1984-04-05

Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. Jewett:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary that a member of the Government would not want to speak first on third reading. I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister responsible for capping post-secondary education funding to the provinces-


Mr. Manly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) on a point of order.


James Douglas Manly: I just noticed the Minister responsible for the Bill walking directly in front of the Speaker, on his own Bill, between you and the speaker for our Party on that Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands has a valid point of order. The Chair did notice the incident as well. The Chair takes the opportunity once again to plead with all Hon. Members to respect the rules of decorum. May I draw Hon. Members' attention to Standing Order 15 and the various paragraphs thereunder.


Pauline Jewett: Now the Minister responsible is sitting close and talking in a loud manner, Mr. Speaker. He obviously
wants to interrupt my speech as well as cross the floor in front of me.
O)


Mr. Cousineau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the Hon. Member not to worry; I am listening.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair feels it should intervene at this point. The Standing Orders are clear. When a Member has the floor, no Member should interrupt him or her or cause any commotion which would put the Member who has been recognized in an uncomfortable position. Custom does not preclude discussions in a very low voice, but surely to have a discussion going on next to the Hon. Member who has the floor is, I would think, a discourtesy.


Pauline Jewett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-12, as we all know, caps post-secondary educational transfers at six and five rather than allowing the normal increase to take place. One of the most serious things about the Bill, indicating how clearly the Government derogates from the authority of Parliament, is that it is retroactive for a full year. Some $118 million has already been taken out of post-secondary educational transfers in the fiscal year just ended; we are now passing the Bill to authorize that capping. We tried our best, of course, to pass an amendment which would have required the restoration of the $118 million. Unfortunately, we were not able to get that amendment through.
I would also like to point out the seriousness of this Bill in that in other areas, for example, medicare, the federal Government has not applied six and five to its transfers to the provinces, only in post-secondary education. The Government intends to continue an even more serious withdrawal of funds in 1984-85.
It is rather odd, too, that the federal Government says that the six and five capping is going to cease, I believe in June, just at the very moment it is no longer going to be part of the federal Government's policy to enforce six and five in the public sector. It is saying, however, that for last year and for the whole of the fiscal year we are now beginning, we will continue limiting our post-secondary educational transfers to the provinces. It seems to me that it is very difficult, therefore, for the Government to have any credibility at all when it says, as it does, and as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) said only yesterday, that it is concerned about the future of post-secondary education in this country.
One of the difficulties with the way we presently fund post-secondary education is that there is no accountability. Whether the money is in tax points or equalized transfers, there is no way the Parliament of Canada, representing the

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
taxpayers, can know how that money is going to be spent. It is not earmarked. The provinces can spend that money any way they please. Some of them indeed have been doing so and have not been directing these moneys intended for post-secondary education to post-secondary education. Ever since block funding was started in 1977, we in this Party have argued that it was a mistake and was financially irresponsible.
Yesterday we argued, through an amendment to this Bill which was debated in the House, that there should be accountability, at least for the portion of the funding for post-secondary education that is derived from the increase in federal transfers, the six and five that this Bill authorizes. We should be able to direct the money to be spent for the purposes intended. By that amendment yesterday we were striving for fiscal accountability. Yet when we voted on that amendment, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives supported it. I am especially puzzled that the Conservatives did not support it. They have argued time and again for fiscal accountability and responsibility with the taxpayers' money. It is the federal taxpayers' money which is going to the provinces for postsecondary educational funding. Surely if we have any sense of responsibility and accountability in the system we should have a requirement, as we could and as we did before 1977, that money allocated for post-secondary education should be spent on post-secondary education.
The amendment yesterday would have been a clear signal to everyone that those provinces which have not been spending money for the purposes intended should be doing so. Had the other two Parties voted for the amendment, it would have been a clear signal to the people of the country that we represent the taxpayers of Canada in a responsible fashion. It would have been a clear signal that the federal Government of Canada cares about the future of post-secondary education on behalf of all Canadians. Perhaps a speaker from the Conservative Party will explain to us all why they voted against fiscal accountability. I do not expect anyone from the Liberal Party to try to explain it because they did not even put up a speaker to introduce third reading of this Bill.
In debating Bill C-12, this Party particularly has been trying to bring to the attention of the House and the Government the real crisis in our post-secondary educational institutions. The institutions themselves, the students who attend them and the faculties which teach and do research in them are experiencing crises of major dimensions. In the United States they have been restraining and cutting back with regard to Government services. They have not been cutting back on education. Indeed, they have been dramatically increasing their expenditures on post-secondary education at the federal level. They know that if they are going to have and sustain an economic recovery in the United States, there must be an educated society to sustain it. They know, as we should know, that we have already moved into the post-industrial society and into the information-based society. The prime criterion of survival, let alone of flourishing in such a society, is knowledgeable and informed people. While manual skills are still
important, mental skills are, more than in any other society, absolutely vital to the survival of a post-industrial way of life.
Indeed, Canada has taken the lead in the past, but rather than follow this example of taking the lead in recognizing what are the needs of the future, it is continuing to underfund seriously its post-secondary educational institutions. It is making it impossible for this society to respond adequately to a changing economic climate. The Government is putting a cap on post-secondary educational spending at the very moment when the United States, our closest neighbour, is substantially and, some would say, dramatically increasing its spending on post-secondary educational institutions.
There are innumerable horror stories being told now about what is happening in our post-secondary educational institutions. Just last week, the President of the University of British Columbia, George Pederson, declared that the university is in a state of financial exigency, in the legal sense of that word, which means that people will have to be laid off, both faculty and staff, and many programs dismantled.
Just a few days ago there was a story that headhunters are already raiding a faculty that has taken years to build up. The commerce and business faculty is one of the most vulnerable at UBC because it has such an excellent reputation, as has been noted by the Wall Street Journal and by many educational institutions across the country and in the United States. The Dean of Business and Commerce, Peter Lusztig, says that the place could be cleaned out in 10 or 12 months. This is not just idle talk, this is what is foreseen within 10 or 12 months.
1 recently reviewed what is happening at Cariboo College in Kamloops. The college has cut its continuing educational program, which has effectively disenfranchised some 6,000 students. Three satellite campuses of Cariboo College, which were previously funded directly by the provincial Government, are now required to obtain their funding from their college operating grants which, in turn, are being capped or substantially reduced as a result of federal Government action. It is likely that these satellite campuses will be forced to close, making rural accessibility an even greater problem than it is now.
In an effort to generate funds, Cariboo College is launching a program to recruit groups of 20 students from Hong Kong to travel to Kamloops for eight months at a cost of $7,500 per student in order to take a type of correspondence course at the college. There is even talk among the college's board members about building a hotel next to the college to accommodate the students. Is this what post-secondary education in Canada is all about? Is it about making a profit from foreign students while denying education to Canadian students who cannot afford the unreasonable costs?
The costs are becoming unreasonable. In my province, the Government has decided that no more grants will be given to students. There will be no grants whatsoever. I agree that other provinces, with one exception, have not gone that far. But the Province of British Columbia has decided that only
April 5, 1984

loans will be available from now on. There will be no grants for those in financial need, only loans.
Last year a student at Douglas College in my riding had received a $1,000 loan and a $1,000 grant. This year his loan has to be $2,000 because his grant is only $90. He can look forward next year, if he is still able to attend the college, to receiving no grant at all. He says he will probably not be able to continue at University when he must operate solely on loans which increase every year.
1 was talking to another person at Douglas College who has been declared ineligible even for a loan. The lady is in her thirties. She is a single mother, recently separated from her husband. In the separation agreement she was allowed the car. Because she was allowed the car, she has been denied the loan and she has ended up on welfare. I give these examples and there are thousands more one can give. The underfunding of research in our communities is another area we can talk about, and some of our members will be talking about it in the course of this third reading debate.
We are arriving at a situation at which our colleges and universities will become second-class institutions, at which they will no longer be able to do the kind of research they have done in the past. An example of that is the university from which I graduated, Queen's University, which used to be among the top ten in North America in terms of the quality of its library. A library is one of the most important things a university has, but the Queen's University library is now, I think, ranked 87th, right in there with the University of Connecticut.
1 wonder whether Members of the House realize what a crisis we are in. I wonder whether Members of the Cabinet realize what a crisis we are in. The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), who is not here today but who is generally available when we discuss in committee matters concerning post-secondary education, apparently has no clout in Cabinet whatsoever. One of the reasons for that is that he has not yet got a handle on the problems facing our institutions. He does not know, for example, where the $118 million went that should have gone to post-secondary education funding in 1983-84. I asked him about this in committee, as some Hon. Members here will recall. He did not know. He threw out all kinds of ideas about where that $118 million might have gone, because it has been spent, it was not saved. It was spent in 1983-84. He threw out a variety of ideas about where it might have gone, and then said the bulk of it went into the Canada Student Loans Program. He did not even know that that is a loan program, and not a grant program. I wish it were a grant program. But he talked as if it were a grant program, and said that that is where a lot of the $118 million had gone. That is ridiculous. He did not know, although he announced the creation of a task force to look into post-secondary educational funding. He announced that A1 Johnson, a very excellent choice in my view, would be heading the task force. He announced that in committee, but when I asked who were the members of the
Established Programs Financing task force, he did not know. When 1 asked for the terms of reference of the task force, he could not provide them. When I telephoned just yesterday to get the terms of reference, they were still not available.
How can a Minister who does not know where the $118 million went-and it should have gone to the provinces for post-secondary educational funding-have very much influence? How can a Minister, who sets up a task force without being able to say what are its terms of reference, have very much influence with other Ministers in the Cabinet of Canada?
We have been inundated with telegrams and letters from the post-secondary educational sector. In the last few days I have received letters and telegrams from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and from many other groups. In its telegram, the Canadian Federation of Students expressed its continuing opposition to the passage of Bill C-12. It reads:
This Bill will result in the loss of $378 million over a two-year period. GFS urges that the six and five limitation clause be eliminated, that funds for education ... be earmarked, and that a national dialogue on the funding and direction of post-secondary education in Canada commence immediately.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers, in its telegram to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLar-en), who undoubtedly has not read it, wrote:
The Canadian Association of University Teachers deplores federal Government's action restricting funds for post-secondary education through Bill C-12. All Canadian governments should be increasing, not decreasing, accessibility to higher education so that young people of our country may receive education that will equip them for life in the remaining decades of this century and in the 21st century. CAUT calls upon the federal Government to reconsider its position, particularly since it has decided to restrict only the area of post-secondary education among the transfer programs to the provinces.
A letter from the Executive Director of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada pointed out that transfers for post-secondary education have been singled out for application of the six and five program at the very moment when enrolment demands have continued to increase. In his letter, Dr. Gillmore wrote:
Universities desperately need additional support to maintain standards of excellence and to respond to increasing needs of a broad spectrum of Canadian society.
The continued imposition of six and five on higher education as proposed in Bill C-12 will not serve the best interests of the country at this time.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, unfortunately the Conservative Party supported the six and fiving as a general principle in the original legislation. Perhaps, if it had not supported that general principle, we would not be fighting this battle today for the removal of the six and five limitation on post-secondary educational transfers. In more recent days its Members have realized the crisis of the universities and colleges in our society. I repeat, it is a crisis of the institutions themselves, of the potential research which can and should be done in those institutions, of the teaching programs which should be made available to our young people and, perhaps

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
above all, a crisis for our society that we will not be able to bring young people and older people into the post-secondary educational stream.
It is a complete denial of what the Government did in the post-World War II period for veterans. It was one of the most outstanding programs a Canadian government has ever implemented. What the Government is doing now is a complete denial of that. That was a program of making postsecondary education accessible to every veteran who wanted it. They did not keep jacking up entrance standards. They said everyone who was qualified-50 per cent in those days-could attend university or college. They came in flocks and enriched society; indeed they made post-war society what it was. Now the Government turns its back on the principle then established.
The Governments of many of the provinces turned their backs as well on the principle of accessibility to higher education. Ontario and British Columbia are perhaps the two most serious cases in point. Both are Tory governments. One is called a Socred government, but it is a Tory government. In less than a year in my province we will see this crisis in our post-secondary educational institutions so deepened that it may be too late to get out of it. Surely the federal Government and Parliament, by withdrawing this Bill and by allowing the natural increase, which is still a very modest increase, in postsecondary educational funding to take place, could show that they understand the nature of the crisis in post-secondary education, that they are not prepared to wait until tomorrow to do something about the crisis and that they are prepared to act now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for-


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, he has been around here for a while.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just one moment, please. I am checking something with the Table. Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member who just spoke. She referred to decreasing enrolments and possible cutbacks in enrolments. I have a clipping from the Sunday Star of February 12, 1984, in which the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) was reported as speaking at a conference in Victoria. She said:
-a study of national educational standards is needed, in consultation with the provinces and industry.
The article continued:
She said that, if such a review found there were too many university applicants, then perhaps entrance standards should be raised.
"I don't think there is a birthright to complete a university degree if you're a mediocre student.
"I have the feeling that you should reserve university, especially the way our funding is structured-"
Also the Minister said that she favoured a European model that stresses academic competence. The article continued:
"In order to enter university there, you have to go through a competition and be the best."
Could the Hon. Member give her comments on this story, especially on what she feels this kind of restricted entrance and the raising of entrance requirements would do to students who came from small towns and rural areas, as well as young people from some of the cultural minorities?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) does not know what the situation is in Europe. Indeed, there has been a greater degree of accessibility for students in lower income groups than we have seen in this country. The Minister of State for Youth apparently is not aware of the program for veterans that I was speaking of earlier. In those days you did not need to have some terrifically high marks in order to get into university. On the contrary, everyone was encouraged to go. If they could not make it, somewhere along the line they would stop and do something else with their lives, but everyone was given the opportunity. The Government has gone back on that principle.
There is no question in my mind that if you restrict university and college only to students who have a very high grade, you are restricting a very large number of students, many from communities that have not had opportunities in high school or in their home background to develop the kinds of skills that are required to get those very high grades. You are restricting entrance on a class basis the minute you pursue the course of action that the Minister of State for Youth is suggesting.
In my view that is not the course of action Canadians want to see followed. Nor has it been the actual course of action that most Canadian Governments have followed until the past two years. What we are trying to do and trying to persuade the Minister of State for Youth, if she is going to continue in that portfolio for any length of time, is to understand that Canadians do not want a return to the really old days, which is what she apparently wants, of an educational system for the elite only.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) referred to the cuts in universities. I would like her to be more specific. I understand, for example, that there is a projection that the budget of UBC may be cut a total of about 24 per cent over the next four years, beginning now. It is suggested that that will be made up largely by an increase in student fees. Does the Hon. Member have any information as to how that may reduce the student enrolment, whether it will be possible to make up that 24 per cent through student fees if the students simply do not come, and whether there is a danger that functions of the university that are very important to the culture and economy of British Columbia may simply have to be closed?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, there is already at UBC a cutback in the number of students that they will take in the fall of this year. Many, many qualified students will be denied the right to come to the university, many more because fees are being raised by 33W per cent. The Government has now taken away
April 5, 1984

all of the grant system and is only providing loans. Many will not be able to come because of that.
Likely the increase in fees and the smaller number of students will not be of all that much help in reducing the enormous deficit faced by the University of British Columbia. Probably it will not help that much. That is why the university is saying that it will have to cut back drastically on programs. That is why head-hunters are already on the campus trying to pick up the good faculty members and persuade them to go elsewhere in the country. In other words, the excellence of the university is very seriously threatened. The university will not be able to keep its best programs and faculty. It is going to be a vicious circle. There will be fewer students because the students cannot afford to go. There will be higher and higher tuition fees which students will not be able to pay. That will cut back on the number of students attending. In order to make up this incredible deficit, they will have to cut programs.
That is why the president of that university-its position is not dissimilar from that of other universities in the province by the way-has been speaking so forcibly against Bills such as we are now debating.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity that the House has provided for me to join my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), in denouncing the Bill before us. I had not expected to follow her, expecting some speakers from the Official Opposition and perhaps even the odd Government spokesman to stand up and attempt to justify the Government's position on Bill C-12. Apparently both major Parties in this House are lacking proper and appropriate words to enter into the debate. The rather low turnout in the House right now and the fact that most government Members are busy with their newspapers indicate the total insensitivity to what is happening in this country with our universities.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Where are the 30 Members from the NDP?


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is shameful and unbelievable how a Government that claims to be committed to higher education, to bringing this country into the 20th century, to attempting to achieve 1.5 per cent of Gross National Product through research and development, a Government that claims to be enlightened, brings in measures that knocks the support away from one of our major institutions, our universities.
By knocking away the support that has been diligently built up over the years in terms of the funding of our university system, with this and previous Bills that have been introduced, especially by the present Government, it is destroying our universities in Canada. This is being done at a time when our young people are in desperate straits. Statistics show that one of every five is unemployed; some 20 per cent of our young people are unemployed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has said that this is a marvellous thing because it shows that four or five young people are able to find some form of employment. He is willing to write off 20 per cent of this generation. Even though some have been able to find some
Established Programs Financing form of employment, many are not able to find meaningful employment.
At the same time that this is occurring, the doors to our universities are slowly creaking shut on them. Normally, when there has been high unemployment among young people, they tend to go to university to better their education in order to be in a better position to get a job, a career, and to live their lives. This opportunity is now being shut off.
It is amazing to those of us in this part of the House who see how the Government continues with Bill C-12. Surely the Government has heard from the university community, the students and administrators. When I was in committee, we heard of the drastic effects this will have on the universities and the opportunities for young Canadians to acquire a decent education to enable them to be competitive in the 20th century. It is having a drastic effect.
I am the critic for my Party in the area of science and technology. In terms of the natural sciences, we know that the equipment at the universities is in a deplorable state. Very often the computers in high schools are of better quality and are more up to date than those in the universities where the equipment is outdated. Students who graduate and go into the private market are not capable of dealing with the new and better equipment that they find, so they have to be retrained. Because the universities lack the finances to get the up to date equipment, the graduates are not capable of dealing with the equipment that is in the workplace. This is one example of the inadequacy and underfunding of our university system.
As well, we see that the natural sciences have been lucky in some ways that their funding has kept pace with the real increase in the cost to universities. The inflation rate for books and scientific equipment is much higher than the general inflationary increase. The increase in funding to organizations like NSERC has kept pace with the real increased costs of scientific equipment and books. The social sciences have suffered, however. The Government has totally ignored them and has cut back very significantly on the granting of funds to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. They have a deplorable background.
We have cuts in payments to universities at both the provincial and federal level. We have increased unemployment among young people and, therefore, an increased demand for university places and further cuts for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. That is one of the areas of major funding for university people in the social sciences and in the humanities.
There are three different attacks on young people in the university system. In continues to amaze us how the Government, in its ignorance, can continue with these attacks. Is it not concerned with the future? Is it not concerned that these young people have the education to get meaningful employment in the 20th century? It is something that I cannot understand.

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
Let me go back to the question of research and development, Mr. Speaker. A recent report on technologies in Ontario was dealt with in an article in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, April 3, 1984, and states as follows:
"Canadian managers have tended to be older and less educated than their counterparts in the United States and this has been suggested as a reason for the poor rates of technology diffusion in Canada," says the budget paper.
It goes on to say:
The budget paper notes that in 1980 41.4 per cent of Ontario's 20- to 24-year olds were attending post-secondary institutions while 57.1 per cent of Americans in the same age group were attending colleges or universities.
That is a dismal record for Canada. It is no wonder we are lagging behind in research and development in this country. It is no wonder we are having great difficulty achieving the Governments' objective of allocating 1.5 per cent of the Gross National Product to research and development. One of the reasons for our difficulties is that we do not have the trained manpower to enable us to reach that goal. And we do not have the trained manpower because the universities are not in a position to produce trained manpower. Do the Government thinkers and planners not realize the simple fact that they cannot, like King Canute, demand that the tides flow back or demand that all at once we have trained personnel to enable us to reach our national goal in research and development? Do they not know that these things must be planned for and that there must be institutions that would allow people to be trained so that they can reach that goal? Am I missing something here, Mr. Speaker? Do the government planners not recognize this fact? It seems that they do not.
The Government is proudly touting the centres of excellence it is developing. In fact, it is hoping that some of our researchers in the social sciences and humanities and the natural sciences will be able to find employment in these centres of excellence. I have no objection to the funding and the efforts that have gone into creating centres of excellence, but surely not at the expense of the centres of excellence we already have-our universities.
What is the sense of destroying our universities in order to build something else? If we are to have centres of excellence in new areas, then I think all Canadians would welcome that, but surely not at the expense of the centres of excellence we already have. Canadian universities are internationally known. They have produced outstanding graduates in all fields, but our ability to do that in the future has been seriously hampered by the efforts of the Government.
Just to reiterate and strengthen the claim of the universities and the role they play, I should like to place on the record a comment by Dr. George Keyworth, the science adviser to the President of the United States who said:
-no other research institutions give as much return on investment as universities in the long term-not federal labs, nor non-profit organizations, not industry. No other institutions produce both knowledge and people.
I am afraid our mad hatters on the other side of the aisle have no recognition of that basic fact and no appreciation of the contributions the universities have made.
The federal Government claims that it is not responsible for the bad state the universities are in; it blames the provinces, and the provinces of course blame the federal Government. The two are blaming each other, and in the meantime our universities are going down the tube because neither of them is willing to take responsibility for this deplorable state. That is just not good enough. Obviously both levels of Government are to blame; obviously the funding arrangement does not ensure that federal moneys going to higher education are in fact spent on higher education. That is something that this Party deplored when block funding was introduced in the seventies, and we continue to deplore it.
What is needed is a national co-operative effort to ensure that our universities do not go down the drain. That means co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces. It must be recognized that the provinces have a historic responsibility to education and higher education and, on the other hand, it must also be recognized that there is a national interest in maintaining a university system across the country which will allow mobility of knowledge and of students and will ensure a high degree of technical, social and humanistic excellence. There are both federal and provincial interests, but we are finding that those interests are being used as an excuse to avoid responsibility for the deplorable situation.
I am afraid our universities are falling between the slats, so to speak. They are suffering, young Canadians are suffering, and Canada as a whole will suffer as we enter the 20th century.
1 sat in committee and listened to the students present their brief. They rightly pointed out that the federal Government is not entirely innocent in the matter of the decrease of university funding by the provinces. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will quote directly from their brief. It reads:
Unfortunately, this Bill does nothing to ensure that even the limited funds will be used for the purpose for which they are being allotted.
And they mean federal funds going toward higher education. The brief continues:
Moreover, it is somewhat hypocritical of the federal Government to scapegoat the provinces, when limiting provincial spending was part of the original strategy behind the 1976 EPF negotiations. Prime Minister Trudeau stated at the time, that the 1976 fiscal arrangements proposal-
And the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is quoted as saying:
-suits the current and future imperative, namely fiscal restraint, in that the provinces will have a greater incentive to implement what are admittedly difficult measures designed to restrain spending in these fields.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I simply draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that when he quotes an article, or whatever, which refers to an Hon. Member of this House, he must refer to that Hon. Member by his riding or his office, the principle being that an Hon. Member quoting makes the quote his own words.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that reminder as to proper form in the House.
April 5, 1984

The brief continues:
Later in the same year, he added-
Meaning the Prime Minister:
-"tf they, the provinces, save on costs, the savings will be wholly theirs".
As the students pointed out in their brief, here we have the original reason why the federal Government changed its attitude during the 1976 EPF negotiations. It was to allow the provinces to do the cuts and get some of the benefits. Afterwards, the federal Government, in turn, cut the funding to the provinces.
It reminds me a little, Mr. Speaker, of some of the things which are happening in Saskatchewan. It is called the "rats". What you do is to get an employee in a Department to squeal on all the other employees, get them fired, and the last person fired by the present Tory Government in Saskatchewan is the rat itself. That is what the federal Government has done with the provinces, Mr. Speaker. It made the provinces the rats in charge of cutting back on university funding, and then the federal Government went after the big rats themselves, the provinces, and in turn cut them. What a way to deal with post-secondary education in this country. It is just bloody shameful!
What is the future of research and development in this country? What is the future of technological change, given the deplorable situation in our universities and the inability of the federal Government to live up to its responsibility and become an activist partner in changing that situation? The universities, the teaching associations, the student association and we in this Party as well, have called upon the federal Government to initiate a conference with the provinces in order to work out the question of funding so that the universities can be assured of a steady and stable form of funding so they can make plans for the future.
I have sat on committees and have questioned representatives from the scientific community and from the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, and they all admit to the importance of stabilizing funding to the universities. Why does the federal Government not do this, Mr. Speaker, before it introduces a Bill like Bill C-12? Why does it not give some hope and sense of direction to the university communities so that they can continue to play an important role in the future of Canada? But we just hear silence from the government Members and from the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren).
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a letter which the Canadian Association of University Teachers sent to the Minister of State for Finance. They were kind enough to supply some of us with copies of the letter. I quote:
We will need many more highly educated individuals, not merely to keep Canada's economy productive, but to ensure that the needs and objectives of a technological society can be adequately met.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) is quoted, and it is a direct quote from Hansard of January 27, 1984, at page 816. He said:
Established Programs Financing
Finally, let me point out that these changes will not result in any diminution of the federal commitment to Canadian youth through the many federal programs of assistance to students and young people.
I know, Mr. Speaker, it is unparliamentary to call the Minister a liar, therefore I will not call him a liar. I will call him irresponsible. I will call him dumb. I will call him stupid. I will call the whole Government, Mr. Speaker, by those adjectives-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Simon Leendert de Jong: -because it is not true what the Minister stated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to continue with my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Pauline Jewett: The Tories said no.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That's right, you had better believe we did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke was dealing with some very important issues. I wonder if he could further enlighten the House as to his views on those issues?


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Gatineau, on a point of order.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the new Standing Orders allow a Member to either comment on or ask specific questions regarding a speech that has just been pronounced. In this case, the speech is being repeated, and I think that is against the Standing Orders of the House.


James Douglas Manly: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. In no way was I asking the Hon. Member to repeat his speech. I believe what he has already said is very germane to the topic, and I believe he has some further remarks and I, for my part, would like to hear them. I do not know about Hon. Members of the Conservative or Liberal Parties. They do not seem to have very much interest in the debate. In our Party we do have an interest in this debate and we would like to hear what the Hon. Member-
2746

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair certainly is not in a position to prejudge what the response will be to the question. I have to listen to it.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: I just wanted to follow up on the point, Mr. Speaker, of the conflict between the provinces and the federal Government in terms of jurisdiction and responsibility, and how the universities and institutions of higher education fall in between the slats.
In answer to the question raised by the Hon. Member with respect to the point I wanted to make, let me say that what we have here are the Tories protecting the interests of provincial Tory Governments and the federal Government protecting the interest of the federal Government, at the expense of universities. Yesterday we in this Party attempted to move an amendment which would create some responsibility and accountability by the provinces for the federal money designated for higher education. It was so obvious, Mr. Speaker, how the two Parties came together to vote down that amendment, because the Official Opposition was acting in the interests of the provincial Tory Governments which are not interested in accountability, and the federal Government was acting in its own self-interest because it has been using provincial cutbacks as an excuse to make their own cuts. It was in the vested interest of both Parties to deny fiscal responsibility and accountability by the provinces of federal moneys being spent on post-secondary education.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker referred in his remarks to the necessity of having a large number of educated people to continue, among other things, the technological development and expansion of Canada. He also referred to the centres of excellence in the Government's proposals. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on whether he thinks the new or untried centres of excellence will be able to do better because they are more flexible, or will they do worse because they have no background in developing the new kinds of technology which this country needs? Or have the universities shown themselves capable of offering the kinds of programs that we need in technology?


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. Many of us are trying to understand what the Government is attempting to do with its centres of excellence. On the surface they sound like good ideas. You bring together trained and specialized people and focus on the specific subject area. However, as I quoted, the scientific adviser to the President of the United States said that federal Government, private and non-profit labs, are no substitute for excellence as far as university labs are concerned. These centres of excellence should not replace the existing ones, our universities.
Another concern I have is whether the federal Government is attempting to mould higher education and learning in this country so that only those projects politically more interesting or rewarding get funding, whereas the mundane administration, the brick and mortar of universities, the buildings and so on, receive less and less funding. This was expressed by the Canadian association of University Teachers in December of last year in its brief to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada. It states:
Recently the response of some governments has been to try to select particular parts of the university for funding, e.g. medical research. The temptation is to pick politically glamorous parts of the university program. However such political considerations are likely to lead to distortions.
What I am concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that the centres of excellence are really picking up certain parts of science and technology for development, and leaving all sorts of other areas aside. That would distort research and development in Canada which would be a great detriment to our society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no further questions or comments, the House will proceed to debate.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned a certain amendment put forward by the NDP. We of course voted against that amendment because it made absolutely no sense. There was really no point in demanding an accounting of the federal cash contributions to the provincial Governments because those amounts are far less than what is actually spent in every province. What is the point in putting the bureaucracy to that wasted time and effort?
You will recall, Sir, that a very proper amendment was put forward by the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) and moved in this House by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). It was accepted by all sides of the House. That amendment represents probably the only worth-while thing in the Bill at all. It required the following:
(3) Beginning in the 1983-84 fiscal year the Minister shall report annually to Parliament on:
(a)	cash transfers to each province for post-secondary education under Established Programs Financing;
(b)	expenditures by each province on post-secondary education;
(c)	to the extent appropriate, other programs of federal support to or involvement in post-secondary education;
(d)	the effectiveness of these federal expenditures and programs in moving towards Canada's educational and economic goals; and
(e)	the results of any consultations with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada-
That makes a lot of sense, Mr. Speaker.
I want to talk about the positive things in this Bill before I tell you why this Party cannot accept the Bill in its form and intent. This amendment for the first time gives Members of Parliament an accounting of the cash and tax transfers allotted to post-secondary education. When we have an accounting of the money the federal Government spends through its manpower programs, assistance to training and education and research and development at universities, we can properly determine whether the block funding arrangement we presently have in the established programs financing system is working.
April 5, 1984

Accusations go back and forth, Sir. The provinces accuse the federal Government of not carrying its weight. The federal Government says that the provinces get tax transfers and use the money to build roads, bridges and to look after welfare, but do not use it where it should be used, that is, for postsecondary education. Well, Sir, we will find out in the reports made to this House every year. The first report is for the fiscal year beginning April 1. Therefore, in 1986 we will get the report for the 1984-85 year on what has been spent.
That brings me to the basic principles of this Party in dealing with education and training. We have said that there are four basic pillars on which we would form the Government of this country and attempt to rebuild the economy. The first principle, of course, is one that we have been dealing with through the month of March, the methods that must be used to reduce interest rates and improve the credit worthiness of businesses. The other three pillars are technology, training and trade. Concerning technology and training, the transfers to post-secondary education are vital. We are living in an age when the hewers of wood and drawers of water are not going to have jobs. Just look at this morning's paper, Sir, and you will see that one in five persons in British Columbia lives on welfare or unemployment insurance. Why?


Mr. Kristiansen:: Good Tory Government in B.C.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Because the economy of that province is closely tied to natural resource exports and those resources are not hot on the world market today. The figures from British Columbia are disastrous. The newspaper article compares them with those for the Province of Ontario. That province has a population close to four times as large as that of B.C., and its unemployment and welfare problems are considerably smaller. The answer is this: we must have a society which exports not just coal, lumber and copper. We must have a society that exports high technology, the manufactured goods which make the world turn around better. We can only do this if we as a nation are prepared to invest in higher technology and more technology. It may be the robotics in the factories; it may be new methods of processing raw materials; it may be new methods of transporting goods. However, it must be in the high technology field so that we can be productive enough, and therefore competitive enough, to keep our people working and have the kind of life which we want and expect to have. We will not do that if we cut back on transfers to post-secondary education.
This Bill cuts back on cash transfers. It cuts back on the money imputed to come from other transfers as well. It cuts back $118 million in the past fiscal year. It cuts back a further $260 million in the fiscal year just starting, for a total cutback of $378 million. 1 would like to read into the record the types of things that are happening.
If this Bill is passed, the cash which my Province of Ontario will receive will be reduced by $41.7 million in 1983-84 and by a further $92 million in 1984-85, for a total reduction of
Established Programs Financing $133.7 million. That is going to come out of the money available to train young people. That is going to come out of the money available to do something about the problems at Queen's University, the University of Toronto, the University of Western Ontario and the other universities in Ontario. That is going to make the enrolment crunch even worse. Young people coming out of Grade 13 in Ontario must have at least an 80 per cent average to get into some courses in some of the universities. Our young people do not just have to be competent; they have to be exceptionally brilliant, highly trained and highly successful in getting the required marks. That is going to be very, very hard on them. All sorts of aggressive young people will not have the opportunity of furthering their education.
Yesterday I spent some time at the University of Western Ontario. I did some work on tax simplification with the graduate students of the business school there. In the morning I was in my constituency office and had two young people visit me there. They wanted to take a course at Sheridon College in connection with computer programming. The Government was going to help finance that course, but because of bureaucratic red tape these young people will perhaps not be able to get into the course. They have been waiting for six months doing temporary part-time work while waiting to get into this course. Many courses are not available because $41 million is being taken out of the Province of Ontario this year and an additional $90 million next year.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) can say that these cutbacks come as a result of the six and five program and are part of reducing inflation. Reducing the transfers from one government's spending ability to another government's spending ability does not reduce inflation. If that $118 million had been left in the hands of the taxpayers of Canada, that may have helped them. It was taken anyway. The only result is that the money is not transferred to the provincial government, therefore the federal Government has money to spend on other more apparent, but not necessarily more important, programs. Sir, that money should not be spent in other fields. That money should have been transferred to the provinces. The Government should follow through on the amendment to this Bill and make sure that the money goes where it is supposed to go, to building and maintaining libraries and laboratories. It should go to making sure that classrooms have competent instructors and professors.
This Bill is a bad Bill. It hurts Canada. I call as my witness to that a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party, the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts). I quote from the Montreal Gazette as follows:
During his speech and talking to reporters later, Roberts said there is a crisis in post-secondary education and there must be stronger federal participation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that he may quote and cite his source. However, by reading a quotation he makes that quotation his own words. Therefore, he should respect the rule that we can only refer to Hon. Members in the House by their

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
riding or office and not by their proper names. I would invite the Hon. Member to do so.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He is quoted as saying:
But 1 am referring to post-secondary education and development.
New Liberalism is not just a slogan, it is the building of a new economic and education strength and environmental sensitivity.
If that is new Liberalism, and if the Minister of Employment and Immigration believes that, then he should either resign from the Cabinet or recant when this Bill comes to a final vote. He can still do that. He can show us by his attitude in voting whether he really means there is a new Liberalism, or whether the new Liberalism he speaks of is so much hot air and desire for power. I suspect that is all it is. If the Minister has any backbone, any sense of credibility or any sense of being a man who stands on principle, we know what he should do. I suspect, Sir, that he will not do that.
I would like to call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a letter which was written by the Canadian Association of University Teachers to the Minister supporting this Bill, the Minister of State for Finance. The University Teachers say:
This underfunding is in part due to provincial actions, but this recent action by the federal government-
They are referring, of course, to this Bill:
-will serve only to exacerbate the already serious financial situation of universities. Each level of government continues to reduce its financial commitments, while at the same time accusing the other of not meeting commitments. In this financial and jurisdictional competition it is post-secondary education that is the victim.
They go on to say:
In your presentation-
Referring to the Minister:
-of Bill C-12, on January 27, 1984, you failed to mention how higher education would be affected. You discussed the complexities of the EPF legislation; but did not discuss the problems of a society plagued by unemployment of this country's youth. We will need many more highly educated individuals, not merely to keep Canada's economy productive, but to ensure that the needs and objectives of a technological society can be adequately met.
They go on to say:
This cut by the federal government will clearly constitute evidence of the diminution of the government's commitment to the youth of Canada. Universities have contributed in large measure to the social mobility of Canada's youth. The EPF transfers are at the heart of the federal role in higher education. To undercut this basic core funding is to undercut the general operation of the post-secondary education system. It will provide encouragement to those who wish to return our universities to the days of economic elitism.
The lack of funds for the universities and colleges of this country may not result just in economic elitism, it will indeed be elitism of the worst order because education then will only look after the needs of very few young people.
The system does not have enough classrooms, libraries or campus buildings. There are not enough professors. The system does not have enough facilities to do the job which Canada needs to accomplish now and throughout the eighties.
Unless we do something about training and technological development, we will be hewers of wood and drawers of water, except that the world does not want that kind of wood and water. Today these goods can be moved untouched by the human hand and with very few people. The remaining people in this country will end up perhaps working part time at a McDonald's or clerking at a dress shop. Most of them will be on welfare or unemployment insurance. Canada cannot grow that way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) a question for clarification. Did I understand him to say that the Party on whose behalf he is speaking, the Conservative Party, is in favour of a system whereby we in this Parliament can be guaranteed that the moneys transferred to the provinces for post-secondary education will in fact be spent by the provinces on post-secondary education?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, one of the big advantages of the amendment that was moved and passed yesterday is that it is an amendment of disclosure. While amendments of disclosure do not guarantee anything, they can become exceptionally embarrassing for those who do not spend what they receive. Therefore, they tend to force a national policy on education.
Obviously this Parliament has no direct ability to deal with the problems of education. While it may be argued that we can talk about manpower training or that the economic powers of the country involve training, which they certainly do, it is quite clear in terms of the institutional spending of money in educational facilities that, according to our Canada Act, we do not have that power.
When money is being paid from the federal Treasury to the provinces and the disclosure provisions in this statute make it clear that the provinces are not doing their share and are using the money for something other than post-secondary education, then it would behoove us as Members of Parliament to say that the transfers will have to be reduced and we will have to find another way of solving the problem.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that the great advantage of this amendment is that it gives us, for the first time, an idea of where the money is going, on what it is being spent, and whether it is being spent on its intended use.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, of course, all Parties have agreed to this amendment to which the Hon. Member has just referred at the meeting of the task force on fiscal federalism in 1981. As the Hon. Member said, it is an amendment requiring disclosure.
I gather that what he is saying is that his Party will not take any action now to ensure that the provinces are spending federal moneys for which the moneys were designed. It seems to me that he is denying the authority of the federal Parliament to ensure that the federal taxpayers' money that is going to the provinces is spent for its intended purpose. He is going
April 5, 1984

to wait until after the first year when the disclosure amendment that was passed yesterday becomes effective. This brings me to my second question.
The Elon. Member knows that if we do enough digging, which I and I am sure he has done, we can get a picture now of what the different provinces are doing with the tax points and cash transfers that they receive. Indeed, we have done enough digging to know that his province and mine have not kept up their share of the spending on post-secondary education to anything like what it was in the pre 1977 period.
That being the case, why does he say that his Party will just wait until the amendment that was passed yesterday takes effect? That will be a long time from now. Would he not wish to put the position of his Party on the whole question of accountability on the record now?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that we know what the provinces are doing. Well, we do not know. We know what the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), through his officials, thinks they are doing. However, the question of what in fact they are doing depends, to a large extent, on the interpretation of what is properly post-secondary education.
Let me give an example. In the Province of Ontario the secondary school system is designed to go to Grade 13. That is one year longer than in other provinces. The question is whether the work, even in Grade 12 in Ontario, is not partially post-secondary.
In the Province of Quebec we see the CEGEP system, and in Newfoundland there are some instances when young people attend university after Grade 11. There are varying opinions as to what is post-secondary education, which makes it difficult to determine from province to province, without some real input and agreed method of determination, whether the provinces are in fact spending what they should spend.
Furthermore, there was a question about whether the transfer, which was a total transfer until the introduction of this Bill, was properly divided at roughly 33 per cent and 67 per cent. In its appropriations, the Government has always said that the transfer for post-secondary education is 32.1 per cent, I believe, of the total EPF transfer, and the balance is for medical care. However, that position has not generally been accepted by the provinces.
If one accepts that it is 32 per cent of the transfer, we may find that some of the provinces are only spending 35 per cent or 40 per cent of the education money, with the balance coming in tax transfers and cash from the federal government. The problem has been that until this Bill, it has not been determined that legislatively that is the correct percentage in the transfer system. Until the passage of this Bill, the provinces could easily say, "Well, it is a block fund. We are using the block fund for medicare concerns, for hospital concerns, for this and that concern, and, of course, for post-secondary education". One of the other advantages of this Bill is that at least it divides the fund and it divides it legislatively.
Established Programs Financing


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) state that the federal Government has been cutting back in the amount of funding for post-secondary school education. I think I should draw to his attention the fact that the federal contribution back in 1974-75 amounted to 49.19 per cent and the provincial contribution was 31.12 per cent. Yet by 1981-82 the federal contribution rose to 56.89 per cent and the provincial contribution declined to 21 per cent.
I would further like to point out to the Hon. Member that at the present time in Ontario the Government of Canada provides over 56 per cent and the province 21 per cent, and other contributions, such as for tuition, amount to 21.80 per cent. I suggest that his statement that the federal Government is cutting back is not factual. In fact, the federal Government has increased its share over the years. It has been the provincial government of Ontario that has been cutting back.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary had been listening to me he would have known that when the Established Programs Financing Act was first passed, a block fund was created. It was the federal Government that decided, for its own convenience, to determine the proportions between education and health. This Bill finally creates those definite proportions. Any figures the Hon. Member gives us at this point, whether the figures are 58 per cent, 56 per cent, or 41 per cent, are really meaningless. They are concocted figures based on Ottawa's assumption of truth, or on something that is questionable.
The next issue is, where do you put tuition fees, bursaries and other matters of that nature, such as loans, grants and so on that come from estates? Are they not a part of the provincial contribution? I would think that certainly that would always be treated as part of the provincial contribution because, in a sense, a fee is a tax on the student for taking advantage of a provincial institution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Debate. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that, after the debate over this past several weeks in and out of the House and in and out of committee, we still have to face the Government's determination to cut $378 million from the funding for post-secondary institutions in Canada over the next two years. It is becoming typical of this Government to be carrying it out in an arrogant way, a way that would be illegal for any other body, namely, to make the cuts retroactive. Of course, a government that can rule that Tuesday is Monday can rule that 1984 is 1983 when it wants to. 1 am mainly sorry because it is a very untimely block and constriction on Canada's development.
A previous speaker has referred to the arrangement at the end of World War II when many of us coming out of the forces benefited from the program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We were very grateful for it. 1 want to make

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
the comparison. What that program did in part, and perhaps the most important part of it, was to enable a whole section of Canadians to attend university who otherwise would never have been able to do so, although some of us would have. Some of us came from families with the financial means to assist us and others of us had been sufficiently trained to enable us to compete for scholarships and things like that. But many did not have that advantage. Many who had the same native intelligence as we did, or perhaps more, and many who had just as much motivation and just as much self-discipline as we did would not have got to university. For example, during the 1930s people did not get there. I knew some who did not get there. But because the Government, even though it was a Liberal Government at that time, chose to give generous support and allowances to the students, we have a whole generation of people who have been a vital part of the development of Canada during the past 40 years.
It is very sad that this Government, although not alone but it has been leading, has decided to turn its back on that sort of ideal. Of course, the DVA funding is long past. There have been ups and downs in the rate at which governments would lend or grant allowances to students. At no time was there any suggestion that these grants or loans were just a form of babysitting, teen sitting, or welfare. They were based on performance. A student had to be able to achieve a certain agreed level if he was to continue receiving those grants and loans. But now those grants and loans are being seriously cut back right across the country. They are being cut back not only because of the federal Government's policy but, as I say, with the federal Government leading.
The Hon. Member across the way would like to use percentages to pretend there has not been a cut, but in fact, as everybody who looks at figures knows, there has been a cut. I agree with the Hon. Member from Mississauga that the reduction is in the range of over $41 million in the past year and $92 million in the coming year for the Province of Ontario. I also agree with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) that this will have a very bad effect on Canada. He claims it will make us hewers of water and drawers of wood. I am not quite sure what that means, but 1 am familiar with the danger of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. Perhaps he has not come out of the ice age and thinks we will have to hew ice. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I agree with him that there is a bleak future for Ontario and for the rest of Canada when we cut back on education funding in the age which has been called the age of the information revolution. The number of students in Ontario will be reduced through the action of that province primarily.
They make excuses that it is this federal cut, but the Ontario Government has taken its own cuts as well. It will be reducing the grants, raising the fees, or forcing universities to raise fees and, as a result, the number of students will be reduced. Access to universities will be restricted, but not to the intellectual elite and not to those with high marks. Although that is being talked about, and there is some gesture in that direction, that would be too harsh an action to take. Primarily
access to university will be given to students whose parents have money.
The Government of Ontario will also alter fundamentally the structures of Ontario universities through what it calls a program of specialization. Universities will be told to close departments. If a person wants to study a certain discipline, perhaps he will have to leave the city in which he resides with his parents. Instead of travelling by foot, by bicycle or by public transit to university, attending courses and returning home at night, he will have to move to another city to study certain disciplines. That will restrict access, but worse than that, it will change the nature of universities. It will change the nature of what was once and for a thousand years held as the ideal, that university is a place in which people develop a kind of wholeness, a kind of universality. In fact, once it was not called "a" university but "the" university. It was part of the universe of knowledge.
However, the Government is promoting, by redirecting money away from universities and established colleges into short-term and narrow training projects, the destruction of any sense of universality in education. It is directing people to narrow training which will lock them into certain occupations. Also the Government is encouraging a situation in which the faculties of universities such as the University of Toronto are aging. They are simply not able to hire younger faculty members who have acquired the more recent and up to date techniques of any discipline, whether it is in the natural sciences, the social sciences or the arts. This means that the faculty is doomed to become less and less relevant to the present needs of the country.
The Government is also causing certain teams to be eroded or even dismantled. Certain universities will be closed. Other universities will have to cut programs or even cut departments. A team of academics built up over some years will be dispersed. A few years ago we experienced the destruction of the Avro Arrow and the destruction of a whole team of skilled people who had learned to work together in the production of what was then one of the most advanced pieces of technology in the aviation industry. Once that was destroyed, once those specialists or members of the team were dispersed, it was impossible to put them back together again, at least in Canada. We are seeing the same thing happening to our universities.
I want to refer to a few examples from the University of Toronto. In effect, that university is being penalized because it has served the country for a long time and its buildings were erected a long time ago. The physical plant of the university is not young. It is not new, some of it is not modern. At present, over $24 million of deferred maintenance is needed at the University of Toronto. Some of that is for simple repairs and some is for updating and renovation. The maintenance staff has been reduced. Some of the work is being contracted out, which does not lend itself to quality work. The buildings are deteriorating. The library is deteriorating. Since 1979 about
April 5, 1984

160 staff positions in the library have been lost. That is about one-quarter of the original staff. Yet student enrolment continues to grow. The need for books, not only by the students but by other users in the city, continues to grow. Yet the staff has been cut and hours have been cut. One of the most expensive libraries on the continent, the Robarts Library, is forced to reduce the hours at which it makes itself available to students or the public. What a waste of past money to build such an expensive library and then shut it down for parts of the week! That is what is being done through these cuts.
In Toronto there has been a great increase in the number of Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking people. There is a department of Spanish and Portuguese languages, but during the last five years seven members of the faculty retired, one died, and there have been no replacements. For some of us who are of British origin that may not seem very serious. Perhaps we did not want to study Spanish or Portuguese anyway. However, I am pointing out that we have a new kind of Canada. The Portuguese people in Toronto number probably 100,000; the Spanish, probably 50,000 people. That is a considerable part of the life of that city. Those people are having their culture cut back. Their opportunity to grow in the language and literature of their forebears is being cut back as this department is cut back.
These cuts do not favour any particular country. The Italian Department is being cut back in the same way. Enrolment has doubled over the last 11 years while the number of staff has remained exactly the same. No one denies that teaching quality drops when classes are forced to enlarge, but for people of Italian heritage, the quality of university education in their heritage has now been cut in the sense that they are forced to attend classes that are twice the size. Specialists in fields such as the Renaissance, which is perhaps of greater importance to Italy than to any other country, have left the department and have not been replaced.
Slavic studies in the same way have been cut back. The department of Slavic studies serves Polish, Ukranian, Czechoslovakian, Russian and Hungarian students, that is students in those languages. Sometimes there is only one faculty person left in each of those languages. In other words, a bare minimum. If for any reason that person should leave, it is not clear that there will be a replacement.
It might be argued that Canada cannot afford the luxury of things like literature, poetry, history and so on. I would not agree with the argument, but some people may want to argue that we have to get on with the new physical sciences, the new natural sciences, the new kinds of mathematics and computer work, in fact, universities are cutting those back too. It is all the more remarkable that they should be cutting back on computer science, industrial engineering, general mathematics, engineering science and mechanical engineering, because the Government, like the governments of the provinces, has been making much of those needs-that we need to develop high-tech and that we need to develop engineering for megaprojects up North. They have been making much of the fact that we
will have a great boom in Canada because of the development of new technologies.
Mr. Speaker, with your leave, may I call it one o'clock and resume at three o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Olivier) signed an agreement by which $200 million will be transferred by the federal Government to the Organizing Committee for the Calgary Games between now and 1988. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Frank King, saw this as a historic agreement. The federal Government's contribution represents about 40 per cent of the anticipated cost of the Games. It is the largest sum of money ever spent by the Canadian Government on a sports event. As the Minister indicated, the main source of financing will be revenue from the sports pools that are to be launched officially sometime this month.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has not only kept its promise to help ensure the Games will be a success, it has also demonstrated its commitment to promoting, encouraging and developing amateur sports in Canada, and we Canadians say: Thank you.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Pacific Railway is trimming its operations and lopping five employees off its Saint John payroll. The job losses cannot be justified because of technological improvements or a decrease in traffic, because this is not the case.

April 5, 1984
Last April I spoke before this House in defence of CP employees in Saint John. At that time I told the House that in the previous 15 months some 32 CP clerical jobs had been lost and that eight more were on the chopping block. Again, five more jobs are to be lost between now and April 15.
If I were to ask the Minister what he intends to do to protect the jobs of the Saint John railway employees, I have little doubt that he would boast about the 375,000 jobs that will be created as a result of Canada's rail expansion. This employment is indeed welcomed. However, there is little evidence to indicate that it will benefit the rail employees in Saint John, New Brunswick. The men and women in the Saint John facilities want to keep their jobs. They want to be able to do meaningful work and to support their families. They want to live with dignity. They are not impressed with the razzmatazz of rail expansion in the West. Service in the East is being cut to the bone as jobs are being terminated. I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to turn his eyes eastward and press Canadian Pacific to stop its lay-offs. Maritime employees deserve the same employment potential as their western counterparts.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have mentioned the problems facing Indians in Labrador, Newfoundland, and the fact that they cannot go fishing and hunting in that area. Considering that once again, a Conservative provincial government is opposed to letting the Indians live according to their traditional ways, I would ask my hon. friend from Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Official Opposition, to get in touch with Mr. Brian Peckford and find a solution to this problem. Last week it was announced that Iron Ore wanted to shut down its railway route from Schefferville to Sept-Iles, and considering the fact that the Indians will no longer be able to go hunting and fishing in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Official Opposition should intervene and speak to the provincial Conservative Party because at the present time, the whole problem of hunting and fishing rights in this region has been caused by the Provincial Conservative Party of Newfoundland. I would therefore urge the Leader of the Opposition to make a very positive gesture on behalf of the native people, because after all, Mr. Speaker, it is rather embarrassing that a provincial Conservative Party, like the one in Manitoba which is preventing Franco-Manitobans from exercising their rights, is now preventing Indians from living according to their traditional ways in Labrador, Newfoundland.



&quot;MAKE-A-WISH&quot; FOUNDATION HELP FOR TERMINALLY ILL CHILDREN

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, on this day of the National Prayer Breakfast let me share with you and all Hon. Members an idea which originated in Phoenix, Arizona, but which could spread like wildfire here in Canada, thanks to the Ancaster Optimist Club in my riding. The non-profit "Make-a-wish" Foundation deals with terminally ill children. It seeks to transfer a little person's fantasy into an actual experience. Let me give just two of many examples.
One little girl's last wish was to help light the Christmas tree on the White House front lawn. The Foundation flew her to Washington, she helped President Reagan light the tree, and she died a few days later.
A ten-year old Phoenix boy had dreamed of being a fireman. When the "Make-a-wish" Foundation was notified, the little guy was made honorary firefighter for the day. He was wheeled around on the hook and ladder rig, and he tried out the high-pressure hose on unsuspecting customers in a supermarket parking lot. The Phoenix Fire Department became attached to the little boy. He went into a relapse and off-duty firemen erected an aerial ladder to his eighth-floor hospital room to enter through the window to visit the boy until the day he died.
I want to see the "Make-a-wish" Foundation take root in Canada. I am proud that the Ancaster Optimists are taking the lead to be first in Canada in wanting to help terminally ill kids make their fondest wishes come true. Hon. Members can get in touch with me for further information on the "Make-a-wish" Foundation.



THE STANLEY KNOWLES STROKE REHABILITATION RESEARCH FUND

Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to those who attended the dinner that was held in my honour last evening at the Chateau Laurier. I am conscious of the fact that so many people were there. There were Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, Senators, friends, teachers, trade unionists, doctors, nurses, and so on. It meant a great deal to me. Indeed, it helps me with life to have so many considerate friends.
I was grateful that I was given the opportunity to emphasize the important part of our cause, which was to give credit to something that has been recently been organized, namely, the Stanley Knowles Stroke Rehabilitation Research Fund. A considerable amount of money was raised last evening. The hope is that throughout the years that organizations will develop research into the whole question of strokes and brain damage.
April 5, 1984

Strokes happen to thousands of people every year. The hope is that the research will result in their prevention. It will mean a great deal if that can be done. I had the great privilege of being able to stress this last evening. To me it was the most important part of the evening.
It was not just a tribute to me, but to further the cause to increase the attack against brain problems. 1 hope that all of us here will work for this Foundation and give it all the support we can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PENSIONS


Mr. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that some of my constituents are asking to have the Public Service Superannuation Act amended, adding a provision that will allow employees who work in federal penitentiaries to retire early, that is, after twenty years of service instead of twenty-five. In April 1977, a sub-committee of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recommended the option of early retirement for such employees. The present Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and his predecessors have given the matter careful thought, but to date, the employees concerned have been unsuccessful in their efforts to have an amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act tabled in the House. As one of my constituents said, and I quote: "Since my colleagues and I work in an environment like the one described in connection with the recent incidents at Archambault, and do so to protect the public, is it unreasonable to ask, as a special favour, to be released from that environment a little sooner, in recognition of our many years of dedicated service? The mental and physical tension is far more debilitating in penitentiaries than in most other departments. We feel we should be able to leave the service with dignity and perhaps embark on a second career or at least enjoy our retirement during the years we have left. The average age of inmates during incarceration remains constant, but we get older, and sometimes we have the impression that our sentence is worse than theirs."
Mr. Speaker, there would certainly be a case for the Solicitor General, once studies and consultations have been completed, to table a Bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act and provide for early retirement for employees in federal penitentiaries.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few important comments to add regarding our footwear industry. The House is aware, and other Members have already pointed this out, that the Minister has been keeping the footwear industry waiting for an answer for some time. The Association has been asking for an extension of present quotas. The Government has made grants available to the footwear industry to modernize its facilities but just the same, we feel that a reasonable extension would ensure the long-term survival of the industry. In the circumstances, since the Minister responsible still refuses to respond to the urgings of the footwear industry, I would like to say, on behalf of thousands of workers, that 1 am convinced many Members of the House will agree that the Government should safeguard this industry, considering the many jobs involved, and instead of promising us new jobs, the Government should first try to save our traditional jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we still have a chance to save this vital industry, and we hope that the Minister will soon give his answer and that it will be a positive response to the footwear industry.




Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the situation in the footwear industry, I would like to say to my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that there have already been many representations by Government Members. Nevertheless, I would like to mention that in connection with the footwear, textile and clothing industries, there has been an extension of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board's program. An additional $90 million have been earmarked for this extension over the next two years, which will go to help footwear, textile and clothing manufacturers.
In the riding of Lotbiniere, the Bois-Franc region has many textile and clothing factories. The extension of the CIRB program is very important to my region, and in this connection I wish to thank and congratulate Cabinet, and especially the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley), who agreed to the extension, which will also make it possible for footwear manufacturers in other regions to benefit from the services and financial assistance provided under this program. In this way, the Canadian Government is able to do something for the textile, clothing and footwear industry, and with the

April 5, 1984
Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and other Members on this side of the House, I hope that footwear quotas will be set within the next few weeks, and that we will be able to continue, thanks to the CIRB headed by Mr. Desmarais, to provide assistance to an industry that is very important to our workers and also to all Canadians. I am sure the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agrees with my views in this respect.



PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Zehdi Terzi of the PLO appeared this morning at a committee in the other place. I understand that he confirmed that the PLO remains committed to the non-recognition of Israel, and also to terrorism.
Why is today's meeting necessary? A sub-committee of the Senate met with several officials of the PLO last November in the Middle East, including the Chairman of the Palestine National Council. In May of last year a number of Arab ambassadors, including a representative of the PLO, met with the full committee in an off the record meeting in Ottawa. Why is the third meeting necessary today?
It is inaccurate to say that inviting Mr. Terzi to Ottawa to a public meeting of the committee is the same treatment as that afforded to the Government of Israel. The Israeli ambassador was invited only after the meeting of last May, to meet with the committee on an informal, in camera, and off the record basis. He declined.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this visit has contributed nothing to the vital cause of peace in the Middle East and has provided new status to a group two factions of which have claimed the dubious credit of attacking 48 innocent people in Jerusalem earlier this week.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, during this time of high unemployment many Canadian families are feeling economic hardship and the resultant emotional and social upheaval as well. Alcoholism, family breakup, and physical abuse are all results of the frustration and depression felt by many Canadians.
Now, more than ever, Canadians need social agencies such as crisis and rehabilitation centres. Throughout Manitoba a number of women's crisis centres, including the Flin Flon Committee for Women and Children in Crisis, and the Aurora House in The Pas, have this year had their funding eliminated
or severely cut back under the Canada Works Program. Muriel Smith, the Manitoba minister responsible for community services, has offered her assistance. It is also the responsibility of the federal Government to continue funding for the social agencies that it helped to create in the first place. In our present economic conditions, the number of people needing these services is increasing.
If the Government is willing to see unemployment levels remain at the present high levels, it should also be willing to take responsibility for the consequences, for the endangered mental and physical health of victims of the recession. The federal Government must also be willing: to provide the necessary funding to help both the victims and those agencies that are willing to offer a helping hand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions. The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dulferin-Simcoe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to go away and come back again if Hon. Members can guarantee the same sort of reception.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Those of us who believe in the reformation of sinners will be delighted to receive a copy of the letter that he sent to his Deputy Minister last night. As recently as January 19 the Minister responded to allegations in the house of unfairness on the part of his Department by saying "-it is my profound conviction that this accusation has no basis in reality-".
To what do we owe this profound conversion by the Minister so that he now writes a six-page letter to his Deputy Minister, having discovered courtesy, good judgment, fairness, and better communications as being goals toward which his Department should strive?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have always said in answering questions in the House that those were the principles which applied in the Department when looking at the problems brought forward by Members of Parliament and by particular taxpayers. We were looking at the criticism of the Department of National Revenue.
I just want to tell the Hon. Member that I took the opportunity, with a New Deputy Minister coming into office, to outline to him the principles on which the Department bases its actions.
April 5, 1984


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF INCOME TAX ACT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, for six months the Minister systematically denied that there were problems. For six months he said that this was all a figment of our imaginations. Now we find that with the new Deputy Minister he has discovered the need for reform.
In his letter the Minister makes reference to the fact that Canadians are concerned about the powers given to the Department under the Income Tax Act, yet his sole remedy is to suggest that those powers should be used with discretion.
Instead of simply offering blandishments to Canadians, is the Minister prepared to recommend amendments to the Act that would contain the powers of the Department in the fields of collection, and search and seizure? This would ensure that, while the Department has all the powers it needs to enforce the law, none of those powers would conflict with the basic civil liberties of Canadians and we would restore once again the principle that Canadians have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, including by his Department.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question covers several aspects. The first point I would like to deal with, which concerns the preamble to the Hon. Member's question, is where he says that I always denied there were any problems. I think the Hon. Member is mistaken, and wilfully so, because it always was my position that we should be open to criticism and look into complaints, but that we were dealing with these problems on a regular basis. The Hon. Member is also referring to powers contained in the Act which are extremely important. I think the Hon. Member, who is our self-styled expert on the Canadian tax system, should remember the basis of our system which is self-assessment, and that if in all fairness to the majority of the taxpayers, we want to maintain the integrity of that system, we must have certain powers. In a letter I wrote to the Deputy Minister, I did, in fact, refer to the use of these powers in the specific circumstances provided in our legislation as passed by Parliament, and I pointed out that those powers should never be abused. As I have already had occasion to say in the House, a single case of abuse would be too many for the Department of National Revenue!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister claims I am suggesting I am an expert in income tax law. I am not claiming that. All I am claiming is that I know more about how his Department should be run than he does.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: You certainly do not have to be an expert for that, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


COMPENSATION SOUGHT FOR TAXPAYERS ACTING ON ADVICE GIVEN BY OFFICIALS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the Minister's attention another aspect of his letter. He talks about the need for improved communications and improved training. Is the Minister prepared to propose a change in the Department's procedures, and in the future, if taxpayers act on the advice given by officials in the Department which later proves to be wrong and find themselves suffering financially as a result of this bad advice, will the Minister be prepared to offer compensation to those taxpayers to ensure that they do not suffer as a result of bad advice given by the Department?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I reached the conclusion long ago, Mr. Speaker, after watching the Hon. Member and listening to his questions, that I was far better equipped than he to run the Department of National Revenue. However, my innate modesty has always prevented me from saying so.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the basis of our system is self-assessment. According to this fundamental principle, the taxpayer is responsible for determining and declaring the full amount of tax owing and for paying those taxes. Of course, the Government, in this case the Department of National Revenue, should help taxpayers as much as possible in filing their returns, and it should provide the necessary information to help them understand fully the various provisions of the Income Tax Act.
However, the Hon. Member will understand that, because of the nature of the system, in the final instance not the Department, but the taxpayer is responsible for filing his income tax return. In the final instance, taxpayers are responsible and have a duty to file their returns and to sign them as being correct.


PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today in committee in the other place, Mr. Zehdi Terzi, who describes himself as a member of the executive branch of the Palestine Liberation Organization, literally shocked members of that committee by confirming his support for terrorism under certain circumstances.
Would the Minister indicate why the Government in this case, knowing the PLO's support for terrorist activities, so casually issued a visa to Mr. Terzi, bearing in mind Mr. Terzi felt this visit so important, gave such honour and recognition to his cause, that he first went to Chairman Arafat to seek

April 5, 1984
Oral Questions
clearance before he would come to Parliament Hill? Why did the Minister treat the visit so lightly when Mr. Terzi treated it with such importance?


Hon. Jean-Lue Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Hon. Member would be able to assess the quality of the testimony given by Mr. Terzi, and 1 believe that he would be able to recognize what is not acceptable to Canada, what is contrary to Canadian policy in his statement.
With respect to the issuing of a visa, the answer has been given repeatedly, for example, in a letter, addressed yesterday, I understand, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Hon. Member for York Peel. The Senate Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence had made a decision that the representative of the PLO would be invited. It made a decision on that. I was intrigued by the statement made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona a moment ago that the committee had already listened to similar people abroad. What is the difference between listening to them here and listening to them abroad? Be that as it may, the Department of External Affairs issued the visa simply because the gentleman had been invited by a parliamentary institution to come and give testimony. It did so in the usual practice of extending to the greatest possible extent free discussion in this country.


GOVERNMENT POLICY INQUIRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the same Minister, who surely must realize that Canadians are shocked at the insensitivity of his Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Mr. Trudeau:: Your own leader is not shocked.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Minister, further to the letter I did receive this morning, explain to the House how you can say in the final line of that letter:
The Government does not, however, permit the entry to Canada of individuals who have been involved in perpetrating or assisting acts of violence.
How can you say that is government policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Lalonde:: Order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -when you gave a visa-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the Secretary of State saying that was to establish a difference between his attitude with respect to the representative of the PLO to the UN and a similar or comparative instance recently with respect to Bishop Capucci,
who was refused a visa because he had been involved in acts of violence or leading to same. He wanted, presumably, to establish the difference between the two, and, presumably thinking that the Hon. Member might not be able to do so, he decided to put it in the letter which he addressed to the Hon. Member.
With respect to what is public opinion with regard to the testimony given this morning by the PLO representative, I would not presume, the way the Hon. Member does, that the country is going to be shocked, hurt, annoyed, embarrassed, angered, and so on. I would think some people might be annoyed, but I would think the majority of them will think it is nice to be able, in a country like ours, to hear both sides of all issues and to make judgments on our own as to what is acceptable and what is not.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There is a report out today that in the Province of British Columbia one person out of five is either collecting unemployment insurance or welfare. In fact the situation has gotten so bad that hundreds are being turned away from food banks in the City of Vancouver. When the Government has been asked about this in the past, the answer has always been either a reference to some kind of safety net program, or the issue has been dismissed as one involving another jurisdiction. Given the reality that we now have an emergency in British Columbia with people not even being able to find food to eat, what does the Government of Canada plan to do about it?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has in good part given the answer to his own question. We have, indeed, a number of social programs which the federal Government is providing. One of them is unemployment insurance. The others are old age security payments, and support for families through child tax credits and family allowances. There is, in addition, the social assistance program for which the federal Government pays 50 per cent and which is administered by the provinces.
The Government of British Columbia is the Government administering the social assistance program. The Government of British Columbia is determining who is eligible for those programs. And the Government of British Columbia is deciding how much should be paid to these particular individuals. We are paying 50 per cent of the bill, but the criteria to which I referred are determined by the Government of British Columbia.
My friend may be unhappy with the Constitution we live under in this country. He may feel that we should change the constitutional arrangements with regard to social security and social programs. However, as long as we have a federation in this country, there are a number of programs which are under
April 5, 1984

provincial responsibility and which the federal Government participates in financing.
The cases the Hon. Member refers to particularly, whether it is in terms of food support or social assistance, are totally under provincial government responsibility. The Hon. Member knows of a number of events which have occurred arising out of decisions by that provincial Government in the last few months which have not helped the economic situation in British Columbia.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that recorded announcement before. I want to say to the Minister that just because the Government of British Columbia is uncaring about what happens to some of its less fortunate citizens, that is no reason that the Government of Canada has to show the same lack of concern.


EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, every expert in the country has acknowledged that the survival of our forests is endangered. The former federal Minister of the Environment has said the federal Government should be spending millions of dollars more in reforestation. Many of the people collecting welfare and unemployment insurance in British Columbia would like to be working. Considering all those facts, why does the federal Government not introduce a crash reforestation program, put up the millions of dollars, and put people back to work in British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: Again, Mr. Speaker, my friend has given the answer to his own question. He knows, or certainly should know, that of all the provinces British Columbia is probably the one which has all the forest resources under its own control, direction, and ownership. Those forests are the property of the provincial Crown. It is the responsibility of the provincial Government to decide whether it wants a large, small, or no reforestation program. The Minister has indicated that we were ready and willing to talk with them to see whether there was the possibility of an agreement on expanded reforestation programs, but the federal Government cannot just barge in and tell the provinces to abandon their responsibilities. The federal Government cannot just move in and do what the provinces are not only entitled to do but are responsible for doing.
My friend is raising a red herring in that regard. He has the answer in his own question.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE OFFER OF ASSISTANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say in all seriousness that I am not raising a red herring. If the
Oral Questions
federal Government wants to take some initiative and show some concern, it could do so. However, put aside the fact that the provincial Government has not reached an agreement on reforestation at this point. What is to stop the Minister responsible from announcing that he is going to Victoria, requesting a meeting with the appropriate Minister, and that he is taking with him a certain number of millions of dollars he would like to put to work immediately on reforestation to create jobs in British Columbia? If he did that, I suggest that suddenly the Government of British Columbia would have to say yes.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my friend is suggesting that we treat provinces like they were really junior, irresponsible Governments. Our attitude has been to try to work by convincing provincial Governments on common policy. I do not think the gun-to-the-head approach that my friend suggests would be very productive.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue regarding his letter yesterday which said: "We must apply judgment and common sense in administering the tax system. We must remember that we are dealing with people and their interests must be respected and their needs considered." Will the Minister finally admit that judgment and common sense have not been shown regarding Canada's artists, writers, and scholars during his period as Minister, and that the decision to apply aggressively the "expectation of profit" test as narrowly and unrealistically as possible, with the result that dozens of serious professional award winning artists have been deemed by the Minister to be hobbyists, showed a scandalous lack of judgment?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the conclusion of the Hon. Member. We have already taken decisions in the Department with respect to the particular situation of artists. The Member knows very well that we have accepted the first recommendation of three presented by the Canada Council, which was the major one, dealing with the tax department. I want to remind him that there is a committee of this House studying that whole question, and if there are policy decisions with respect to taxation which have to be taken, they will be taken by the Minister of Finance.


INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION-REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON REASSESSMENTS
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can go on forever trying to pretend that it is entirely

April 5, 1984
Oral Questions
a finance issue; the artists know better. Surely he can admit that the whole "business" of art is so different, so uncertain, that it is virtually impossible for an artist, let alone an assessor, to predict reasonably whether a profit will or will not be made.
Will the Minister now demonstrate judgment and common sense, not just talk about it, and either revert to the realistic interpretation of the law applied to artists by his predecessors, or at least direct that a moratorium be placed immediately on further reassessments of artists' incomes in Canada until the subcommittee has made its report?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would be more realistic and spare us his empty rhetoric. Ever since this whole argument was launched about the taxation of artists, four specific cases have been submitted to me. In those four cases, two artists took the time to write and tell me: "We followed your advice, we met with the district office officials, and we are fully satisfied with the way our cases have been reviewed". Out of four cases brought to our attention, two people have already said that they had been treated in all fairness and equity and that they were satisfied with the settlement.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the other two people involved will have exactly the same opinion about the approach of the Department.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. You are destroying the artists and cultural community in this country, you and your Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair.


FARLINGER INQUIRY REPORT
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 an article in the Montreal Gazette quoted the Minister as saying that any significant change to the Income Tax Act and the operation of the Department would have to wait for the report of Toronto consultant William Farlinger. In view of the many major changes set out in the Minister's letter of April 2 to his new Deputy Minister, can we assume the Minister has received a report from Mr. Farlinger? If so, will it be made public, or will it be hidden away as was the Rowe report on the Newfoundland fishermen?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I refer the Hon. Member to the first paragraph of my letter in which I made a specific reference to the report that Mr. Farlinger will make to me later this year. I just want to assure him that those are interim measures flowing from the assessment we made of the situation, and the assessments we make on a daily basis. So I think it is not a major revolution. It
is only the continuation of the human attitude we have in the Department toward criticism and cases which are brought to our attention.


COST OF FARLINGER INQUIRY
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister has just woken up to the fact that there are all kinds of things wrong in his Department. Mr. Farlinger has indicated that he is able to hire up to 50 high priced people to work as long as one year in preparing this so called one-man report. Can the Minister tell this House and the taxpayers of this country how much it is going to cost to have it confirmed that there are all kinds of things wrong with Revenue Canada?


Pierre Bussières: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the Hon. Member that he, several of his colleagues and many Canadian taxpayers admit that the Income Tax Act is very complicated and that it is not easy to implement and administer that kind of legislation. Why did we ask an independent group of qualified tax and management experts to examine our whole tax structure? Precisely because of the complexity of the problem. Surely the Hon. Member cannot take us to task for asking highly qualified experts to assess the situation, since the recommendations we will receive will reflect the competence of those people.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Across Canada one out of five young people is unemployed. In British Columbia the number if one out of four. Of course the real rate of unemployment is much higher since many young people have not been registered in the labour force. In the next few months hundreds of thousands of young people are going to be coming out of our schools and colleges, and there is very little chance that many of them will get jobs.
Would the Prime Minister be prepared to treat youth unemployment in the same serious way that he did disarmament when he carried out his peace initiative? As one of his final acts in office would he be prepared to launch a youth initiative, travel to our provincial capitals and meet with our Premiers, business and labour leaders, and with young people themselves, to mount a crash program of job creation for young people?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not referred in any way to the very considerable efforts that have already been taken. He seems to have forgotten that the Government has
April 5, 1984

established a youth opportunity fund of approximately $1.3 billion to focus on the problem of youth employment. The basis of that approach is to build particularly upon the successful Career Access Program which gives first time entrants into the labour force an opportunity for work by providing a subsidy to employers for from six to 12 months. There is already an extraordinary effort being made by the Government of Canada. We all realize that the situation is a difficult one to deal with. Short term measures are needed, and over the longer term we need more effective training and retraining programs.
I am sure all Members on this side of the House would welcome a continued, vigorous intervention on the part of the Prime Minister in these matters. The Hon. Member should at least recognize that extraordinary and largely successful steps are already being taken by the Government.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I do hope the Prime Minister will answer this question. While we recognize some of the initiatives that the federal Government has taken, only a co-ordinated approach by the federal Government, provincial Governments, and business can really deal with the problem of youth unemployment. The amount of $1.3 billion is a beginning, but it is only a beginning.
The Prime Minister has travelled to world capitals to meet with the leaders of Russia, China, the United States, and Great Britain. Why does he not travel to Victoria to meet with Premier Bennett? Does he not acknowledge that only a massive approach will meet the needs of our young people? Will he be prepared to give that kind of political energy to the number one issue facing the Canadian people today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we did recognize that when in the Speech from the Throne in December, we announced the appointment of a Minister of State to deal with that problem precisely. That Minister has been acting. In the immediate future that Minister will be announcing programs to deal with the problem of youth unemployment.
Any further travels on my part, Mr. Speaker, are always envisaged with happiness. However, I would have to be assured that I would have the co-operation of the provinces and that, in fact, we could do something rather than just make motions. As I said, in the Speech from the Throne, in the announcement of $1.5 million recently and $1.3 billion before that, the federal Government has taken very positive steps, and we are acting in so far as the federal Government is concerned.
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, if 1 could have his attention for a moment please. Now that the Minister has joined the real world and discovered the need for common sense, fairness, impartiality, and six pages of other important matters, has he also discovered the importance of listening to Canadians? Will he provide an ongoing opportunity for Canadians to speak to him and his senior officials in public meetings across Canada as my Party has done? Does the Minister not finally agree that he should establish clearly that the Minister is the public's representative to the Department and not simply the Department's spokesperson to the public?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate to the Hon. Member what I already said to his colleague. I took the opportunity of having my new Deputy Minister outline principles which we already use to administer the tax Department. They are not new. There are specific measures, but the principles were the principles we used to administer the Department.
I would also like to tell him that I meet on a frequent basis with taxpayers, tax practitioners, and Members of Parliament. I receive a lot of comments from those groups with respect to the concerns of taxpayers in this country.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Minister does meet with a lot of people. I am positive he gets a heck of a lot of literature. However, he does not do it in public as we did. I suggest to him that it would be a real good experience for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to one of the few specifics in this rather long letter to his Deputy which he chose to make public. I am referring to his direction to his Deputy that "complaints should be fully investigated and satisfactorily resolved by"-, now get this-"an independent group within Revenue Canada".
The Minister is very good on answers today. What is the independent group? What measures does the Minister propose to guarantee its independence?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Hon. Member that my meetings are always public rather than private, except at the request of individuals. I can keep him better informed about my trips and the various meetings I have, and I am sure he will be satisfied with the kind of public meetings 1 have. In another paragraph, I referred to the Department's appeals division which makes an impartial review of cases for which taxpayers file notices of

April 5, 1984
Oral Questions
objection. In an effort to stress impartiality, I established a direct link between that division of the district office and the director general of appeals in Ottawa and separated the regional management from the appeals division so there would be a direct link with the director of appeals. The appeals division will thus be more independent to make impartial reviews of objections filed by the taxpayers.


FINANCE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Today we had our usual weekly increase in interest rates, to 10.81 per cent, for the new bank rate. Canadians cannot take the jolt of an increase in interest rates every week. Will the Minister use his good offices to change the plan for establishing the bank rate, rather than tying it to an auction which is supposed to take place at the Bank of Canada offices every week? Will he make an interest rate that is appropriate for the growth of the country?
He can interfere with the exchange rate by using all sorts of reserves to prop up or prop down the dollar as the case may be. Why can he not use the Bank of Canada and establish a bank rate for the chartered banks to borrow from the Bank of Canada, to establish some consistency and stability in interest rates in our country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend seems to be worrying very much about an increase of three one-hundredths of one per cent today. In the United States on the same day most banks have been increasing their prime rates by .5 per cent. I would be much more concerned about the evolution of the interest rate in the United States. The change that took place in the Bank of Canada tender today was very minimal.
My friend is suggesting an alternative policy of artificially setting an interest rate in this country. The Bank of Canada rate has been set on the basis of tenders for a very long time, indeed many, many years. I suggest that if he really wants to help the situation he should come every Thursday and bid and lower the rate. Let him bid below the market and it will help bring the bid down. Otherwise, the bid is determined by the market and very much by what is happening in the United States.
I would like it to be different, but the fact is that this is the real world in which we are living, and the Hon. Member knows it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister will know that when this Party was the Government, the proposal to float the bank rate every week was made and the Bank of Canada refused to do it. It
was his predecessor who changed the system and started us on the Chinese water torture treatment of interest rates.


INTEREST RATES CHARGED BY CHARTERED BANKS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, we know that the American prime rate has gone up to 12 per cent in the Bank of America and Mellon Bank, and so on. What arrangements has the Minister made, and what conversations has he had with leading bankers in Canada to advise them that government policy in Canada is low interest rates, that they are not to follow the American prime rate up, and not to use this further water torture this week as an excuse to raise their prime?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend probably forgot to mention that in the short time they were in office they did not change the current practice that has been in operation for many, many years. They endorsed and pursued the policy that had been followed in the previous years under Liberal governments and that served this country well.
As far as the government policy of having the lowest possible interest rates in this country is concerned, the banks are very much aware of the Government's position and my position as Minister of Finance, and that this is very much what we are trying to ensure by every possible means.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TELEPHONE RATES-PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCE STUDY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Communications. The CRTC is the agency that has been given the authority and responsibility for ruling on the requests for increases in telephone rates by Bell Telephone and B.C. Telephone. One method by which the telephone companies are trying to get increases in rates is switching from the standard monthly rental rate fdr consumers to what they call local measured service, which means that people would pay on the basis of the number of calls they make.
Bell Telephone and other telephone companies have, to a large extent, funded a Centre for Study of regulated Industries. That Centre and the CRTC are sponsoring a conference to study the question of local measured service. Does the Minister think it is proper for the CRTC, which should be in a position of judging on the merits of all applications,, to be involved in something funded by Bell Telephone?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that the application for a rate increase which has been made by Bell Canada is presently in front of the CRTC. I should also indicate that the Government has an over-all policy, as enunciated by the Minister of
April 5, 1984

Finance, with respect to the percentage amount of increase that could be granted during the course of the next year. The Minister of Finance has already indicated quite clearly that these increases cannot exceed the rate of 4 per cent.
Finally, the CRTC sponsoring or being involved in examinations of alternative systems is an area of exploration that is indeed quite proper for the CRTC to be involved in. It does not imply in any way that the CRTC is in a position of wanting to give approval in principle to the concept of local measured service. As a matter of fact there is no application before the CRTC for the concept of local measured service, but it is indeed appropriate that Canadians as a whole should be willing to re-examine, from to time, the ways that the CRTC should impose tariffs on the telephone system in Canada.


COMMISSION'S ROLE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the CRTC looking at all the possibilities. But I suggest to the Minister that when the CRTC co-sponsors a conference in which 11 of the 17 speakers come from the telephone industry, and when there are virtually no consumers represented, or no representatives from labour, it is virtually tying its hands in advance. I suggest to the Minister that the CRTC not only has to be fair, it must appear to be fair. When it sponsors this kind of conference it is not doing that.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 will tell the hon. gentleman that 1 agree that the CRTC must not only be fair, it must also in fact appear to be fair. I will be pleased to transmit the Hon. Member's suggestions to the CRTC that representatives from various groups ought to be included.
1 have not had the opportunity to looking at the list of guests who have been invited, but I would indeed be surprised if there were no representatives from the fields the Hon. Member has indicated.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the Minister knows, according to the Canada Deposit Insurance Act, financial institutions, banks, and trust companies are protected against such institutions going out of business or bankrupt for up to $60,000 on deposit. However, upon reviewing for up to $60,000 on deposit. However, upon reviewing the Act, it is my understanding that there is no such protection if funds are locked in for longer than five years. For example, there are funds that are presently locked in for as long as ten years. Will the Minister be prepared to make the necessary changes to correct this inequity, which I believe must be just an oversight?
Oral Questions


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction to be made between short term deposits and investments and the period of time that the Member has in mind is, in fact, such a distinction. The question was reviewed at the time the changes were made in the insurable amount when we moved to the $60,000 level. It is not the Government's intention to reopen that question.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ADVERTISE PROVISIONS OF ACT
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances there are people who have funds on deposit for ten years and they are not aware of this provision in the Act. Would it be possible for the Government to advertise this fact so that they will not be under any delusion if something did go wrong and they lost their money?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Member opposite is advocating that the Government should engage in more advertising, but the fact remains that the terms of the changes that were made some time ago were given to the public fully. I do not see that there can be any confusion in lending institutions about the CDIC legislation and the terms upon which that insurance is provided.
Those who are placing their money, either in short term deposits or longer term investments, need only to seek the information from the institution involved. It is readily available.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As Statistics Canada reports, this country spends only 1.4 per cent of its GNP on research and development while among our chief competitors, the United States spends 2.6 per cent; West Germany, 2.3 per cent; and the United Kingdom and Japan each spend 2.2 per cent. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House why his Government is not even willing to match the efforts of our chief competitors in this regard and in that way bring to Canada many thousands of additional orders and many thousands of additional jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member would preface his question by referring again to productivity because it is a subject for which he has always shown justifiable concern. He might have read yesterday that Canadian productivity is at the highest point it has reached since 1971 and that it is outperforming all of our competitors. I would have thought that he would have lent credit to this Government since, during the past many years, he has been asking the Government to ensure that productivity be given attention. That is the preface that I know the Hon.

April 5, 1984
Oral Questions
Member would have made to his question had he the time to do his research.
With respect to the GNP, 1 suggest that he do a little more research because, when he gives the global figures as a percentage of GNP, he forgets that that is composed of federal moneys in research, provincial moneys in research, and private moneys in research. Therefore, the figures he gave us are completely irrelevant. The federal Government is much more generous and farseeing in its participation in funding of research than, unfortunately, the provinces and the private sector. If the Hon. Member compares to Germany, to Japan, and so on, he would end up congratulating this Government for its actions and asking the question of the private sector and of the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is a very good reason why I have not found it necessary to ask the Prime Minister recently about productivity. For years I rubbed his and his Government's nose in the fact that this country in productivity was sixteenth of 16 industrial countries around the world. It was so bad that we should have been completely ashamed of ourselves and, as a result, the Government did start to take some action in this regard. I take quite a bit of the credit for the action that has been taken.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTANT DOMESTIC ISSUE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fatuous answer which the Prime Minister scraped together to my very sensible and far-reaching question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please ask his question?


George Harris Hees: It looks like I am cut off there, Mr. Speaker, and I had a very good one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I would say to the Prime Minister that as he obviously could not care less about important matters of this kind, does he not think it would be a good thing, as he prepares to step ashore from the ship of state, to pay some attention to important domestic matters, such as the one I have brought to his attention, and the figures I have quoted are on exactly the same basis on which-


Mr. Speaker:: There is a limit in terms of how far supplementary questions can go and debates take over.


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: If I were addressing my question to a normal Minister, it would have been over by now, but the Prime Minister is rather obtuse. It takes a little longer; he is a slow learner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Does he not think it about time that he paid some attention studying important domestic matters, so that his fellow Canadians will remember him in a kindly way, instead of quite the reverse, as it appears it will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I always wondered who the author was of this phrase: "The ship of State is sailing over a volcano".
Now I know.


EXPRESSION OF GOOD WISHES FOR HOSPITALIZED PAGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members of the House will be pleased to learn that Mr. Robert Groberman, one of our pages who underwent emergency surgery, is now in good condition. I am sure I join with all our Members in wishing the very best to him and his family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: per Party. That is acceptable, subject to the proviso that I will be coining to.
That deals with five pieces of legislation. Let me throw in another two, Bill C-5 and Bill C-6, which we will pass through all stages, making a total of seven pieces of legislation we are prepared to deal with, seriatim, as quickly as we can through the various stages in the House, to completion. All that I am asking in return from the Government House Leader is an undertaking by the Government that it will bring in immediately the amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act in order to provide much needed cash flow to Western farmers at this time of the year at seeding time.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be an Opposition day, and Monday the House will consider Bill C-3. Tuesday will be an Opposition day, and Wednesday and Thursday we shall be considering Bill C-24.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, surely the Government House Leader is going to respond to an offer which I do not think he can refuse, namely, seven Bills for one. We are ready to pass these through seriatim.


Mr. McDermid:: The Prime Minister asked for that.


Erik Nielsen: We have thrown in another two. It is exactly what the Prime Minister was asking for yesterday. We are prepared to do this in return for one piece of legislation to help Western farmers. Will the Government House Leader do that?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I do not negotiate on the floor of the House. I thought it was understood that the offer was being made without a proviso. I am surprised one is being added now. In any case, I announced the business of the House a moment ago. If the Hon. Member has further provisos to add, we will then add a few more bills to the ones on his list.
In the circumstances, the list of business has been announced. If I may report to the House as well, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the New Democratic Party gave its consent to having one speaker per party and one day in Committee for Bill C-7 and Bill C-8, and one speaker per party at all stages of Bill C-ll and C-16, and that it did so without setting provisos.
As long as this House is led by the present Government and by a Liberal Government, and that will be the case for many years to come, the Government will be responsible for establishing the order of business in the House. And negotiations will be held in my office, as long as I am House Leader, or in the office of my successor, and not on the floor of the House.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I guess that shows the Prime Minister was all huff and puff yesterday. I have a question for-
Message from the Senate


Mr. Speaker:: On what point does the Hon. Member rise?


John Horton McDermid: I rise on House business, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Government House Leader when we might expect the amendments to the Indian Act regarding discrimination against Indian women. It is long overdue. This legislation has been promised so many times by the Prime Minister at the First Ministers' Conference. When might we expect those amendments? We are ready to pass those as well.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the Hon. Member's suggestion for co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I believe the practice of the House is for a limited number of questions. I will recognize one more.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, since there was a discussion of many Bills, is the Government House Leader going to bring in legislation to deal with the Asia-Pacific Foundation? I have a report of the Government's own founding committee. I wonder whether the Government is prepared to bring in legislation. I know that on this side of the House we would probably be prepared to give the Bill speedy passage before the end of this session.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the offer made by the Hon. Member. If we ever introduce such legislation, I will remind him of his offer.


Mr. Speaker:: A short intervention. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni asked the Minister about travel to B.C. The Minister said it was not his intention to dictate the agenda of the Fisheries and Forestry Committee. Now I understand the Fisheries and Forestry Committee is not able to get permission to travel to B.C. Could the Government House Leader indicate why the committee is not able to go and hear first-hand the problems of fishermen? I would like to know whether the Government is prepared to change its mind on this issue.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will reflect on the observations made by the Hon. Member.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired:

April 5, 1984
Ways and Means
Bill S-2, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Gerald Harvey Fudge and Audrey Marie Saunders;
Bill S-3, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Louis Philippe Nadeau and Marie Therese Rita Brule;
Bill S-4, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Ernest Hodel and Norma Dora Laurie;
Bill S-5, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Benjamin Joseph Andrade and Heather Winnifred Andrade; [Translation\
Bill S-6, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Juan Andrade and Emilia Rodriguez;
Bill S-7, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Henri Patry and Aldea Bea Pitt;
Bill S-8, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Joseph Roland Rejean Daoust and Marie Lise Sylvie Girard; and
Bill S-9, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Pearl Kim Lee and Thomas Siegfried Wieland.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) on Wednesday, April 4, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of a Ways and Means motion with respect to the interpretation of Canada's international conventions relating to income tax and the Acts implementing such conventions.
In accordance with Standing Order 64(2), I also ask you to designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration of this Ways and Means motion.


PETITIONS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of approximately 1,800 Saskatchewan residents under the auspices of Amnesty International who call for a universal amnesty for all prisoners of conscience. They feel that such an amnesty, backed by the United Nations and declared by all governments, is indeed possible. If enacted, indeed it would be an unparalleled act in the building of international confidence and the promotion of fundamental freedoms.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from Amnesty International of almost 1,800 names of people who live in the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan and in other provinces of Canada. The petition humbly sheweth that thousands of men and women are imprisoned throughout the world solely because of their political and religious beliefs, that others are held because of their colour or ethnic origin, that these are prisoners of conscience and none have used or advocated violence, that none of these people should be imprisoned, that the fact they have been arrested and punished because of their beliefs or origins is an affront to humanity, and that they should be freed unconditionally.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to support and call for universal amnesty for all prisoners of conscience. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



PARITY PRICES FOR FARM PRODUCTS ACT


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-232, an Act respecting Parity Prices for Farm Products.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce a Bill entitled: "An Act Respecting Parity Prices for Farm Products" which contains a very short explanatory note as follows:
The purpose of this Bill is to provide parity prices to farmers based on a cost-of-production formula for wheat, oats and barley for human consumption within Canada and to establish voluntary marketing Commissions for pork and beef. This is to lay the groundwork for parity prices for producers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
April 5, 1984


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
April 2, 1984-The Secretary of State of Canada:
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:
1.	the adequacy of the definition of charity under the Income Tax Act to reflect current social realities;
2.	the limits to be set for advocacy activities by charities registered under the Income Tax Act; and
3.	the appropriate nature of public support for groups which have as a primary object the advocacy of public interest;
That 7 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of the House;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the Committee have power to report from time to time and to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place inside Canada provided that the locations to be visited and the estimated expenses for such travel are defined in advance;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the Committee be instructed to make its report no later than twelve months after its establishment;
That changes in membership on the part of the House of Commons be made only pursuant to Standing Order 69(4)(b);
And that a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 25, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


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. 261, 342 and 661.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Does the Northern Transportation Company Limited prohibit the directors and officers of the company from ownership, in whole or in part, of any company that does business with NTCL?
2.	Does NTCL company policy forbid immediate relatives of directors and officers of the company from such ownership of any assets or companies that are directly involved in NTCL operations?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: The Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows:
Order Paper Questions
1.	Northern Transportation's directors and officers are bound by the "Guidelines to be Observed by Public Servants Concerning Conflict of Interest Situations" (P.C. 1973-4065, December 18, 1973) and, upon election or appointment receive a copy of the Public Service Personnel Management Manual Subchapter 2 which contains these guidelines as well as the "Standard of Conduct for Public Services Employees" (Circular No. 1973-183, Secretary of the Treasury Board, December 31, 1973). The guidelines and standards of conduct have been formally adopted as company policy and copies have been distributed to all directors and officers.
2.	See above.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the board of directors of the Federal Business Development Bank and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the bank?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: The reply for the Federal Business Development Bank is as follows:
Name	City	OccupationMr. Robert G. Annable	West Vancouver. B.C.	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Ancore International (Canada) Ltd.Mr. Marcel Baril	Noranda, P.Q.	President, Marcel Baril LimitedMr. Gerald K. Bouey	Ottawa, Ont.	Governor, Bank of CanadaMr. Sylvain Cloutier	Ottawa, Ont.	Chairman of the Board and President, Export Development CorporationMr. James S. Cowan	Halifax, N.S.	LawyerMr. Richard H. Kroft	Winnipeg, Man.	President, Tryton Investment Company LimitedMr. Guy A. Lavigueur (executive committee)	Montreal, P.Q.	President, Federal Business Development BankMr. Yvon LcBlanc	Buctouche, N.B.	LawyerMr. Allan Lutfy, Q.C.	Montreal, P.Q.	LawyerMr. Harold H. MacKay (chairman, executive committee)	Regina, Sask.	LawyerMr. Robert G. Rankin (executive committee)	London, Ont.	Vice-President. RKR International Trading CorporationMr. Gordon Ritchie (executive committee)	Ottawa, Ont.	Associate Deputy Minister, Regional Industrial ExpansionMr. Bernard D. Stanton	Edmonton, Alta.	Senior Vice-President, International. Reed Stenhouse LimitedMr. Gerard Veilleux (executive committee) One vacancy	Ottawa, Ont.	Secretary to the Cabinet, for Federal-Provincial Relations (Economic Policy & Programs)
One vacancy

April 5, 1984
Order Paper Questions
2. Compensation
Chairperson: An annual remuneration of $5,000 in addition to any fees paid to him as a director and as a member of the Executive Committee. Directors appointed from outside the Public Service of Canada: $2,500 annually and an honorarium of $300 per day while on Board business. Directors appointed from the Public Service of Canada: Nil.
Members of the Executive Committee, other than members selected from the Public Service of Canada: An additional $1,500 annually and an honorarium of $300 per day while on Committee business. All members are reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel expenses.
President: Order in Council appointee in a salary range equivalent to DM-2, effective July 1, 1983, $86,250 to $101,500. Senior Vice-Presidents: Approved salary range effective January 16, 1984, $60,620 to $106,870. Vice-Presidents: Approved salary range effective January 16, 1984, $57,070 to $95,710.
Benefits Paid: Nil.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Did the Treasury Board approve the release of $345 million for the Native Economic Development Program and (a) if so, since October I, 1983, what amount was expended for administrative costs (b) if not, how is the program financed?
2.	Were criteria established for granting financial assistance under the program and, if so (a) on what date (b) what are they?
3.	Were any assistance applications received under the program and, if so (a) how many (b) did any applicants receive any assistance and, if so, what is a list of their names?
4.	Was any amount specifically aimed at a particular target-group and, if not, will each application be judged on its own merits?
5.	Does the Government plan to disperse a specific amount under the program by March 31, 1984 and, if so, what amount?
6.	To the knowledge of the Government, what percentage of the program's administrators are of native origin?


David P. Smith: 1. No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Start up costs are being funded on an interim basis by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
2.	No. Investments strategies are under review by the advisory board, which oversees the program.
3.	Yes. (a) 94. (b) No.
4.	No. Each investment opportunity to be considered for funding by the program will be dealt with on its own merits as they relate to program objectives.
5.	No fixed amount has been determined for expenditures by March 31, 1984.
6.	Fifty-five per cent. Including the advisory board and support personnel, 20 of a total of 36 persons are of native origin.
[English)


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could turn his attention to Question No. 679 on the Order Paper in my name. It concerns the standards, if any, which were exercised by the Prime Minister in the appointment of Ministers, the answer to which would indicate whether the Prime Minister cast an eye to see whether any of his Ministers were in trouble with the tax department or with the law before he named them to Cabinet. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary not just when we might expect an answer to that question, but whether it will be answered before the present Prime Minister retires from his present responsibilities.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that question is so loaded with barbs that not even a blind fish would come up after it. I will certainly tell the Hon. Member that it is our intention to answer every question on the Order Paper. I will do my very best to see that he gets an answer to his question which is in the same spirit as the question he just asked me.

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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren, that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude what I was saying before lunch by pointing out that the Government's lack of drive for the education of the whole person matches its lack of drive for the development of Canada as a whole. The Government's policy is to sell off Canada piece by piece-some coal to Japan, some gas to the United States, some timber to anyone who will take it, and so on. It is a piecemeal policy, a very short-ranged and short-sighted policy. It does not have in it any concept of serving the people of Canada or any concept of providing essentially for the needs of the people of Canada, including the needs of Canadians to
April 5, 1984

grow, to develop, to have jobs and to participate in the Government of the country.
This is the way the Government is treating universities through the cut this year and the one last year. The result is that there will be a decrease in the development of the independent mind and spirit, which has been the hallmark of the university. There will be more narrow training which locks people into limited occupations. There will be more limited service to the multinational corporations which are buying up our country and shipping it out. There will be damage to Canadian culture. There will be damage to Canadian industry through the loss of what the universities contribute to research and development. There will be damage to a whole generation of young people in Canada, the young people who are now told there are no jobs for them and nowhere for them to study. They will be told in a few years that they are not fit for jobs because they are not trained. They did not train because we will not have given them the means of training, let alone the means of education.
There will be damage to women who at this time for several reasons are capable of moving into the work force, are wanted in the workforce and want to be in the workforce. They will be hindered severely from getting the education they need. Worst of all, there will be damage to the morale of the country because when the Government says there is no future for our universities, that is a way of saying there is no future for Canada. Therefore, it is a sad day that this Bill has now come to third reading. It will be a sad day if the Government forces this Bill through Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like, if I may, to ask a question or two of the Hon. Member who just spoke, or maybe lead with a comment. I agree with him that the Bill before the House will be very restrictive in terms of what it is doing to young people, our colleges and universities. I can certainly see that problem in my Province of Saskatchewan in terms of Regina and Saskatoon. I want to ask the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) whether he could personalize the subject a little more. Does he have in his riding, for example, some personal examples of people who will be really hurt by this kind of greed or Scrooge-like action on the part of the Government when it comes to funding of post-secondary institutions? Has he run into people in his riding who have problems? [Translation]
. . . Young people in the riding of Spadina. Students will have a problem, because the federal Government is too restrictive in its approach to economic problems. Do you have any examples?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give three types of examples of the damage being done by these cuts, the different
Established Programs Financing
kind of cuts, to the people of Spadina and, as far as I know, to all people in Ontario. First, 1 have, as perhaps other Members have, a number of people who come to me because they borrowed money in good faith and completed their education. They cannot find work in the line for which they studied and prepared themselves at university. They are being hounded by collection agencies to pay the Government money they do not have.
The Government claims that sometimes it is moving money from one part of the budget to another to have money for grants, but that it does not have any more money for grants, instead, it has a loan policy. That loan policy is causing great hardship, discouragement and a loss of self-respect for a number of people who in good faith in recent years undertook to borrow money in the expectation that they would be able to use their education.
That is no way to run a country or a university. It is not the way we did it 40 years ago. In DVA we were not told we had to borrow money and become debtors in order to get an education. We were told that if we worked as students, we would get a living allowance for it. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians did that and have since been using the education they received to build this country. There is no reason to destroy these people by telling them they are debtors when, because of other Government policies, there are no jobs.
Second, I spoke to a young student who had been studying physics and must use a physics lab at the University of Toronto. She took a year out to work in industry. When she went looking for a job in industry, she was told, "You studied physics at U of T.? That lab is 20 years out of date. We would like somebody who was trained in an up to date lab". When I inquired about this, other people gave me the same opinion, that the lab is out of date for modern training in physical engineering, but that the department head is ashamed to admit it. That may mean that students will not register to study there. This Government as well as the Ontario Government, by cutting back the money that is needed to keep these labs up to date, is turning department heads into con men who deceive students to come to study there by not telling them that the lab is out of date, that it does not meet the condition of the 1980s.
The third example I have given to some extent on some points. It is simply what is happening to one of the major and basic departments of university. The mathematics department of the largest university in the British Commonwealth, certainly one of the outstanding universities of the world, has 4,200 undergraduates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The response to a question should be relatively short in order to allow other Members to put questions, if they have any. The Hon. Member would then get a chance to speak.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) could enlighten us on the situation regarding mathematics at the University of Toronto?

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it just happens that I do have some information about the mathematics department. There are 4,200 undergraduates and 40 graduate students, 63 full-time professors and 73 courses. Most professors teach two full courses. It is a very large department. A few years ago they began cutting back on tutorial time. Professors are having lectures added on and students are having their tutorials cut down. Tutorials have been cut to one hour in two weeks. You cannot do proper mathematics if it is all done in large mass classes without tutorials. The number of student attending tutorial increased 50 per cent. In other words, the professor is just not able to give his time to the students.
This is the kind of thing that is happening in a basic course. The same is happening in other courses such as psychology. There are over 1,000 students in the first year class in Convocation Hall. That is a ridiculous way to teach.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands on debate.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act of 1977. This Bill, as we know, deals particularly with the funding of post-secondary education across this country.
I noticed, in going back over the earlier stages of debate on this Bill, that we had discussed it at second reading on January 27 of this year. I mention that date because only a few days previously, Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act, had also been in the House for second reading. In many ways there are similarities between these two Bills. Shortly after the date I mentioned, about the end of January, both these Bills were sent to committee for detailed study. The Canada Health Act was sent to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the hearing of witnesses and clause by clause study.
Similarly, Bill C-12 dealing with post-secondary funding went to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs where witnesses were called and it received detailed study. It was a matter of great regret to me, not that the Bills came into the House at the same time but that they went to committee at the same time. While I could participate in both debates in the House because the Bills were called one after the other, because I was deeply involved in the detailed study of the Canada Health Act in Committee for two months,
I was not able to go to the Finance Committee which was meeting at the same time. I regret that I was not able to participate in both committees and did not have the opportunity to attend the hearings on this particular Bill. From time to time, however, I tried to follow the printed journals to keep abreast of what took place.
I mentioned that this Bill in a sense has many similarities to Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. Those similarities are by no
means beneficial when one compares the two Bills. The huge funding programs show the inadequacy of the Bills in dealing with the provinces and the lack of consultation between the federal Government and provincial Governments in the fields of post-secondary education and health care. What we have seen with both Bills is conflict, not co-operation, and not consultation.
The two Bills are similar in this way as well, Mr. Speaker. They both show the lack of foresight on behalf of the federal Government in that it missed the opportunity to do something substantial about health care and post-secondary education. We are addressing only very narrow aspects of both major subjects. That is shown in another similarity in that both Bills tinker with hundreds of millions of dollars when billions of dollars are at stake. More than billions of dollars, the whole thrust of what post-secondary education and health care can and should do in this country, is at stake.
When I think of the progress of the Bill since it was introduced for second reading, having gone through committee stage, report stage and now at final reading, I have to say that unfortunately many of the criticisms I levelled against the Bill on second reading are still apparent and have not been dealt with.
First and foremost, Bill C-12 is still a tax grab by the Government. In the 1983-84 fiscal year the Government is able to reduce its projected transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education by almost SI20 million, and next year that reduction will amount to $260 million. That is the kind of tax grab the Government is getting into with this Bill.
The criticism I made at second reading is even more applicable today. I suggest that the Government had its priorities all wrong when it comes to those things it considers important for funding or important for rescuing or important for bailing out. For instance, the Government considers it is important to write-off or fund the losses of Canadair, which amounted to $330 million in 1984 and $1.4 billion for 1982. Altogether, some $3 billion will have been invested by the Government in that company before it is able to sell it off. It grabs $380 million out of post-secondary education, some of which it is willing to put into Canadair or if not Canadair, de Havilland to which it directed $226 million last year. The same is forecast for this year. VIA Rail lost $440 million in 1982-83 and Canada Post lost $300 million in 1982-83. The Government thought it was necessary to change those situations, to rescue those enterprises, but it does not feel the same way about post-secondary education.
The criticism I levelled on second reading that post-secondary education is in a period of crisis is all too real, Mr. Speaker. We have seen that funding has declined by 20 per cent in the past 10 years; that is over-all funding to postsecondary institutions, to colleges and universities for young people in the educational system. But, during the same period enrolment has increased by 4 per cent. This 4 per cent increase over the past 10 years is the most dramatic increase since this country went into recession in 1981. Furthermore, it is estimated that enrolment will increase by something like 6.6
April 5, 1984

per cent over the next four years. We have declining funding and substantially increasing enrolment.
We have to ask then, why enrolment is going up in the universities at this time? Is it because of population? The main reason for increased enrolment in universities and colleges is the fact that there are no jobs for young people, Mr. Speaker. They are either staying in university longer or returning to university and college for additional training, hoping that when they graduate there may be some place where they can find the security of a job.
There is another reason enrolment has increased, and that is the changing technology with which we must come to grips. Not only young people are affected. Twenty-five percent of enrolments in universities is for people over 35 years of age. People are returning to university or going for the first time because they hope they will be able to improve their lifestyle.
The situation is one of declining funding and increasing enrolment. One of the fall-outs is that we see increased tuition fees all across the country. It is projected that they will go up by 30 per cent in British Columbia, 25 per cent in Saskatchewan and the same to a lesser degree is going to happen in every province. In order to make up that short-fall, in part the universities and colleges are turning to the individual students and asking them to bear the higher cost. Many young people are unable to get summer jobs or part-time work and so simply will not have the funds to meet the increased tuition if the present situation continues and if a bill such as this is allowed to pass.
I have known from personal experience how universities are trying to cope with the reduction in funding. They have been forced to cut back services at all levels, and that in turn reduces the quality of education which is being given to people across the country. That is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker. Once our standards begin to go down so will our standing in every other area that we try to reach in the world. Whether it is sales promotion, trade, diplomatic arrangements, whatever it may be, they will all be affected domestically and internationally once we allow our educational standards to slip.

I have noticed that this is already having an impact on Queen's University. The inadequacy of funding is very much having an impact on the day to day life of the university and, obviously, on its students and staff. For instance, the volume of library acquisitions is half of what it was ten years ago. There are still just as many books, just as many important pieces being written, but there is not the funding to acquire them. Ten years ago 19,000 journals and 50,000 books were purchased by Queen's University in Kingston. This year it purchased 7,000 journals and 24,000 new books. Yet, the output has increased. I hear comments all the time that laboratory equipment is now out of date and is becoming more so compared, for instance, with what private industry is able to acquire.
One of the most serious of situations, because it affects everyone and everything, is that routine upkeep of the build-
Established Programs Financing ings is not being done to the same extent; less than half of what was done ten years ago. Perhaps most important of all, the student-teacher ratio keeps increasing. In 1973 the ratio was 14 students to one professor or teacher. Today that ratio is 20 students to one professor or teacher, and it is growing. It makes it more difficult for the student to receive the individual attention which he or she requires in order to be able to handle the courses and absorb the knowledge which is necessary to graduate.
There is a very real crisis, Sir, in our post-secondary system, and at the very time when there is so much evidence of what is happening, what does the federal Government do? It brings forward a bill such as Bill C-12 which is going to reduce the funding that would otherwise be available to our post-secondary institutions. There have been many organizations and associations, groups of students and of staff and people involved with universities and community colleges across the country who have protested what is going on. When the Canadian Association of University Teachers appeared before the Macdonald Royal Commission, it very eloquently outlined its concerns. It said then, as it has said many times since, that there is a funding crisis in the universities. Why will the Government not listen?
Just the other day I received a letter from the Canadian Association of University Teachers which commented on this very bill. The CAUT said this, and I quote:
The CAUT has opposed and continues to oppose this misguided legislative action. We do not feel Bill C-12 is in any way the answer to the current and sizeable problems of the university system of Canada.
The CAUT has urged all levels of government to begin real discussions on the serious problems of higher education, but until now, we continue to be caught in the federal-provincial battles.
Enclosed with the letter for my reading was an editorial which it had received recently. It was taken from the Chronicle of Higher Education of February 22, 1984. It outlined the way in which funding is being increased in United States colleges and universities at the present time. It said that Governors budget more money for colleges to spur the economy and make up for past reductions. There is this difference in the situation of our great neighbour to the south, our great competitor. Here we are turning our back on the very step which it is taking. The CAUT raises the concerns of the teaching staff across the country.
As I mentioned, these bills, the Canada Health Act and this one dealing with post-secondary education, are going through the House at the same time. I have had people speak to me about the concerns they have about the funding of medical schools in particular. Both bills affect the funding of medical schools, whether it is through post-secondary education or lack of research moneys coming to teaching hospitals and medical schools through the Canada Health Act. They are being hit doubly.
Yesterday I was glad to see the Government did accept pretty well the same amendment which I had initially put forward on accountability. We will now enhance the accountability of the funding which is transferred from the federal

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing Government to the provincial levels and then on, one would hasten to add, to the colleges and universities.
We introduced an amendment to this bill which will make certain things more possible than they were in the past. For instance, the amendment which was accepted in the field of accountability will provide a more precise record of expenditures. We will be able to see where the money is going and if it is being used efficiently by the provinces, at least more so than we were in the past.
Second, federal politicians will be able to see if the federal Government is making any real effort to encourage innovation in the area of education through high technology retraining, for instance, or in the field of health through preventive care.
Third, that amendment will provide public visability of expenditures which will perhaps lead to a better understanding of the role of Ottawa in the field of health care and education, thereby, I would hope, legitimizing in the public's eye the need for a strong federal presence in these fields.
Those are things, Sir, which I felt the amendment addressed. It will certainly make this bill better than it was. However, Sir, I say, even knowing that the amendment will help, there is not enough in this bill to merit my support because in the long run it really does cut back on what is the very most basic and important part of this bill. It cuts back on funding by the federal Government to post-secondary education. It ignores much of the need which we are seeing not only now, but will see in the next five years and ten years. It adds to the crisis which is here now in post-secondary education and which this Government simply will not face up to. Regardless of what we have done to improve the bill, which the Government will drive through this House because of its majority, and only because of its majority, the bill is a very backward step in trying to fund the most critical need in the country today, the education and training of our young people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten minute period for questions or comments.


Mr. Garant:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is talking about cuts in federal financing for post-secondary education programs. Bearing in mind that in her province, the Province of Ontario, total transfers per student were $4,394 in 1980, $4,600 in 1981, $4,950 in 1982 and $5,063 in 1983, and that for 1984, transfers per student in Ontario are estimated at $5,345, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands whether this progression is any indication of cuts in federal financing for post-secondary education programs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Liberal Party keeps falling in the Gallup Poll is that it keeps trying to mislead the Canadian public with statistics. Quite frankly, the Canadian public is fed up with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The figures the Hon. Member cited may be real, but he knows as well as I do that had this Bill not been introduced, transfer payments to the provinces would be $118 million higher this year, and $260 million higher next year. That is where the deception comes in. We know what the payments would have been this year and next year had this Bill not been introduced. That is where the reduction comes in.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member a question concerning a federal responsibility and who should have it. I really want her opinion on this. I have often said, and I think she has too, that one of the difficulties with postsecondary education as opposed to hospital insurance and medical care, is that for the latter there is one Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). She takes the responsibility in Cabinet. She has some clout, maybe because of her personality, but also because she has a lot of responsibility and there is one Department looking after the subject matter. Perhaps for that reason the Government did not apply six and five to transfers in that field. In the case of post-secondary education, there are about seven Ministers who have a baby finger in the pie. There is no one who has even a co-ordinating responsibility. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is concerned with purely the financial point of view. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren), who is supposed to be introducing this Bill but does not even speak, he has a very tiny finger in the pie. The Minister responsible for social development has some involvement in post-secondary education, as do the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston), and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) because of the granting councils. Then of course there is the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal). There is also the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), I guess, because she was talking about how we should restrict educational opportunity to those who have money and means.
Does the Hon. Member agree that this is one of the reasons this program was subject to six and five, and has she thought about what might be a co-ordinating mechanism or a more satisfactory way of allocating responsibility for the federal role in higher education?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish we could have this kind of debate much more often in the House. Individual Members should be able to voice their concern to the Government about the structure and workings of government as much as about the legislation presented to us. I feel very strongly that there should be a lead minister with a very strong co-ordinating role in this field. It would bring all of these areas under his or her jurisdiction at the federal level. He or she would be able, with some degree of responsibility and assurance in the Cabinet, to go out and negotiate with the provincial Ministers a much more meaningful role. That may not sound the way I want it to, but there has to be a much more meaningful role than we see at the present time for the federal Government in the field of research and development and
April 5, 1984

technological change. It has to be co-ordinated with a new way of looking at education. I see that as a major federal responsibility, and it has to be the responsibility of one person. Once it is dispersed, then it is weakened and it is not dealt with in the way it should be.
I might also say to the Hon. Member that I get equally upset and disturbed when I see the dispersement of effort on behalf of the status of women through a plethora of departments which are not properly co-ordinated within the Government structure.


Pauline Jewett: And therefore nothing done.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the Hon. Member's desire to transfer more money to provinces for certain purposes. However, I have real difficulty with, perhaps not her, but with her Party, in coming to a conclusion on how to reduce the deficit. This has not been my line but it is her Party leader's line. How are you going to significantly reduce the deficit when probably 75 per cent of the money spent by this Government is in transfers to people, provinces and corporations and to service the public debt? The operation of the Government is responsible for only about 25 per cent of the Budget. I am not one of those who think the deficit is the big problem in this country, but if the Hon. Member's Party wants to spend more money on defence and in other areas and at the same time cut back, where are they going to find the money? What are you prepared to cut? I gather the Hon. Member may be very different from her Party in that she does not want to cut some of the areas of social benefit.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is very true that the statutory payments, whether to individuals or provinces, are pretty well set in stone. The Government is moving to change that by cutting back on post-secondary education, but I do not agree with that. However, the Hon. Member has asked where changes would be made. We know that we have to operate within a fiscal framework which demands responsibility. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member was here, but 1 began by listing a half dozen places where the Government had put priority on spending where we would not. I looked at the figures on enterprises like Canadair, de Havilland, VIA Rail and Canada Post, and all the bail-outs which took place, including Maislin and others, and added them up, and they come to some $4 billion. If you have $4 billion to play with you can do an awful lot in the way of social programs where inequities still exist. That is where I would begin to look.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the conclusion of the ten-minute period for questions and comments.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Before recognizing the next Member, I have the honour to inform the House that a
Adjournment Motion
message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
April 5, 1984 Sir:
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 5th day of April, 1984, at 5.15 p.m. lor the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
1 have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Jacques Noiseux Deputy Secretary to the Governor General



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 York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Finance (a) Financial deficits of Atlantic Provinces, (b) Request that Minister initiate new grants program; the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-National Revenue (a) Reported confiscation of children's bank accounts, (b) Taxpayers' meeting at Aldergrove, B.C.; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Works-Use of municipal wastes to generate steam.

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion on which I have had the opportunity to speak in debate on Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. The first occasion was at second reading on February 7 when I discussed the problems with the Bill in principle. Today at third reading stage I wish to deal with the Bill in greater depth, this time focusing on the problems of underfunding of post-secondary education from the point of view specifically of the Maritime Provinces.
Among other things, Bill C-12 provides that in the fiscal years 1983-84 and 1984-85 the increase in the federal Government's per capita contribution to the cost of post-secondary education will not exceed 6 per cent in the first year and 5 per cent in the second year. Thus, the Government, as the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said so eloquently, is imposing a strict limit on expenditures for universities and colleges of Canada.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the inflation rate in Canada has been easing down a bit. It was at 12 per cent and 11.5 per cent and has slowly eased down to about 5 per cent or 5.5 per cent this past year. Some may ask, as Members on the Government side do, what the problem is. There are several problems. First, current trends suggest that the inflation rate will likely far exceed 5 per cent in the coming months. Last month the figure was 5.5 per cent, a rather sharp increase from the month before. Almost all reliable forecasts indicate that the problem could get worse.
Second, the rate of increase in university and college expenditures is much higher than in the economy as a whole as a result of conditions that are peculiar to educational institutions. One need only cite the burgeoning costs of laboratory equipment and library books to make that point. Such rate increases, which have been almost exponential in recent years, are well beyond those reflected in the so-called consumer price index. Although the national CPI figure for Canada last month was 5.5 per cent, universities have been faced with cost hikes of 35 per cent and higher for much of their specialized equipment, especially in the natural sciences. Because capital budgets have been all but frozen at many campuses for the past five, six or seven years, their physical plants are becoming antiquated. Consequently, even routine maintenance and operating costs are skyrocketing well in excess of any CPI figures that could be cited.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, for other reasons universities and community colleges are forced to do more with less. They are being compelled to provide more education with less money. Nowhere is that point clearer or more true than in the area of student enrolment. In the Maritime region, for example, the student population has been expanding at a dramatic rate over the last four years. The total increase in full-time enrolment since 1979-80 is over 25 per cent. That increase is equivalent to the total student population of the two campuses of the University of New Brunswick. Yet Government funding for universities throughout the region, and I would argue throughout Canada, has ignored such changes. Certainly there has been nothing like a 25 per cent increase in funding in real dollar terms. In 1983-84 we will see the seventh year in a row in which government operating grants for full-time students have declined in constant dollars. The Maritime universities are being compelled to manage this year with government grants, the actual value of which on a per student basis, given inflation, is 30 per cent less than it was in 1976-77.
In the face of the funding crisis-and I use the word "crisis" advisedly because it is a crisis-the institutions have been slashing expenditures to the bone through every possible cost efficiency. Unfortunately, there remains little fat to be cut, and now even the bone itself is being sliced into. The consequences of this development are dire indeed, Mr. Speaker.
Professor Reginald Stuart is the chairman of history at the University of Prince Edward Island. He expressed the point graphically in recent correspondence to me. As he put it, it takes many years to construct a quality university. In five years of funding neglect one can erode what will require another 15 years of effort to rebuild to comparable levels. He argues that it takes one to three years to develop a new program, a year to put it in place, and an additional one to two years before it produces graduates. I quote Professor Stuart as follows:
A focus on dollars and percentages will obscure the complexity of the issue. Universities, however, cannot adjust rapidly to shifting conditions without damaging their stability, a part of their social value.
There can be no question at all that underfunding has affected the quality of education not only in the Maritimes and in the Atlantic region generally, but in other regions right across the country.
Dr. Elizabeth Hall, Director of Research and Development at the University of Prince Edward Island, illustrated how this can happen at the practical level. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and with that of others in the House, let me quote Dr. Hall's excellent point in this respect. She said:
The reduction in funding has affected the level of laboratory assistants the university has been able to employ to set up laboratories for undergraduate students. The result is that professors very often spend a considerable amount of time setting up routine labs for themselves. This cuts down on the amount of time they are available for discussion with students regarding their particular problems and it also cuts down on the professor's time for research.
April 5, 1984

Dr. Hall went on to say:
In a sense then, we are getting less dollar value for professors' work than would otherwise be the case.
Yes, we are getting less dollar value for professors' work than would otherwise be possible. Yet the Government, in the name of restraint and austerity, is arguing that it is economic to impose such a heavy handed restraint on the universities. Not only teaching, but research also is suffering for lack of funding.
Dr. Regis Duffy, a chemistry professor at my old Alma Mater, who is now in the private sector and a noted chemist by international standards, once said, "Love may make the world go around but research makes it go forward". One wonders how far our world is advancing as a result of Canada's effort in respect to research and development. Doubtless we have sacrificed much of our contribution on the high altar of so called restraint; false restraint, false austerity and false economy.
As a country we invest much less as a percentage of our Gross National Product in research than do most other industrialized countries in the world. It is less than one per cent of GNP, compared to well over 2 per cent in the case of Japan, for example.
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is one of the major sources of Canada's research funds, but it has been compelled to cut back its funding of worthwhile projects because of government restraint on its own budget. Small universities, such as those in the Maritimes, have been particularly hard hit. I sympathize with the points made so eloquently by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, especially with respect to Queen's University, which is my own Alma Mater. I agree with everything she has said in that context. In turn, I think she would agree that such heavy handed restraint affects worst of all the smaller universities, including ones in the Maritime provinces, because the relevant provincial gover-nemnts do not have the fiscal capacity or resource base to make up the difference created by restraint.
The tragedy is that the younger generation will pay the price, for it is they whose employment prospects are being sacrificed in the process.
Dr. Cirill Schmidt, Chairman of the Department of Chemistry at the University of PEI, put the point beautifully in a recent letter to me. Incidentally, I have been conducting rather active correspondence with the professors at the University of Prince Edward Island. I want to share something of what they are telling me and, through me, what they are telling the students and the population at large in Canada. Professor Schmidt said:
Canada as a nation can alleviate the unemployment of masses of young people only if we develop a degree of technical competence in all fields.
How true! But it is not good enough for the country's research to be conducted only at the elephantine universities of the country, in metropolitan centres like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The smaller universities also have a crucial role to play. Some of the most innovative research in the
Established Programs Financing country is, in fact, being conducted at small universities like the University of PEI in my own riding. Too often, their research budgets are the first to be compromised as a result of restraint at the national level, while the mega universities seem to be able to cope more effectively.
Of course, the quality of education is affected in additional ways by budget cut-backs. The University of Prince Edward Island Dean of Science, J. Ivan Dowling, made the point to me that morale is particularly influenced by funding. During the process of restraint, he argued:	'
Morale is undermined as faculty and staff get frustrated from budget-driven limitations on personnel, equipment, supplies, etc. In the meantime, the fixed costs of vital services such as heating, lighting, security, and maintenance remain.
When all is said and done, the problem is the future of a whole generation of Canadians. By imposing narrow-minded, narrowly viewed restraint in this area of public policy, the federal Government is compromising the quality of education and training available to our young people. For example, in my own Province of Prince Edward Island, where I am most familiar with the problem, government funding at the University of PEI in 1980-81 amounted to $5,638 per full time student. That is reduced to only $4,386 in 1983-84. That drop is very substantial.
At a time when per full time student grants are being slashed by approximately $1,100 in real terms, student enrolment is actually increasing throughout the Maritimes by about 25 per cent. Therefore, universities are being required to extend their resources well beyond capacity. The result of this underfunding is that the quality of education is fast deteriorating.
The University of PEI is no longer hiring new staff, although there is a serious need for staff in several areas. In fact, the overall staff at the University of Prince Edward Island in recent years has been reduced. Given such staff shortages, classes must be made bigger and students have been given less access to the personal counselling so important to a quality education.
The same considerations that apply to teaching staff also apply to resource and support staff. A case in point is the library staff at the University of PEI which has been slashed from 32 to 23 full time personnel since 1974-75, at a time when demands on library resources have increased. As a result of cut-backs in funding, there is less money available to make the system work. The library is also being forced to reduce substantially its purchase of volumes.
The universities in the Maritimes have calculated that from 1976-1977 to 1981-1982, they needed an increase in government funding in the range of 71 per cent merely to maintain services at the level at which they were operating. Instead, during that same period they received only approximately 50 per cent more. This year they will require about a 12 per cent increase just to stay where they are, let alone improve the quality of education in light of the knowledge explosion and manpower requirements. The legislation under debate now,

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
however, will restrict increases in federal contributions to 6 per cent.
To their credit, the Maritime provincial governments are coughing up an increase of approximately 7.3 per cent in the current fiscal year to help pick up the slack. But those governments, as I said before, are badly strapped. They are not in the position to make up the total difference following restraint imposed on higher education spending under this Bill. \ In any event, an entirely new approach to university funding is required. First, we need to realize that money spent wisely but generously on education is not a waste of taxpayers' money but rather an essential investment in the education and training of a new generation of Canadians. Seen in that light, undue restraint is not frugality; it is waste. In this case it is a waste of opportunity, including opportunity for job creation, increased productivity, and enhanced research, in fact, enhanced wealth for the country as a whole.
Second, there remains an urgent need for a long-term agreement between federal and provincial governments on the funding of post-secondary education. The current on-again-< off-again restraint approach to funding makes it nearly impossible, certainly very difficult, for the institutions to plan ahead with any degree of certainty or effectiveness. Needed especially are! a clarification of all relevant issues, a clear national education policy to override if need be the hodge podge of provincial policies, and imaginative planning by the institutions themselves. As much as anything, Mr. Speaker, the Government must stop using universities as scapegoats for their o\vn waste of taxpayers' money and for their own unplanned and uncoordinated and profligate ways. For their part universities should stop crying foul every time an institution does not get all it needs or thinks it needs from government, though doubtless most universities, including the one in my own riding, have genuine cause to cry foul.
Finally, the public is going to have to get used to the idea that educational institutions require adequate expenditures of money in order to produce the kinds of dividends, social and economic of which they are capable and without which our country will continue to fall further and further behind our competitors. Only then will our universities be a total credit to themselves, to their government benefactors and, indeed, to the country as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) give us some insight into what he considers the long-term effects of the cuts that are being made now in his province? What kind of effects can we look forward to five or ten years down the road.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, that is a first-class question and I hope I can do justice to it. Very recently the Association
of Universities and Colleges of Canada published a sterling document called Some Question of Balance. It was the third volume of the report of the Commission on Canadian Studies sponsored by the AUCC. The Commissioners for the third volume just released were Dr. T. H. B. Symons, the founding president of Trent University, and James Page, who was a teacher at Seneca College until recently and now is in the employ of the Government of Canada in the Department of the Secretary of State.
To address the question in particular, I refer to that superb study, Some Question of Balance. The Commissioners argued that it may well have been true in the 1950s and 1960s that we needed to go outside Canada to recruit highly qualified manpower to teach our students, to conduct research and to help build up our own incipient graduate schools which at the time were not strong enough to produce the faculty required. Nevertheless, though we have strong graduate schools now, well capable of producing the highly qualified manpower we need for teaching and research, we are still going outside Canada to recruit in large numbers faculty, often in the very fields where we ourselves have a surplus of qualified manpower. There are all kinds of Canadian PhD holders who are being passed over in favour of faculty from outside the country who are being actively recruited with the acquiescence of the federal Government.
To get to the long-term implications to which the Hon. Member refers, Dr. Symons and Mr. Page have documented in great detail that because of restraint and budgetary cutbacks and the retrenchment being forced upon universities there is a danger that we may in Canada have a shortage of qualified manpower before long. As a result we may have to go outside Canada again, just as we did in the 1950s and 1960s, to recruit faculty. But this time it will be with justification because we will have starved our own universities and our graduate schools in particular. The Commissioners predict, and they have documented in some detail, that we could have another manpower crisis by 1990. We could have a shortage of qualified manpower in various fields that will require us to go outside the country to recruit personnel.
To address the question more specifically, and to bring it to a point, I want to say that in the Maritime Provinces, for example, we have seen growing evidence-


An Hon. Member:: The Symons-Page study is an excellent report.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes, it is an excellent report. In the Maritime Provinces we have all kinds of areas-environmental studies, regional studies, and ethnic studies, for example-that go begging for qualified manpower. We should be pumping a great deal of money into those fields rather than being stingy and preoccupied with a false sense of restraint so that our post-secondary educational institutions can meet the manpower and the employment needs and opportunities of the 1980s and the 1990s.
Those are some of the long-term implications. Restraint is being heavy-handed. It is ill-conceived. It is not real frugality,
April 5, 1984

it is false economy because the investments that we need for the future are simply not being made. We will be paying the cost for a long, long time. As Professor Symons and Jim Page said, "the crisis may come sooner than later."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any further questions or comments?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one more question on a little different tack. We are paying something like a billion dollars a month in UIC right now. In the Hon. Member's mind, what portion of that could be transferred or should be transferred, maybe this is an unfair question, to this grant to develop the schools needed to be developed for the future?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think one red cent should be transferred from unemployment insurance, from welfare or from the so-called safety net to education at this point. That is not the way you make up the difference, by stealing from Paul to pay Peter-or is it the other way around? We can, however, save the economy, governments, and taxpayers an awful lot of money if we could invest money wisely in the post-secondary education system. We are creating a whole generation of unemployed because we are not making that kind of investment. We need to invest in the skills, in the talent, and in the latent creativity of our young people. If we do, more and more of them will qualify for jobs in the workplace and fewer and fewer of them will be unemployed in future. Therefore, there will be less of a burden on the unemployment insurance funds. That is how we can save money with respect to UIC. We do not save money by robbing that fund now and putting the money into post-secondary institutions instead. We should find money in other areas and invest it in post-secondary education so as to make sure that in the future fewer of our young people are unemployed, and that fewer will be dependent on unemployment insurance, thereby draining the system. It is an entirely different approach. Even though it might be a longer-term one, I think, nevertheless, it would make more sense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Any further questions or comments? On debate, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. In commencing my remarks on third reading of the Bill, I would like to begin by saying that this is the worst possible time for any government, particularly a federal government whose members have gone on in the last few weeks about the importance of post-secondary education and how the provinces are doing such a rotten job, to bring forward a Bill for passage which will cut whatever increases are currently provided for the post-secondary educational system across the country. It is the worst of times.
In the Province of British Columbia, in the constituency of Kootenay West and in the City of Nelson, aid to post-second-
Established Programs Financing ary education is not an academic subject. On numerous occasions during the consideration of this Bill, and at other times over the last one or two months, I have outlined some of the history of what is happening to post-secondary education in my own area and in my own province, particularly as it relates to the closure of the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson, B.C. In demonstrating that this is not an academic subject to us, I want to illustrate to Hon. Members of the House, particularly to the Government which pretends to care, just what kind of impact these cuts are having on students, teachers, instructors, professors, on jobs, on communities and on people. The cuts are continued to be allowed and, it could be argued, are being further encouraged by the consideration and passage of this legislation.
I would like to begin illustrating these impacts by reading a letter signed by Dennis Bannert, Co-ordinator, Unemployment Action Centre, Nelson, B.C., dated March 27, 1984. This letter was addressed to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), with whom I, the mayor of my city and representatives of the David Thompson University Centre Action Committee in Vancouver just last Thursday. It reads:
Dear Sir:
Re: Impending Closure of David Thompson University Centre
In our capacity as a volunteer organization with a mandate to assist unemployed people in a variety of ways, we are very distressed about the impact the above closure will have on our area. During the past year of operation this centre has had numerous contacts with young people and unemployed people experiencing severe difficulties related to access to higher education. These difficulties are manifest on two levels:
1.	The major degree granting universities are located on the coast hence the extra financial burden for interior students is much higher. In many cases the burden is prohibitive, particularly for students of unemployed parents.
2.	Financial assistance for students has become excessively restricted. The B.C. Ministry of Human Resources now provides no measurable assistance to students. We also have experienced a number of UIC appeals involving denial of U.I. benefits on grounds of lack of availability for work due to attendance at courses of instruction. With our unemployment rate regionally of 25 per cent plus, it appears to us ludicrous to cite a question of availability since job offers are virtually non-existent.
On March 20, 1984 a young French Canadian was found hanged in his small apartment. He ended his life due primarily to severe depression related to unemployment and lack of opportunities. We know that this young man was desperately trying to get access to English language upgrading through the local manpower office to no avail.
The above case, of course, is an extreme example however it does indicate the degree of desperation in our region. To close a post-secondary, degree-granting facility such as D.T.U.C. at a time when so many young people in the interior of this province are in such need is in our opinion nothing short of a denial of human rights.
Mr. Minister anything you are able to do to assist this community and region in maintaining the historic delivery of post-secondary education at D.T.U.C. would be a very humane and progressive step. We implore you to give very serious consideration to ways and means of assisting this region in its plight.
Yours in Hope,
Dennis Bannert Co-ordinator
Unemployment Action Centre

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing This is just one illustration of the impact of the actions taken by our provincial government as a result of the absence of any teeth in the federal fiscal arrangements which allow for millions upon millions of dollars of unconditional funds collected by the federal Government to be sent to the provincial government, only to see them diverted by that government to build dome stadiums or to subsidize the export of non-renewable resources, as with Northeast coal. Those actions are inexcusable.
It is not for want of knowing in what direction they ought to move. The Secretary of State said as much in Vancouver the other day. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), speaking outside the committee meeting dealing with this Bill a few weeks ago said the same sort of thing, that there had to be controls to ensure that funds directed to the provinces for post-secondary education were spent on that. The new Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) just a few days ago made a speech in which she said exactly the same thing. That is also what my Party attempted to put to the House in an amendment just yesterday. I am referring to Motion No. 4 which read:
That Bill C-l 2 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 25 at page 7 the following:
"(3) Any such cash contribution for hospital insurance and medical care programs and post-secondary education program shall be expended by the province for the purposes of those programs only."
That amendment was moved in the House of Commons yesterday. It was debated and we voted on it. What happened? The result of the vote was 182 to 19, against. All Liberal and Conservative members voted against that amendment which would have at least begun the path toward making provinces accountable for the funds of federal taxpayers which they receive.
We get a lot of lip service to accountability. This is a classic example of the old phrase that people and politicians can be divided into three categories, those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who say "what happened". As I said, yesterday the NDP proposed an amendment to make something happen. Liberal and Conservative members, including the 16 of the 17 British Columbia Conservatives who were in the House, all voted against the amendment. They ought to know what is happening in their own province. Do they not care?
The Conservatives also proposed an amendment; an amendment to watch things happen. That amendment had the support of the Liberals, of the Conservatives and of members of the New Democratic Party. We all agreed to watch things happen, but when it came to an NDP amendment which would have put some teeth into the legislation, all Liberal and Conservative members in the House, including those 16 of 17 B.C. Conservatives, voted against it. Of course the people of Canada, including students, university teachers and instructors are left to wonder what happened.
I think that their action was absolutely inexcusable, particularly on the part of Members from British Columbia who ought to know what is happening in our province.
I would like now to refer to the bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers dated February 1984, entitled "B.C. to slash universities' budgets". It reads:
The Government of British Columbia is out to cut university budgets by 24.5 per cent in real dollar terms over three years. Already the government has announced that there will be no increase for this year and a 6 per cent decrease for next year. Informed sources say that this will be followed by another 6 per cent decrease. These decreases are on top of the $12 million cut from the universities in 1982-83. Assuming inflation rates of 4.5 per cent for this year and 4 per cent for the next two years, this will likely produce a decline in real terms of about 24.5 per cent.
The President of UBC, George Pederson, says that one of the most significant consequences of the cuts will be a substantial increase in tuition fees ... Dr. Pederson released figures showing that prior to the Government's budget, per student support shrivelled by 24 per cent since 1972 in real terms. According to Dr. Pederson, B.C., despite its relative wealth, ranked ninth among the ten provinces in university operating grants, sixth in the share of 18 to 24-year olds attending universities, colleges and institutes, and ninth in terms of university enrolments alone. The result will be that fewer and fewer qualified students from British Columbia will be able to attend universities.
More than in any part of Canada, the students, teachers and others in British Columbia are being victimized by a regime which allows Conservative provincial governments, and they are the ones doing it primarily, to divert funds, funds that ought to be used for the training of our young people-to their prestige megaprojects, whether it be a fair in downtown Vancouver, a domed football stadium or a project to subsdize the export of non-renewable resources as with Northeast coal. We have important priorities that we ought to be addressing. Surely students needs are one of them.
Referring again to the situation in my community, we have set standards in terms of the kind of people we are training there that are or ought to be beacons for other parts of Canada. Of the students attending the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson this year, 66 per cent are women students and 40 per cent are mature students. These are goals for which other institutions strive. Ours was the only institution offering university courses outside the Lower Mainland and metropolitan areas of British Columbia. This is the institution that has been decapitated.
It is these kinds of values that the provincial government of B.C. is destroying. The Liberal Government lets them get away with it by introducing and passing legislation such as we have before us. It encourages that kind of attitude. It is wrong. It is disgusting. It does little good for the Secretary of State to meet with us in Vancouver, even though he offered some assistance for which we are thankful. It is assistance the provincial government should have offered as it is that government which decided to close our institution in Nelson.
The Secretary of State offered some immediate assistance in seeking alternatives in terms of funding, programming and in financing consultants to look for other institutions which could offer courses at our local facility. But, he also made a speech to the Faculty Association of the University of British
April 5, 1984

Columbia on Thursday last, March 29 in which he said then, and I quote:
It has been suggested, naively-
I wonder who is naive.
-that the Government of Canada itself is restricting accessibility by applying the six and five restraint measures to its transfers in support of post-secondary education.
He thinks we are naive. It is his Members, Liberals, and the Conservatives to our right who voted against the amendment which would have moved toward a solution of this problem when proposed by my Party yesterday.


Mr. Malone:: Tell us about the polls.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Do you want to talk about the Czechs, too? It is typical that the Conservatives want to play Trivial Pursuit when we are talking about the life and death of people and their livelihood from one end of this country to the other. No wonder they want to go off on their fancy diversions. People are losing their jobs, their livelihood. People are losing their lives because of the kind of policies that this Liberal Government is now pursuing and which the Conservative Opposition keeps urging upon them-cut back, cut back, cut back, and restrain them around the neck until dead. All the nice words in the world will not help them and the people we represent. They had the opportunity to vote for something of substance that would have moved us part-way toward a solution. They simply threw it aside, for whatever reasons. What the Conservatives did when voting against the amendment which my Party proposed was to put their Party loyalty to their colleagues in the British Columbia government ahead of the interests of the people they represent. That is a despicable action. I have no other word for it.


Arnold John Malone: You have no other words.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: There we get a great contribution from the Conservative Member again.
Yesterday we debated the report stage of this Bill, a Bill which will impact severely and encourage more regressive policies such as we have seen in British Columbia and many other Conservative-dominated provinces. At the report stage of that Bill yesterday there were four NDP Members and only one Conservative who took part in the debate, while they outnumber us in this House of Commons by three to one.


Arnold John Malone: Any one of us would.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: When they have an opportunity to say or do something, they are either silent or vote with their friends, the Liberals, to continue the status quo and see university students, teachers and communities continue to wither and die on the vine. Why is it? I am not in a position to answer. Perhaps some of them will.
We have opportunities to move forward in an attempt to provide better conditions for learning in this country. We will not further those ends and the welfare of the young people whom we represent and their communities by passing a Bill
Established Programs Financing such as C-12 which is now before us. It moves in completely the wrong direction. It is no use for the Liberals to say that because the Government of British Columbia is punishing the people of B.C.-including the students of that province-that they will get even and punish the people of B.C. as well. That is not of much comfort to the people there. It is perhaps too late to appeal to the Government to change its mind in order to do in a reasonable and structured way what it ought to have done long ago, namely, attempt to insist that those we represent get a return that they can see and feel for the dollars that we expend on their behalf through this Parliament.
Provincial governments are being encouraged to get away with the murder of institutions and communities. It is time that a regime which allows and encourages that should end. We ask all Members of this House to search their conscience and decide whether six and five, that magnificent PR term that some flack dreamed up, is a proper direction for this Parliament to move. For the future of our country, I ask them to look at the facts. If they will but see what government after government is doing to the future of our young people and the existence of our communities, I am confident that they will join with us in voting against this inequitable and unfair piece of legislation. More than just an impact upon students and teachers is at stake; the impact on my home community has been devastating in broad economic terms. More than a dozen conferences scheduled for my community of 10,000 people this summer have been cancelled because the provincial Government has closed the institution where they would have taken place. We cannot afford that, Mr. Speaker. It is but one of the other effects on our communities of the measures taken by provincial Governments as a result of the negative encouragement they are receiving from the federal Government.
I ask all Hon. Members to vote against this unwise Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. If there are no questions, I recognize the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) for debate.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-12 which deals with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, federal post-secondary education and the federal health contributions.
In the course of this debate we have argued, and continue to argue, that at a time when it is apparent to everyone except the federal and provincial Governments that there is a need in the country to expand what we are doing in post-secondary education, the federal and provincial government are actually cutting back on funding for those institutions.
The Government has also ignored our pleas for improved educational opportunities for women. Two-thirds of all new entrants to the labour force this decade will be women. Two-thirds of working women are concentrated in support type occupations, in the clerical and service sectors, occupations which are the most vulnerable to technological change.
2778

April 5, 1984
Established Programs Financing
Federal and provincial government cutbacks to the postsecondary education system disproportionately affect women who accounted for over 95 per cent of the increase in full-time enrolment over the last decade and whose enrolment in postsecondary education continues to increase at a higher rate than that of men.
My colleagues and I in the NDP caucus have been fighting the Bill now before Parliament that would limit federal funding increases to provinces for post-secondary education to the six and five formula. Just as women are attempting, through education, to pull themselves out of the low-wage job ghettos that entrap them, institutions are being forced by government cutbacks to further restrict women's accessibility to education.
The Canadian Council for Learning Opportunities for Women recently pointed out to a House of Commons committee studying the Bill that the education system in this country is badly out of sync with women's educational needs. In 1981-82, enrolments in high tech courses at Canadian community colleges were 95 per cent male and less then 5 per cent female. In 1982 fewer than 3 per cent of women university graduates had degrees in engineering, computer sciences or any of the sciences. Many of the math and science programs are inhospitable to women because of the way they are taught and the culture associated with them.
Another accessibility problem exists for part-time learners, the growth student group of the 1980s. It is estimated that over half the students at colleges and universities will be part-time students by the year 2000. The enrolment of women in part-time study increased by a startling 250 per cent over the last decade. In 1981-82, 66 per cent of all part-time students were women. It has been found that women are making career decisions at about the age of 30; that is when they are going back to school. But the part-time student is still perceived by both governments and institutions as not being serious. The result is that many courses and programs are not open to them, child care is almost non-existent and where it exists, faculty and support staff are given preference. The costs incurred by part-time students are the same, per course, as full-time students, but part-time students are not eligible for the $50 a month educational allowance deduction for books and transportation, and the tuition fee deduction is not transferable from the non-working spouse to the working spouse.
The federal Government recently extended loan assistance to part-time students, but in a manner that further entrenches the misconception that part-time students are not serious and are not in financial need. The federal Government merely puts up collateral for a loan to the part-time student whose only difficulty is a temporary cash-flow problem. Repayments on the loan must begin one month after it is received, with interest accruing immediately and eligibility based on a more stringent means test than that of full-time students. The use of family income criteria for loans deters the participation of married women and works to maintain their dependency on the family.
A few weeks ago, during International Women's Week the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett)
asked the Minister responsible for the Status of Women if she was aware of the difficulties faced by part-time learners, the majority of whom are women, and what she was doing to eliminate discrimination from the federal Loan Assistance Program. The Minister's response clearly indicated to me that she was totally unaware of this problem and had never seriously considered one of the most crucial issues facing women today-accessibility to education. She said:
-1 am painfully aware of that fact, as my sister suffers under those consequences. I reiterate that my concern is her concern, and it is something that I believe we should do something about. But again, I state very clearly that the law is not there to discriminate specifically against women. It does discriminate against part-time students and unfortunately women are the ones who suffer most. But 'twas ever thus in our society.
So much for the federal Government's concern about women in the post-secondary educational system. That concern, I suggest, is clearly seen in what the Government is attempting to do in this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: By all means. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to consideration of private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS UNITED GRAIN GROWERS LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Monday, April 2, of the motion of Mr. Bockstael that Bill S-10, to amend the Act of incorporation of United Grain Growers Limited, be read the second time and be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready for the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question as follows: Mr. Bockstael seconded by Mr. Dionne (Northumber-land-Miramichi) moved that Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of United Grain Growers Limited be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think if you would seek unanimous consent you will find that there agreement to move Bill S-10 on to Committee of the Whole and through third reading stage at this time, rather than sending it to the
April 5, 1984

standing committee. There have been discussions with all Parties. The House Leader for the Official Opposition has apparently agreed to this and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party has also agreed. If you would care to proceed, Mr. Speaker, to Committee of the Whole and third reading stages at this time, I believe you will find there is consent to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guiibault):: At this time it makes it a little more difficult, because we just passed a motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders. However, if that is the disposition, we can reverse the decision. Is this agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, indeed there have been discussions which have taken place between the three House Leaders. There is a disposition, at least from our standpoint, that this Bill move through Committee of the Whole and be passed in all stages today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guiibault):: Shall all orders and items preceding Motion No. 62 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Arnold John Malone: that Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (drunk driving) be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, of all our nation's serious problems, the issue of drinking while driving must be considered as one most needing attention. The fact that drunk driving is a serious problem is well known. The extent, however, of that seriousness is not as well appreciated. During the night-time hours a full 25 per cent of all drivers have been reported to have had alcohol in their bodies. On weekends between the hours of midnight and 3.00 a.m., 40 per cent of all drivers have been reported to have alcohol in their bodies. In terms of medical costs, property damage and loss of work or education, the total national cost every year is estimated to be some $2.5 billion.
Criminal Code
Some of these people, so drunk that they cannot speak coherently and cannot walk in a co-ordinated fashion, all to frequently climb into 5000 pounds of metal and hurl that object at some 60 miles per hour down a public throughway presenting great danger to all persons who are nearby.
What is at stake for the innocent men, women and children who become the victims of drinking drivers? Every day in Canada, Sir, some 400 persons are convicted of driving while having an intoxicating level of alcohol in their bodies. In this country 14 million persons are driving automobiles every year for a total of some 9 million miles. It is noted that in that number of 14 million drivers, 850,000 of them are involved in accidents every year.
More importantly, Sir, of those accidents in which there are fatalities, a full 50 per cent are reported to have been caused by people under the influence of alcohol. It is for those reasons we have to bring this situation to a national focus and attention. Drunk drivers, Mr. Speaker, are killing 2,500 Canadians annually. That number ought to shock us all into recognizing that the problem is of great concern.
It is not just a Canadian problem, but a North American problem. The statistics of Canada, with one-tenth of the population of the United States, interestingly enough, parallel American statistics. In effect, what these figures underline is the fact that we are culturally bound to its patterns of alcohol consumption and involvement in accidents. In the United States there has been a social cost of between $21 billion and $24 billion because of drunk drivers over the past decade. In the same period 250,000 persons lost their lives to reckless carnage or drunk driving.
In order to bring to light the seriousness of this problem I will give this example. Between 1973 and 1978 as many Canadians died from drinking and driving as Canadian soldiers were killed in the total of the Second World War. In the United States in any two-year period of this decade, there are as many people who are killed as were killed in all of the Vietnam war. That is the extent to which drinking and driving has become a social problem in North America.
In the United States somewhere between one of 500 to one of 2,000 of impaired drivers are arrested and convicted of impaired driving. More than one half of all drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents in the U.S. had blood alcohol levels of more than twice the legal limit. In a study in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, it was pointed out that between 1973 and 1978 some 11,500 persons were killed in automobile accidents, and in 42.5 per cent of those cases one driver had been drinking. Stop and think, Sir, about what I have just said. In 42.5 per cent of the accidents which killed 500 persons, one driver had been drinking. Those statistics underline that the situation needs real action, and my Bill proposes to take that action.
We know it is incumbent upon our society to start a war against persons who drink and drive. We need to heighten the

April 5, 1984
Criminal Code
level of awareness of those who think there is something socially cute about crawling into an automobile light in spirit-no pun intended-but in a totally irresponsible way, attempting to handle a machine they cannot handle. Drunk driving must become socially unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
Interestingly enough, Sir, research in California and Washington indicates that when we take the licence away from a person it does act as an effective deterrent. More importantly, Sir, the research also demonstrates that when there is a large amount of publicity to the taking away of a licence, the deterrent value is greatly increased. That, also, is what my Bill would do. It would mean suspending licences automatically, in a harsh way. But, Sir, that harshness must be balanced against the dangers and damage to society as a result of drinking and driving.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Gentleman of the Black Rod will be arriving. I would only ask that my time be extended as necessary. I will continue until the knock draws your attention.
Drunk drivers must be held responsible for their actions. Drinking and driving should not be socially acceptable. The drunk driver must be viewed more as a turkey than as a man. The John Wayne syndrome of heavy drinking in North America is too dangerous and too expensive.
Some will argue, Mr. Speaker, that my Bill is harsh. They will argue that people need to drive their cars for reasons of work or care of their family, or to attend church. However, the fact that 2,600 Canadians died in 1980 because of drunk drivers is reason enough to bring an abrupt halt to this "socially acceptable" murder. Criminal law treats those who cause death and injury as having committed a felony. It should be no less serious an offence to kill or maim while under the influence of alcohol. If we are to be our brother's keeper, then it is best that we act with all the preventive measures we can. The prevention of drinking and driving is a matter of the deterrent.
I want to set before you, Mr. Speaker, an example of what has happened in some of the Norse countries where it is a very serious offence to be found driving a car while under the influence of alcohol. In some cases it can mean a suspension of a driver's licence for life. In those countries it is very common to find one person at a party who drinks coffee or soda pop and takes the responsibility for making sure that the others are delivered home safely. We need similar penalties to accomplish the same thing in this country. We cannot afford, neither in human life nor property damage, to allow persons to irresponsibly get behind the wheel of an automobile and aim it like a ballistic missile at innocent men, women and children. We need to bring this issue to the attention of all Canadians, and that can best be done when the penalties are severe enough and the deterrent is strong enough that it is imprinted on their minds.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have a bill before the House which calls for a penalty, for the first offence of drinking and driving, of suspension of a driver's licence for one year. A second offence would mean licence suspension for three years. Subsequent offences would mean five years' suspension. In those cases where there has been death or maiming as a result of a person driving while drinking, then the suspension in the first offence would be for ten years and in a subsequent offence for life. While that may at first blush seem harsh, we have to remember the fact that between 1973 and 1979 more Canadians died from drunk driving accidents than were killed in action during World War II. In the past two years there were more people killed by drunk drivers in the U.S. than the total number of Americans killed during the entire Vietnam War.
We have had in North America a sort of culture of slapping leather and drinking hard on a Saturday night at the square dance, drinking until one finds he can no longer stand. Then along came a European culture of drinking while we eat, of having wine with meals, and drinking socially in the evening. It did not come into North America and replace the first culture. It came and added to the first culture. Now we have a continent which does both, rather than having selected one or the other. The result is that on one side of the ledger we have situations of maiming, disfiguration, ruined careers, ruined relationships, the loss of self-confidence and the loss of life itself. We have the loss of $2.4 billion in Canada annually from automobile accidents. On the other side of the ledger we have the question of the right to drive.
It is upon that concept that I wish to focus for a moment. Largely because of the great diverseness of our land, which is the second largest nation in the world, we have come to believe that transportation is a right, that being able to drive a car is a right. I submit it must be viewed as a privilege. It ought always to be viewed as a privilege because every province requires that we become licensed before we can drive. Every province requires that you pass a driver's test before you can drive. Since it is the rule of the provinces that you must pass a test to drive, surely we ought not allow persons to drive on the basis that they are too drunk to walk. Yet in so many instances, after having passed the test initially, in later years persons climb into automobiles while inebriated and without ability to drive. Somehow in a cultural context they still presume it to be a right rather than a privilege.
My next submission is not in my Bill, but I would recommend that it become a part of our thinking towards driving. In recognition of the fact that to drive is a privilege rather than a right, before any person is given a driver's license they should sign a form giving consent for persons arriving on the scene of an accident to take a blood sample for the measurement of alcohol. Consider all the media attention which was given to the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s. Then recognize that in any two year period in the United States there are as many people killed by drunk drivers as there were in the whole Vietnam War. That ought to underscore the seriousness of the problem.
I do not think we are being too harsh at all when we submit that we need stiffer penalties. Although it is not in my Bill, I would advocate that upon receipt of a driver's license we sign
April 5, 1984

consent for blood samples to be taken. It can work both ways. If we are sober it will prove that alcohol was not a factor. If we are not sober, society ought to have the right to know that.
I would like to read one headline which I could have spent my entire allotted time reading from different papers across Canada. "Drunk driver gets 30 days for crash in which man died". Is not law something that should parallel the extent and seriousness of the crime? We climb irresponsibly into automobiles while inebriated. All across North America people are being killed at rates equal to or greater than that of war. We need another war, Sir. We need a war against drunken drivers. We need a war which will place a real deterrent against drunken driving. We need a war which will change our cultural mindset so that children attending high school dances will learn that they can have a good time without bragging later about how much they drank. We must learn that people can go to social events without alcohol being an essential ingredient. More importantly, we must recognize that we all have limits. We must realize that the laws are such that if we are inebriated we had best seek alternative transportation.
I brought this Bill to the House of Commons in hopes of raising the level of consciousness of this serious problem. I hope that Government Members and Members of the NDP will give it their full support. I can assure Members of all Parties that this issue is rising very much in the Canadian consciousness. In communities all across Canada there are growing concerns that something be done to curtail the extent of the use of alcohol while driving an automobile.
Mir. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-229. I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) for putting this Bill forward. In his speech he outlined the tremendous carnage, hardship, death and destruction which takes place on our highways every night due to alcohol and impaired driving. On February 7 the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) tabled Bill C-19 which deals with the same topic. There can be no doubt that those families that have lost children and loved ones dues to impaired driving on our highways are more conscious of this serious social problem.
I will stand down for Royal Assent, Mr. Speaker.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Criminal Code
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority;
Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of United Grain Growers Limited.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Malone, that Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (drunk driving), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago you were kind enough to give us a good tour down the hallway to the Senate. I wonder if you might also seek unanimous consent that the amount of time that was lost in so doing might be extended to Private Members' hour. I know that government Members certainly would not want to talk my Bill out, and I am sure the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Members of the NDP would agree it is a good Bill and one that is needed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to extend Private Members' hour to 11 minutes past six?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member spoke to his Bill C-229, he said that there really needs to be an increased awareness of the problem of drinking and driving in this country. I believe that is very true. I believe that debating this Bill before the House this afternoon will strengthen that awareness and hopefully will result in legislation being implemented by the House.
He pointed out in his speech that the cost in human terms of alcohol related deaths was some 2,500 a year and $2.5 billion in property loss.

April 5, 1984
Criminal Code
1 believe that the Department of National Elealth and Welfare pointed out a few years ago that 60 per cent to 65 per cent of the deaths in this country were related to lifestyles, such as smoking, being overweight, eating and drinking habits. Perhaps we are most conscious of the young life that is snuffed out by a drunken driver.
I am pleased the Hon. Member brought this Bill before the House. I think it is an issue that needs to be ventilated and discussed. It is not just a legal problem, as the Hon. Member pointed out, it is a huge social problem. This Bill proposes that everyone convicted of an impaired driving or related offence be automatically prohibited from driving a motor vehicle for a specific period of time. In the case of a first offence, the prohibition is a minimum of one year; for a second offence a minimum of three years; and, for a third or subsequent offence a minimum of five years. An offence of driving while disqualified, with a minimum term of imprisonment for five years is also proposed. Bill C-229 is indicative of the search for singlefactor solutions to a complex, multi-faceted problem. It represents the view that a single legal counter measure will have a significant impact on the impaired driving problem.
Research in the area of impaired driving indicates that impaired drivers are not a totally homogeneous group. Some are deterred by the usual sanctions such as fines, others will not be deterred no matter how severe the sanction.
The fact that the impaired drivers range from drivers whose impaired driving was an isolated incident to those drivers who possess deviant drinking and driving attitudes, to those drivers who suffer from alcohol dependency, dictates that impaired drivers be treated differently according to the purpose of the sanction-whether it be deterrence, rehabilitation or medical treatment-for that particular offender, rather than applying a single penalty to all offenders, as has been done in the past.
The "high-risk" alcoholic impaired driver may respond to treatment and the court should be empowered to order it, rather than imposing an excessively harsh penalty which may not be effective. By the same token it may, in some instances, be beneficial to prohibit an offender from driving for a lengthy period of time, or to immobilize his vehicle, impound it. These alternatives should be available to the court. A single mandatory penalty to be applied to all offenders without alternatives where appropriate will not reduce the incidence of impaired driving. The availability of a range of sentencing alternatives such as fines, jail terms, immobilization orders, prohibition orders, treatment programs and driver education or improvement progams will allow a judge to tailor a sentence to the specific needs of the offender. Given the nature of the problem and the results of research in this area, such a policy is essential if we are to combat and overcome this terrible social and legal problem.
As I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, these sentencing alternative measures, and other measures concerning the improved enforcement of the impaired driving laws through the acquisition of blood samples, and a clearer definition and
presentation of all driving-related offences, are presented as a clear, concise, cohesive package in Bill C-19, presented to the House on February 7, 1984.
In addition to the above-mentioned measures, research indicates that increased law enforcement which accordingly increases the public's perceived risk of apprehension and punishment may be a more effective deterrent than simply increasing penalties as are suggested in the Bill.
In addition, research indicates that changing the prevalent social acceptability of drinking and driving may offer a greater preventive effect than any changes in the law or the degree to which it is enforced. For instance, when we host parties at homes in the evenings should we allow someone to leave the home after consuming alcohol and drive a car? Surely there is some public responsibility on the host. The responsibility should not all be left to the driver, although ultimately he will pay the penalty for his actions. This is a social problem, and we should all work toward ultimate solution. Thus, a non-legal approach appears to offer a great potential for effectiveness, and should be stressed and combined with the legal approach, as is indicated in Bill C-19.
Bill C-229 is presented on the prevalent belief that a single legal amendment will have a long-term impact on what is essentially a social problem. Research from around the world has indicated that this in fact is not likely to happen. The solution lies in a commitment to a long-term integrated approach designed to effect attitudinal and behavioural changes.
Clearly no one drunk-driving counter measure on its own will be effective to solve this problem. The solution, if there is one, is to be found in the combination and integration of all measures-ranging from legislation, education and media campaigns to rehabilitation of the detected drunk-driver and the inducement of discussion and general concern in the community as a whole.
The authors emphasize the need for community involvement to effect social attitude change through education and other intervention techniques. They note that:
"-if we are to have a meaningful impact on drunk-driving, we must convince not merely convicted drunk-drivers and a significant proportion of potential drunk-drivers to refrain from this practice, but also the community at large to minimize those social factors contributing to the problem. This requires a wide repertoire of intervention techniques, including educating the public about drinking and driving, about the relevant laws and sanctions, and about the costs associated with being charged and convicted of a drunk-driving offence; increasing subjective and objective probabilities of apprehension; highly visible and consistent enforcement of the relevant laws; rehabilitation of convicted drivers; and, finally, the adoption of new techniques as they are developed."
What we found on the Ontario highways last December when there was a massive enforcement of the laws, spot-checks, and so on, was that the actual number of convicted and apprehended drinking drivers dropped dramatically because people were made more conscious of the danger of drinking and driving. People talked about it at parties and they were conscious and very careful of the problem.
In the past, governments in ail countries have relied primarily on the legal approach-steadily increasing and stiffening the penalties-based on deterring persons from driving after drinking by the threat of arrest and punishment. It has become apparent, however, that the impaired driver will not be
April 5, 1984

deterred simply by increasing penalties. More thought must be given to the problem of impaired driving; the simplistic view that excessive penalties is the only solution to this problem is probably not the only one.
I propose that this has been a very worthwhile Bill put before the House. I hope the Government's Bill, Bill C-19, which is designed to deal with this problem as well, will receive passage in the House, because it deals with this serious problem. It is one for all sectors of our society and one to which we must, working together, find the solution.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to drunk driving, is a very commendable attempt to deal with a very serious problem. The problem of drunk driving is one which is responsible for the death of thousands of people on our highways every year. This Bill was brought about as a result of a loophole which has been found in our current laws, and a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Boggs. The proposed amendment to the Criminal Code would make it possible for suspension of driving licenses on conviction of impaired driving and would increase the time of suspension very considerably.
The Hon. Member who introduced the Bill pointed out the very serious toll on the highways resulting from drunk driving. For 1981, 5,379 people in Canada were killed in traffic collisions. Estimates are that roughly half of these were caused by drunk driving.
If we look at the question as to how best to meet this issue and to what extent we can use our criminal law to deter drunk driving, we have to look at the question of certainty of conviction and punishment, and the severity which has been proposed. Unfortunately we have no evidence that increasing severity, within the bounds that would be permissible, has actually helped in reducing drunk driving. Scandinavian studies of incarceration show no reduction in convictions after the introduction of the mandatory jail sentences, nor were persons sentenced to prison any less likely to repeat the offence than those who were only fined. The certainty of being convicted and the certainty of being arrested and charged for drunk driving in Canada, as elsewhere, is unfortunately very low. Estimates are that there are only 1 in 2,000 incidents of impaired driving resulting in arrest.
In Canada after the introduction of the breathalyser test there was a lot of publicity. People were more aware of the possibility of conviction and there was for awhile a reduction in drunk driving. However, people then began to realize that their chances of being caught were frankly not very great, and the rates went up again. The Canadian Addictions Foundation recommends very strongly that we increase the possibility or probability of being convicted rather than deal with severity of sentence. The probability of apprehension has to go up. People have to know that. People have to be aware that they have a good chance of being caught.
Criminal Code
The best way of doing this of course is through spot checks. I might point out that a study done by Transport Canada showed that 77 per cent of regular drivers want more spot checks, that they want to increase the probability of being caught. A survey of 237 experts on drunk driving recommended increased detection. They rated increased severity of sentencing as minimal in having an effect. They also recommended lowering the amount of blood alcohol allowed before a conviction of drunk driving would be registered to .04 or .05, rather than the .08 which we have now.
The problem of merely suspending drivers is that people unfortunately continue to drive after they have been suspended and drive impaired. Passing a law does not necessarily change behaviour. In fact, it seldom changes behaviour. The solutions will not be easy ones. Alcoholism treatment is very difficult. We have enormous research literature on alcoholism treatment. We do not have any reliable methods. There is no way that we can say that, if only society invested in a certain kind of treatment centre or a certain treatment method, we could deal with problem drinkers and once their alcoholism problem has been dealt with they would not go out and drive while drunk again. We do not have any such obvious methods to turn to. Therefore, since we cannot effectively treat the problem after it happens, we have to deal more with preventing it in the first place, that is preventing excessive drunkenness and excessive drinking.
We have to address the whole issue of levels of consumption. Drunkenness is related to levels of consumption. If we increase consumption in our society, we will increase the number of people who consume excessively, and of that number a certain proportion will go out and drive after having consumed too much alcohol. It is naive to believe that we can increase consumption, and that all this increase will simply be by the people who will drink very moderately and then stay home.
Let me quote the Canadian Addictions Foundation expert:
A person can drive home safely hundreds of times after drinking. This conflicts with messages about thousands of people being killed and injured and about the tremendous risks involved, including arrest and punishment. We tend to rely on our own experience and conclude that we are not part of the drunk driving problem.
If we are to deal with this consumption problem, we must deal with the factors that stimulate consumption. One of them is the price of alcohol. Much as we hate to think that higher taxes are any good, higher taxes mean higher prices and actually succeed in reducing consumption. I say this for the benefit of people who participated in the debate on the tourist industry last week. Many Hon. Members recommended reduced prices of alcohol. They cannot have it both ways. If they want reduced prices of alcohol we will have increased consumption, some of which will result in increased deaths on the highways.
Advertising is another issue. It is legal to advertise alcohol in Canada. Enormous amounts of money are spent on advertising. Advertising of alcohol links alcohol with sexual attractiveness, sexual success, sports, fitness, the outdoor life, good wholesome fun, things which are desirable. Of course we

April 5, 1984
Criminal Code
should not be surprised if people then go out and increase their consumption accordingly.
1 am not a prohibitionist. It is not feasible to prohibit alcohol. That experiment has been tried, and we know its result was an increase in organized crime. However, I am a prohibitionist in regard to advertising. We certainly should not allow the encouragement of consumption. Legal consumption, yes, but let us not encourage it. Of course free booze encourages consumption. We have all kinds of institutions which provide free booze. That is a policy that ought to be considered.
Our society sends out mixed messages-social drinking is all right. We serve booze on Parliament Hill and we let people drive after the fact. On the one hand it is a criminal offence to drive after drinking a certain amount and, on the other hand, we make it socially acceptable to do it. We pay lip service by saying what a terrible problem this is, but sometimes we turn around and become part of the problem ourselves. If we were serious about it, one thing we could do even on Parliament Hill would be to provide a breathalyser test and allow people to find out what level they had consumed and to see whether it was too much for them to be driving.
If we want to improve the problem of enforcement, we have to change enforcement methods. We have to get after people before they are out on the highways and before they are killing people. Policing parking lots around drinking establishments is one method. There are various kinds of practical methods. Since I do not have time to deal with them all, I suggest that instead of merely trying to address the problem of punishment through Bill C-19, the federal Government should have a conference involving federal and provincial Solicitors General, Attorneys General, Ministers of National Health and Welfare and bring these people together to deal with this question.
Since my time is running out, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to spend another five minutes on this subject. Failing that, I think this is an important Bill. I am sorry the Liberals have not extended the full amount of time so that it could be discussed. I certainly plan to sit down before six o'clock if I do not obtain unanimous consent to continue for a few more minutes. I think we should have the Bill passed. It should go to committee. It is too important a problem to have the Liberals say that the Government is dealing with it adequately in another Bill, because that other Bill does nothing more than deal with the question of penalties as well. Do I have unanimous consent to continue, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The practice is that Private Members' Hour terminates at six o'clock according to the rules. The Hon. Member is correct in asking for unanimous consent, because this is what would be required. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Unfortunately there is not unanimous consent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A Liberal member said, "no".



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Provinces are going in the red to the tune of $640 million this year, despite a severe austerity program which features a freeze on staff and strict restraint on wages and expenditures. To the credit of employees of the provincial governments, everyone has co-operated to the limit. Indeed, an agreement between a very responsible group, the New Brunswick Teachers' Association, and the Provincial Government of New Brunswick provides no wage increase for the first year of a new contract. In addition, provincial governments have increased taxes to the limit of their potential. Any further increase would be counter-productive. Taxes have reached the point of diminishing returns.
Forty-eight per cent of the revenues of the Atlantic Provinces comes from Ottawa. This dependency has been built up over many years, and it is a worthy goal of regional development to put in place a strong secondary manufacturing base that would increase the private sector component of the Atlantic economies and increase the tax field by providing more corporate and personal taxpayers so that ultimately the Atlantic Provinces can stand on their own feet, throw off the bond of dependency and eliminate the dependence on transfer and equalization payments.
An investment of this nature in the Atlantic provinces is the long-term solution to the problem and it is an investment that will pay the federal Government great dividends by eventually eliminating the need for financial assistance. In the Atlantic Provinces today, wage earners receive two-thirds of the wages paid in other parts of Canada and the unemployment rate is the highest in the nation.
In facing the short-term need for money, the Atlantic Provinces are very limited in the areas they can look to. Clearly taxes have reached their limit and borrowing is not an attractive possibility because any further borrowing may see a decline in the credit rating for provincial bonds from A to B, and it is common knowledge that the largest purchases of bonds from the Atlantic Provinces are pension funds which are not allowed to purchase B bonds.
April 5, 1984

With the passage of Bill C-12, New Brunswick will receive $3.3 million less for post-secondary entitlement than the current fiscal year; Nova Scotia will receive $4.1 million less; Newfoundland will receive $2.7 million less; and Prince Edward Island will receive $.6 million less. Clearly, it is in the area of federal transfers that we have to look for assistance in the short term.
When I asked him about this in the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that he was just not sure where he could look to find the funds because he, too, was facing a tight budget restriction. In this regard I have some suggestions, and I refer to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General suggests that the inadequacy of existing control is illustrated by Canadair's reported loss of $1.4 billion for 1982. This is at page 18 of the Auditor General's 1983 report.
The Auditor General points out that to create an appearance of reduced operating losses, Crown corporations have been taking more money than needed from Government, investing it and spending the interest against an operating loss or to purchase assets. He points to Devco, $57 million; Canada Ports Corporation; $20.4 million; and VIA Rail has more than $129 million in surplus funds invested. Loto Canada, which ceased its lottery operations in 1979, but remained in operation until 1983, owes the Government $14.4 million.
Canadians will have paid about $4.6 billion to oil companies through the Petroleum Incentives Program by 1985 with no adequate review of such matters as security of oil supply, the effect on the level of exploration, the success rate in finding more oil and success in attracting Canadian investment.
At page 535, the Auditor General notes that the Department of Transport made payments of $282 million to railways without enabling legislation, and the Department of Transport paid $46.8 million in a double payment to CN which was not recovered. This is at page 536.
These are some areas to which the Minister of Finance might direct his attention if he is serious about a program to help the Atlantic Provinces in the short term. In the long term, as I have indicated, we have to develop common goals and objectives with the provinces and work together to create a climate attractive to industry and provide incentives-real incentives-for industrial development and expansion.
Other areas where we might look for assistance are in the bail-outs of some of our Canadian corporations. Surely if we have billions of dollars to spend bailing out our Canadian corporations, we should have some funds available to assist provinces that are trying desperately to help themselves.
Maislin has cost the Government about $33.4 million and Massey-Ferguson received a loan guarantee of $125 million for non-voting preferred shares. In July 1982, Ottawa ended up with 62 per cent of the share issue.
The Government's financial commitment to Canadair even last month was $1,836 million. This figure includes the $46
Adjournment Debate
million purchase price, loan guarantees of $1.35 billion and equity infusions of $440 million. It is more now.
The Government's financial commitment to de Havilland to date totals $751 million, composed of a $41 million purchase price, loan guarantees of $456 million and equity infusions of $260 million. It is no secret that the Minister can find money when he wants to and I want to identify these areas as some possibilities to assist the Minister in his search.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member's time is up.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest and sympathy to the remarks of the Hon. Member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie) concerning the financial problems confronting the Atlantic Provinces in general and the Province of New Brunswick in particular. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated to Members on January 25, he has recently met with the New Brunswick Minister of Finance on this subject and the Minister's request for special assistance, over and above that already given, is being examined.
In the course of this examination, the position of New Brunswick is being compared with that of other provinces to ascertain how levels of debt compare, how levels of taxation compare and how the capacities of the various provinces to raise revenues compare. Officials of the two Governments will be meeting in the course of this review, following which the Minister will look at it again.
During this examination, the Minister will have to consider his own fiscal position and deficit, neither of which leaves much room for meeting the numerous requests for assistance that he is receiving.
1 would like to call attention to the very large assistance that the federal Government already gives to the Atlantic Provinces. This is provided in three principal ways: through transfers to provincial and local governments; through transfers to persons; and through direct employment and other direct expenditures. In all three cases the share of federal assistance and expenditures going to the Atlantic Provinces is well above the average for all provinces.
Transfers to the Governments of the Atlantic Provinces will be nearly $3.5 billion in the present fiscal year. Almost $1.9 billion of this amount will be in the form of unconditional equalization payments. Contributions through cash and tax transfers for the support of hospital insurance, medical care insurance and post-secondary education will be well in excess of $1.1 billion. These are statutory programs and Members will be aware that the Atlantic Provinces recently received a windfall increase of about $60 million as a result of a mid-year change in the estimate of the nation's gross national product by Statistics Canada.
Federal support for the Atlantic Provinces is also very large through transfers to persons, oil import subsidies, salaries and wages and other direct expenditures. As a consequence, total federal expenditures in New Brunswick in 1981 amounted to

April 5, 1984
Adjournment Debate
almost 50 per cent of the Province's gross domestic product. The percentages for the other Atlantic Provinces are also very high. This leaves little doubt about the commitment of the Government to support and assist New Brunswick and the other Atlantic Provinces.


NATIONAL REVENUE-REPORTED CONFISCATION OF CHILDREN'S BANK ACCOUNTS. (B) TAXPAYERS' MEETING AT ALDERGROVE, B.C.
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable that this Parliament seems to carry on; and there are a couple of other inevitabilities. One day we shall all die, and throughout our existence on this earth we shall all pay taxes. The problem is facing taxes. We cannot change death, and there are a number of things we cannot change. We probably cannot change the fact that we have to pay taxes, but we certainly can change the fact that when we pay them it should be with equity and justice. Throughout history there have been references to tax collectors. There have been biblical references, and references in the doomsday book; everything you have is recorded and the Government takes its share. It does not matter what the "ism" is, whether it is totalitarianism on the right side or the left, there is always the extraction of taxes from the individual for what is presumed to be the common good.
Theoretically, we live in a better system. We live in a system of democracy and that system provides justice and equity. The Government has a special role to play in the balance between the taxpayer on one side and the tax collector on the other. Government should be more than just the tax collector. It should, in fact, be the fulcrum in the balance which assures equity and justice.
Obviously, the tax collector must have power to collect the taxes and the taxpayer must have the ability to produce taxes. I do not object to the power of the tax collector. However, I expect the Government to stand in the middle and provide the balance which assures equity. This is not happening in the case of this particular Minister. He has moved away from this role. He has passed over this role and the scales of justice have tipped. The Minister does not stand with control in the centre, being fair to both sides. He has tilted that fairness to the side of the tax collector who has been allowed more freedom and right under the revenue collection act than in fact he should have. The power vacuum has been filled by the tax collector in a very unjust and unconscionable manner.
The person who is responsible for this is the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). He can make a scapegoat of his Deputy Minister. He can fire him and let him take the blame. However, although the advice may have come from the Deputy Minister, the Minister in fact was the one who took the advice and implemented it. His ministerial responsibility is what is at stake here, and that has not been resolved adequately. The wrong Minister has resigned. It should have been the
Minister, not the Deputy Minister. The Minister should give his resignation to this House of Commons.
He tells us he has figured it all out, he has had an education, but his education has been at the expense of not just the strong in our society, but of the the weak and poor who are not able to protect their own rights. And then we have the collection of money from children; the collection of money from the parents through the children as in the case I raised. It does not matter that in the end the money was paid back into the child's bank account. That has nothing to do with it.
The fact is that Revenue Canada did place the order, the order went to the bank and the bank did take $34 out of this young child's account in the name of Revenue Canada, which is under the orders of the Minister. The Minister stole that money from the bank account of that child. Even if it was done in error and was corrected, the fact that it could occur indicates something is very wrong. The Minister can say it is the bank's fault but the bank is regulated by the Government of Canada. It is not the bank's fault if the Government of Canada allows that power to be abused in that manner. The Minister of Revenue caused the action to begin and it went too far.
Did he make a recommendation that the Bank Act be changed to make sure that a person needs a warrant if he is going to dip into the bank account of any child or third party of any kind? It is not just a child's account that is in jeopardy, but the parents' or anyone they can tie in in any way with the person they are trying to claim the taxes from.
I am very concerned at the hurt I have seen in my community. It is not the big guy, the guy who can buy the lawyers and accountants to protect him, it is the little guy who is being forced into bankruptcy. It is the little guy who has suffered unfortunate incident upon unfortunate incident, and the most unfortunate of all, they all tell you, is the way they have been treated and victimized by this Department.
I also raised the question of a meeting which had been held where people said that someone from Revenue Canada was out in the parking lot taking down licence plate numbers. Everyone believed that. Whether or not they took down licence plate numbers, whether it was Revenue Canada or whoever does not matter. What is wrong is that the people who attended that meeting were in such a state of fear of Revenue Canada that they would believe this to be so. That kind of power, that kind of terrorism, by a Minister, by the Government, must stop now.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I find myself in a position of answering accusations which barely merit a reply, since they are based on a mistake. It continue to astound me how quickly the news media reports proliferate and how long they take to die, regardless of their accuracy. The Hon. Member's question on whether it is true that Revenue Canada has confiscated bank accounts of chil-
April 5, 1984

dren to pay the tax assessments of the parents should not even be raised in this House, because it is so unthinkable, a reply only gives it dignity. As the Minister has already made clear in his reply, the mistake was made by banking officials. However, reporting of that mistake did not equal in coverage the reporting of the orginal story.
It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that some of the practices of Revenue Canada have been so maligned in recent months, and not for the benefit of the taxpayers, but for very narrow interests which are basically political in nature and to some extent self-serving. In this case it is unfortunate that the mistake was made, not by the Revenue officials but by the banking officials. Yet the Department is being blamed.
I have been invited in recent weeks to discuss some of the grievances raised in public meetings. I have no hesitation in admitting that in the collection of tax, which is never going to be regarded as a popular occupation, mistakes or errors of judgment do occur. However, the wholesale condemnation of the system is a very great disservice to the Canadian taxpaying public. In a country which has until now been able to boast one of the most efficient and honest tax systems in the world, such wholesale condemnation harms not the Government so much as those of us whose taxes run this country.
The Hon. Member referred to another question he raised, and I just want to touch on that very briefly. I feel he has fallen into the trap of distinguishing a bit of gossip, and unsubstantiated and completely false rumour by bringing it to the attention of the House of Commons. The suggestion was made that tax officials, after agreeing to attend the meeting of farmers, went to the parking lot with flashlights to take down licence plate numbers of those attending the meeting. That suggestion obtained the reply it deserved from the Minister on February 6, that the conclusions the Hon. Member was trying to draw were, and I quote, "too ridiculous to even be considered".
According to the information I received, the meeting in question was attended by three officials from the Vancouver district office. They were there at the request of organizers of a group of farmers protesting audit action in the area. The tax officials were there to answer questions, trying to interpret the tax law, and to explain the routes available to taxpayers who disagreed with the position of the Department. They were there to be open and available to the taxpayers. To turn around and accuse them of such low tactics is not only ludicrous, it is unfair and unworthy of any Member of this House. To talk about unsubstantiated rumours in a place which is known as the rumour mill of Canada, is grossly unfair.


PUBLIC WORKS-USE OF MUNICIPAL WASTES TO GENERATE STEAM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in 1980 the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Public Works Canada, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and Ontario Hydro agreed to study the feasibility of using munic-
Adjournment Debate
ipal wastes in the national capital area to generate, within the steam plant, heat and cooling materials for federal buildings. Such a project was of course of interest to the federal and provincial governments as it would replace a non-renewable fossil fuel, natural gas, which is used now, with a renewable fuel, municipal waste. Consequently it would have an important impact in that it would replace a scarce resource with a renewable one.
Consultants' reports on the feasibility of this energy-from-waste project indicated it was technically and economically viable at either the Le Breton Flats in the riding of Ottawa-Centre, or the Overbrook Coventry Road site in my riding. Strong opposition to this project was voiced by quite a few people at public meetings which I attended. Many people came out to indicate to all levels of Government how they felt about this project.
I was present at one meeting where there were about 800 people in the Overbrook area. I must recognize the work of the citizens' groups to bring this matter to public attention. I think it was quite important. I remember addressing the meeting and saying, in certain terms, that as far as I was concerned, amongst other things, it was very bad urban planning to thrust an energy waste plant into a residential downtown area. We were told at that meeting that 100 garbage trucks an hour would be going through the community at peak periods. You can well imagine the pollution, the noise, and the odour caused by all these trucks going through a neighbourhood. Without getting into the technical and environmental impact of the plant itself, you can imagine how this would affect the quality of life in one's neighbourhood.
Early this week I received a letter from a Mrs. Fern Casey, Chairperson representing the citizens against the incinerator plant in Overbrook, advising me that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton would seek an early meeting with the appropriate federal and provincial Ministers to review the recommendations of these reports which had been ordered with a view to arriving at a decision regarding the project.
On April 4 I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) if his Department had taken a position relating to the financing and possible participation of his Department in this project. I specifically asked the Minister:
Given the environmental difficulties and the high costs of this project, will the Minister's Department take a position of instigating, promoting, or supporting this steam plant in the near future?
I purposely utilized the word "instigate, promote and support" because in my view that covered any possible involvement of Public Works Canada in this project.
The Minister answered that on the one hand he had sent a letter that morning to the Province of Ontario and to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton informing them that: "-the Department of Public Works and the National Capital Commission will not be proponents of this project".
The purpose of this debate tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to find out what the Minister meant by this Shakespearian term "proponent". Oxford dictionary defines it as "to put forward a motion, theory or proposal". I admit, with all those trying to

April 5, 1984
Adjournment Debate
understand the Minister's choice of words, that it would be appreciated if he could be more specific and clear as to his Department's intention in the incinerator project. This debate allows the Minister to explain the Government's position.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that indeed this $110 million steam garbage incinerator has been dumped. I also expect the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why the federal government is now withdrawing its support from the project so that the other partners, the Ontario Government and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carle-ton, will better understand the decision. As a matter of fact, if we do not have a client for the steam, why build the plant?
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that nothing prevents the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carle-ton, the Province of Ontario or Ontario Hydro, for that matter, to go ahead with this project if they can finance it and find a site in the periphery of Ottawa. I can well understand that they would like to deal with garbage disposal in the Ottawa area. I can also understand that they would like to put it to use in creating steam which could be turned into electricity that can be fed into Ontario Hydro's power grid and eventually bring in enough money to warrant the cost efficiency of building this plant.
I said before that I thought it was wrong to put this plant either in LeBreton Flats or in the Overbrook community. I think it is bad urban planning and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would confirm to me that indeed the federal government is getting out of this project.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start
by congratulating the Hon. Member on his constant dedication to the interests of his constituents.
He is right in saying that in 1980, the Ontario Ministry of Energy invited Public Works Canada, together with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality, to participate in a major feasibility study for an energy-from-waste steam plant in the Ottawa-Carleton region. The decision was made on the basis of an initial study made in the seventies, according to which there might be a shortage of energy to provide for heating and cooling in the central zone and the central heating system on Cliff Street might not be adequate.
After the study was carried out in co-operation with the Ontario Ministry of Energy, the Department of Public Works had meanwhile launched an intensive energy conservation program. The program was so successful that total energy demand dropped considerably, including demand for energy produced by the plant on Cliff Street. As the study started by the Minister of Energy was completed, Public Works Canada found that the demand for steam over and above existing capacity no longer existed.
That is why the Department will no longer be promoting the installation of an energy-from-waste plant in the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality.


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 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.28 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Friday, April 6, 1984