian Association. A year ago I met with people from that association. At that time it was a social group. People had dances and enjoyed themselves together as a community, but they wanted to go beyond that. They were worried about the way some people were having difficulty integrating into Mississauga. They were worried about drugs. They were worried about family services and about filling in official government forms. They set up a referral service. Today that referral service is launched, thanks to a grant from the federal Government. It is another partnership. It is an extended hand between the community and the federal Government. Today it is a service that is widely applauded. The mayor, the provincial MPP, other volunteers, representatives from the Italian services across Toronto have all said that the Mississauga Canadian-Italian Association has indeed done a good job. I am proud to have been there helping out as a partner on behalf of the federal Government.
I believe that in housing and in multiculturalism we have two outstanding examples of how the federal Government works hand in hand with volunteer activities to build new institutions, to create new aspects to our social safety net across Canada. But there is a third area, and that is where we join the private sector, the volunteer sector, to be a partner in jobs and community development. Every Member in this House knows about the Summer Canada program and the Canada Works program. Personally I prefer to see those job-creation projects go to the private voluntary sector. It is a constant temptation in my city to extend the moneys to the City of Mississauga and to the region of Peel. I try to avoid that temptation because I do not like just to pass tax dollars from one level of government to another. Frankly, I find that the City of Mississauga has great ideas. If I do not give them a grant through our system, they will find the money in another way. Volunteer groups do not have that kind of flexibility. They do not have that kind of partnership.
Let me point out some of the people who worked with us last summer to create jobs for students. Listen to this list. Listen to the broad representation across Mississauga. Here is an honour roll of voluntarism in my city: Theatre Malton, Malton Social Planning Centre, the Volunteer Centre of Peel, the ACFO-Nottawasaga Branch, the Midwich Co-op Housing Project, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and the Credit Valley Treatment Centre. Those are all volunteer groups in my city. All of them offer opportunities to help my city grow and become stronger.
In their Summer Canada projects, they left permanent benefits for our community. They provided our students with useful jobs and training and left us with projects that are responsible. We are now able to measure the benefits because they are accountable groups which are ready to stand up and tell us what they did with great pride. I see us working through
Supply
volunteer groups to create short-term jobs. I like that process. It is a very valuable way to operate. We need more of this activity, not less.
In conclusion, I want to say that I salute the people from Erindale College, the Mississauga Board of Trade and the Mississauga News. Today they are preparing the Citizen of the Year Dinner. This is held annually to salute one person who has done a really outstanding job. They are currently going through the community picking the nominees. In the next days they will boil down the long list into a short list and pick a winner. They do not really pick one winner. In this process, all of Mississauga is a winner. We are picking someone who represents the kind of community spirit that is typical of my city. When that community spirit raises its head, I am proud that the federal Government has been there to help them out in a few small ways.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the first few moments of the Hon. Member's speech. I wonder whether he dealt with the issue of the give and take tax proposal. If the Hon. Member did not deal with it, he has missed the essence of a large part of the concern in the voluntary community.
I have noted in the House over a considerable period of time that he has voted for budgets which provide the $100 standard deduction without making charitable donations, and that has been one of the causes why the voluntary sector has fallen behind in a financial sense. Has he had a change of heart and can he assure the House that he is now in favour of the give and take tax proposal and the fact that people must donate to charities before getting tax credits for having done so?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I have to confess that I did not go right to the motion. The Hon. Member has pinned me down. He has found my true strategy. I did not go directly to the motion because I found the motion wrong. I found it too negative. The motion attempts to say that the federal Government does not do anything for the charitable or voluntary sector.
Far be it for the Hon. Member to introduce politics into the House of Commons, but I believe the motion may have had some political overtones. I think his speech may have had some political overtones. It is necessary to balance out that sort of negative motion with a reference to a few positive matters. There has been positive action in housing with 100,000 units across Canada in the social housing program, most of them through a partnership with the voluntary sector. That is not something we should condemn. It is something we should applaud. If we go to examples of other programs, we find the Government hand in hand with the private sector constantly. If the Hon. Member has a particular tax measure that he wants to promote, that is fine, but he should not condemn all Government activity through this motion just because he is trying to promote one particular tax deduction.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North describes himself as a sparkplug. On reflection, I do see certain resemblances. Both of them have occasional

April 3, 1984
Supply
flashes of brilliance and both of them are possessed of gaps, in one case between the electrodes and in the other case between the ears. I take it from the Hon. Member's speech that he is in favour of the general Liberal Party approach to this problem where, instead of allowing people to donate to the charity of their choice through the tax system, he would tax all that money away from the taxpayers. It would then be up to politicians, bureaucrats or somebody associated with the government of the day to redistribute those tax dollars to a charity or cause of its choosing. That is supporting charities or causes of the Government's choosing and not necessarily those of the individual's choosing.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member always has enjoyable interventions to make which spice up life around here. I must say that his descriptions of me personally are quite accurate and very generous. I thank him for that. Typically he has asked the key question, and I congratulate him for that. Yes, I believe that generally we should use a grant system. He has described ills that really have not occurred. What happens is a general building of a list of criteria. Any group which meets those criteria applies and receives the grant, not a politically attractive group but any group can get the grant provided it meets the criteria. That is the first important point.
Second, once it has the grant, it is accountable for the spending of the money. It cannot spend the money in ways that are unacceptable or beyond the criteria. The Hon. Member knows that because he has seen how our officials screen the activities of Summer Canada projects in his riding. They want to know what is going on. They want to make sure the money is spent in ways that Parliament has approved. There is nothing wrong with that.
Third, these grant systems are measurable. The Government can make a proposal to the House of Commons, have it debated and approved in this Chamber, and then it applies evenly across the country. It is not open-ended and beyond the capacity of the people to afford.
I remind the Hon. Member that his motion makes reference to 40,000 registered charities. He wants half of the donations to those charities to be a tax credit. That is an enormous burden on the public purse. It is an open-ended one where the spending is not accountable, where the people are not responsible in any way to the general public. I offer him a contrast. Grants are measurable, responsible and accountable, but tax breaks are general, open-ended and very expensive. He should consider that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I must be sitting in a different House of Commons. Earlier this day in Question Period the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) was asked simply to make public the criteria for the $150 million worth of granting proposals, but he refused. This very day he refused to make public the criteria for spending the $150 million. We have discovered historically that $300 million was spent before anybody saw the criteria. To make that kind of
defence of the Government's granting record is to come from outer space.
I would like to ask the Member if he does or does not agree with the position of the national voluntary organizations that voluntary organizations which care about the quality of life in the country, whether it be the social quality, cultural quality or whatever, and which are entitled to a Revenue Canada tax number, should in fact be allowed to advocate for public policy. The present policy of his Government is that they cannot advocate. Is he changing his position and is the Government changing its position to say yes, groups of that kind should be allowed to advocate?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would not be at all surprised if the Hon. Member found himself out of touch with the debate of the day. If I were him, I would not stand up in the House and admit it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You admitted it for 20 minutes.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Every government grant program which is undertaken has attached to it regular standards. For example, Summer Canada programs indicate quite frequently that there will be priorities for handicapped people. Last year, the Canada Works Program had as a high priority women who were re-entering the work force after a period of time at home.
We know where the priorities exist and we know the kinds of people who are intended to be the beneficiaries of particular grants from year to year. All of us in this Chamber know that, or we should know that, because the employment development people tell us about those standards before the grants are issued. If the Hon. Member does not go through that process, he cannot blame the Government. He is supposed to do so but he may not always undertake the fulfilment of his responsibilities. That is up to him.


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member one simple question. He is making an eloquent defence of grants as opposed to tax credits. Would he apply the same view to people with child tax credits? Would he apply the same view to political Parties? Would he argue that a political Party, which represents Canadians who on a voluntary basis work for party they want to represent the people, should have their activities controlled through government grants?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a considerable difference between a political Party and a voluntary or charitable group. I think anyone who cannot see that is having difficulties. The Hon. Member's political Party, the political Party of the NDP and our political Party deal regularly with public decisions, with power and with influence. The Hon. Member knows that the tax grant system was set up to encourage a lot of small donors and to encourage the political Parties to get away from big power blocks which were donating huge amounts of money. In my riding today, I have, I hope, almost enough money to participate in the next election campaign. Every one of those donations has come from small
April 3, 1984

businessmen and individual donors. That is what the system was set up to do. It was not set up to create a parallel with charity.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), not only for the motion that he has put before the House this day, but for the work that he has undertaken prior to this motion in support of the the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations. It is one thing for a Member of the House of Commons to stand up in his or her place and make a case when a motion is before the House. The Hon. Member for Waterloo has done so on behalf of the National Voluntary Organizations in committee, and I can tell the House that he has done so in our discussions within the Party and has been very active in developing policy. Most important, much of his life has been dedicated to serving National Voluntary Organizations. I hope I am not out of place when I say that I know of some of the work that he and his family have undertaken, often at a financial loss to themselves as a family, I am sure. The motion that is before us is not only valid but is structured and placed before us by one who has given of himself to National Voluntary Organizations.
I would also like to make mention of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) with whom I spoke just the other day. He has given 50 years of his adult life to this place, to the churches of Canada and to the people of Canada. When we talk about voluntary organizations, these are the kinds of people and the kinds of donations that we have in mind. This is the kind of dedication that I believe should be mentioned from time to time and put on the public record. I believe it is because of these people and their contributions that Canada is a better place. I think that that is what is important about this debate today. That takes me to the issue that is before us, Mr. Speaker.
In Canada today, there are approximately 47,000 so-called registered charities under the Income Tax Act. Those charities are registered on the basis that they have the right to accept donations from the Canadian public, both individually and corporately, and can give tax receipts for the donations they have received. However, I would suggest that this is only a means to an end and is not the central issue. We must look at what these organizations do. They motivate people not only to serving Canadians but to serving others throughout the world who might be less fortunate than we are.
Let us return to the beginnings of our nation. It was the charitable organizations then, and possibly even today, which have given most to the cultural heritage of the country. They were then and are today instrumental in giving spiritual leadership to the people. They were the first to understand the need for an educational foundation for our young people and to sacrifice unstintingly to develop social services in the country. It is important to note that most of our social services were first provided entirely by the voluntary sector. We know that this is the case in the areas of health and education. Even today, the board of directors and many of the supporters of voluntary organizations are volunteers.
Supply
I would suggest it is important to note as well that as society has moved toward the greater development of the social welfare state, there has been a shift, and not a subtle shift, from services provided by voluntary organizations and churches to services that the state now provides. While I am not decrying that in total, I do suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a danger in that kind of a shift. I am talking about balance. Much of the criticisms of today's society are based upon the feeling that the Government is not doing enough in one area or another. However, I would suggest that too often the schools, churches, families and individuals have been very quick to remove themselves from their own responsibilities in these areas. That is why I think that the motion before us today is so important.
As I see it, the motion does two things. First, it recognizes the National Voluntary Organizations and second, it attempts to address how these organizations can better give service to the Canadian public while retaining their independence as voluntary organizations. It is most interesting to note that when speaking to people at the Department of External Affairs regarding the question of our responsibility as Canadians to citizens in other countries, we find that while there are many bilateral agreements between countries, the better use of public funds has come from the non-governmental organizations, almost without exception. It has come from organizations which place Canadians in other countries, not only to give the aid which is immediately necessary but, more importantly, to give direction to development. That is why it is so important to differentiate between what government can do and what volunteers can do.
Frankly, I found the comments of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) astounding. He chuckles about that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought he was very serious. His whole philosophy is based on the concept that government should take a certain amount of tax money, develope criteria and give grants, and that the National Voluntary Organizations could then function. But is the Government the best agency to set the criteria? I could give the Hon. Member a lot of evidence, although I do not have time today, of instances where the Government's handling of public funds has been wasteful and where there has been economic mismanagement. I could show him cases in development, and I am sure other Members of the House could as well, where voluntary organizations have been much more responsible and frugal in the use of the moneys available to them.
The question comes down to this, Mr. Speaker. Are these organizations more independent and can they function in terms of their duties and obligations more fully through a grant system or a tax credit system? With the grant system they must constantly go to the Government cap in hand and often must adjust their priorities and criteria to meet those of the Government. That is natural. The bureaucratic system will always demand that the criteria be those which the bureaucracy has established rather than those the National Voluntary Organizations feel are valid.

April 3, 1984
Supply
What was so astounding about the Hon. Member's comments was his statement that voluntary organizations were not as accountable as government for money spent. I wonder if he really believes that. I have in front of me a list of some of the National Voluntary Organizations in Canada. Is he saying that in its expenditure of moneys the Government of Canada is more responsible than the Canadian Council of Christian Charities? Is he saying that the Government of Canada is more responsible in spending money than the Canadian Heart Foundation, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Red Cross, the YMCA or the YWCA? The list goes on and on. Is that what he is trying to convey to the House? If so, I would ask him to rethink his proposition very carefully.
The Government's record of support for National Voluntary Organizations through words and statements is good. The intentions are noble-and so was the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) today. In the Speech from the Throne on December 7, 1983, the Government again commended "the vital voluntary sector". It was interesting to note that in response to a task force led by Ruth Hinkley, which looked at the future of voluntary organizations and issued a report entitled "Charity Today and Tomorrow", the Government said "The definition of a registered charity under the Income Tax Act and related matters will be referred to a joint parliamentary task force". And that is what the Secretary of State announced today, Mr. Speaker, a joint parliamentary task force to look at the whole question of charities.
The point I make is this. We now have in place many registered charities that have functioned in this country for a long time. In this House I have raised questions, and as recently as March 26, in the adjournment debate, about what is a legitimate activity of a registered charity. Is a registered charity to be defined only in the narrow 16th century concept of British common law? That is that basically a charity's only function is to give charity to those in need. Should we look at the definition in a broader sense and say that registered charities not only have a function but have an additional or equal function.
I am absolutely convinced that our society is a better society today because of the voluntary organizations. I am absolutely convinced of that, Mr. Speaker; I know that our communities are better for them. But in so doing, these organizations have been putting forward moral views, ideas on how society should function, concepts of where government is wrong, and have been pointing out that certain legislation will be detrimental to our society. So I ask the Government if that is a legitimate activity of a registered charity. You see the problem we run into, Mr. Speaker, when the Government has the responsibility for setting the criteria. That is the philosophical difference that I have with the Hon. Member for Mississauga North.
Let us look at a practical example of what happens when the Government sets all the criteria. A church has a certain reason for its existence; it has a group of adherents, they have a certain statement of faith and it is because of that statement of faith that people voluntarily join it. Now let us suggest that there is a piece of legislation that absolutely violates the
statement of faith of that church and its adherents, and that the church is a registered charity. That church comes out very strongly and publicly against the legislation, saying it is wrong and pointing out that it will have a detrimental effect on society. Is that a legitimate activity of a registered charity? I would say yes.
Let me go back to a letter written by Miss A. A. Conway on behalf of Revenue Canada dated March 1, 1984. I have already put this on the record at page 2447 of Hansard as follows:
We would comment that in our view while it would be acceptable for a religious organization to take a public stand on a moral issue, it would not be acceptable for that organization to engage in a campaign designed to bring pressure to bear upon a government to implement legislative changes or adopt a policy which the organization advocates.
Just listen to that, Mr. Speaker. Are we saying that when these national organizations, some of which I have mentioned such as the churches of Canada, feel that legislation is wrong, then the minute they say so they are in jeopardy of being decertified or deregistered? That is why this debate is so important.
To his credit the Parliamentary Secretary admitted that this was at best a grey area and that the Government does not have a handle on it. I suggest that the task force will not get a handle on it either if the Government does not first accept the fundamental principle that registered charities have a moral role to play within society. What about the give and take proposal? I find it very interesting. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North, who also was at one time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, said that it is a costly program. Let us examine the details.
First of all, the Government did take 50 per cent of the proposal, namely, it removed the $100 deduction which previously a taxpayer could deduct without the submission of receipts. That will come into force this year, 1984. It is interesting to note that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he announced this measure said that he had now accepted 50 per cent of the proposal. Well, Mr. Speaker, it never was the intention of the National Voluntary Organizations to have 50 per cent of the proposal accepted, and that somehow it was better than the system which was in place before. The question then is, if a tax credit of 50 per cent is introduced, what effect will it have on the national treasury? That is a valid question which the Hon. Member for Mississauga North raised as well.
At the present time in Canada, at least from the last records I have, approximately $900 million is now taken from the tax system by registered charities through receipts. The cost of the tax provision previously was approximately $500 million to $550 million, in that order. Therefore, donations would have to rise-if you look at a 50 per cent tax credit-somewhere in the order of $1 billion to $1.1 billion to meet the same costs to the Treasury as the old system which was in place. There is no question that, if we adopted the system, we could go above the $1.1 billion. I fully admit that. And possibly there should be
April 3, 1984

some kind of provision in terms of capping or limiting. I am willing to look at that.
However, what concerns me more is the principle. I believe that when voluntary organizations raise their own money, they give a better service. Whether it is a Liberal or a Conservative Government, I do not believe we can run their organizations, either through the bureaucratic system or the political system, as well as they can. What I am saying to Hon. Members opposite is that in all my discussions with the voluntary organizations, and from my discussions with the Hon. Member for Waterloo, I have never heard from them that they are not willing to look at these questions, that they are not willing to look at some kind of adjustment. However, I believe their philosophical basis is correct, and that is why I make the point. Their philosophical basis is that whatever money is raised and whatever money will be allowed for tax purposes, let them do it themselves, and let them control the agenda. That is what we are asking.
The Secretary of State again today mentioned the task force. I look forward to the report of that task force because I believe that has to be the central question.
As well, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier to you, virtually every part of our society has been touched by the voluntary organizations. On the question of health care, in my responsibilities as health care spokesman for our Party there are organizations which come to me and say, "We are willing to give it a try, but give us the opportunity." What I feel is important, Mr. Speaker, as we look at the further development of safety nets and the social welfare state, is that we must come back to fundamentals. The fundamental fact is that the best service Canadians can give to each other is when they give service of themselves unstintingly without the criteria which governments are always so quick to place on these systems.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are a couple of points which are somewhat confusing in what the Hon. Member has said. First of all, there are two questions here, the first is whether or not an institution is taxable. A voluntary non-profit organization is not taxable. Second, whether contributions to that organization should be tax deductible on the part of those who make the contributions. Those are two very distinct and separate issues. A charitable organization is not only not taxable but contributions to it are tax deductible. The reason they are tax deductible is because the public good is being served by the functions which they perform, the broad public good. That is the issue.
The next question is, should contributions to a voluntary non-profit organization, which in many cases pursues a very narrow private and special interest, receive broad public tax deductibility? In other words, should it be supported in part by all Canadian taxpayers even though it is not serving the broad public good but serving a narrow special interest? Those are the issues at heart before us. We talk about give and take because give and take would expand the concept of "charitable" to include non-profit voluntary organizations. That question is not one, Sir, which deals with a matter of the philosophy of voluntarism.
Supply
Voluntarism is a very good principle but it may not be in the interests of the broad public. The question is should the broad public be asked to subsidize the activities of voluntary nonprofit groups whose interests are to pursue a special purpose for a narrow group of Canadian citizens. That is the question, and I do not believe the debate today has addressed it in a way which would convince me that the kinds of changes which the Hon. Member put forward should be addressed. I would like to put that issue to him and ask him if he had thought about it in that way?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the question. It is a valid one and without any doubt, one which has to be addressed-and I am not trying to dodge the question-through the task force system. However, I put this point to the Hon. Member. He asked whether it is valid for us to consider or to set into train a system whereby the general public would, in part, help finance a special interest group. I do not believe we are ever going to get a totally clear answer to that, and I will give you the reasons why.
We do that now. For example, do we have a saw-off between the services a registered charity gives at a cost less than it would cost the general public if it was done through government agencies? That is one issue which has to be brought into that mix. The other issue which must surely be addressed is that we do that now as well, for instance, through municipal taxation. For example, a registered charity which has property, in most cases, is exempted in whole or in part from municipal taxation as well. So you could argue that we subsidize the charity as well in that sense. However, I do think the philosophy behind it is correct, that the public is better served by giving these charitable organizations not only tax incentives, but also an opportunity whereby they do not have to face tax regimes, which the general public and the corporate world have to face, because the question we then would have to address is whether they could, in fact, exist if that kind of regime were placed on them. Then the question which becomes the most difficult to evaluate is, would the replacement cost of the service we would then lose be not higher both in dollars and in terms of the manner in which society functions?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make just a short comment. I know the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) wants to ask a supplementary question. The Hon. Member asked whether I think reputable groups like the Heart Foundation and so on are responsible. Of course I do. In asking that question he has avoided the issue. He knows that when we use the phrase "responsible and accountable" in a tax context we mean something that can be explained in advance and measured afterwards. He knows the great advantage of a grant system is that criteria can be set which the whole world can see and follow; the criteria and the grants can be debated in this Chamber and approved or rejected; finally, the Minister has to account for the way the money is spent. Each of us, when we approve a grant or agree to one, we sign a piece of paper and are accountable as well. That is what I mean by

April 3, 1984
Supply
"responsible and accountable". It is not what he is describing and twisting, and I take objection to that description.
The Hon. Member knows we are talking about a balance, that much of the access he describes exists through the tax deduction system and Revenue Canada's extension of tax deduction numbers. We are both talking about expanding that program and how to extend additional aid into the private sector. I ask him to bear in mind that concept of the words "responsible and accountable"; it is an important one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with both concepts. However, I want to put this in a very practical sense. The Hon. Member took almost his whole 20 minutes to describe various charitable organizations in his riding. He can use his time that way, but let me give you a very specific case; service to the mentally retarded of Canada. This was largely started by volunteer organizations, including Kinsmen or Kinettes, in my area of rural Manitoba in places like Steinbach, Beausejour, and St. Malo. They are all voluntary, registered charities. They would like to expand their facilities, programs and service to people. But the only way they can expand is if they go back through the system, for instance with Canada Works student programs and so forth. While those programs are welcome, they then start running into the dependency factor. The Government says you cannot have programs one after another because you are becoming dependent on the Government. That is the catch 22 situation we have created. If they were able to raise certain funds which could be used as tax credits beyond what they are doing, then they could expand. I suggest, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, that they would be accountable for those funds every bit as much as the Government of Canada, and I suggest a lot more. They would also be responsible for those funds. Government, by its nature, likes to create dependency. I say leave them independent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would be prepared to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but I must inform the House that the time for questions and comments is over. Is there unanimous consent for a question from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Hon. Member is saying, but I do not think he addressed the fundamental points I tried to put forward. I hope we can have a chance to discuss it further because I think they are very fundamental. Certainly they have been central to my thinking on this whole issue, and I have given this particular proposal a great deal of thought.
The other issue I would put to him is that when we start talking about the difference between charitable functions, doing good for society generally, and the tax deductibility of funds expended for that purpose by charitable organizations, and then move to the question of political advocacy, it seems to me we have crossed a very dangerous line. You then run the
very great risk of setting up an extra-parliamentary special interest lobby funded by all taxpayers, even though the issues and interests they may be promoting are very narrow and contrary to the broader public interest.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in a democratic society legislatures are the institutions whereby the public makes its views known. Voluntary organizations can make their views known to the people and try and persuade them to influence their political representatives to make changes in policy. However, I do not think it is appropriate for charitable organizations funded through tax deductible moneys to be going directly to Members of Parliament and lobbying on behalf of narrow interests which are not and cannot be said to be in the broad public interest for which they received their charitable status.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that it is not a black and white issue. I think I said that. However, I prefer to err on the side of Canadians. Right now I have a petition in my office through which a number of churches across the country indicate that they will oppose Bill C-10, the Divorce Act. Surely that is legitimate, but it is also political activity. They want to influence the legislation. I do not see why that should give any cause for concern to the Government, yet it might cause them to lose their status as charities. I think we in this House are sometimes too careful. I know why the amendments in Bill C-169 concerning elections were brought forward.


John Leslie Evans: Your Leader does not.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let me finish. But I do not think the Canadian public and Parliament are well served by bringing in amendments which restrict the activity of groups who want to put their viewpoint forward during an election campaign. We in this House must always err on the side of freedom rather than follow what is so often the case in a parliamentary system, that of bringing in another regulation, another law to restrict the activities of Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians do not want to violate the natural and decent principles on which democracy is based; let us take a chance on them.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) (a) Lotteries- Federal sports lottery, (b) Request for federal-provincial meeting; the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Government advertizing (a) Rail expansion
April 3, 1984

advertisement, (b) Request that advertisement be stopped; the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Railways (a) Transportation of dangerous goods, (b) Distribution of departmental document.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McLean:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to honour the commitment made both in 1974 and 1981 by Canada's Secretary of State to develop, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, a comprehensive government action policy with respect to the voluntary sector and urges the Government to provide an immediate incentive to Canada's 40,000 registered charities by implementing the give and take tax credit proposal.
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think today's debate on the issue of tax credits for non-profit organizations and, especially, for registered charities is most interesting. I also think it is an issue that has evolved in the course of time. If we look at the matter of non-profit organizations, we should remember that initially, these organizations were declared to be charitable organizations and often had a distinctly religious base. I believe that when discussing the issue now, in 1984, we must look at all aspects of the problem, since many groups, formed for many purposes, are seeking to be defined as charitable organizations. Often these are research groups or groups that have sprung up spontaneously to look into environmental issues. I agree with the Minister that we must be careful in our assessment of so-called charitable organizations. Mr. Speaker, the motion presented today is a motion condemning the Government for its failure to honour the commitment made both in 1974 and 1981 to develop, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, a comprehensive Government action policy with respect to the voluntary sector.
Mr. Speaker, I think the time may be ripe to get together all these people who are working in the voluntary sector. Earlier, the Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) made a very significant comment when he said that we must ensure that governments, whether they are municipal, provincial or federal, will support the voluntary sector. I believe that Members on both sides of the House agree with the notion of putting more and more committed people in the voluntary sector, because motivation is needed to launch a cause and give a really profound sense of commitment.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the history of charitable organizations, it is clear that at the time, these organizations fulfilled a role that was often not fulfilled by governments. For instance, I am thinking of the matter of cancer research. At the time, research was often carried out by private organizations, frequently by religious orders, and in that case the Government paid practically nothing. So it was normal that if we wanted to encourage this form of research or support these communities or the work of these communities, that people investing money should be entitled to certain deductions. Today, however, these factors have changed. How much money do governments spend on research alone? Whether it is medical research or research on nutrition or education-Mr. Speaker, research is being done everywhere-it is directly subsidized out of the public purse. Thus, when you get organizations that are lining up to do research on heart disease or other kinds of disease, then we are no longer in the purely "charitable" sphere. These are organizations that obviously want to give even more than what the public authorities are doing. In that case, their work is complementary. And here I think we could consider a form of tax deduction. However, when you get groups that do research on the environment, can this really be considered charitable work? Does it qualify as research? I think there are grey areas that are very substantial and it would, perhaps, be only fair and reasonable to form a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons to meet the people working in this sector. Mr. Speaker, travelling in our own ridings and indeed across the country, we realize how many agencies are doing remarkable work in the voluntary sector. However, I am quite sure that all 282 Members of this House would be hard put to determine accurately whether each of these agencies is really a research organization, a charitable organization or an organization for voluntary action.
Mr. Speaker, after the historical aspect, I would like to consider the issue of the autonomy of these organizations vis-a-vis the public authorities. Nowadays, it is very hard to talk about a private business when we look at the number of grants governments give to businesses that are "private". It is also very difficult to talk about voluntary or autonomous organizations if we look at the subsidies granted by the Departments to various associations.
Mr. Speaker, I think that some kind of balance has to be restored with respect to organizations which consider themselves as being non-profitable and which normally, and I mean normally, should be supported to the same extent as their membership commitments. In my opinion, that is an important point. Perhaps the danger right now is that some non-profit organizations almost act as if they were Government Departments. Since they do not have enough patrons to support their charities-obviously commendable from the start-they come to rely on public authorities. There is a major distinction here. I think that non-profit organizations must be operationally

April 3, 1984
Supply
independent from public authorities, otherwise they might be well advised to become direct adjuncts of certain Departments. I think that an information campaign ought to be directed at people who participate actively in so-called non-profit organizations so that they will do their work and make sure that the public at large is kept informed and makes generous donations.
How can those people be encouraged to contribute financially so that an organization will have enough money to operate? 1 think that all kinds of formulas are available. The give-and-take formula was mentioned a moment ago. It may be a good formula, but it needs to be put to the test. As to the tax credit, Mr. Speaker, we would want to know just how much credit. I imagine that anyone who gives money to an organization does not expect a full tax credit for that amount. The underlying principle has to be that a donor must not wonder whether he will get something in return. So it becomes a question of evaluation and proportion.
Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are told that 40,000 organizations are registered as being charitable or non-profitable, it is imperative that they be classified so that people will have a much better idea of the value of those organizations and of the limits on tax deductible donations. For instance, I know that some churches in my riding-and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) spoke clearly to that issue earlier today-have received assistance through various job creation programs. Indeed, we have helped many religious congregations and parish communities to modernize or at least repair and improve rectories and churches. Invariably, some people bring up the question of separation between the powers of the State and those of the Church. Still, we have helped them with public funds. Under normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it would be up to the parish to make sure that the parishioners or the community members pay for materials or services. For all sorts of economic or historic reasons or because of factors which must be taken into consideration, the State occasionally steps in to help them. How else could we help those communities if we did not give them grants? Is the deduction now allowed for charitable donations too low? Should it be higher? If it were higher, would the communities find it easier to get organized, Mr. Speaker? In the light of current events, we have to admit that the social and economic reality has undergone a drastic change over the past ten years. Allow me another example. In larger cities, people move so often nowadays that many of them no longer feel responsible for their parish or community or even for the organizations working in their own neighbourhood.
Those are new sociological phenomena which we must face. We would be deluding ourselves, Mr. Speaker, if we believed that a debate such as this one could provide any answer to these problems. In my opinion, the best way to come to a realistic solution, especially one which may be applicable in the long run, would be to let individuals and organizations involved in voluntary work, charitable or research activities to
come to us and explain their own position. Indeed, when we confer with officials from various Departments or even with people in charge of organizations, we find it very difficult to find any common ground because many aspects are hard to assess at the present time as we do not have all the components of the problem in hand.
I am happy to see that, basically, everyone taking part in this debate today is aware of the importance of non-profit organizations and of the need for voluntary work and that both sides of the House agree that concrete action must be taken in the short term to guarantee that we will help those who are involved in voluntary work and who take care of other people.
I gave the historical background a while ago. In the early days, non-profit or charitable organizations were dealing directly with individuals. They were not necessarily doing any research work; they were taking care of people because governments were not doing it. However, many services are now provided by the governments. We would have to determine whether there is any duplication of efforts. Perhaps we should also look at whether existing organizations still have an efficient and positive role to play. I believe that these are important questions which should be asked from the people working within these organizations.
Another question which must be asked when dealing with these organizations is this, Mr. Speaker: Is the word "charitable" still acceptable where all these committees or groups are concerned? I believe that the word should be changed because it is now hard to identify all the organizations using this term. Instead, I believe that we should refer to voluntary action. The expression "voluntary action" is much more accurate and appropriate, and if we were to use it, it would be much easier to come to a consensus as to the various provisions that should apply so that we would be sure of actually helping those organizations.
The Hon. Member for Provencher raised a major point when he noted the importance of not over-regulating the voluntary sector. If we really want to review this whole issue of non-profit organizations effectively, we should set up a joint committee of both Houses capable of doing its work speedily. I believe that the time has come to look for a consensus among the various non-profit organizations. I think that a six-month period could be set for a joint committee to listen expeditiously to the comments or wishes of the various organizations, after which the committee could very rapidly, at the government level, find extremely simple methods to meet the needs of these organizations.
Someone was saying earlier that the difficulty is that we do not want to recognize all the organizations and that we are removing one additional motivation for those who do voluntary work. Mr. Speaker, I think that for those who really believe in what they are doing and who truly want support for agencies
April 3, 1984

or research work, the important thing is not just the financial aspect, but also the structures which can be provided by certain Departments.
I believe that all these aspects should be examined. Often, when people speak about non-profit or charitable organizations, they are only concerned with donations. I think that it could be appropriate to reflect on what the various Departments provide year after year either in terms of money or of human resources.
Often, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of human resources. And there are needs in this area. Departments could make available part of their human resources to these non-profit and voluntary organizations, thereby avoiding useless expenditures. These organizations could then better reach their goals. There are a great many opportunities, Mr. Speaker, and the best way to find them is to communicate with the people themselves. Then, through a debate free of partisan considerations aimed at helping quickly the registered organizations, we could find a short term solution which would meet the needs of everybody.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it would be important for the Secretary of State to hurry with this matter for Hon. Members from both sides of the House are receiving an increasing number of letters and petitions from organizations which are seeking not only recognition but a voice. I suggest it would be a great opportunity for us to invite to come forward all those who would like to be heard and appear before a joint committee which would patiently listen to their ideas, for Hon. Members from both sides of the House have solutions to propose, Mr. Speaker. I think that both the government and the opposition have solutions to propose, except that they must be discussed before being implemented. I also think that the points raised by the government as well as the Official Opposition are basically very interesting, but they need to be improved upon if we want them really to meet the needs of voluntary organizations.
Coming back to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I think that blaming the government at this stage might mot be the best policy. Personnally, I would rewrite the motion and urge the government to appoint immediately a joint committee to hear the views of the various groups for the purpose of meeting their respective needs. As my time is about to expire, I should like to say that I do not support the motion as moved by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), although I recognize the necessity of meeting the various interested groups and find a formula which would satisfy everybody.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! Questions or comments? Debate. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) for moving the motion. I would point out to the
Supply
House and Canadians generally that this is the first day of debate on the national voluntary sector in the life of this Parliament, which is approximately four years and six weeks old. That is a curious commentary on the priorities of the Government as they relate to what I think is a very important sector.
In straight economic terms, the voluntary sector, excluding hospitals and educational institutions, accounts for approximately 2 per cent of our Gross National Product. That is just its economic contribution to Canadian society. Its contributions in terms of the inculcation of values which I am sure most people in this Chamber would value is incalculable. It is the national voluntary sector that gives us much of what we enjoy in terms of quality of life in this country.
I think it is a sad statement that the Government has allowed four years and six weeks to pass without bringing forward anything of substance for us to debate in this Chamber relative to this sector. I am disappointed that members of the Liberal Party stand up one after the other to indicate that they are not really willing to support this motion.
1 believe this motion is a condemnation of the Cabinet and, as members accountable to their constituents, I think we should condemn the Cabinet from time to time. The Cabinet does not always do a good job; we on this side of the House believe they seldom do a good job. Certainly in relation to the voluntary sector I think it is clear they have not done a good job.
I was particularly struck by some of the questions posed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) who was at one point Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Linance. What he said in this Chamber today, Mr. Speaker, is that any large corporation, IBM, Imperial Oil, or whatever, is free to lobby, to come to Government and propose changes. When you look at the tax system you find lobbyists from any major corporation lobbying Members of Parliament using 50 cent dollars. The corporate tax rate on profits is 50 per cent. When those lobbyists come to lobby MPs from Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal Canadian taxpayers pay 50 per cent of their salary, travel and sustenance costs.
Members opposite, in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, told us today that, first they do not agree that people should be able to donate to charities with 50-cent dollars and, second, if a group wants to retain its status as a charity and get any relief out of the tax system, then beware. In other words if you are a voluntary organization you do not have the same rights as Imperial Oil, IBM or a thousand and one other companies. You do not have the right to suggest changes in legislation to Members of Parliament, nor do you have the right to suggest improvements in the quality of life. That is an astonishing statement.
Before the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Lisher) told us that grants were better than tax relief. Sitting in the front row is

April 3, 1984
Supply
the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who is prepared to give grant money from her department to groups who support her personal view of problems in the Canadian health care system, but not to give grant money to groups who disagree, nor to give grant money to groups with an oppositie point of view. That shades of totalitarian states, countries like Russia with one political party. Those who would like to destroy Canadian democracy, would have a state owning ail the means of production and a small group of people would decide who got what. That is what a grant system is all about; a small group of people, whoever they are and however described, imposing their will on a community.


John Leslie Evans: Including grants to municipalities?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That includes municipal grants, provincial grants, any granting system of any kind. Some small group of people make the decisions.
Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council stood in the House proposing that Imperial Oil should be allowed to lobby with 50-cent dollars and that charitable organizations should not. Now he sits in his place and heckles. He wants to make sure that his constituents understand his philosophy and perspective, that churches should not be allowed to lobby, YMCAs should not be allowed to lobby, boys' and girls' clubs should not be allowed to lobby, and environmental groups should not be allowed to lobby if they are going to use taxpayers' dollars, but major corporations shall be allowed to lobby.


John Leslie Evans: I didn't say that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, the Hon. Member did. He said, "I did not say that." The Hon. Member might not have understood, as sometimes happens-


John Leslie Evans: Don't put words in my mouth.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: But that is what he said, Mr. Speaker.
The fault lies with the tax system, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: I don't disagree with that.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Some 25 years ago the Canadian tax system was revised and people were given a standard charitable donation deduction. They could claim they had made a donation to charity and thus reduce their taxable income without providing proof of such a donation. But what happened over a period of 25 years? Let us go back 25 years. Twenty-five per cent of Canadian taxpayers were forwarding receipts for charitable donations to the taxman. One-quarter of the people were making charitable donations. But in 1982, 25 years later, only 9 per cent of the people were making charitable donations. That is a drop from 25 per cent to 9 per cent. And what have we left in place? We have said to the richest Member of Parliament that if he or she wants to donate $10 to a charity it will cost the person only $5. Yet we have said to the poorest person that if he or she wants to donate $10 it will cost that person $10. If you are rich it will cost you $5 to donate $10,
but if you are poor it will cost you $10 to donate $10. That is the system we have in place. First, a system where you do not have to donate a dime but you can claim you had donated $100. If you exceeded the $100 donation amount and you chose to produce receipts, if you are rich it cost you 50 cents for every $1 donation. But if you are poor the cost is $1 for every $1 donation.
I suggest to Members of this Chamber, from whatever political party, that that practice is obscene. Why should the poor be allowed only to donate dollar dollars and why should the rich be allowed to donate 50-cent dollars? Large companies in Canada which make charitable donations donate 50-cent dollars because of their 50 per cent tax rate. Small companies donate 79-cent dollars because they have a 21 per cent tax rate. That is the principle, Mr. Speaker. The rich shall be allowed to direct Canadian charities is really the consequence. It is not very democratic.
It is not very democratic when you have a principle in Canadian tax law that says the wealthiest group shall really be allowed to decide which charities shall survive and prosper. But what we on this side propose, and what the voluntary organizations themselves propose and have proposed year after year after year, what this Government agrees prior to elections and never implements after elections, is a democratic principle of allowing communities to decide equitably which organizations in their communities shall survive and prosper in a financial sense. What Members opposite seek to do is to continue a process where a small group of people decide.
Let me give you two or three examples from my own experience, Mr. Speaker. I have tried since the day I was first elected to bring to the attention of Minister after Minister the issue of chess. Chess is an activity engaged in by four to five million Canadians at least once a year. Chess is an activity in which a number of Canadians, young and some not so young, have established world-wide reputations. Chess players are not allowed by this Government to receive funding through charitable donations or any kind of tax break. They are told instead to apply for grants. Lo and behold they can apply to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) and they can apply to the Minister of State for Sport (Mr. Olivier), but the reply every time is that chess does not fit the definition for granting activity. They can go to every department of Government and it will not fit somebody's definition.
Look at highly commercialized activities. A not dissimilar activity like skiing is highly commercialized in Canadian society. Lo and behold, the best Canadian skiers fit the definition for grants. That is a highly commercialized area of activity not engaged in by nearly as many people as those engaged in an activity called chess. You have to wonder which is the more important activity in terms of the public good. Given the nature of the world of the future, is the activity called chess more beneficial to society in terms of the way it conditions the minds of young people, prepares them for a computer age and employment activity in the production of



April 3, 1984

software? Is that activity more important to the public good than the activity called skiing?
That is a subject worthy of debate by Members of the Liberal Party, who tell us that the purpose of a granting mechanism is to allow a small group of people to decide what is in the public good. They will make infallible, perfect, wonderful decisions time after time. I throw that dilemma out to them. Which activity is more in the interest of the public good, skiing or chess? Skiing gets infinitely larger grants from the Government of Canada, whereas chess does not get a dime.
What would happen if these voluntary activities were treated equally in the tax laws of Canada? What would happen if the proposal put forward by this motion and the National Voluntary Organizations was adopted into law? I will tell you what would happen. The broad mass of Canadians could vote on which activities were in their mind in the public good. The way the vote would be through the process of donating.
If you adopt the 50 per cent tax proposal, then when a dollar is donated, in essence the public would pay out of tax revenue 50 per cent of that. There would really be a truly democratic matching situation where individuals collectively decide what is in the public good instead of a Cabinet Minister, committee or Parliament? We would have a much stronger voluntary sector. We would have a voluntary sector that better meets the needs of local communities and Canadians. We should take Government out of the middle, take these granting committees out of the picture for the most part and return the voting principle to the taxpayers of the country. Let them decide which parts of the voluntary sector are doing the job that needs to be done. Let them decide through the use of their pocketbooks, and let us encourage them to do so through the use of the pocketbook.
I was really disturbed today when I heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) say in this House that we have $150 million for grants for young people, but he will not tell us what the criteria are. Somebody is deciding. Those criteria are not out. We caught the same Minister with his fingers in the cookie jar to the tune of $300 million under the Special Employment Initiatives Program. The money was spent before Members of Parliament knew what the criteria were.
That is the danger of a granting system, a danger that we do not have and should not have to face. All we have to do is adopt the recommendations put forward by the National Voluntary Organizations. If a 50 per cent tax credit is too rich, maybe 40 per cent is not. Maybe 50 per cent is not rich enough and it should be 60 per cent, but the principle should be non-negotiable. There should be no temptation on the part of any Cabinet Minister or any elected Member of Parliament to use public funds to secure votes for themselves personally through some kind of granting mechanism, giving money to this group instead of that group. The temptation is great for some Members. We caught the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who seeks to become the Leader of the Liberal Party, with his fist in the cookie jar, passing out grants in a fashion that is not accountable, not responsible, not any of
Supply
those things that Members opposite stood up and told us were desirable.
I had a bias when I began this speech. That bias comes from my first ten professional years which I spent as an employee in voluntary organizations. From there I moved to public sector organizations. I had a small business, I dealt with large business. When you talk about productivity, the biggest bang for your buck in terms of good consequences, I state unequivocally, is in the voluntary sector. A dollar spent in the voluntary sector will give much more back to society than a dollar spent in any other way. The difference is immeasurable.
Next to that comes small business. Most small business owners really volunteer a huge part of their hours. A huge part of their talent is voluntarily put into their small business activity. That is the nature of a true small business. Where the waste comes in is with big business and with big government. When funds are free, when an organization gets grants instead of having to convince its friends and neighbours to make donations, there is waste. When you have civil servants in charge of large organizations, you get even more waste. I suggest to the Members of this House that $ 1 million spent to facilitate voluntary sector organizations in the provision of recreational services will produce five to ten times as much activity of good quality as the same $1 million spent for a city recreation service.
One of the things in the background of my life that convinced me to run for office ultimately was when my own daughter as a teenager went down to the city recreation program and volunteered to teach gymnastics. She was told to fill out an employment form. She had to be paid because of the insurance regulations. That is not the kind of world in which I grew up. In my day we were looking for volunteers for the YMCA. We went out, recruited and trained them. They provided really first-rate service. It was not a job, it was a labour of love. There is something very special about the quality of an activity in which people voluntarily place their money, time and effort. Anything that exists in legislation that can be changed which goes against the maximal utilization of that is wrong and should be changed as quickly as possible.
The Hon. Member for Waterloo is on the right track and I would hope that the Government is listening. I would hope that we will see quick action that will move in that direction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) reminded all of us in the Chamber that we have not debated the topic of the voluntary sector for four years. I would remind the Hon. Member that members of the Official Opposition and the NDP also have a role to play when deciding what is debated in the House. We do have an Oral Question Period. How many questions have been asked over the past four years about charitable and non-profit organizations?

April 3, 1984
Supply


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Quite a few.


Jesse Philip Flis: Members of the Opposition may take advantage of Opposition Days. How many full Opposition Days have been devoted to debating this topic?
We in the House hear quite often from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that business, labour and Government must work together to build a future for the young people of the country. I am very pleased that the voluntary sector was recognized in the last Speech from the Throne. I am pleased that in the last Budget, the Minister of Finance recognized the important contribution of the voluntary sector. It is the voluntary sector which also provides jobs, affordable housing, important cultural centres in which young people meet, scholarships and education to those who might not be able to afford it.
I am very pleased that we are debating this topic, and I am also very pleased that the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) announced this morning the establishment of the parliamentary task force to examine the question of fiscal incentives for charitable giving and the definition of charities under the Income Tax Act.
In debate today, we heard many questions. What is a charitable organization? What is a non-profit organization? How should contributions be recognized and rewarded? Should they be rewarded through the tax credit system, through deductions from income tax, through the 50 per cent proposal which we just heard, through the grant system? I think the job of this task force will be to explore questions such as those.
An important question was asked by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp); what the legitimate activity of a recognized charity was. I think this question will have to be explored. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) reminded us, and rightly so, that we must ask what the role of a charitable organization is. Is it serving the broad public good or is it simply that of a non-profit organization which serves a very narrow group of citizens? These will not be easy questions for the combined Senate and House of Commons task force to answer.
When the topic of the voluntary sector arose today, I asked my parliamentary assistant to send to the Chamber a list of all such organizations in Parkdale-High Park. We all have such organizations on our mailing lists and keep in touch with them. It is when one puts them all together that one realizes the impact of voluntary organizations on our ridings.
I was sent a list of the ethno-cultural groups in Parkdale-High Park. There are 35 such groups in a little community like Parkdale-High Park. These groups range all the way from the Council of National Ethnocultural Organizations of Canada, which represents 26 different ethno-cultural groups, to the Chinese National League, the Czechoslovak National Association of Canada, the United Croats of Canada, the Greek Community Metro Toronto Incorporated, the Italian Canadian Association, the Japanese Canadian Citizens' Association, the Baltic Federation in Canada, the Lithuanian Canadian
Community, the Latvian National Federation in Canada, the Estonian Central Council of Canada to the Maltese-Canadian Society. The list goes on and on. I have not even mentioned the largest ethno-cultural groups in the Riding of Parkdale-High Park which include the Filipino, Ukrainian and Polish organizations.
I am very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in that the head offices of many of these organizations are located in the Riding of Parkdale-High Park. I am very pleased that, for example, the Ukrainian Canadian Committee of Ontario has its head office in Parkdale-High Park. I am very pleased that the Canadian Polish Congress has its head office right in the centre of my constituency. The Polish Alliance of Canada has its head office right in the heart of my riding.
This brings us to the question of what is a national organization. After listening to some Hon. Members this afternoon, I would think that they would define these organizations as being ones which did not serve the general good across Canada. These organizations have representation right across Canada and most of them follow a democratic process. The presidents of these organizations must be elected at either annual or biannual conventions. They are responsible to their electorate just as we are responsible to ours. That means that national organizations are very democratic organizations. They account for every penny they spend. I think other institutions could learn from these organizations.
My assistant sent over lists of other organizations. For example, she sent over a list of all the senior citizens' groups in my riding. There are 10 different senior citizens' groups in the riding of Parkdale-High Park. These include the Sampaguita senior citizens' club, the Parkdale Golden Age Club, the Over 50 Club and the Golden Years Club. Again, each of the ethno-cultural groups I have already mentioned have senior citizens' clubs.
My assistant sent me a list of the business and ratepayers' groups. These groups are non-profit, but are they charitable groups? Some of the business improvement associations such as the Parkdale Business Improvement Association, are trying to improve the environment along Queen Street. This will hopefully bring in more business, boost the economy of the area and create more jobs. However, these organizations do more than that. They provide scholarships in the neighbourhood schools. They make donations to help those who need help most.
How do we define these organizations? Are they strictly non-profit commercial organizations or are they charitable institutions? The Bloor West Village Businessmen's Association which is located in my riding does all of these things. What about the churches? There are close to 40 churches in the riding of Parkdale-High Park, most of which have a parish council of one form or another. These churches have helped to bring refugees to Canada in general and to Toronto in particular. They have helped the boat people, the Polish refugees, refugees from Guyana and refugees from other parts of the world. How do we define organizations which are connected with the churches? It is easy to define a church but
April 3, 1984

how does one define the voluntary organizations connected with churches?
My assistant sent over a list containing 40 other groups which do not fit in with the groups I have already mentioned. Again, those groups provide jobs, affordable housing, scholarships for students who cannot afford to go on to higher education and other services.
Before entering politics I had the good fortune to be a farmer in Saskatchewan, the good fortune to run a family business in Ontario, and the good fortune to work on the assembly line in the Goodyear Tire Factory. Of all my jobs the most rewarding was bringing heritage languages under the Toronto Board of Education, together with the Province of Ontario. I had the good fortune to be supervising principal of 12 different heritage language programs, including Punjabi, Urdi Gujarati, Hindi, Greek, Urkrainian, Polish, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, the languages of the Baltic States, Greek, and Portuguese. None of these heritage languages would have been brought into the regular school system if it were not for the co-operation of the various volunteer associations, and the various ethno-cultural groups which helped the Toronto Board of Education and the Province of Ontario in the organization. Rather than children learning these languages in cold basements somewhere, they were taught in a classroom setting. What a rich resource we have in Canada in the 75 different heritage languages that are spoken here.
This House has debated how to increase productivity, and that competition for world trade is becoming greater, Mr. Speaker. What an excellent resource Canada has in people who speak 75 different languages, thanks to the help of all these voluntary organizations. How can we ever reimburse them? What would we have to pay these organizations if they charged the going rate? The country could not afford the programs if it were not for the voluntary sector. Those organizations do not want compensation, they are happy to do this and feel that they are better Canadians because they have made a contribution to the growth of the country.
We have heard various proposals about how Canadians who make contributions to those organizations might be reimbursed and how the Government could assist those organizations. But there has been no mention of a proposal that has been made to me in the 20 years that I have been working with ethno-cultural groups, Mr. Speaker. Those groups do not want a hand-out from the Government, they want to pay their own way, but they would welcome something like long-term low interest loans so they could build their ethno-cultural centres and not be in debt up to their ears with all their energies going into raising money rather than into programs for young people and senior citizens. This is where we as legislators could be of assistance to a lot of service clubs such as the Parkdale Lions Club, Rotary clubs, and Kiwanis clubs.
Ethno-cultural organizations are national, not local, with national networks and duly held conventions where executives are elected and are responsible to the electorate. What would
Supply
be wrong with giving a loan for 20, 30 or 40 years at 5 per cent interest so that the organizations could provide programs to senior citizens in the cultural centres, could provide heritage language classes, and space for people to practise their heritage cultures? Where do the various Boy Scouts and Girl Guides in our country meet? Some meet in schools, but the Ukrainian Boy Scouts and Girl Guides have their own cultural centres. They have their own camps, built with their own money. Where do the Polish Boy Scouts and Polish Girl Guides meet? They have camps at Barrys Bay, as the Hon. Member for Renfrew knows very well. He is very proud of the work the Polish Canadians are doing in his area. They take children out of the hot cities in the summer and give them a fresh air experience, teaching them leadership and self-confidence and how to preserve their language and heritage. In that way they preserve their identity and become better Canadians.
I would recommend that the task force look into the possibility of giving low interest or interest free loans, if we can afford it, to these organizations. That would not be a hand-out; they would be paying their own way.
I should like to close by tossing out four guidelines that the task force might keep in mind and that we as legislators might keep in mind to help the voluntary sector. I think we have all made a great contribution today. If we could offer some guidelines that the task force could follow that would be helpful.
First, the incentive should be an effective one. It does not make sense if the cost of the incentive exceeds the additional amount of "giving" that results from it.
Second, any tax incentive should provide equitable treatment to taxpayers; this is the essential basis for any tax system.
Third, the cost to the Treasury Board should not be unreasonable. I think we all admit that we are running a very high deficit. We should not increase it but should try to bring it down. The task force should keep in mind that the cost to the Treasury Board should not be unreasonable.
Fourth, administrative and compliance costs should be reasonable.
With those four guidelines and with our discussion of what constitutes voluntary organizations and non-profit organizations highlighting the contribution that all these local and national voluntary organizations have made to the growth of Canada, this Chamber may finally include the voluntary sector when it speaks about co-operation.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of quick questions for the Hon. Member. The first requires only a short answer. Am I correct in believing that he advocates that the joint House and Senate Committee should have the capacity to look at his proposals with regard to low-interest long-term loans and fiscal incentives? Is it his view that the task force should have that right?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I think they should explore that and consult with the various organizations to get their input. I
April 3, 1984

Supply
believe it is a proposal that I as the Member for Parkdale-High Park can toss out for the task force to consider.


John William Bosley: Is the Hon. Member aware that the Minister's notice of motion tabled yesterday establishing the committee, excludes all questions of fiscal incentive and financing matters from its deliberations?


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. As the Hon. Member knows, by unanimous consent in this House we can do whatever we have the will to do.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, would the Member care to tell the House whether, as opposed to unanimous consent, if an amendment were moved to the terms of reference to include fiscal incentives and considerations by any Hon. Member ol this House, no matter of what Party, he would support such an amendment to the terms of reference so that his matters may be studied, whether or not that amendment is adopted unanimously?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. I believe 1 would first like to see the amendment and the implications of it before I would make any decision on it.


Walter Franklin McLean: This morning when the Minister was in the House, Mr. Speaker, I asked him if the question of tax incentives might be clearly in the frame of reference. At the time he was tabling background documents relating to it. He said he would take the matter under consideration. Today at lunch, as the Minister spoke to the leaders of the national voluntary coalition who are gathered here in conference, they reiterated to the Minister that they felt the task force would be seriously jeopardized in its mandate without the mandate calling for testimony in relation to tax incentives.
Will the Hon. Member join with the members of the national voluntary coalition in Canada and with other Hon. Members in the House with respect to both the question which has already been outlined relating to the definition of "charity", and the question of tax incentives, which we are pressing, and which representatives and leaders are requesting? I sensed, as the Hon. Member said, "We do not want handouts", that the question of tax incentives is consistent with what he was indicating to us in the House. Therefore, will he speak in support of these representations to the Minister?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows me very well. We have worked on many committees together. I always support any reasonable suggestion or recommendation. However, I was not here this morning. I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so I did not hear the debate. I did not hear what the Minister said on the national voluntary organizations. I would like to read what the Minister actually said, what the exchange was, before answering more fully.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short comment and question. Earlier, I noted the way in which our housing program and multicultural program have created a partnership between volunteers and the federal Government. The Hon. Member has hinted at the programs for seniors. I see the Minister for National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in the House. I would like to tell her that the New Horizons Program extends these principles to senior citizens and gives them a chance to be partners in community projects with the federal Government. I wonder if the Hon. Member could reflect on some of the experiences in his riding.


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did not have time to go into it so I am happy the Hon. Member has given me some time now.
On Saturday of this last weekend I met in St. Joan of Arc Church in my riding the UMAT Katolik Indonesia, which is an Indonesian senior citizens club. There were 300 senior citizens present. One of the things they are actively pursuing is the building, together with assistance from CMHC, of a senior citizens centre. Because we have no land left to build on in Parkdale-High Park they want to build it somewhere in Mississauga.
We have other excellent examples, Mr. Speaker. We have the Copernicus Lodge in our riding. That was built, thanks to the co-operation of the federal Government, through CMHC, and the Polish community. We have two phases now. The first phase is where senior citizens can live and look after themselves. They have apartments in which they cook and look after themselves. Once they become older they can move into phase two of Copernicus Lodge where there is nursing care and all sorts of assistance for these seniors. Here again is an excellent example of what the community can do in partnership with the Government.
The Lithuanian people have built a senior citizens home right on Bloor Street in Parkdale-High Park. It was filled before it was completed, again, thanks to the assistance of the federal Government through CMHC with respect to Section 56.1. I would urge the Minister responsible for CMHC to give priority to funding for these kinds of senior citizens homes because there is an established organization there. They know what the needs are for their senior citizens. In that centre, they can hear their heritage language and see their own culture. They have a taste for different foods, and so on. However, they do not exclude other Canadians. They welcome all Canadians who want to come and live in that home. The Ukrainians have similar homes, and other groups.
Yes, in response to the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), if anyone would like to come and see and study these excellent models, and I mean this sincerely, so that perhaps they can promote this in their ridings, we would welcome them in Parkdale-High Park. They exist because of the dedication and contributions of these voluntary ethnic culture groups working hand in hand with the federal Government. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the provincial government, which is responsible for affordable housing, is not doing much to help.
April 3, 1984


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to be able to say a few words to the motion before the House. I compliment my friend, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) on the motion. I believe we are discussing something today which is of great importance to Canadian life and to every Canadian. The Hon. Member for Waterloo has proposed:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to honour the commitment made both in 1974 and 1981 by Canada's Secretary of State to develop, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, a comprehensive government action policy with respect to the voluntary sector and urges the Government to provide an immediate incentive to Canada's 40,000 registered charities by implementing the give and take tax credit proposal.
I feel that we have had a good day in the House, Mr. Speaker. I have not been here for all of the debate, but I believe the mood which has been demonstrated by the Hon. Members of all three Parties indicates that we are moving ahead with something which I personally feel is very important, that is, the whole question of voluntary associations and how they operate within our country.
Basically, what the Hon. Member for Waterloo is proposing is that this very valuable work in Canadian society be rewarded, more or less, and those who are taking part, by having a very clearly defined tax break. Those who give to voluntary organizations will have an immediate return, not unlike the return to persons who give to political parties today, which I believe has been a great advance in the whole political system of Canada. I would like to say a little about the historical development of this whole notion of voluntarism, the notion that our Canadian life runs and has run on the idea that people are ready to volunteer to help each other prepare and make a better society. I would like to reflect for a few moments on my own life history.
I was born in western Canada on the Prairies in Rosetown, Saskatchewan. My father was a pioneer. He came to the west early in the 1900s, as thousands of other people came from eastern Canada, from Europe and from the United States. They came to a literally barren land in which there was nothing but open space and lots of sky. There was land, and they were able to take out a quarter section of land, 160 acres, in their own names. Some of them made a success of it and some did not. Some of them were farmers and some were not. However, when the peoples of the world arrived, established and set up the communities of western Canada, they did it basically through their voluntary organizations. If you drive through western Canada now you can see what happened. When people arrived there they did not know each other but they knew they could not survive unless they helped each other. You see the churches and the schools on the Prairies, although most of the schools established in the early days on a voluntary basis are now gone. I went to one of those little one-room schools, as have thousands of others. They were the beginnings of Canadian life in that part of the country. When you talk to the pioneers, it was a rich life even though they had great hardships. It was rich because they worked together in these voluntary organizations. They had their music and drama clubs and other things four or five years after they
Supply
arrived. My life, and that of many others in the House of Commons, has been shaped and formed by the voluntary sector of our land.
Today we are talking about specific areas in which the voluntary sector can be improved. I have a feeling from listening to what has been going on today that that is going to happen. It may not be perfect and immediate, but it is moving.
I think that is very positive because everyone here knows from personal experience that what we are talking about is extremely important.
I am a Catholic Priest and I have lived most of my life in the voluntary sector, the church. The same is true of the Hon. Member who moved the motion. He is a Protestant Minister and he has lived in that part of society. This is part and parcel of what I am all about, it is a way of doing what I am going to put simply as loving your neighbour. That is a simple mandate, given to everyone. The whole world knows that is what we are supposed to do. How do you love your neighbour today in this complicated society? The motion talks about that and it helps us to do it better.
The voluntary sector has to be financed, Mr. Speaker. We all know there was a period of time when everyone in Canada could get a standard $100 deduction for purposes of their taxes. The Department simply found it too complicated, I suppose, to take every little donation and add it up; it just said let us take it for granted that every Canadian is that interested and given at least $100. Well, the last Budget eliminated that deduction. The voluntary sector said that it should be taken out, it was not true that every Canadian gave $100. On the other hand, they asked that for every dollar given to a voluntary organization, there be a tax benefit of 50 cents. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) produced his last Budget he was quick to take out the $100 but he did not give the tax credit. Today the Hon. Member for Waterloo is asking that the second part be respected, and I hope the task force looks at this seriously. If that is done, the whole process of the voluntary sector will improve. The Government will not suffer because more money will flow into that sector. This will be a saving in the end for the Government itself.
Going back to the question of why I believe what we are doing today is so important, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer again to the idea of love your neighbour. By good fortune we have agencies who are doing that. We can become part and parcel of that work by stretching out our hands and helping other people, loving other people, by helping the organizations who are doing just that in the modern world. On the Prairies where I grew up it was easy to know your neighbour; he was a half a mile down the road. Everyone knew the people in small towns in the district, they knew who was sick, who did not have food. But today it is not so easy.
The question today is, who is my neighbour? Who is my neighbour where I live, who is my neighbour in my province, my country or in the international community? That is the question we have to address. Being active in the church at one

April 3, 1984
Supply
level or another all my life, that was where I really came to terms with how that worked, why people were willing to do that through a church or another organization. It is a natural way to respond to the demand to love other people. I could talk of hundreds of thousands of people who are able to do that. Today we are trying to improve what is already in place. As I said, I think from what I have heard in the House today that that is going to happen. It may not be tomorrow or next week, but it is going to happen because the goodwill is present in this House today.
Some things are going to have to be discussed which are not easy. One question is, when does an activity become political? When does this or that particular group become political? It is not an easy question to answer. Some people will consider an action to be political, while someone else will consider it to be very charitable. They can see that the only possible response to a particular thing at a particular time has to be this activity. But two people see it two different ways.
Last Sunday, in a church in which I had never been before, following Mass I went around to a little alcove in which the local community had set up a development project. It was something to do with Lent, showing how this particular parish had responsibility to people in other parts of the world. There was a picture there of a good friend of mine, Dom Helder Camara, the Archbishop for Recife in Brazil. He retired from office in the last few weeks because he is 75 years old. He has visited Canada many times, and many people in this House, as well as those watching on television, have publicly heard him speak. Under the picture of Dom Helder Camara was written: "When I give food to the hungry, people call me a Saint; but when I ask why the poor do not have food, they call me a communist." Through that little expression we come to the question which will be difficult for that task force to answer. Where does religion stop and politics start, or politics stop and religion start? That is going to be difficult.
Dom Helder Camara has worked with many of the volunteer organizations I have worked with in international development. The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development of Peace, for instance, is a volunteer organization that uses the donations of Canadians to help development projects around the world. Dom Helder Camara has frequently come to Canada to speak to that group. I know from my own experience in working with him that much of the funding given by Canadian people has gone to work in his section of northeast Brazil where there is massive poverty, hunger, health problems and so on. I believe that the person who gives what he can to any organization is loving his neighbour. That is one of the ways in which Canadian people, who live in a rich part of the world, can help those less privileged in other parts of the world.
I believe that the income tax law should be changed so that when a person gives a donation to a particular organization which they believe is loving their neighbour they should in turn receive a something themselves; that is, they will get a tax
break. This will make it possible for them to extend their own personal income to help someone else.
I think there is strong motivation in what has been proposed by my colleague from Waterloo which will benefit the volunteer sector of our country and will not be a burden imposed on the taxpayers. This type of activity will make funds more readily available. Grants from the Government will not be necessary. The people themselves will take greater responsibility in the local, national and international areas. The responsibilities which are part and parcel of being a human being will be more easily addressed because people will have more say in how their charity is being used in the world.
The National Volunteer Organizations are meeting here today. It is a very good day to have this debate. It is fitting that it should be today. There must be a lot of clarification of words. In the volunteer sector definitions of many things are not clear. There is a lot of vagueness with regard to religion and politics. The information which has been supplied by the National Volunteer Organizations to members and anyone who is interested indicates that a charitable organization has to be defined by the tradition of the common law. A charitable organization can be one of four things. It can be for the relief of poverty, for the advancement of religion, for the advancement of education or for other purposes beneficial to the community. That gives us an idea of what charitable organizations are. In whatever new legislation is proposed there must be clear a understanding of what those particular areas are. When the common law was being established I am sure that the word community referred to a very small group. Today most people have a much bigger vision of what community is. It refers not only to down the road, but to the whole global village.
Another reason I think the debate today is so important is that I suspect what we are talking about today in the House of Commons will touch more people than any other single Bill or motion to which I have spoken. Probably every Canadian is involved in one or more of these voluntary groups. It could be in sports, music, health, with the Red Cross, with the local YMCA or with any one of the church groups I am talking about. Many people are involved with many of these organizations. What we are talking about today is important because it is going to touch every single Canadian directly one way or another. Something will happen so that that person will be affected. Something will happen that will make that person more able to act the way I was speaking about a little earlier; the whole way of how to love your neighbour. We are discussing something today which is of intense interest to every Canadian.
I see that my time is up. I am happy to have had these minutes to propose a few ideas about how I hope the task force will begin its work. I hope it will have direction in its work which will reflect some of the things we have talked about today. I will close by saying that I feel we have had a good and profitable debate, and I am very happy to have been part of it.
April 3, 1984


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, since I have been asked to share the last few minutes with my Opposition colleagues.
I am glad the subject was put on the agenda by the Official Opposition. I must admit that in the five years I have been sitting in the House, it is the first time I have seen the Official Opposition move such a constructive motion, and they ask to be congratulated.
If we really take the trouble to give the subject the attention it deserves, it could have a tremendous impact on this country, and the economic benefits will be very substantial indeed.
Have we ever stopped to think what a country would be if it did not have the voluntary sector? It would be unthinkable. So if we can bring this debate, which has been conducted with very little show of partisanship-it must not be a partisan debate in any case-to a satisfactory end, I am sure the entire country will benefit. Why? Because if we stop and think for a minute, this debate and I think we should realize this will help us make all the Members of this House and Canadians who are watching us more aware of what the voluntary sector represents for a country.
If we have the sense to try and harmonize all these efforts and all the potential that exists in our country, if we take the trouble to use these resources intelligently, Mr. Speaker, there are people out there who need only the slightest encouragement to get on board and serve their community.
We see this constantly in our communities, and when we visit our ridings, we see all these groups, these service clubs consisting of men and women, some of whom spend as much as one-third of their time on volunteer work. If that work could be quantified, I think that we could demonstrate that the voluntary sector makes a considerable contribution to the gross national product. If we were wise enough to recognize that contribution in some way or other, either through a tax deduction or otherwise, I would favourably consider the setting up of a House committee. I hope that such a committee would apply itself to the task at hand in order to achieve tangible results. We would thus be able to tap that potential of voluntary work.
There are so many Canadians throughout the country doing voluntary work at present and still more would be ready to do so. There are many retired individuals who are well off; the wives of tradesmen, for example, or other professionals who live at home or have raised their family. They have great qualifications and would be ready to make them available to their community. But first the Government of Canada should ask them to come forward and show them its interest and gratitude?
Mr. Speaker, I realize that some members of the official opposition would like to speak. To conclude my remarks, I hope that the debate will remain non-partisan, that it will
Supply
continue in committee and that we will be intelligent enough as managers of this country to take advantage of that enormous potential in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions, comments, debate. The Hon. Member for Don Valley West.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I gather that it may fall to me to close this debate today. If there are others who wish to speak, I would be happy to reduce the length of my comments.
I accept the good will and the sentiments of the words of the previous speaker. Perhaps he will understand and even forgive me if I become to some degree what he might regard as slightly partisan. However, I will not be partisan on the question of voluntary associations or voluntary work. We all derive benefits from that work of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do whatever they can to help their fellow Canadians. That is not a partisan matter. I believe everyone in the House from all parties believes it is absolutely essential.
There is a distinction which must be made between the activities of associations and their members and the frustration that the leaders of those associations feel about what is truthfully significant inactivity on the part of the federal Government to resolve the problems which their institutions have been dealing with, as members trying to help others, for ten years. Let me give an example in order to help members opposite understand.
In 1978, the Department of Revenue issued a circular, later withdrawn, which attempted to come to grips with the issue of what is an activity by a registered charity that is prohibited by law. Let me quote one of the issues raised in this circular. It states that written or oral representations to the involved Minister of the Crown are also looked upon as an acceptable activity on the condition that such representations are limited to presenting the organization's interests and points of view, and otherwise do not attempt to influence legislation.
According to the common law and language of this circular, attempting to influence legislation is illegal for the institutions we are talking about. In other words, the document entitled "Charity Today and Tomorrow", which has sat on the desks of Ministers of the Crown for some years now, is conceivably an illegal document and the presentation of that document is illegal.
In the context of what is not or should not be acceptable activity in terms of public purpose or benefit, the organizations themselves do not know whether they are in fact at risk of losing their charitable registration when they make a representation. While members may say that this has never happened and does not happen, we were told by the Civil Liberties Association last week that they thought they were taking reasonably sensible action in raising some money to defend a person before the courts on a human rights issue, which is their purpose and objective, but were told that they could not do

April 3, 1984
Supply
that. They could not issue charitable receipts for those funds, and if they proceeded they were at risk of losing their registration for doing precisely what their objectives say they should do.
Mir. McLean: Ask the Mental Health Association.


John William Bosley: Ask the Mental Health Association of Canada whether it is clear if one is in violation of the law.
Just as a simple administrative matter, that same Civil Liberties Association for some reason did not file a return in 1978 or 1979. The computer system used by Revenue Canada has no capacity to notify a known charity of its failure to file a return and simply deems it to have disappeared. When this association raised its funds for the next year, it discovered that it had no right to issue receipts. These organizations do not know what their rights are.
Hon. Members opposite have tried to see this issue in terms of the good work that is done, but they have missed the issue as it is seen by the institutions. The issue facing organizations who are attempting to do something useful in this country today is that they have no way of knowing whether they are acting illegally or at risk of losing registration. They have no way of determining this because it is still a common law matter.
Since 1974, those institutions have sought a collective definition in the law to clarify their circumstances. Since 1974, the Government has been promising over and over again to do that. Here we are, on April 3, 1984, discussing a motion on the Order Paper asking the Minister to create a joint committee to look at the question of what charitable objects are and what the legal rights should be.
This is not a new issue. This same document from the National Voluntary Organizations, now in their tenth year, shows that in 1981 they submitted proposals to the Minister of Finance to resolve the issue. The key phrase in this document is, "That following three years of consultations the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations submitted a proposal to the Minister of Finance in December, 1981". How long will it take parliamentarians-I mean all of us-to recognize that we have a special obligation to clear these matters up quickly for people who are put into a position by our inactivity of potentially being illegal if they call us or write to us to tell us their problems. They do not have the same rights to lobby us or raise their own issues with us. They responded to consultations over three years by submitting a document in 1981. What did they get? They got three more years of non-action and another motion before the House, presumably well-intentioned. We all hope it produces action to resolve this question.
What have various Ministers said, Mr. Speaker? In 1981 the then Secretary of State at a conference entitled "Consultation '81" said:
I am committed to the development of a comprehensive federal government action policy developed jointly with the voluntary sector.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) at the Conference of the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy in Toronto On November 10, 1982, said:
With this in mind, I intend to place this matter before Cabinet. My plan of action has five objectives ...
1. To determine the legal and fiscal framework within which the Government and the voluntary sector can work together.
In 1983 and 1984, what do we have? We have a motion that takes precisely that line, to determine the legal and fiscal framework within which the Government and the voluntary sector can work together, and it strikes out half of them. The motion before the House leaves out the words "and fiscal". It would not be surprising to me if leaders of the National Voluntary Associations were a little skeptical about the purposes behind the motion tabled on the Order Paper. It says:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon the legal framework for voluntary actions with particular reference to the following:
There have been two issues facing the volunteer world: one, definition of status; and two, an attempt to get a better fiscal support mechanism for their activities. It is not as though Members of the House do not know this. Members of the House have heard the debate about give and take for at least four years. Members of the House know full well that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) took half of give and take. He kicked out the $100 charitable donation deduction. He did not put back the proposal to allow charitable institutions and voluntary associations to get at the tax credit, which was the second leg of that proposal.


Walter Franklin McLean: An $80 million tax grab.


John William Bosley: The Minister of Finance could have tabled in the House at the time what he expected the tax expenditure saving to be, which is that wonderful technical phrase which means how much money he was going to get in extra-what he was going to get in extra. In fact, if you work it out in his documents, it is $80 million. The Minister of Finance could have said that this issue of support for those who are trying to help others has been around long enough; I am taking the take part of give and take and I am going to give only $80 million worth of the give proposal. But no, we get into more of the language, Mr. Speaker, that says let us have a Parliamentary committee some day. Let us look at the proposal somewhere else some day. In fairness, many of us expected that the new Secretary of State meant what he said 13 months ago and before that, that there would be a joint committee to look at these questions and try to resolve them.
It is frustrating to recognize that all Members of the House-and let us keep this as best we can non-partisan-who believe that the issue of the way people raise money is an important part of understanding the issue of the charitable institutions, and we are now going to have to lobby, I hope with the help of those on the other side who have raised the issue themselves. We still must persuade the Minister, it would appear, to include that issue in the joint committee study. It should not be surprising if many Members of this House
April 3, 1984

believe that the words of the motion put by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) are absolutely correct. It states:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to honour the commitment made both in 1974 and in 1981-
And it goes on to urge the Government to do, in effect, what it has been saying all along it was going to do. I repeat, we can go on and on forever talking about the reasons there may be difficulties with definitions or difficulties with certain proposals, but we miss the fundamental point if we do that.
The fundamental point is, and I say this particularly for those who have raised several issues today, can we reverse our thinking on the issue? Can we stop finding ways to say no to people who are trying to help others, and find ways to say yes to them? They have not asked for very much. If we want, we can get hung up on questions of whether we should treat non-profit institutions differently from charitable institutions. We can get hung up on the questions of what shall be acceptable activity and what should not. Why not do the sensible thing and say "we will define what you may not do"; we will tell you what activities, presumably to use their own definition, such as the support of a political party. Those will not be activities acceptable for people who have tax exempt status. Why do we not give them the freedom that they should have to be able to make representations to us, as every other Canadian can make on issues that are matters of public policy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: Why should that be a surprising idea? Somehow we have invented some mindset that says if an organization has a view about public policy, it is all right for it to raise a lot of money, conduct a public education policy and run ads about that issue, which presumably would have an indirect effect on us through the voting public, but if we were able to prove that its purpose was to influence the legislation, we would declare it illegal. Or as one Member opposite told us recently in his view it is all right if they educate the public because the public are the people who elect us, and then the public can respond. In other words, if they can influence us indirectly, that is fine, but they shall have no right to influence us directly, to make their views known to us. Surely that is lunacy; surely it is self-evident lunacy, that we would say that to the National Cancer Society, the opera society, or others, for example the cultural organizations who we asked to tell us through the Appelbaum Hebert process, through parliamentary committees for a year and a half what policies there should be. We paid many of them some expense money to come here to tell us, because they are the practitioners, what cultural policies should be. Does it not sound absurd to have a law that says Revenue Canada might then be able to go after them for appearing before a Parliamentary committee because they had now violated the law, were illegal and could lose their charitable registration for telling what public policy should be in the area of arts and culture? Surely it is self-evident lunacy. What justification can there be for the delay?
Adjournment Debate
Before I sit down, I want to say something about some of the responses made today to the give and take proposals in the area of the policy distinction that must be made between grants and tax credits. According to some, notably the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), the issue is more than simply grants and tax credits. It is whether we accept the principle that people should be encouraged to give of themselves voluntarily for public purposes and objects about which they care.
The grant systems of government are designed to find vehicles, whether they be in or out of government-notably out of government-to do things, projects, programs, be it for the Minister of State for Sport (Mr. Olivier) or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), and which the government has decided should be done. The Minister of State for Sport provides funds for the ski team if he chooses because he believes it is important. That is a grant. What if somebody on the ski team, in the association or someone in the health programs or in culture believes there is a program their organization should mount that is within their purposes as a charitable organization? Surely it is equally self-evident that the purpose of a tax credit system is to assist people doing work within the public arena of purpose, to do projects they believe are important within those objects, within the registration and within what is permitted activity.
If we ever were to get to a situation, as the Hon. Member from Mississauga was suggesting, not only would we define a charity for the purposes of the law, but we would then define, restrict and control the programs they could get into by administering them through a grant system as opposed to a system of encouraging people to give to them. Then we really would be crazy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 62(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not get a chance to speak in the debate today. I would have contributed more impetus in so far as the voluntary sector with regard to the different sporting fraternities is concerned. It would have been a great little bit of debate. I

April 3, 1984
Adjournment Debate
know my friend the Sports Minister would like to have taken part in the debate.
The question I asked on March 27, as reported at page 2472 of Hansard, was directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier). There have been three such Ministers prior to this Minister. One is in the other place. He is now going to lose a baseball franchise, along with another Senator. They are very worried because of the sports pool. The other one was a sports broadcaster. I thought he would, without making unilateral decisions, sit down with some of his provincial counterparts. Then there was the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) who was looking for Canadian unity so that she could get as much publicity as she could in her portfolio but she really did not do very much.
I am delighted that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is here today to answer my question. I want to bring to the attention of the House the current unilateral action of the Liberal Government, which in effect abrogates the 1979 federal-provincial lottery agreement. It is a direct assault on co-operative federalism. The Chairman of the ILC shareholders' committee has twice made specific invitations to the federal authorities to discuss federal-provincial differences over lotteries.
The new sports pool could result in a tremendous proliferation of sports pool/lottery games as the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation tries to meet its heavy start-up costs. The poor results of Loto Quebec's Hockey Select suggests that the federal Sports Pool will fail if they do not create a number of lottery-type games. Since there is a limit to the lottery market, the resulting competition could result in higher administrative, advertising and commission costs, resulting in lower profits to distribute to culture, amateur sport, fitness, recreation, health and environmental research.
As well as treating a legal federal-provincial agreement with disdain and thereby threatening all federal-provincial agreements, the Liberal Government seems to be reneging on the 1979 agreement since it was agreed to by the Clark P.C. Government. That could set a particularly bad precedent, putting into question whether a new Brian Mulroney Government could likewise unilaterally terminate any or all legal agreements which the former Liberal Government had entered into.
It should be recalled that the 1979 agreement was a good agreement. It established in Canada a practice common to most other federal jurisdictions, such as the United States and West Germany, wherein lotteries/sports pools are left to the provincial level of jurisdiction. Even economically, the 1979 agreement was beneficial for the federal Government. For doing nothing, except vacating the lottery field, the federal treasury has received to date $124 million or $125 million from the ILC, and could receive approximately $35 million this year. I am sure the Minister would agree.
While the provinces have done well in the four years they have managed exclusively the lottery Field, the true comparison of what the federal Government has gained is when you compare what the federal Loto Canada turned over to the federal treasury compared to the ILC payments. In 1977,
1978, 1979 and 1980, four years, the total profits in Loto Canada were $210 million. The federal treasury received $10.5 million and 5 per cent of the total profits were supposedly earmarked for physical fitness, amateur sport and recreation. I say supposedly since, unlike Ontario where lottery profits are designated by legislation, the federal Government has put the ILC payments it receives directly into the general revenue. I plan to check over the last four years to see whether both the federal Department of Multiculturalism and the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport each received their full 50 per cent share of the ILC payments for the last four years, or whether they were shortchanged, and whether any of these lottery moneys were used to replace basic funding.
There is also a potentially embarrassing issue pertaining to some $3.2 million in unclaimed Loto Canada prizes. Loto Canada retained this money instead of ensuring that the Canadian public was able to win it through some kind of bonus draw like Loto 649 or proportioning it according to the distribution of its profits.
I will not deal with this now, but today I raised a question referring to the fact that there was $12.8 million in the kitty initially, and I asked how the Minister transferred those funds into the other fund. I know that the Minister will at least ask his counterparts to discuss this matter because, if he does not he will lose the baseball franchise and get himself into more trouble.
t Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for having given me this opportunity to speak on this subject. The House will recall that the provinces have shown their intentions, and what is more, they have gone already to Court. I shall therefore be careful what I say. Where my hon. friend opposite claims that we broke an agreement he himself signed in 1979. My answer is, simply, that we did not break this agreement because we have no intention of administering a lottery.
What we intend to do is to administer a sports pool, which is entirely different from a lottery. In a lottery, you take a number at random and you have a chance of winning. A sports pool is mainly a test of a person's intelligence and the individual's knowledge of sports, all of which must be used in determining who the winner or loser will be.
My hon. friend opposite says that we did not hold consultations. I am sorry, but my senior officials have held consultations with lottery authorities across the country to advise them that we did not intend to break this agreement. The best proof is, Mr. Speaker, that only today, I heard through the media that people who signed the 1979 agreement sent us a cheque for $8 million. So, when you have a party who says he is not observing the agreement, he is not paying, and who says the next day that you did not observe the agreement, I think this is
April 3, 1984

very strange indeed. However, we do have a very serious problem, which is that the Government of Canada needs money to make the Calgary Games the best Olympic Games ever in this country, we need $200 million. Amateur sport needs money, medical research needs money; and the taxpayer can no longer pay taxes and this is a perfectly normal and easy way to raise money without unduly taxing Canadians and it gives sports enthusiasts a chance to participate indirectly in the Canada Games, the Commonwealth Games and the Pan American Games. That is what we had in mind when we set up these sports pools. My honourable friend opposite signed an agreement in which he substituted $35 million for a potential $200 million. I do not know of many people in this House who would sign this kind of agreement. We intend to abide by these terms because, for the time being, we do not intend to get involved in lotteries. Our purpose is strictly to get into the sports pool area, and I think that is quite clear. This was explained when Parliament passed the Bill last June, authorizing the Government to get involved in sports pools. Since the matter is now before the courts, I would rather not elaborate on the subject much longer.
Regarding the franchise, I had a meeting this morning with the president of the baseball leagues, and he said very clearly that to him, these were two different matters. He felt it was morally questionable and said that, as a matter of principle baseball disagreed with the sports pool concept. Regarding the Vancouver franchise, this is a matter of-


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING-RAIL EXPANSION ADVERTISEMENT. (B) REQUEST THAT ADVERTISEMENT BE STOPPED
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise during the adjournment debate to elaborate on a question I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) on March 26. It referred to the misleading and self-serving advertising by his Department, paid for with Canadian taxpayers, which appeared in the Financial Post of March 8. In this misleading and self-serving piece of government propaganda, paid for by the taxpayers in Canada, entitled "Canada's Rail Expansion to Meet the Demands of a Growing World", there was a statement that there would be 375,000 jobs for Canadians and a $16.5 billion investment in our rail transportation system.
On February 8, 1983 when the then Minister of Transport presented proposals for the change in the statutory rate for the movement of grain, he did not refer to 375,000 jobs, he referred to 375,000 person years. So in February of 1983, we have reference to 375,000 person years. When I questioned the President of the Canadian National Railways at the Standing Committee on Transport about the investments that would take place in all the railroad industry and about the creation of jobs, he said that approximately 50,000 person years would be created. Using a multiplier effect of three, that means 150,000 jobs to be created between now and 1991.
Adjournment Debate
The Minister of Transport gave another figure. He said that $1.1 billion of new capital investment will be going into the Canadian economy this year. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary answers my question she will be able to tell me where that $1.1 billion is being invested. I hope she will be able to tell me the reason for this advertising.
In February, 1983, we were given the figure of 375,000 person years. Then in the March, 1984 advertisement 375,000 jobs are mentioned. Next, in Maclean's magazine of April 2, 1984 there is another ad, paid for by the people of Canada, produced for some self-serving reason, which states that more than 300,000 jobs will be created. We have come down from
375.000	person years to 375,000 jobs and now we have only
300.000	jobs. All the time the people who will develop the rail network in western Canada, the railroads, are saying 150,000 jobs will be created between now and 1991.
Let us come now to the matter of expenditures. In February 1983, the former Minister of Transport said that $16.5 billion would be invested in the rail network by the year 1991. The officials of that Department are now saying that it will be closer to $12.5 billion. The Minister says that is because of inflation, that inflation has gone down. When the Bill was passed, Mr. Speaker, we were in the second year of the six and five program. The Government was so sure that inflation would come down to 4 per cent that it said the farmers would have to bear all the inflation over 4 per cent-everything would be borne by the producer.
The reason that investment has gone down can be found in one of the Minister's in which he that we do not have to invest that money at this time because the movement of coal has decreased by 13 per cent and, therefore, we do not have to invest in coal cars. Apparently the reason the statutory rate for the movement of grain was removed and this substituted was for the movement of coal; it did not have anything to do with the movement of grain.
The April 2, 1984, issue of Maclean's carries an advertisement that mentions 300,000 jobs. The Minister does not even have the courage to estimate the investment that the railroads will make even in the next few years. He just says that there will be billions of dollars of new investment. He has corrected it a little bit but the rational is self-serving, erroneous, and it is paid for by the taxpayers.
There is one thing we have to know, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says these ads were placed to show Canadian businessmen the opportunities available to them over the next number of years. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me the number of tenders which have been called, which was the reason for these businessmen and women being alerted to the opportunities, because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the tenders which have been called fall far, far short of the $1.1 billion which the Minister said would be invested this year.

April 3, 1984
Adjournment Debate


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think that the controversy concerning the western grain transportation issue has not been laid to rest. I am somewhat surprised to hear so many comments about the advertising campaign to tell people that Western Canada's transport facilities will be upgraded for all users, regardless of the type of freight transported. We are now witnessing a "war of figures", as some people are wont to say.
Mr. Speaker, if we keep in mind the interest rates and the costly inflation of 1981, the figures then provided by the railway companies concerning the investments that the Government of Canada had asked them to make to meet market conditions still seem fair and realistic, today in the context of the economic conditions prevailing at that time.
In case anyone should be in doubt, today is April 3, 1984 and the inflation rate is less than 4 per cent. Current interest rates are not running at 21, 22 or 23 per cent, but at 10.5 or 11 per cent. We have now been told that if the two railway companies were to slash their total investments to the tune of $4 million, the number of jobs created would be reduced by about 50,000 person-years. I have no idea whether that is true or not. One thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that the commitments made through Bill C-155 to upgrade considerably and almost spectacularly Western freight transport, in either direction, mean that those projects will be carried out at current costs. The one undeniable fact is that the annual investments which will be made by the railway companies and the Government-with taxpayers' dollars, I agree-will be in excess of $1 billion. I am being asked whether interest rates in 1990 will be 25 per cent, what the costs will be and how many jobs will be created. I cannot answer that today, Mr. Speaker. However, one thing is true, and the Members opposite should stop annoying the public with that: the fact is that the work has started and will be completed. The movement of all Western products, including the movement of grain, which will increase substantially, will become much more efficient, and thus less costly for the users, because there will be fewer delays and because our objective, which will certainly be met, is to have in Western Canada an efficient railway system which will benefit the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with those who think only in terms of so many person-years and of so many jobs created in relation with the amounts of money invested, without taking into account the evolution of the economy itself and of world markets, or what we can produce ourselves to be marketed and to meet future requirements. The 1981 forecasts were made at a time when interest and inflation rates were very high, but the situation has changed. I hope that I have answered the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker.


RAILWAYS-TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS. (B) DISTRIBUTION OF DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise concerning a question I posed on March 5 having to do with the transportation of dangerous goods. I am particularly pleased to rise following the presentation of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). After listening to the Parliamentary Secretary and watching the expressions on my colleague's face, I sense that he is not better informed than before he posed the elaboration of his question.
This occasion, Mr. Speaker, gives me an opportunity to say that I believe the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is the most elusive and shifty Minister we have had in this Chamber in the last 15 years. He is ready to agree to almost anything politically advantageous or attractive. He is prepared to promise almost anything. But when it comes to delivering on those promises, he fizzles. He finds that he lacks Cabinet support or it is not desirable. In some cases he fails to act because his critics find his initiatives foolish. Such is the case with respect to the matter of the transportation of dangerous goods.
I asked the Minister what progress he was making in fulfilling a statement he made in the course of his speech to the Council of Transport Ministers in Hull on December 5, 1983, when he said that he had a firm resolve to make progress in improving the transportation of dangerous goods. He talked about limiting the speed of trains carrying dangerous goods through densely populated areas. He talked about labelling empty cars which had carried dangerous goods because they should be treated as though they were full. He talked about a whole host of things he was going to initiate. Three or four months have now passed, Mr. Speaker, and there is really little in the way of action. So it is with VIA Rail, grain transportation investment, air safety and deregulation. We are really not sure where the Minister stands. He is interested in short-term political gain rather than real improvements in the transportation industry.
This is a very dangerous approach, Mr. Speaker, when it deals with a matter so important as dangerous goods. We have to recognize that this not only affects the workers directly involved in the movement of dangerous goods, but indeed Canadians who are domiciled near the corridors through which these dangerous goods move.
It is rather interesting that the Minister came out swinging, saying he was going to get tough with the railroads, plan tighter regulations concerning the rate of speed, treat empty tanker cars as if they were full, and a whole host of other things. But low and behold the railways fired back and said his plan was foolish. So his get-tough stance really evaporated very quickly when the railways stood up to him. That is rather strange because just the other day he made a speech in which he said any overhaul of passenger rail service in Canada should address the needs of the traveller first and the railways
April 3, 1984

second. He said we have to move away from a preoccupation with the corporate interests supplying the services and put the onus back on the people. He also said that decisions to close community rail lines or make other changes in service cannot be dictated from on high. Well, glory hallelujah is all I can say. What a great day has arisen.
It is this same Minister, Mr. Speaker, who sat on the major Cabinet committees which authorized the dismantlement of 20 per cent of the rail passenger service in this country. I wonder in whose interest he was acting at that time. That is the kind of double standard and hypocrisy we hear from this Minister. The transportation of dangerous goods is too important to be used as a political volleyball. It became very prominent in this country following the Mississauga incident and the action that we as a Government took back in 1979 in calling for a full-scale inquiry, the Grange Commission, which was really the most objective and thorough way in which we could have dealt with that matter.
There is an Act in place covering the transportation of dangerous goods. There are regulations flowing that are very voluminous in nature, very complex, very expensive to comply with and excessively bureaucratic. There are differences of opinion between the industry and those who are domiciled along the corridor. There is a genuine fear, and this matter has to be dealt with in a realistic and practical fashion. There is a question of reciprocity with the United States of America and the regulations that apply there.
The fact of the matter is that we have a growing number of accidents involving the use of dangerous goods. In 1982 there were 170 major rail accidents involving hazardous products. In 1983 there were 159 major accidents. In 1982 there were 91 minor accidents and 323 minor accidents in 1983. Those are CTC figures, Mr. Speaker. The matter is not improving, it is getting worse. This Minister is failing to act. He is making political speeches, grandstanding and jockeying. He is on the bandstand of anything that is politically attractive. However, he has not delivered. The fact of the matter is that he can take some very positive and definitive initiatives with respect to reduction of speed. He can take some very positive initiatives with respect to the treatment of empty tank cars. He can take a positive initiative with respect to the proper identification of cars that carry dangerous goods. So far he has failed to do anything. I call upon the Minister to live up to his commitments. I call upon the Minister to put the railways on the spot and make them deliver. This issue is far too important for the Minister to engage in this kind of political jockeying.
[ Translation]


Eva Lachance Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that I
Adjournment Debate
do not agree with the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who said that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is elusive and shifty. I would rather say that he has taken very good decisions that are in the best interests of all Canadians.
As to the question put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville regarding the transportation of dangerous goods, the document referred to by the Hon. Member was prepared by the Department's service of transport of dangerous goods and includes recommendations made by M-Trac as well as the reply by the railroads. Lack of time prevented the Department from checking or controlling the data contained in this report. Only 40 copies of the report were printed and it has had a very limited distribution. However, a copy was sent to the office of the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
The Office of the Inspector General of Security in Transport was given the mandate to review the whole matter of the transportation of dangerous goods, and this review is already under way. The Inspector General has undertaken a study of all documentation in this field and he also attended a recent meeting between the Minister and the M-Trac group to hear representations on some aspects of the matter.
Discussions were also held in Toronto with representatives of CP Rail who provided a guided tour of the rail facilities in the Metropolitan Toronto area. As soon as the review is completed, Mr. Speaker, and when all concerned groups have made representations, this information will be assessed and a report with recommendations will be submitted to the Minister.
As regards the very strict measures taken concerning an incident at the McMillan Station in north-west Toronto, involving a rail car containing either butane, propane or anhydrous ammoniac, the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission has just ordered today that 26 tank cars be taken out of service due to possible defects. However, an inquiry has been launched concerning this incident which happened in Toronto; this inquiry is continuing and will be pursued until all details are known about these cars which have been taken out of service because of possible manufacturing defects.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, that these comments should provide a satisfactory answer to the question put by my colleague from Vegreville.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 4, 1984