1984-02-01

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Grain Stabilization Plan is correct in its intention but wrong in its practice. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, on behalf of thousands of prairie farmers, to make quick legislative amendments to sensitize the plan to the impact of inflation and the cost of production. We have now travelled more than four years without a pay-out. The near $1 billion that has been collected is presently not serving the investors' intentions.
Record exports of grain during the past four years have prevented a pay-out even though production costs were at an all-time high and the prices were sluggish. I am asking the Government to bring forward quickly amendments that would recognize an inflation factor, the continuing steady increase of volumes of production, and allow producers a choice of levels at which they may participate in the plan.
If the Minister holds the view that such amendments are too demanding on the legislative timetable, then I urge him to seek all-party consultation on this matter before confidence in the concept is completely eroded.
In 1978 the total operating costs for farmers in the Province of Alberta were $1.7 billion. Five years later, in 1983, their operating expenses were $3.2 billion. There has not been an increase in net farm income since 1981. We must act with urgency. The need has been demonstrated.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians recognize that Revenue Canada is given the task of collecting taxes, a task which is unpopular and often difficult to carry out. However, current practices of the Department of National Revenue have come into question, the latest example being the 12-minute National Film Board film, "Excuse me, but there's
a computer asking for you". Having watched this film, I am greatly concerned over the image which was presented of the Canadian taxpayer and of Revenue Canada. While I realize that there are some citizens who are guilty of abusing the tax system, these people constitute only a marginal group of taxpayers and must not be used as an example of the average Canadian taxpayer.
I am also concerned that Revenue Canada is seen to be interested in tax evasion by the low-to-middle income earner, while there is no mention made in the film of corporations or high income earners. I feel this film, because of the images it presents, has the potential to frighten the ordinary taxpayer, and I would urge the Minister of National Revenue to have it withdrawn immediately.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: That is not what the Minister said.


EDUCATION
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, a lack of federal-provincial co-ordination and co-operation in areas of mutual interest can result in unnecessary duplication. This can be established in the case of our universities' spending. In particular, research capacity and capability are suffering because of inadequate and poorly targeted funding and a lack of synchronization between federal and provincial research projects. There can be no doubt about the value of research. Canadian studies have shown that with each dollar spent on agricultural research the approximate rates of return are 40 per cent in the first year for wheat, 50 per cent for malt barley, and 100 per cent for western canola.
The federal Government spent $147 million on agricultural research last year, but only $14.3 million went to support university agricultural research. This federal donation should be increased, not only for research funding but also to update equipment. University budgets are insufficient to maintain equipment and facilities to produce our future scientists, and at the same time our federal Department is putting money into new facilities and equipment at its own research stations. One must ask why more co-ordination cannot be accomplished to make sure agricultural research continues with both priorities honoured. At the same time common usage of facilities could be made possible, by building government research centres on university campuses whenever possible.

February 1, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, next year human rights experts from around the world will meet in Ottawa for a meeting on human rights. This meeting will review the track records on human rights of the participating states to the Helsinki Accords, and will further seek to reduce the wide differences and the misunderstandings which trouble relations between East and West. This experts' meeting is required in order to further the dialogue and commentary on human rights in other participating states if we hope to persuade them to conform to international law and their commitments under the Helsinki Final Act.
Given that many of the world problems have intensified since last year, the need for an international dialogue on human rights has never been greater. I believe that it is now time for Canada to move from high sounding generalities, on which we can all agree, to specific measures for strengthening human rights guarantees. As chairman of the all-party Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki group, I recommend the establishment of an all-party special parliamentary committee or task force on human rights. Such a committee could tackle the task of preparing Canadians for the 1985 meeting of experts on human rights.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, technological change brings with it new challenges and new problems, as well as new opportunities. Too often, however, Canadians find themselves in the position of hearing about the opportunities first and the problems later. We hear about the predicted increase in productivity first, and the consequences for work place safety and health, or even public safety, long after, not to mention the problem of individual job loss and reduced employment levels.
One of the sectors in which this is a concern is the railway sector, and I call on the Government to pay more attention to the long-term consequences of the technological changes now being planned by the railways, the intended reduction of crews, abolition of cabooses, lengthening of trains, automation of running yards and abandonment of divisional points such as Nakina, among other things, all have probably negative public and work place safety effects, as well as having an effect on employment and the economic conditions of the individuals and the communities concerned.
Technological change must be regarded less as something inevitable with which we all have to live, and more as a series of options which are open to public debate and reflection about their over-all value, and to negotiation with those affected, as opposed to being left to private, corporate or bureaucratic imperatives.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Hon. Members, and you, too, Mr. Speaker, will have heard the news of the distressing accident which occurred over the weekend to a group of high school students from my constituency out for a skiing weekend up island from Victoria, resulting in one tragic death and two critical injuries, all from one school, Claremont Senior Secondary, just up the hill from my home.
I feel sure the House would want me to convey to the parents and teachers of these young people our feelings of distress and sorrow at these unforseeable occurrences, to pass on to the parents of those three students our prayers for comfort, and speedy recovery, and to thank the teacher and the driver of the damaged bus for their efforts in preventing more serious consequences.
At the same time I am sure the House would want me to urge that everything be done through motor vehicle inspections and otherwise to ensure that happenings of this sort do not occur.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members of the House the heavy-handed manner in which the Government opposite devalues private property by imposing sweeping zoning regulations and restrictive covenants under the Aeronautics Act. Mr. Herbert, a constituent of mine who owns property adjacent to Pitt Meadows Airport, was forced to tear down a newly-constructed house without compensation, because the Government opposite passed an Order in Council in May, 1977. Mr. Herbert's mother, who has owned a house on the family farm adjacent to the airport for many years before it located in Pitt Meadows, is now unable to insure her house fully because of the unilateral zoning regulations.
No Government should have the right to impose restrictive covenants on private property without adequately informing and compensating the owners of that property. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) says that a notice of the rezoning of land surrounding the airport was published in a newspaper
February 1, 1984

advertisement. That is not enough. The Minister must reconsider his position. The Herberts should be compensated for their loss. This process must be reviewed so that no government body can encumber titles without adequately advising titleholders and making just compensation to the individuals so aggrieved.


THE SENATE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to comment upon the joint Senate and House of Commons report on Senate reform, which was tabled yesterday. The committee was reacting to the justifiable contempt in which the present Senate is held. Due to this public perception of our second Chamber, the committee has recommended a new, elected assembly. However, by insisting upon long nine-year terms of office for new Senators, the committee has denied any democratic control of the Senate. By allowing Senators to retain their seats for nine years, they become immune from the "agony" of being answerable to the electorate. Any definition of democracy includes the necessity for elected officials to be responsible to those they represent. A long nine-year term makes this impossible.
In addition, the committee has proposed that Senators would not be eligible for re-election. By this double-barrelled device of a long and unrenewable tenure of office, the public are denied the possibility of ever holding their elected representatives accountable for their actions.
In any other nation this proposed reform of the Senate would be considered a backward step, a body blow to the very workings of a democratic society. Canadians must not let their revulsion of the present decaying creature we call the Senate lead them into accepting the unacceptable.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, recovery of the economy in Canada is a worthy objective. More investment, creating more jobs, will be an essential part of any recovery, but keeping the jobs we now have is equally vitally important. Government Departments, including Crown corporations, should be in the forefront in retaining the jobs of Canadians.
For years the Bank of Canada has used flax fibre in making our paper currency, but now the Bank of Canada is planning to substitute cotton waste for flax fibres. Flax straw and flax fibres are readily available in Canada, where flax fibre is gathered and processed by fine paper companies. Because
Oral Questions
Domtar is phasing out its decorticating operation in western Canada is no reason for the Bank of Canada to eliminate flax and substitute cotton from the U.S.A.
Canadian paper currency is superior to U.S. paper currency where 100 per cent cotton fibre is used; flax fibre makes the better quality. The major principle is that Canadian manufacturers of our currency should continue to use Canadian raw materials to the greatest possible degree.
Flax is grown in Canada and provides jobs for Canadians; cotton is grown in the United States and provides jobs for Americans. I want to urge the Canadian Government to insist that the Bank of Canada continue to use flax in making our paper currency.
The creation of new jobs, added to the jobs we already have and keep, will be important factors in the recovery of our economy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I want to refer to the StatsCan report yesterday which showed that gross domestic product dropped in November. What is particularly worrisome about this statistic is the breadth of the decline and the expectation by StatsCan that the slowdown is going to continue into 1984. 1 want to know what the Minister is doing about it. Is he concerned? Is he revising his rosy economic forecasts, which are becoming more and more unrealistic every week? What is he proposing to do to reverse this picture, which is clearly going to lead to more unemployment on top of the already serious unemployment problem in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that I am preparing a Budget that I hope to be able to deliver on February 15. In the preparation of this Budget, I am obviously reviewing all the most recent figures and statistics about the Canadian economy. At that time I will be in a position to express some views about forecasts for the economy in 1984. I remind my hon. friend that in the process of every recovery in the past, in Canada as well as .the United States, there has been a very fast take-off at the beginning of the recovery, and then a slower rate of growth.
As far as providing specific figures and forecasts is concerned, I say to my hon. friend that I expect 1984 will be a year of very solid growth in Canada. I urge him to wait for the Budget to get the specific figures.

February 1, 1984
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to some of the comments made by the Minister. He said previously that Canada's job-creation record is better than that of the United States. I want to look at the facts. United States employment today is 1,845,000 higher than the pre-recession peak. In Canada it is 146,000 below. In the latest six months, Canadian employment has increased 1.4 per cent. In the United States it is up 2.3 per cent, about 50 per cent higher.
National income in the United States is 1.8 per cent higher than the pre-recession peak. In Canada, the national income is down 1.2 per cent. Industrial production in the United States in the last 12 months is up 16 per cent. In Canada it is up 6 per cent. The Canadian unemployment rate at the depth of the recession was 2 per cent higher than the United States. It is now 2.9 per cent higher.
Clearly the Minister is as far off base in these unemployment statistics as he was last week when he released the letters about my Leader. Since his policies are clearly not working, what changes is the Minister proposing in his forthcoming Budget to address this problem? Is he concerned about the problem?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member would not expect me to go over every single figure mentioned. I only want to point out to the Hon. Member that he should realize, and I am sure he knows, that the recession in the United States started earlier than in Canada. If he goes back to 1981 he will find that the slowdown in the economy took place earlier there than in Canada, and the recovery in the United States also took place earlier than in Canada. When making those comparisons, one should be careful. As to what steps I intend to take, obviously the Hon. Member will expect me to keep that for a budget announcement. He will have to wait for the Budget for that purpose.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Now the Minister is asking us to ignore what happened in the United States, after telling us for months and months that the reason for our problems here is what was going on in the United States.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ENCOURAGE JOB CREATING BUSINESS INVESTMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a very brief quote from this StatsCan report:
Based on the record of past cyclical upturns, one would expect business investment in plant and equipment to reinforce the recovery at this point in the cycle. The recent performance of the related indicators, however, does not suggest that a substantial upturn in investment outlays is in the offing.
What is the Minister doing to encourage job creating business investment? Is he considering any change in the capital cost allowance, for which we have been pressing for months and months? Does the Minister recognize that the initiatives
which he thought he was taking back in April simply are not working? What does the Minister propose to do about this very serious problem?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have to take the expression of views by the Hon. Member as a representation in the preparation of the next Budget. I will address the impact of the steps that have been taken extensively in the next Budget.


DECLINE IN EMPLOYMENT IN WESTERN CANADA
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister's credibility is somewhat strained, considering that earlier this month he said real wages for workers grew in 1983 when in fact, according to the latest figures, they fell. Last week he said the GNP in Canada was growing, and now StatsCan says it is weakening.
How can the Minister be proud of his employment record, which has been confined strictly to central Canada, when employment has further declined in western Canada, particularly in Alberta and B.C. where the national energy policy eliminated jobs? Why does he favour policies which split the country and cost real people real jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Gross National Product in Canada in 1983 is concerned, it will have known significant real growth higher than what was forecast in the April Budget. Employment will have grown faster and to a larger degree than had been forecast in the April Budget. Inflation will have come down more than had been anticipated in the April Budget. I will be able to expand upon those figures in the presentation of the Budget. They are already known in good part, and the Hon. Member can refer to them.
As far as the measures she has spoken of in terms of the western provinces in particular are concerned, I remind my hon. friend that, in spite of the opposition of the Conservative Party, the Government has managed to adopt the Western Grain Transportation Act which is going to lead to investment of billions of dollars in western provinces in particular.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Come on; I've heard that refrain.


Marc Lalonde: This is billions of dollars of investment which would not have taken place if we had followed the route recommended by the Opposition. That is an investment which will run into tens of billions and which will have a very significant beneficial impact in the western provinces.
As far as the energy sector is concerned, the Hon. Member knows very well that there has been a significant slowdown in energy in the whole world, particularly in North America and in the United States. The United States did not have a national energy program. The Hon. Member knows very well that the energy sector in the United States suffered very severely. As a matter of fact, there are indications of a
February 1, 1984

significant increase of interest by foreign investment in the oil gas business at the present time.


CANADIAN RECOVERY COMPARED WITH UNITED STATES
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. Elis remarks today are just as credible as those in his April Budget when he said he expected strong growth to continue through 1984, considering that StatsCan says that the economic recovery has lost some of its vitality and it is likely that the slowdown will continue through 1984.
I would like to return to the issue raised by my colleague. If our recession was made in the United States, as the Minister claims, why are we not enjoying an American style recovery? Why is our recovery slowing down while the United States is picking up steam and creating new jobs, unlike us, who have never regained the jobs lost during the recession?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend bothers to check the figures she will find that in the first three quarters of 1983 we have known a faster rate of growth than the United States. She should check her figures in that regard. That is well known. That is recorded by Statistics Canada, as well as in statistics in the United States. As far as the average growth for the year, 1983, is concerned, as soon as the final figures are available I will be very happy to provide them and the Hon. Member will find that, compared to the United States, we have grown very competitively. Our record is very comparable to that of the United States.


MINISTER INVITED TO MEET NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Finance that we certainly had one kind of growth in Canada in the past year. In fact the group that is growing the most rapidly of all is the number of Canadians who are living in poverty. Considering that in the past the Minister of Finance has been willing to meet with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association while he was preparing the Budget, and that such groups have been happy with the $2.7 billion in tax cuts he has given to corporations, why is he refusing to meet with representatives of Canada's poor?
Specifically, in a letter dated a couple of weeks ago he said that unfortunately his schedule was such that he would not be able to meet with a certain organization. That organization was the National Anti-Poverty Organization. As Minister of Finance, why can he not meet with a group that is doing everything it can to fight for the poor of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have written similar letters to a large number of groups,
Oral Questions
including business groups. I can tell my hon. friend that I had a meeting last week with the Canadian Council on Social Development, which is an organization very concerned with the problems of poverty and the problems of social security in all its aspects. I had a very fruitful and comprehensive meeting with that organization which, as the Hon. Member knows, speaks on those issues with a very great deal of authority.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister also knows that there is only one group that has been specifically organized to deal with the problems of the poor, and that is the group that he has refused to meet. He cannot challenge that.


SHARING OF TAX BURDEN BETWEEN INCOME GROUPS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in a document released today the National Anti-Poverty Organization correctly pointed out that Canada's existing tax system, contrary to what the Government likes to claim, is not progressive. For example, a family with an income of $25,000 per year pays almost the same effective tax rate as a family with an income of $50,000 per year. Will the Minister undo what the Government did recently, when it reduced the marginal tax rate for the richest Canadians, by bringing in a measure that will at last make upper income Canadians pay their fair share of the tax burden?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this view as a representation, and in the preparation of the Budget I will bear my hon. friend's view in mind.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INCREASE TAXES FOR CERTAIN CLASSES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. For once we would like to have a specific commitment from the Minister. When I asked a similar question before the Minister's last Budget, he said that he would consider it. We know what happened then; he considered it, and threw it in the wastepaper basket.
Will the Minister now, in terms of the interests of the poor and the ordinary tax-paying family, bring in some serious tax reform that will bring justice to them and justice to the country as a whole, by getting those of us who can afford it, including Members of Parliament, to pay more tax?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is proposing a tax increase. 1 shall certainly consider his proposal, but I may remind him that the Government has already taken a number of measures in the last few years to help people living in poverty in this country.
A number of social benefits have been increased, and we have maintained complete indexation of social benefits for those in need, even during the six and five period, for instance.

February 1, 1984
Oral Questions
I think the Hon. Member ought to realize that the Government has shown concern for the poor in this country.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. As the Minister knows, the Government has given itself the power to re-assess taxpayers unilaterally and demand that payment be made immediately, before a taxpayer has had a chance for a fair hearing. In essence, the Government is following a policy of pronouncing sentence first and allowing a trial later. Is the Minister prepared to take the initiative to have the powers of his Department changed in order to ensure that, in future, taxpayers are entitled to a fair hearing first before his Department moves in to force them into bankruptcy, or to seize their bank accounts or pay cheques?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Member made an involuntary mistake when he said that the Government has given itself the powers. This House, the Parliament of Canada, has given to the Minister of National Revenue, through the Income Tax Act, the powers which are in that Income Tax Act. I believe this is an important point.
As to any change to the Income Tax Act at all related to any of its provisions, those are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.


LEGAL COSTS IN APPEALING ASSESSMENTS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Minister's officials operating within this Department are his responsibility, and the question here is what sort of leadership is the Minister prepared to give? Will the Minister take the initiative, in talking to the Minister of Finance, to get those powers constrained?
Second, is the Minister personnally prepared to take the initiative to suggest changes to the powers of the tax court of Canada? As he knows, as things stand today, often taxpayers do not avail themselves of their right to appeal unfair assessments by his officials because it would cost them more money for lawyers' and accountants' fees than they would stand to win. In essence, it is a case of the Department pricing simple justice out of the range of ordinary Canadians. Will the Minister accept his responsibility to go to his colleagues to seek their approval for giving the tax court of Canada the right to give damages, and to award costs to taxpayers who are successful in appealing unjust assessments by his Department?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, regarding the Hon. Member's general question as to the costs that may be incurred when a taxpayer wishes to be represented at various appeal levels or before the new tax appeal court, it is clear that in some cases, or even in a great many cases, the cost may be considerable for the taxpayer concerned.
1 believe this point has been made several times, and I am sure the Minister of Finance, now that he is preparing his budget, will certainly consider the representations made by the Hon. Member and by many taxpayers and members of this House who have previously had an opportunity to raise this point.
Regarding the general problem of taxpayers and assessment notices, I have already pointed out to the Hon. Member that I am working with my Department to ensure that any action taken by the Department takes into consideration the particular circumstances of the taxpayer or taxpayers at the time and that before taking any drastic action or making use of the very extensive powers the Department has under the Income Tax Act, the problems a taxpayer may have considered and attempts are made to reach a settlement that is acceptable to both parties.


REFERRAL OF PLANT MANAGERS' NAMES TO SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS BRANCH
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Will the Minister acknowledge a Kitchener initiative which commenced on January 5, 1984, which is to terminate on June 30, 1984, which is in the form of a memorandum entitled "Special Investigation Workload Development"?
What auditors have been instructed to do in this memorandum is to go into a company and get its organizational charts; to take the names, specifically of plant managers, purchasing managers, general managers and senior corporate officials; to pass those names on to the Special Investigations Branch; then, without cause or reason, and without justification, these people will be personally investigated with respect to kickback schemes concerning consulting fees. Is the Minister aware of this initiative which started in January, and which is going to continue for six months? Is this a localized initiative or is it a national initiative?
And, as a matter of government policy, does the Minister approve of a Special Investigation Branch looking into anyone's tax returns without reasonable and probable grounds that they have committed a violation under the Act?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular directive that, according to the Hon. Member, was given at the office in
February 1, 1984

Kitchener. I shall look into the content of the directive and, before jumping to conclusions as the Hon. Member seems to be doing, 1 intend to find out in what context and under what conditions the directive was given and how it is being implemented by the individuals who received it.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, whether it be the Fishing expedition which I have just outlined, or whether it be the fishing expedition into the customers of Richardson Securities, or whether it be the movie which was shown on The Journal the other night, there is a constant pattern which is emerging, and that is surveillance of all of us by Revenue Canada without the safeguards which protect our liberty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPECIAL INVESTIGATION INQUIRY
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, with respect to special investigations, the emphasis is on the word "special". My specific question is this: should a special investigation ever commence into a taxpayer's affairs where there is no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he has committed an offence under the Act?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on the preamble used by the Hon. Member. I think that the perception he is projecting that the Department of National Revenue is keeping everyone under surveillance is a false one. It is the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue and our objectives to ensure that the tax system is applied fairly and equitably to all taxpayers, which is a very important aspect of our selfassessment system. The Hon. Member referred specifically to the Special Investigations Division, and of course this Division must have very good reasons before it decides to conduct such an investigation.


REFERRAL OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO A PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Some very legitimate questions regarding the operations of the Department of National Revenue have been raised by Members of the Opposition for over two months now. Valid concerns have been expressed by small businessmen, farmers and fishermen, from Quebec and elsewhere, and this has been a regular occurrence, even reaching Members on the government side. I feel the situation demands quick and effective corrective action. Considering the justified complaints and profound concern of many Canadians, would the Minister agree to refer the entire case forthwith to a parliamentary committee that would shed some light on the issue and enable
Oral Questions
all Canadians to be heard by parliamentarians at hearings across Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition have failed to inform him of what is said in the House, and I am also sorry that he is not showing a little more respect for the authority of his colleagues who have already made that request. However, I shall repeat once more, for his sake, the answers I have given previously. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know that I have asked a group, directed by Mr. Farlinger of the Woods Gordon firm, to examine first ... if the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) wants to go on giving advice to the Leader of the Opposition, he can go right ahead.


An Hon. Member:: He is telling him what to say!


Pierre Bussières: The Leader of the Opposition ought to know that I asked Mr. Farlinger to form a group of experts who will be preparing a study under a relatively broad mandate, ranging from communications with the public and the means we use to communicate, to practices within the Department in connection with the administration of the Income Tax Act.
I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will recognize the authority and integrity of Mr. Farlinger, and that he will also realize that an objective opinion, on the basis of the mandate given to Mr. Farlinger will make it possible for the Department of National Revenue and its officials to act quickly to take corrective action, if necessary, depending on the advice we shall receive from Mr. Farlinger.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, with a supplementary.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. speaker, I have every confidence in the sense of probity and accomplishment of Mr. Farlinger, but that is absolutely no substitute for an open airing before all parties of the House of Commons. The people of Canada have had it up to the gills with a Government which tries to foist things off with a private inquiry for which no reporting mechanism is provided to this House. That is what is wrong with the attitude of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO A COMMITTEE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Minister's apparent inability to understand the
958

February 1, 1984
Oral Questions
widespread concerns across this country resulting from his attitude and responses, will the Acting Prime Minister now direct that a reference be made to the proper committee of this House so that all parliamentarians can get involved on behalf of all the people of Canada who want to be heard on this very legitimate and troublesome issue? Will he make that direction today?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about hearing all the people of Canada, I would consider that he is exaggerating to a great extent. Committees, by the way, can do what they want.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: If they want to call the Minister, they can do that. As I indicated a couple of days ago in answer to a question of this type, I am quite sure that, as the report of the inquiry comes to the Minister of National Revenue, he will make the necessary adjustments to the practices of his Department. I am quite sure also that he will be quite receptive to requests on the part of the committee to come and explain the recommendations of the inquiry and explain what he is doing in relation to those recommendations. And in a very civilized way.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because he is a man of considerable civility, 1 am sure no one would accuse the Minister of participating in, or indeed articulating the essence of a cover-up. But that is what it sounded like to me.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to be careful and make sure the Minister understands, so perhaps I can put the question this way. In light of the very legitimate concerns and apprehensions which have been heard from all parts of this House for over two months now, and inasmuch as the only way to have an objective and fair hearing is before a parliamentary committee, with all the appropriate safeguards, is the Acting Prime Minister now saying on behalf of the Government of Canada to those Canadians who want to be heard: "No, you shall not be heard before a committee of this Parliament?" I tell the Minister that is unacceptable to the people of Canada. They want to be heard, and I am asking the Acting Prime Minister to give them an avenue to be heard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition thinks the only way for Members of Parliament to express their views on this subject is through a special parliamentary committee.


Erik Nielsen: Standing committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not the case. There are a number of ways, Question Period obviously being one of them.


Mr. McDermid:: You noticed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In a few days the Estimates will be referred to different committees, and that is another occasion to raise these points. The committee can provide a special invitation to the Minister of National Revenue and he obviously, as the inquiry recommendations come to him, will want to make them public and tell the committee what he is doing. So there will be plenty of occasions for Members of Parliament to make their representations.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The biggest growth industry in this country is poverty, affecting some 4 million people, and increasing. Will the Minister increase family allowances since most unemployed parents rely on this cheque to feed their children? Will he also reform the regressive family benefits sections of the tax system to help pay for an increased family allowance as proposed today by the National Anti-Poverty Organization?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 have indeed taken steps in the last Budget to reduce the regressive nature of some of the tax measures on families. The Hon. Member will remember those measures which were contained in the last Budget. As to her specific representation for the forthcoming Budget, I will study it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: If the Minister studies this important report he will see the NAPO recommendations regarding those past changes, which changes were far from adequate. In fact, in some cases they were regressive.


CHILD CARE EXPENSE DEDUCTION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, since the child care expense deduction is of little or no value to single mothers who are working and raising their children, and are hardest hit by poverty, will the Minister convert the deduction into a tax credit so that low income families also may benefit?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will obviously study very carefully the NAPO brief. I have received a number of briefs from a number of organizations, and they are all being examined. As far as the Hon. Member's specific proposal is concerned, obviously it is one I will also want to examine.
February 1, 1984


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, who, in reply to a question from the Hon. Member for Burnaby yesterday, implied that he had no direct authority to impose discipline upon members of the RCMP. Given the concerns expressed by the public following the conclusions of the McDonald Commission, will he confirm the options available to him, if any, to seek redress? If he has none, will he advise the House what steps he is prepared to take immediately to take care of the concerns the public have expressed?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, responsible for the effective operation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That includes the requirement that they abide by the law and by all of the operating policies within the RCMP. That I do, and I account for that to this House. But when allegations of wrongdoing are made, as were made by the McDonald Commission, against particular individuals, my duty is to be certain that those allegations are referred to either the federal Attorney General or provincial Attorneys General, depending on the subject matter. When the McDonald Commission raised the questions of wrongdoing 1 did indeed refer them to the proper Attorneys General.
In connection with allegations of wrongdoing which do not amount to violations of the law but which are matters of discipline, the RCMP Act clearly provides that it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of the RCMP to examine the allegations and determine what action should be taken. In connection with that category of allegations by the McDonald Commission, I made the reference to the Commissioner and he did his duty. I am satisfied that the matters were referred to him and that he addressed them.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. He will probably be aware that the United States Congress was asked today to approve a budget of $53 million for the continued construction of the Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota which is, of course, a tremendous increase over the current year's budget of $22.3 million. Unfortunately this project could be very harmful to the waterways of Manitoba.
Considering that the American Government is proceeding with this project despite the objections in the past of the Government, and considering that the Government has failed in any way to alter this project, has the Government of Canada
Oral Questions
any new initiatives in mind which will help persuade the Americans not to proceed?
As well, can the Minister explain to the House why Canadi-an-American relations are such that our efforts in the past to present a Canadian point of view and deter this project have been futile?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is objective enough to recognize that the Canadian Government has repeatedly put the case to the United States on the Garrison issue. What would be needed to change the mind of the United States government on this subject is, of course, difficult to deal with. Up to now we have made these representations hoping that common sense and the best interests of all concerned would prevail. In the present circumstances that is really all that we can do. We will continue to do that, hoping that our persistence will be met with success.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I am not so sure that the people of Manitoba, and indeed the people of Canada, will find those words to be as reassuring as the Minister would want them to be.


SAFETY FEATURES OF CONCERN TO MANITOBANS
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very specific safety concerns which are important to the people of Manitoba at this point in time. Specifically, it is the question of a fish screen to be established with respect to the McClusky Canal, and the problem of seepage through the Lonetree Dam, which is part of the project that is now under construction. Does the Minister recognize that these safety concerns are matters of great importance? Will he reassure the House that his Government will recognize their importance and proceed to try to impress that importance on the Government of the United States? Can he, in fact, assure Manitobans that the project will not continue unless these two specific safety features are agreed to by the American Government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friend does not seem to believe that I am tough enough on the subject. I would like to hear what he suggests. Does he suggest a declaration of war, or something of this kind? The alternatives are not many. The only one is to keep on pressing the case and trying to appeal to the intelligence, common sense, or whatever other virtue the Americans have. Is there another alternative? The Hon. Member seems to criticize the way I approach the problem.
In his second question he has reached a degree of specialization where I cannot follow him. I can only say that I will inquire into the suggestion he has made and give him an answer as soon as I can.

February 1, 1984
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


WORKERS' INVOLVEMENT IN TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Government has waxed quite eloquently in the past on the need for workers' involvement in technological change. However, in the House yesterday he found the prospect of legislating the right of workers to negotiate "a little strong". Is he therefore suggesting that the only protection workers have is the good will of the company for which they work?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. What I said was that I believed very strongly in the right of labour to participate in discussions with respect to technological change. That is something the Government has advocated, and that is what we put in the Throne Speech.
I am not responsible for legislating labour laws. The Hon. Member would have to pose a question of that nature to my colleague, the Minister of Labour. But I am not one who believes that legislating things all the time is the most proper way to solve a problem. I think we can do that by other means.


REQUEST THAT INDUSTRIAL GRANTS BE CONDITIONAL ON WORKERS' PROTECTION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister's Department is involved in drawing up plans whereby it will give rather substantial grants to industries to modernize. Let us see what the commitment really is to the workers. Is the Minister prepared to tell us today that the grant allocation agreements will contain a provision that will allow workers to be consulted, the condition that there will be no lay-offs due to modernization, that no jobs will be eliminated other than through early retirement or attrition, and that a portion of the grant money will be set aside for that purpose? Is the Government willing and capable of giving that commitment to workers today?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be nasty about this-


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead!


Edward C. Lumley: -but when the Industrial Regional Development Program was brought forward I do not remember any Member of the NDP advocating these actions when the Bill was tabled in the House. Why did they not raise them back then?
I will not take the time of the House, but if the Hon. Member wishes to look at the amendments to the Labour Code in 1972 which were introduced by the Liberal Government of the day, he will find some changes with respect to these amendments concerning rights for labour with respect to participating-


John Edward Broadbent: Never.


Edward C. Lumley: -in discussions of changes involving high technology. I think that he will find that we have already taken a substantial step in that regard.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that last night, the Minister, accompanied by several Members of the House, attended the opening by the Canadian Restaurant Association of Restaurant and Hospitality Month and, on that occasion, met with the President of the Quebec Restaurant Association, could the Minister give the House and Canadian restaurant owners the assurance that he does not intend to follow the example of the Province of Quebec which, with Bill 43, has launched an attack on the industry and more specifically on employees receiving gratuities, which, in the end, will destroy the restaurant and hotel industry in Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is raising considerable debate at the present time, and I did, in fact, meet representatives of the Quebec Restaurant Association, who explained their situation to me in great detail and with considerable vigor. They raised some very serious objections to the manner in which the Quebec program is being implemented, and of course I would prefer to give their representations very careful consideration before planning any changes whatsoever.
As far as the Budget is concerned, I cannot give any details at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the labour-management dispute at Eastern Provincial Airways, involving the pilots. I understand that there is some hope that this dispute might be settled by agreement between the parties, but it has become obvious that the dispute is affecting the safety of passengers on Eastern Provincial Airways. Only yesterday there was a published report that an EPA jet strayed into the pathway of a Dutch DC-10 over the Province of Newfoundland.
February 1, 1984

What action can the Minister take to accelerate the settlement of this dispute? What steps has he taken to ensure that the settlement is made in accordance with the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board, as quickly as possible? I remind him that the decision of the Board was made over nine months ago.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member is aware that this dispute, which has been going on for many months, is being very carefully monitored by officials of my Department and that Labour Canada, through its conciliation service, has tried to help the parties reach a negotiated settlement. There have been appeals by both parties before the Canadian Labour Relations Board. There have been hearings before the Board and the Board's decisions have even been brought before the courts. Consequently, this issue is very complex, and in the circumstances, I think the Hon. Member should be pleased that a settlement seems to have been reached by the parties, but, on the other hand, he should let the parties themselves settle the differences they have brought before the courts.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Howard Edward Crosby: I am sure everyone will agree with the Minister that the parties should settle their own dispute, but we have gone beyond that. The Canada Labour Relations Board has attempted to settle the dispute, and made its decision. According to the Canada Labour Code, that decision is final and conclusive and not open to question. Yet the management of EPA, by legal tactics, has been able to delay settlement for nine months. Is the Minister prepared to intervene to take action and speak to the management of Eastern Provincial Airways, and other parties involved, to try to get this settled before EPA goes down the drain at a great cost to the Atlantic area and to people employed by EPA?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intentions of the Hon. Member, but 1 may remind him that as long as both parties in this case want to pursue their grievances in court, it is exceedingly difficult for me to intervene.
*
* *


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 31, 1984 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Mr. Arnold Sagman of Vancouver, B.C. and other people. The basic thrust of the petition is that unemployment insurance payments which are determined over a 20-week period-the last 20 weeks of employment-penalize those who remain loyal to their employer and stay on working reduced hours during a business slowdown, and that the payments should be calculated at the end of the period, not just at the beginning. 1 would like to file my petition, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*


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. 199, 265 and 346.


Mr. Blenkarn: In (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980 (d) 1981 (e) 1982, did the Government advance any funds to the Government of the Philippines or any agency of the Philippine government or any agency operating in the Philippines, either through C1DA or otherwise and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the
Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows:
When the Government of Canada through CIDA provides funds to developing countries the funds are in the form of loans, grants or contributions. The expression "advancing" funds is not used. A listing of CIDA's disbursements are as follows.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions
CIDA's disbursements in the Philippines program, to the nearest thousand dollars, for the last five fiscal years are as follows:

February 1, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Disbursements
	MAF<'>
Other*21 Bilateral
1978-79	195,000	85,0001979-80	194,000	159,0001980-81	195,000	41,0001981-82	345,000	51,0001982-83	350,000	308,0001,279,000	644,000(1)	Mission Administered Funds (MAF) are small projects approved and administered by the Canadian Embassy up to $50,000 per project. Payment is made directly by the Embassy to local initiatives.(2)	Other bilateral disbursements were made as follows:(a)	fisheries sector-The Philippines Fisheries Development project provides fishermen with necessary wharf and shore facilities; demonstrates improved fishing vessels, gear, fish handling and fish preservation; introduces the operational capabilities of a fishermens' co-operative and trains local management and technicians in the operation of the co-operative.(b)	technical assistance-Assistance to the Cagayan Valley Co-operatives Project (Phase II) provides technical assistance to assist in the development of primary and secondary co-operatives in the Valley, to encourage crop diversification, livestock production, agricultural processing, and training in marketing.(3)	The Special Programs funding by CIDA included contributions through Canadian Non-Governmental Organizations, International Non-Governmental Organizations, the Institutional Co-operation Development Services Program and the Industrial Co-operation Program.(4)	In addition to the above bilateral and special programs disbursements, CIDA had disbursed $457,000 in the 1982-83 fiscal year in the fisheries and forestry sectors through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The ASEAN program is a regional program which includes Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. Through these ASEAN projects, seven Philipinos have undergone training in fish processing and quality control, and forest tree seed technology. The Philippines has also benefited from workshops, seminar and other forms of training provided through these projects.
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: Yes. In 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 EDC did advance funds to the Government of the Philippines or any agency of the Philippine government or any agency operating in the Philippines. The amounts of advances are as follows:
(a)	1978	$11,210,378.72(b)	1979	$ 7,692,737.38(c)	1980	$ 1,945,561.75Total	Special*3*	Total CIDA*4*Bilateral	Programs	Disbursements280,000	766,000	1,046,000353,000	105,000	458,000236,000	666,000	902,000396,000	1,377,000	1,773,000658,000	1,707,000	2,365,0001,923,000	4,621,000	6,544,000(d)	1981	$ 9,509,791.95(e)	1982	$ 4,726,980.45
Advances made in currencies other than the Canadian dollar have been converted to the Canadian dollar equivalent.
In so far as the International Development Research Centre is concerned: During the specified calendar years, the International Development Research Centre informs the Government that it has committed the following research funds to institutions based in the Philippines:
(a)	$1,513,825
(b)	$1,558,910
(c)	$ 570,800
(d)	$1,730,040
(e)	$1,911,590


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of National Revenue-Customs and Excise change its inspection procedure for imported clothing and, if so (a) in what manner (b) were the inspections made more detailed and thorough and, if so, for what reasons (c) who authorized these changes and what is his/her name and job designation (d) when did the inspections begin and are they still being carried out (e) what was the total cost of the program?
2.	Was the Government aware of any lengthy delays in the processing of imports since the program began and, if so (a) what was done to eliminate them (b) what were all the reasons for the delays (c) was there a shortage of inspectors (d) did area inspectors make the inspections and, if so, did the travel time used by them diminish the time available for inspections if they had been carried out by local inspectors.
3.	Was additional staff hired to carry out the inspections and, if so (a) how many (i) when the program started (ii) after the program was well under way (b) were regular customs inspectors asked to carry out the inspections and, if not, for what reason (c) what area was covered by each new inspector (d) how much time was devoted to each inspection?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Yes, the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, did change its inspection procedures for imported clothing.
(a)	Only specially trained Customs inspectors will examine and release clothing shipments.
February 1, 1984

(b)	The examinations were made more detailed and thorough because of complaints from Canadian clothing manufacturers that many importations did not meet the Canadian marking, labelling and import permit requirements.
(c)	The Cabinet authorized these changes.
(d)	The examinations began on August 8, 1983 and are continuing.
(e)	The program has cost approximately $100,000 from August 8, 1983 to December 31, 1983.
2.	The Government is aware of some unusual delays that occurred at the beginning of the program.
(a)	The following program changes were made to preclude unreasonable delays:
(i)	Importer profiles showing results of examinations were used to effect more selective examinations. This reduced the number of examinations required.
(ii)	Inspectors in large centres were re-deployed to where volumes were highest (example, certain airports have a particularly heavy number of shipments).
(iii)	Priorities were established to concentrate on major shipments and on those where existing control of permits because of quota arrangements necessitated more detailed verification.
(iv)	Importation of samples for production or sale were excluded from the increased surveillance procedures except that their examination and release were handled only by the specially trained officers.
(v)	Additional officers were trained to replace and, if necessary, augment the present group. Overtime was authorized when necessary.
(vi)	Shipments requiring labelling changes were released to the importers on the understanding that new or amended labels would be affixed before the goods were displayed for sale.
(b)	There were various reasons for delays, many of which were beyond the control of the Government. The majority of delays was due to the increased number of examinations required and the unexpected high rate of non-compliance with existing marking, labelling and import permit requirements detected by the examining inspectors. However, when the previously mentioned procedures were implemented, 11 days into the program, unusual delays were eliminated.
(c)	There was no shortage of inspectors, however, in some regions it was necessary to add additional personnel to ensure against unreasonable delays due to inspector illness or absence.
(d)	Clothing inspectors are situated at the major ports of entry and travel to smaller ports as required. The requirement to travel to examine shipments does on occasion take longer than if local inspectors did the releasing. The travel time used by the inspectors have marginally diminished the time available for inspection, however, specially trained inspectors are more efficient.
3.	No additional staff was hired to carry out the inspections.
Order Paper Questions
(a)	Not applicable, (i) Not applicable, (ii) not applicable.
(b)	Regular Customs inspectors who received special training in the area of marking, labelling and import permit requirements were assigned to carry out the inspection.
(c)	There were no new inspectors.
(d)	Inspection time varies depending on the size of a shipment and if infractions are detected. For example, a full container with a value for duty of $40,000 or $50,000 will take longer to examine than a postal shipment worth $300 or $400. It is, therefore, not possible to give any meaningful time frame for each inspection.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada 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. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so
far as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance are concerned, we have been advised by the Bank of Canada as follows:
1.	See below.
2.	Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 of the Bank of Canada Act, the fee paid to a director is $2,500 per annum plus $300 for each meeting of the Board which he or she attends and the fee paid to the directors who are members of the Executive Committee is in addition $2,500 per annum plus $200 for each meeting of the Executive Committee which they attend.
The salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada is $63,000-$227,900. The salary of the Senior Deputy Governor is $63,000-$227,900.
The Governor, Senior Deputy Governor and the Deputy Minister of Finance receive no payment other than their regular salary.
The Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada is composed of the Governor, the Senior Deputy Governor, and 12 Directors appointed by the Minister of Finance. The Deputy Minister of Finance also sits on the Board but without a vote.
G. K. Bouey	Governor Bank of Canada
R. W. Lawson	Senior Deputy Governor Bank of Canada
M. A. Cohen	Deputy Minister of Finance
J. H.C. Clarry Lawyer	McCarthy & McCarthy P.O. Box 48 Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario M5K 1E6
J. H. Dickey Lawyer	Mclnnes, Cooper & Robertson P.O. Box 730 Halifax, N.S. B3J 2V1

February 1, 1984
Motions for Papers
E. Finn	Canadian Union of Public
Information Officer	Employees
21 Florence Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0W6
J. H. Fraser Owner & Operator
S. Kanee
C. LeBon Dean
A. A. LeBouthillier Notary
J. R. Longstaffe Executive Vice-President & Director
J. S. Palmer Lawyer
Mmc Y. Lefcbvre-Richard Chairman & General Manager
J. A. Stack Lawyer
M. Woodward Businessman
Highland Farm Limited
Hazelbrook
R.R. #1
Charlottetown, P.E.I. CIA 7J6
Chairman, President SooLine Mills (1969) Ltd.
7 Higgins Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B0A1
Bureau du Doyen
Faculte des sciences de l'administration
Universite Laval
Ste-Foy (Quebec) G1K 7P4
Case postale 297 Caraquet (N.-B.) EOB 1K0
Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 2800-1055 Dunsmuir Street P.O. Box 49420 Bentall Postal Station Vancouver, B.C. B7X 1 B5
P.O. Box 280, Station "M"
Calgary, Alberta T2P 2H9
J. B. Lefebvre Ltee 9950, boul. Ray-Lawson Montreal (Quebec)


[Stage Direction]
McKercher, McKercher, Stack, Korchin & Laing 374 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 1 M5
Woodward's Oil Ltd.
P.O. Box 3p0 Postal Station "C"
Happy Valley
Goose Bay, Labrador A0P ICO
John Leslie Evans: 1 ask, Mr, Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
*
* *


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENTS ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 31, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to put on the record some remarks on Bill C-12 which is before the House. It involves an institution dear to my heart and I am sure of interest to all Members in the House and all Canadians, and that is, the Canadian university. We often think of universities as simple institutions of learning, almost of an elitist kind, meant for those children of people in Canada who can afford to pay for their university education. Indeed, many years ago that was exactly the case. Over the last number of decades universities have evolved into democratic institutions which virtually any Canadian given the capability and the capacity to absorb post-secondary education can attend and receive the benefits of a university education.
1 have said that universities are educational institutions, but they also ought to be regarded as industries. Indeed, they are industrial enterprises in the sense that they employ a great number of persons and contribute to the economy in the areas in which they are located. I can readily attest to that fact because in the City of Halifax universities are one of the major industries. We are fortunate to have in Halifax and in the surrounding area a number of well established and top notch Canadian universities, including Dalhousie University, St. Mary's University, Mount Saint Vincent University, the Technical University of Nova Scotia, as well as the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design and others. When we realize how important these institutions are, not only to our society, but to the local economy in places like Halifax and other university towns and cities in locations across Canada, we have to consider that, not only contributing to universities, we are not only supporting and helping the students who are receiving the benefits of a university education but we are also contributing to the economy of the regions. We are providing employment, we are generating activity and in the end we are receiving back those dollars we invest in universities two and threefold and more.
One might consider what the source of funds is in Canadian universities and how much is involved. I have a few statistics here that I asked to have prepared. They are truly amazing. Over $4.7 billion is spent by universities in Canada. Just to give you an idea of the enormity of the situation, Mr. Speaker, there are over 720,000 students enrolled full or part-time in Canadian universities. The number of faculties is in the area of
February 1, 1984

26,000. We are talking about a relatively massive economic force when we talk about universities, both in terms of personnel, faculties and students and in terms of a total dollar expenditure of $4.7 billion. When you consider that amount is almost 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the amount spent on national defence, you realize the enormousness of these university institutions in relation to the Canadian economy.
What is important is not just the numbers of persons in universities and dollars spent but the quality of a university education in Canada. That is the point we must always bring to the floor of the House of Commons when we are discussing expenditures in relation to Canadian universities. I am certain that all Canadians want the very best quality in university education for young Canadians. We cannot disregard the relationship of our financial investment in relation to the quality of education. We have to realize that every dollar of which we deprive universities will result in a deterioration of the quality of education in those universities. One only has to speak to university administrators to realize that this is in fact the case. We cannot, by direct action or indirect policy, deprive universities of the funds they need to operate at the level considered appropriate. The result will be reflected in the quality of education. In short, we save nothing by depriving universities of dollars, rather, we will find in every case those dollars will have to be spent in some other way. It will result in dollars being spent in areas like unemployment insurance for students who cannot get employment because they do not have the technical and other skills they might have gained in a university with a high standard of education.
There is another aspect of university funding that I want to bring to everyone's attention so we will not pretend that we are accomplishing anything by cutting back on the amount of funds paid to universities. While most of the funding in Canadian universities today comes from government sources, some comes from the private sector and, more important, some of the funding comes from the students themselves.
If the Government which contributes approximately 72.4 per cent of university funding, cuts back on the amount of that funding and reduces that percentage, there are only two sources from which that decreased funding can be recaptured. The first is the private sector, which now contributes something in the area of 16 per cent or less to universities. Second, the balance has to be obtained through tuition fees, which amount to approximately 15 per cent of university funding. There is a limit to the extent to which universities can press the private sector for funding. I think it is fair to say that they are making every effort they can to obtain funds from the private sector in the way of direct grants, subsidization of university projects, etc.
What remains is to raise funds from tuition fees. Indeed that has been happening in the last few years. Tuition fees have risen dramatically. I had a survey conducted for the academic year 1982-83 as it relates to the Province of Nova Scotia. I have a listing of the amounts of tuition between academic year 1981-82 and the subsequent academic year 1982-83. In the case of Acadia University, base tuition fees increased from
Established Programs Financing
$970 to $1,110, for a 14.4 per cent increase. That was topped by the French-language university in the southwestern part of Nova Scotia, the University of Sainte Anne, which had a 15.4 per cent increase in fees from $910 to $1,050. That range of increase of approximately 12 per cent to 15 per cent in tuition fees pertained to all Nova Scotia universities. Dalhousie University, Mount Saint Vincent University, St. Francis Xavier, St. Mary's University, the Technical University of Nova Scotia, the University College of Cape Breton, University of King's College, in addition to Acadia University and the University of Sainte Anne, had increases in tuition fees of between 12 per cent and 15 per cent.
When we consider that in relation to the Government's undertaking to keep increases in the proximity of the six and five program, we realize what a fraud that program was on Canadian universities and particularly on university students. The whole thesis of the six and five program which was introduced in June 1982 was to limit salary increases and other expenditure increases to 6 per cent and 5 per cent and, in turn, have the same limit apply to the increases which would affect the beneficiaries of government expenditures, whether it was by way of salary or other forms of financial benefit. Universities and university students who were faced with 6 per cent and 5 per cent limitations on their financial support had to turn around and face increased tuition fees in the area of 12 per cent to 15 per cent. That is how the Government treats Canadian university students. I hope the 720,000 university students across Canada will take note of this and reassess their view of the Government of Canada in relation to the assistance and help which it has provided over the past few years.
I personally think that raising university funding from the student body is no longer an acceptable way to fund universities in Canada. It is right and proper that university students across the country contribute very substantially to the cost of their education. We live in the kind of society where we are all expected to make a contribution and to realize and recognize that we do not get anything for nothing. To found or base the future of our universities, their expansion and the increase in the quality of the educational system they provide, upon the ability of students to pay would be a grave mistake. It is a grave mistake not only in relation to the students who bear the direct result of the policy, but it is a grave mistake in relation to the whole country which benefits in many ways, as I have already indicated, from the institution of the Canadian university.
We have heard the Government talk time and time again about high technology being the hope for the future in terms of employment, that those Canadians who are now unemployed or underemployed have as their future hope the possibility that Canada will develop quickly and substantially in areas of high technology and will become a world class competitor in these areas and thus generate employment.
How could we possibly succeed in that endeavour if we do not give the necessary financial support to our universities? It is almost ludicrous for the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to come into the Chamber and tell us

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing about the $2 billion which he has allocated for employment programs that will enable the retraining of undertrained employees, that will enable other Canadians to acquire the skills necessary to compete in a world of technology, and at the same time have the Government introduce other financial policies which have the effect of reducing the amount available to Canadian universities to carry on the programs. It is a total contradiction. The Government may be fooling some people for a certain period of time, but that kind of policy will have to come out in the end; the results will have to be known and recognized. The results will be very simple and very dramatic. We will not have Canadians trained in the way that they must be trained to carry on their obligations and compete in the world of technology.
With respect to the universities in my area, they have battled economic adversity for many years. The latest government policy which will deprive them of some of their funding or will result in a reduction in their funding will be just another millstone around the neck of local Nova Scotia universities. However, I want to underline specifically the plight of Mount Saint Vincent University which is located in my constituency of Halifax West. Of Canadian universities Mount Saint Vincent should really be in the spotlight because it is the only university in Canada which is dedicated to the education of women. It started as a university institution operated by the Sisters of Charity for a female student body. Over the years the university has changed so that the religious institution known as the Sisters of Charity is no longer the owner and operator of the university and it has become a public university. In more recent years it has been fit to admit a few men to the student body, not enough to colour the campus something other than female.
I am glad there are some women members in the House to hear what I am saying. I say to them and to all Canadian women that the Mount Saint Vincent University should be given special attention by them because it has stood for many decades as a bastion of education for women. Today it serves as a beacon in the quest of women for equal rights, not only in the human sense but in the very important economic and practical sense on a day to day basis.
As one male member of this Chamber and as one male Canadian, I can say that we are kidding ourselves if we think we have advanced the cause of women's rights to any great extent over the last decade. We have not recognized in a real or true sense the difficulties women have found particularly in the professions and, let's face it, in the areas of more economic return. Mount Saint Vincent and its faculty are more aware of this than perhaps other institutions and people in Canada. The President of that university, Dr. Margaret Fulton, has been a crusader for many years-and I hope for many more years to come-for women's rights, not in any silly way nor simply as a facade or window dressing, but by way of establishing programs and policies which will change in a real and dramatic manner economic opportunities for Canadian women.
Mount Saint Vincent has a number of programs which are designed to bring about this kind of real change. In each case
the program requires very special and specific funding. It is not the kind of dollars which can be raised from the student body in the form of tuition fees. It is virtually impossible to obtain this kind of funding from the private sector, so the university has to look to government. I am very sad that in so many cases individuals, institutions and businesses have to look to the Government of Canada, but in a country where so many of our dollars are taken away in the form of taxation, it becomes a necessity.
I make this appeal with that reservation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), to the extent that he controls the budget of Canada, and to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), to the extent that he is involved in funding for Canadian universities. They should give special attention to this tremendous and unique institution which exists in Halifax West, namely, Mount Saint Vincent University. They should take specific steps to ensure that that institution is able to fulfil the role it has undertaken over the decade so that it can be a beacon for women in Canada in a very real and practical way. It should be a place at which women have the opportunity to establish educational programs that will be of special benefit to them, a unique place in which women have the kind of control and authority that is needed to ensure that there is an evolution and development of programs that will benefit them in a real way.
On many occasions I have talked to the President of Mount Saint Vincent University, Dr. Margaret Fulton, about some of the specific programs that the university would like to found and foster. I will not elaborate, but I hope that when those in the Chamber and across Canada hear the name Mount Saint Vincent University, they will immediately recognize that it is a very special place, a place in which all Canadians, particularly Canadian women should take a special interest.
In the few minutes remaining to me, I want to repeat my plea to the Government of Canada to recognize that in its negotiations with the provinces over university funding it is dealing not only with the welfare of Canadian students, but with an educational industry that employs a great many Canadians. It is of great benefit to those areas of Canada which are fortunate to be the location for Canadian universities. We are not dealing with an isolated matter, but a matter in terms of university education that affects all Canadians. Any dollar spent in that way will benefit everybody. All Canadians should take an interest to ensure that adequate funds are provided to Canadian universities.


Ms. Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Hon. Member talk about the university in his constituency, Mount Saint Vincent. As he says, it is a beacon as far as the higher education of women is concerned. I do not believe he mentioned that there may in fact be some small moneys forthcoming to establish chairs in women's studies at different universities. These discretionary funds that the federal Government is willing to make available are very small. They do not compare at all to the moneys we are talking about in fiscal
February 1, 1984

transfers. Nevertheless, if it does go forward, I am sure the Hon. Member will want to urge that an endowed chair on women's studies be established.
When the Hon. Member is urging that, and I know that he will if it is forthcoming, will he also look at the excellent women's studies programs that have been started in a dozen or so other universities in Canada? 1 know in my own most recent university where I was president, Simon Fraser started as women's studies program when 1 was there. Since he is interested and concerned about the development of education for women, will he also encourage the development of chairs in women's studies at universities that have already established women's studies programs and whose programs need to be enhanced?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before allowing the Hon. Member to reply, 1 must draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) that according to the provisional orders, comments and remarks must deal with comments made during the speech by an Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam raised an issue which was not referred to by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). I will allow the reply, but I caution the Hon. Member about raising new issues not touched upon in the previous speaker's speech.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I am not in any way, shape or form challenging your comments. Perhaps 1 was not articulate in my remarks. 1 certainly did intend to cover special programs in universities, particularly Mount Saint Vincent, that would benefit women. Perhaps in that way the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam and myself are in tune. We both realize and recognize that there is a need in Canadian universities generally for special programs directed at the education of women that will spawn and respond to the special needs of young Canadian women. 1 would certainly be quick to agree with her, that it should not be confined to Mount Saint Vincent University. All universities should receive benefits from the federal authority that would allow them to finance these developments.
All I would say to my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam is that I believe, in the context of any Canadian university, it must be difficult for those which advocate special programs for women's studies to fight for bits and pieces of monetary allocations for these programs. It is my own thought that if Mount Saint Vincent could be utilized as a place in which these programs could be inaugurated and developed to the point where their value was easily recognized by university administrators across the country, it may make it easier to transfer those programs to universities across Canada.
We are in total agreement in that we think that the education of women requires special attention from Government. I think that Mount Saint Vincent can be used in a very unique and special way to foster this kind of activity.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of participating in the debate today. It
Established Programs Financing
is an important debate on Bill C-12 which attempts to cap the federal contribution to the provinces through the EPF program to five and six. I am particularly concerned about the effects this will have on the universities and on our young people.
There is no doubt that young people today face a crisis that has not been seen before. This is the TV generation, a generation that has a high level of expectation. They expect to be able to get an education to the fullest extent of their desire and ability. They expect to get a decent job. They expect to be able to map out their career and live a full and productive life. Perhaps they are unfortunate to be part of a baby boom that came to its maturity in a period of recession, a period when we have a Liberal Government that does not believe in forward planning, one that has no concrete thoughts of where to place the products of the baby boom or to incorporate these people into society. We have a generation coming up that is not finding any way to obtain jobs. With the Bill before us, and previous Acts brought in by the Government, the door to higher education is being shut on them.
Let us look at their opportunities for employment. In July last year, the official statistics showed an unemployment rate in this country of 1,460,000, or 12 per cent of our work force population. Of these, 290,000 or 20 per cent are under the age of 25. Twenty per cent unemployment among our young people means that one out of every five is unemployed. It is a time in their lives when they are looking for meaningful work, a time when they want to set off on their career. They cannot even start at first base. They are being shut off, Mr. Speaker. They are being shut out.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, through government policies we have a crisis in accessibility to our universities. In the last number of years there has been a continual erosion in the ability of young people to get into universities to get their degrees in order to get meaningful jobs. It is estimated that over 100,000 students have been turned away from postsecondary institutions in Ontario alone in the past two years because of the lack of space and sufficient student financial aid. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is currently conducting a survey to assess the enrolment picture for this year. We do have some indication of what it is like. For example, about 56,000 students applied for 30,000 openings at Montreal's four universities. In Ontario, York University has turned away 1,400 qualified students, and 24,000 have applied to Humber College for a mere 1,000 spaces. Technical institutes in Edmonton and Calgary received 20,000 applications for a total of 10,700 spaces. The picture is complete across the country, Mr. Speaker. Over and over again we see universities having to turn students away because there are no spaces for them. The predictions of the past that university enrolments will decline as the baby boom generation goes out into the market and gets jobs are not coming true. There are no jobs for them. Many of them, and a lot of older students, are trying to get back into university to upgrade themselves in order to be able to compete for the jobs which are out there. Their ability to go back to university in order to do that is now

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing being diminished. The six and five program which the Government is proposing will aggravate a bad situation.
A national crisis exists for our younger people, Mr. Speaker. A generation is being wasted. A generation which was brought up full of hope and expectation is being told that there is no room for them in our society, universities or in the labour force. Where are they to go? What is to happen to this generation? Are they to be left alone on the streets with the subsequent consequences? Is this why the Government is so anxious to have a secret police in force? Does it know of the social unrest which will occur when there are more and more young people with high levels of expectation and no way to fulfil those expectations? Does it know that there will be social unrest and social tensions and that a stronger police force will be needed in order to control the anxiety and anger that will exist among those young people? Is this the Liberal solution to the problems of the young people? It is indeed sad, Mr. Speaker, to see the waste of human resources which the Government is allowing to occur and in fact, in its own stupid way, has encouraged.
There is another very important area which will suffer because of the Government's move, that is the area of social, economic and natural science research. There is no doubt that the universities play a key role in research in Canada. Without universities with proper labs, equipment, libraries and properly paid staffs, all the efforts to channel 1.5 per cent of our GNP into research will come to nought. It will not work without a strong university component in this country. Surely the backroom planners of the Government can see that. That is why I am totally flabbergasted that it has allowed legislation like Bill C-12 to proceed into the House.
We all realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a rapidly changing world. There are cultural, social, economic, and technological changes. People must be prepared to meet those changes. We need research and research facilities if Canada is to play a forward role in the introduction of new technologies into our lives. In Canada most clinical medical research is done at the universities, as is most research in theoretical physics, meteorology, biology, the social sciences and culture. Universities play a vital role in research in agriculture, fishery, forestry, engineering, chemistry, economics and business administration, to name a few. They have a central position in the development and sustainment of Canadian culture. This work is both basic and applied. The Government has now expressed its concern about the lack of research in forestry. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it is quite willing to cut further the resources which we do have within our universities to do research in forestry. What stupidity, Mr. Speaker!
It is not that the Government has not been warned. Over and over again studies, commissions and briefs presented to the Government have warned it about the need to maintain a strong research component in our universities. The Science Council of Canada in its report, University Research in Jeopardy, stated the following:
Our universities have a crucial role to play. As the site of most of our basic, and an appreciable amount of our applied research, and as the chief supplier of
the highly qualified manpower required for R&D, it is essential that they be able to maintain and improve the quality of their teaching and research. For the past ten years their ability to perform this function has been severely tested, as a result of the financial restraints imposed by federal and provincial levels of government.
If the federal Government is serious about allocating 1.5 per cent of our GNP for research and development by 1985 there could be major problems in securing the skilled manpower required to accomplish this goal. If it is going to cut the resources of the universities further, the universities will not be able to produce the trained manpower that will be needed in order to achieve that goal. Surely that should be obvious to the Government and to the bureaucrats. It escapes me why they miss the point.
I wish to read into the record the submission made by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers in their brief to the parliamentary task force on employment opportunities for the eighties. They state the same thing as the Science Council. They state:
Adequate funding of our universities and colleges to allow replacement of equipment, expansion of facilities, and fair salaries for faculty and support staff will pay great dividends in our long-term future economic development. The graduates of those post-secondary institutions will be at the frontiers of technological and economic progress in Canada. If our educational system is allowed to deteriorate, if pure and applied research dwindle, if morale and quality of teaching drop, Canada's long-term future will suffer.
We are being warned over and over again that cutting funding to universities is done at our own peril. The economic, social, cultural and technological future of this country will suffer if the ability of the universites to participate actively in those areas is decreased. Yet the Government, in its blindness, proceeds ahead with its predetermined goals.
The crunch under which the Government has placed the universities goes back to the major cutback of 1982. At that time it decided unilaterally to change the formula in which the EPF funds were given over to the provinces. This unilateral action was a severe blow to the provincial coffers and, in turn, to the universities. What it is doing now is taking an other unilateral retroactive step-retroactive by some 18 months. How in the name of heaven can we expect the universities to do any planning when the Government, at a whim and at its own will, decides to change the formula again? How in heaven's name can we expect such important institutions as the universities to make any proper projections or do any planning if a government like the one opposite runs helter skelter, afraid for its political life and is willing to destroy all sorts of established programs and traditions in the country?
The political panic of the Government is harming all our social institutions, which in turn threatens the economic and cultural future of the country. Its political panic is threatening research projects throughout the country. Its political panic is threatening the very future of the country.
What does the Government want? What does it want from universities? It says it is not getting enough exposure, that the work it does and the moneys it pays to universities are not appreciated. If that is the problem, I am sure that the Univer-
February 1, 1984

sity of Regina would be willing to put up a big neon sign showing that the federal Government has contributed so many dollars to its operation. I am sure it would be willing to have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) present^ cheques every month or every week, if need be. But for heaven s sake, it should not disturb the programs. If it wants publicity and exposure, I am sure the University of Regina would give it if that is the price it had to pay in order to maintain its programs.
The Government is practising a type of economics very close to the Reagan type of economics. In order to meet the problems of mismanagement and deficits, it is shifting programs and responsibility over to the provinces. That is what Ronald Reagan has done in the United States.
I was interested when I heard Ronald Reagan announce on television that he is going to run again. The Governor of New York State was also interviewed and he was not too happy with Mr. Ronald Reagan and his economic policies. He said that since Mr. Ronald Reagan came to power, programs have been cut and, as a consequence, the State of New York has had to find millions of dollars in order to provide homes for the homeless. It has had to find hundreds of millions of dollars in order to find food for welfare recipients in the State of New York. In the United States, responsibilities and expenses have been shifted from the federal level to the state level.
That is exactly what the jokers opposite are doing here today. It is as unacceptable in the United States as it is in Canada. We have the same type of Reagan economics. What suffers are the universities, programs like medicare and assistance programs to the poor and disabled. The federal Government intends to shift its responsibility for those institutions to the provinces. But Mr. Speaker, when such responsibilities are given to the provinces, then the country does not have a uniform system. Poorer provinces cannot afford to maintain the same type of facilities and offer the same type of educational opportunities to their young people as other provinces. Of course, the poorer provinces and poorer regions will suffer. The Maritimes already have great difficulty keeping their bright young people, so this is a further blow to their culture and their ability to retain them. Now their universities will not be able to offer the same type of resources as the universities in Montreal or Toronto so their bright young people will have to leave in order to get an education.
That will be the result of the moves that the Government will perpetuate with Bill C-12. There will not be an equal opportunity for young people to get a good education in any part of the country.
There is another element that I find repugnant in what is occurring, Mr. Speaker. In 1976, the Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau, made it very clear-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member should refer to his colleagues in the House by their titles or constituencies only.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. In 1976, the Prime Minister said unequivocally that the EPF arrangements would
Established Programs Financing
be "permanent, subject only to three-year notice". There was no three-year notice when the changes occured, Mr. Speaker. In 1982 there was no three-year notice in 1984 there is no three-year notice. This amounts to unilateral action by the central Government. That is some deal!
Is it any wonder that the Government has lost the confidence of the Canadian people? Is it any wonder that no one trusts it? As a government it has lied, it has lied and it has lied-consistently and over and over again. If it makes a deal one day, there is no telling that it might not change it the next day.
The country faces a crisis. Young people face a crisis. We are in a period of very rapid change and we need a strong university sector in our community in order that it may be able to cope with those changes. Through legislation like Bill C-12, the Government is destroying our ability to cope with the future. It is endangering Canada's future, the future of its young people, mainly because of its political panic. 1 think every Canadian finds that most repugnant.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the offer in the Speech from the Throne of a one billion dollar youth opportunity fund, would the Hon. Member and his Party be prepared to see that reduced by the $380 million that was grabbed from youth by this iniquitous Bill, so that we would at least have the existing, establishing programs in place?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that much of the money that the Government hopes to save from capping EPF payments to the provinces is going to be used in some of the new programs and that what we are seeing is not new money but is a shell game. In the end, we are against a shell game.
What is needed is a concerted, co-operative effort among universities, employers, provinces and the federal Government to tackle the problems faced by young people and our educational institutions. To rob one in order to bail out another is not going to work.
Our position is that we need the youth employment programs but we also need adequate and decent funding for universities. We say that both programs should be adequately financed and then we will be able to start solving some of our problems.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Does the Hon. Member really believe that there is such a thing as a one billion dollar youth opportunity program, or is this just so much smoke and mirrors? In 1983-84, the federal Government's contribution of cash to the provinces was $1,952 billion. Strangely enough, despite the Government's promise of an increase, even a 5 per cent increase, its cash in the year 1984-85 goes down to $1,917 million, a total drop of $35 million.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member raises a very good point when he asks me if I really believe there is this $1 billion in existence in the Youth Employment Program. It is dej'a vu for some of the Hon. Members from the

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing West. We remember other Speeches from the Throne which promised us a $4 billion Western Development Fund. In time, Mr. Speaker, it has just sort of melted away. It amazed me when I First came here, a freshman in this House, how fast $4 billion can melt away. In a matter of a year and a half to two years the Western Development Fund was not even heard together with the $4 billion which went with it. Where it went, heaven only knows. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if indeed there is $1 billion for young people in this country and how much of that they will actually end up seeing.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-12. I recall on Thursday, April 1, 1982, participating in a similar debate around the focus of federal involvement in university funding. In that debate I found from Members on the Government benches a total rejection of the question of what is our understanding and philosophy regarding university and post-secondary education in Canada and what we expect for the future. The Bill at that time was Bill C-97. Today we have Bill C-12, entitled an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. This, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a revealing title. Were it not for the conventional necessity of labelling Bills in what we could call "high toned legalese", this legislation might more reasonably be entitled something like "an Act to break all existing agreements with the Canadian people on the future of post-secondary education in Canada". Instead of trotting out reams of self-serving nonsense about the MacEachen memorial on the six and five mythology, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) would have better spent the time of the House by submitting an apology, I suggest, in the name of the current Government for lending his name to an attempt to save $380 million for the federal Treasury over two years at the expense of post-secondary education in Canada.
With all the examples of the idiotic and ridiculous use of public funds which have filled the reports of successive Auditors General through the years, why in the name of common sense, Canadians are asking, even for the sake of political expediency, would this regime decide to "save money" in the single most valuable area of Canada's economic and social growth? This leaves many people breathless, because the Government is suggesting through its other Departments and agencies, whether it be in the areas of agriculture or medical research or other fields, that we have to be on the cutting edge through these resources.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), have laid out the hidden agenda of this legislation in dramatic economic terms. The public is listening very carefully to their exposure of the grisly, damaging chain of events which the passage of Bill C-12 would trigger. In my role as Opposition critic of the Department of the Secretary of State-that Ministry charged with the transfer of post-secondary educational support-I would like to address in the moments given to me today another "hidden agenda" which, like it or not, this legislation includes. This
hidden agenda should be ultimately recognized for what it is, a concerted effort by the central Government of Canada to limit the potential growth and development of all Canadians through reduced support to higher levels of education.
I would like to refer Hon. Members to the most recent annual report issued by the Department of the Secretary of State. The annual report for 1982-83, under the educational support program, refers to Article 24(3) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, the very Act that Bill C-12 is aimed at undermining. I quote, Mr. Speaker, from page 29 as follows:
-the Secretary of State shall, as an essential and continuing indication of the interest of the Government of Canada ... consult with the governments of the provinces with regard to the relationship between the programs and activities of the governments of Canada and of the provinces that relate to post-secondary education.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have in front of us today is a unilateral, confrontational move by the federal Government, not only to save money, but to shirk responsibilities for education support, which date from the Rowell-Sirois Report, which were underlined in the report of the Massey Commission and which are laid out, under the heading of "General Support and Education Opportunity Objectives", on page 36 of the annual report of the Secretary of State.
Successive Secretaries of State have been quick to accuse the provincial Governments of underfunding post-secondary institutions. They have been equally quick to accuse everyone from students to faculty to administrators of misappropriating education support funds. This is nonsense. An accountable dollar spent on opening educational opportunities will always be rewarded threefold. That should be the guiding objective behind any negotiations with the provinces, not greater federal visibility-greater accessibility, not a grab for the federal Treasury. Yet we listen to endless complaints from the federal Government about things not being done according to the agreement. What is its response? It introduces a proposal to break all previous agreements. Does the federal Government take the high road and provide a direction of leadership in resolving admittedly difficult negotiations with the provincial Governments? Certainly not. That is not the tradition of this Government. It goes into a six and five snit and enshrines its childishness in Bill C-12. Despite the recommendations of the Auditor General of federal research funding agencies and of university faculties and students, the federal Government slaps six and five on its support of post-secondary education, instead of making a move to reduce the duplication of its efforts in conducting research within so many different government Departments.
This Government's first inclination is to blame everyone else but itself for the current state of affairs. The question surely is, where is the leadership? During times of long overdue restraint on public spending, does it not occur to the federal Government to move more of its in-house research and language training needs out to the universities in lieu of some support dollars? I see no evidence of that. It might actually result in the federal Government's receiving some innovative research advice years before a trend of events hamstrings its policy
February 1, 1984

options. There is a lot to be said for supporting a research capacity which offers long-term courses of action for avoiding national dilemmas.
I will deal for a moment with an aspect of this legislation which the Government has apparently not considered. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the submission of the YMCAs of Canada to the Macdonald Commission. That submission addresses itself to the development, "... of a holistic view of community and international development. A long-term economic plan is limited without equally strong social accountability". What 1 hear the YMCA saying is that a country must have a clear strategy for social and economic development, based on a well educated opinion of its public. The submission of the YMCA goes on to quote from Willis Harman's book, "Optimistic Outlooks", wherein he observes four major positive responses to our current situation. First of all, he cites the ecological outlook, a concern for environmental protection, resource conservation, wilderness preservation and the fostering of wholesome relationships between mankind and nature. Secondly, he cites appropriate technology, focusing on relationships between people and technology, emphasizing the use of small, decentralized technology under the control of the user that does not cause undue insult to the environment and is compatible with a voluntarily simple lifestyle. He then goes on to talk about personal liberation, emphasizing development of self-reliance and self-emancipation from prejudice and stereotypes relating to race and sex, from oppression by patriarchal societal institutions and from the dehumanizing effects of the giant organizations of industrial society. Fourthly, he speaks about spiritual revitalization, emphasizing the research for meaning and value, renewed attention to the spiritual, and release of human potential.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and Members of the House as well as Members of the public who follow the debates here will see my point. When the federal Government decides to take the unthinking route of limiting its support to post-secondary education, it does the whole country a disservice. At the same time it undercuts some of its own initiatives in other fields. For example, it launches an investigation into visible minorities, but limits support of the very tool which gives the lie to racism. For example, it asks the country to support the exploration of the North, but limits support for education which allows people affected to make well educated responses. It limits its support for the humanities and educational opportunities to develop social values, yet asks Canadians to support it in such crucial initiatives as changing the divorce law, introducing national security service legislation, and the creation of multicultural ministries of Government. On it goes.
This Bill breaks more than an agreement with provincial governments. I suggest that it breaks a trust with the Canadian people. In its submission to the Macdonald Commission, the Canadian Association of University Teachers spoke of a funding crisis in the universities. Current levels of funding are inadequate to meet national goals similar to those of our major competitors. Yet both levels of Government have decreased
Established Programs Financing their commitment to fund higher education. The result is a steady decline in the quality of scientific equipment and libraries, and a serious loss of morale on the part of professors. This crisis must be addressed by proper funding by both levels of government, and by an end to the destructive and mindless quarrel between the federal Government and the provinces over joint funding mechanisms. As we move into the twenty-first century, how we deal with our universities, their faculties and students, will in large measure determine Canada's position in the next century.
I want to suggest to the Minister that in his opening comments in this debate he said the federal Government decides from time to time how best to allocate the huge sums for training and educating our young people. From experience in my own riding with the Universities of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, the Conestoga Community College and the neighbouring University of Guelph, I know the predicament of many young people and the need for providing greater access to university, particularly at a time when these young people cannot find work. In many cases we are going to be assisting them through unemployment insurance or other social measures. But the question of why we are starving the universities and the question of the implications, as I hear them in my own riding and on the national scene, has long range effects. We are losing world class scholars, and these do not come back with an up-turned economy. We are finding now that there is no place for many of our qualified academics, and as a result we are losing a generation of highly educated young people. As we freeze and cut back in university departments, those who have tenure stay on and many of our finest young men and women cannot find a teaching position. Then of course we are increasingly making universities elitist as we put a higher and higher price tag on entry for students who have no jobs.
Why, Mr. Speaker, does the Government announce that over the next five years it will spend in the neighbourhood of $3 million to $4 million for women's Outreach programs while at the same time it is trying in this Bill to cut back $380 million in universities? Instead of porkbarreling those funds into an election campaign, why not put them into the universities where programs to enhance the role of women can be developed?
My colleague from Halifax West spoke about Mount St. Vincent. There are unique opportunities there to think through carefully to develop a plan for training and retraining of women and for breaking many of the social taboos. On the one hand Government cuts back funding to universities and on the other it increases the staff of an agency such as CIDA to develop international assistance programs. Here we have internationalized institutions, audited in a way that could be quite satisfactory to the Auditor General, able to administer effectively our international development assistance, and they are all but ignored by a growing bureaucracy in Hull. Why is it that some of the best administrative machinery and some of the most knowledgeable people are not engaged in this work,

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
and the establishment of CIDA then reduced to a small overall monitoring group?
When we begin to look at the expenditures in environmental ministries, cultural necessities, medical research and all the dollars now being wasted or directed to other areas, why is it that we are so short-sighted that we cannot see that the place which can provide the resource, a publicly funded institution, is not maintained? Why do we not rationalize it in such a way that pure research and directed research can be carried out and we can move through this period with that national resource in place for the future? In terms of research and development, the cutting edge, there are reports upon reports, including reports from Ministers of this Government, which indicate that the investment must be in research and development and innovation. On the one hand the Government puts money into innovation centres and on the other it starves the institution in which it set up the innovation centre. Many Canadians are asking: Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? In the same way, Revenue Canada on the one hand attacks small businesses and on the other the Minister of Finance says that we must have policies to encourage small businesses.
With a Government in disarray, the question before Canadians in this House is: How can we vote for a Bill which quite clearly indicates that there is no national policy for renewal, there is no rationalization of existing resources?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have mixed feelings in rising to speak in this debate. While the subject may be abstract for some, it is not so for the people in my community. For the second time in seven years we are faced with seeing a provincial government not only cutting back on post-secondary education in my district, but wiping out a university totally for the second time. We were advised only a couple of weeks ago that as of May 1 the David Thompson University Centre in the City of Nelson will no longer exist. It being May Day, I do not know if the date has any significance, given the author of the action to which I am referring. This action is enough to make those of us who live in our community bitter. People in our community not only care about providing post-secondary education for people in our riding but also for providing one option for post-second ary education outside of the lower mainland of our province, the lower section of Vancouver Island and the major metropolitan areas so that people would have some choice as to the type of education available and the option of pursuing that education at a location somewhat closer than 500 miles from home.
In 1977 a provincial government of the same stripe as the one under which we suffer today took exactly the same kind of action against a university which existed on the same site. The present institution is not large. There are approximately 500 students and 100 faculty and staff. When one considers the impact this will have not only on the faculty, on other staff and
on students of the university centre but also the economic impact it will have in a city of slightly under 10,000 people, it is an action tantamount to the murder of a community. It is the second time it has happened in just seven years.
You will probably appreciate from these remarks that I have received significant communications from a number of my constituents and interested parties in my area and throughout British Columbia since these announcements were made. In order to give the Government an understanding of the consequences of the B.C. Government's total reneging on its commitments, let me quote from an editorial that appeared in the Trial Times on January 6, under the heading "No One Surprised". It reads:
The word surprise does not comply with its definition when applied to the Wednesday afternoon announcement from Victoria by Education Minister Jack Heinrich that the provincial government will close Nelson's David Thompson University Centre in May.
The brief press release, handed out by a government flack, said in these tough times the money is not warranted invested in education in the Interior, and tough as it may prove to be, DTUC must close.
There are a number of reasons why this devastating announcement for Nelson is not surprising. The content and nature of the statement reflect clearly-established Social Credit practices. They include blaming any cost-cutting on a need for spending restraint, giving education short shrift in a government philosophy for its citizens' basic needs and well-refined insensitivity to the people it represents and whose lives it affects.
DTUC campus director Richard Pearce, like almost all his colleagues and students, stumbled on to the bad news about the May 1 closure by listening to Nelson radio station CKKC. Selkirk College principal Leo Perra-
They are jointly responsible for the administration of the university centre.
-tried to phone the news to Pearce-
The head of DTUC.
-from Victoria, but could not reach him.
Pearce and others are caught off-guard because just over three months ago Heinrich and Universities Minister Pat McGeer were reassuring DTUC officials that provincial money would continue to support the school. Suddenly, a late afternoon radio story took the truth out of their promises.
What we have here in terms of the impact of cut-backs in post-secondary education in a community is not only vicious but an action that was launched in a surprise attack, one which, while on a different scale, is akin to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. This took place after two Ministers of that Government gave commitments just months before and following direct commitments made by the Premier of that province in that same town seven years previously when the government set up a new university after scrapping the previous one. At that time, the entire academic and surrounding communities were put through the gut-wrenching turmoil of having to see all those jobs disappear and then going through the reconstruction of an institution and the community from scratch. Between 1972 and 1975 there were 800 students. That number declined to nothing and was slowly built back up to 500 students in a brand new institution. It is a bit much to ask any community to bear that burden again.
I want to do more than just talk about what the Government of British Columbia has done.
February 1, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member's last comments that he proposes to talk about something other than the matter about which he has been talking in the first few minutes of his speech. In terms of the rules of relevance, I was going to invite the Hon. Member to indicate in what way his comments are related to the Bill now under discussion. I presume there is a relationship, but so far the Hon. Member has debated a matter which is under the jurisdiction of another level of government and does not address itself specifically to the Bill under discussion. I will be patient a minute longer with the Hon. Member.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, if I had not thought that the connection was so obvious, perhaps I would have explained it more explicitly. Of course, as one who is in the midst of the situation it may appear more obvious to me than it does to others.
As a result of the federal Government's moving to block funding in 1977, it did to post-secondary education in many ways that it allowed to happen with regard to the cutbacks in the medicare, health insurance and hospital insurance fields across the country. The Government was warned and should have known that while it has been increasing the sums of money over the years, if it simply handed that money to provincial governments, which have often acted in this way when given the opportunity, we would see exactly the devastating results that we are seeing.
In the case of British Columbia, Ottawa now contributes approximately 80 per cent of the $300 million annual cost of post-secondary education in that province. In 1983-84, the Ottawa contribution to British Columbia increased by some 7 per cent while B.C. spending went down by approximately 6 per cent. In the 1977-78 fiscal year, at the time block funding came into being, the federal transfer to B.C. in a specially earmarked fund for post-secondary education was $202 million, while in the 1983-84 fiscal year it became $451 million. The percentage of assistance from Ottawa to Victoria for the purposes of post-secondary education rose by 123 per cent, at a time when inflation in that period went up only by 72.6 per cent.
Nobody is suggesting that there have not been additional funds. Surely the federal Government knows now, watching the record of almost every provincial Government in Canada, that if we are to keep post-secondary education alive and well or to restore it to some sense of health, then rather than diverting parts of that federal funding off to other programs, whether short-term employment programs or whatever, that money should be set aside in some kind of special emergency fund because of this emergency situation. It should then be allocated in some way in order to keep institutions and programs alive, to allow students to continue learning, especially when those same students are attempting in ever greater numbers to get into post-secondary educational institutions because direct employment opportunities are not now open to them.
Established Programs Financing
A few days ago I wrote to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) asking him to consider just such possibilities. Referring to the closure of the university in my own area, I asked him:
-to explore the possibility of the federal Government bringing economic sanctions to bear upon the provincial Government of British Columbia on the strength of federal transfer payments allotted to B.C. for education and ... further indicate to me any and all pressures that the Government of Canada may have within its power to bring about a reversal of this decision.
We are one small community, Mr. Speaker. It is perhaps a more aggravated situation than is taking place in other universities and other campuses across Canada. If we look at the impact on those students and on that faculty, it is just a microcosm of the devastating effect of the provincial Government's actions, aided and abetted by the unconditional approach which the federal Government is taking toward our young people and our future as a nation. While B.C. may be the worst case, it is not the only one. Education means more than just opportunities for a few individuals, important as that may be; it is vitally important for the fabric of our communities and the fabric of our cultural lives.
I would like in the moments remaining to me to read briefly from some correspondence I have received. This correspondence perhaps gives more weight than I can to the type of feelings that abound. First, I have a letter from a group of high school teachers in a community not far from the City of Nelson. It reads:
The decision to close down DTUC is one which must cause educators within the public school system some concern.
The community at large loses opportunities for high school graduates to continue their education close to home. A large urban university often presents a difficult adjustment for students from smaller schools; for others, the expenses become prohibitive-
Teachers in rural areas who have graduated from the special programs in the Education faculty owe their success to the presence of the university. The rural education benefits from skills that such teachers bring to their tasks.
There are specific programs, not only in the Kootenay School of Art but in specific types of rural based education programs that simply are not available elsewhere.
Another letter which touched me was from the President and Directors of the Nelson and District Arts Council. This letter is directed to the Premier of British Columbia and it reads:
We, the Directors of the Nelson and District Arts Council, ask you to change your Government's decision to close the David Thompson University Centre.
We do not ask you to restore DTUC only because we need it. Our civic and government leaders have pointed out with force and the validity of figures the economic and social blow to our community. But we ask you to restore it because the Province needs the contribution DTUC makes to our cultural life.
Thirty-two years of having a University and an Art School have made Nelson "different" from other communities; the large number of scholars and literary and fine artists and enthusiasts who live here have made Nelson a fountain head from which have come scholars, teachers, and artists, graduates and associates of DTUC and its predecessor, Notre Dame University, who are now living in communities throughout the province, and vivifying them with the spirit absorbed here-a spirit that asserts that culture is measured not in numbers but in individuals who can change the quality of life.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize what I think is the most telling remark in this piece of correspondence. It is:

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
Even Iron Curtain countries beef up their cultural life in hard times, knowing that the economic life will survive if the people have spirit. True cost efficiency includes provision for spiritual well-being.
Surely in a society that believes in liberal values, that cherishes the human spirit as western societies presumably have traditionally done we should understand that education is more than training somebody to earn bucks in the future, that having an educated population we are imbued with some spirit of toleration and broad knowledge makes it incumbent upon all of us to attempt to keep the basis of this system, namely post-secondary education, alive. In this way we can appreciate each other for our differences as well as for those things that make us similar. We are destroying more here than simply the lives of students, the lives of faculty members and the lives of communities; we are destroying the heart and soul of our society. If this federal Government thinks it can use as an excuse the fact that we have some reactionary, conservative, regressive governments spread out across most of the provincial administrations in Canada to enable other departments to raid this budget to fill their own coffers for their own political purposes, then the Government is dangerously wrong. This action will come back to bite society in ways that none of us want to see. I hope that the Government will reconsider the action it is taking and will use the opportunity provided to put these curtailed funds back into some special emergency fund so we can ensure that post-secondary education across Canada is restored and remains alive and well.


Mr. Ogle:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just indicated to us the closing of a university. I think it would be interesting for us to hear what he feels are going to be the main effects on society where he lives when a university is closed. I think it is a very serious step. The Hon. Member indicates the closing is due to lack of funding. From a broader perspective, what are the final effects of closing a university in a community?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in the case of a community such as my own, it will immediately affect the employment of some faculty and staff. It will immediately interrupt the careers and futures of some 500 students. It will immediately prevent many other young people, and not so young people, because we have a very high proportion of mature students, from obtaining education. This university is close to where many people live who otherwise do not have access to higher education. The closing of this university will destroy people's future chances to participate to the full in society. What else it might do, particularly in an area where we have seen some of our traditional resource based industries decline again because of direct policies emanating from our provincial capital, is that it will destroy interrelationship within the community which encloses it.
Even though it is my home town, 1 do not think I am overstating the fact that it is rather unique. In a community of some 10,000 people, about one-quarter of the population is mercantile, about one-quarter of the population comes from the academic community, about one-quarter is in the public service and one-quarter of the population is composed of blue collar workers. To have that kind of microcosm of society in a
town of some 10,000 souls is unique. Because that community is somewhat isolated from the mainstream, being in the high mountains of the West Kootenays, we have built a very special kind of relationship with each other with a strong sense of family ties and a strong sense of community even as a political constituency. I would hate to see that kind of possibility for human growth and interpersonal relationships destroyed by short-term negativism and reaction of the kind we have seen by a provincial government enabled by the unwise actions of the federal Government.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a number of items in the Bill, but 1 will start by reviewing what took place in the past in connection with medicare. In the beginning many provinces had medicare systems. Certainly Alberta had an excellent one operated by the doctors themselves. It was called MSI.
Then the federal Government came to the provinces and said that it would like to introduce a national scheme of medicare and that it would undertake to pay 50 per cent of the costs of each province which came into the agreement. This was a tempting offer for the provinces. As a matter of fact, some concern was expressed around the Cabinet table in Alberta because we had an excellent medicare system which was operating as a private enterprise system and the people liked it. The deciding factor was that we would lose the grants for health unless we did away with MSI and took medicare. The decision of the provincial government at that time was to enter into medicare on the understanding that 50 per cent of its costs would be paid by the federal authority.
That went on for a few years and the people were reasonably happy with medicare until about 1977 when the federal Government decided that it would introduce what it called block funding. Block funding might be called something different; we could call it lump sums. However, when the provinces were discussing the matter of block funding, it was never suggested to them that the total sum would be reduced. I do not know about the House of Commons but I imagine the same thing was presented here-that instead of having individual grants for medicare, education, et cetera, it would all be put into one lump sum and given to the provinces. Since they could use some discretion in the method of spending it, it had some attraction for provincial governments. They would not have the federal Government looking over their shoulders. They could use the funding in ways that would bring the best results. As far as I know all provinces agreed to it and, again as far as I know, the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons agreed to it and the NDP Opposition opposed it.
The cry now is that when the matter was being discussed there was no suggestion that there would be some reduction in the amount of money. The various items were to be totalled and they would receive a block sum or a lump sum. This has advantages even in the area of hospitalization. If we compare 12-bed or 24-bed hospitals with larger hospitals in Montreal, Edmonton or Calgary which have tremendous services, obvi-
February 1, 1984

ously increased services will cost more. Obviously the per capita cost of large hospitals will be greater than that of small localized hospitals which provide a good and efficient service but a limited one to the people. The provinces went along with the block funding on the understanding that there would not be any reduction in the total amount.
Then we come to the next stage where we have Bill C-12. It goes a step further-the funding will be unilaterally decided by the federal Government.
Let us look at the progression. First there was an agreement. After all, hospitals and medicare are provincial responsibilities under the BNA Act. The federal Government went to the provinces and obtained an agreement so that it could properly get into the field, and there was nothing wrong with that. When that was going well, the Government introduced block funding in which it gradually reduced the amount of money which the provinces were receiving under the individual items. That became a rather vexatious matter for many provinces, perhaps all of them. Then we come to the next step where the federal Government takes over and unilaterally decides how much money would go to the medicare system.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is a case where the federal Government is using legislation to initiate a program in which it really has no authority. Surely the agreement prior to 1977 did not give universal, all-time agreement for the federal Government to be in health care. The agreement was changed. It moved from that to block funding where it made some reductions. Perhaps they were palatable but they were reductions. Now, seven years later, we get a Bill under which the federal Government actually takes over the system.
Does the Government have the legal right to do this? 1 would like to hear a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to that. I do not think it has the legal right to do what is in the Bill. If it decides on a moral basis that it wants to make so much of a contribution, there is nothing wrong with that, but this is taking over the responsibility. Either the provinces accept it and like it, or they take it and not like it. But they have to follow it or be penalized. Consequently the provinces become responsible to the federal Government, not to the people who elected them. This is democratically wrong.
When Canada was formed the federal Government was a creation of the provinces. It should be responsible to the provinces. Now the case is that the provinces have become responsible to the federal Government when they should be responsible to the people who elected them, which is democracy.
I have a vague recollection of a story I read as a youngster in school about an Arab and a camel. I think it is applicable in this particular case. The Arab was in his tent and a severe cold spell or storm came up. He was in his nice, warm tent, and the camel came along and said: "It is cold out here, it is windy out here. Would you let me put my head in your tent?" The Arab said: "Okay, there is room for your head". A few minutes later the camel said: "Boss, my shoulders are becoming very cold, the wind is bothering them. Do you mind if I put my shoulders in your tent?" The Arab answered: "There is nothing wrong
Established Programs Financing with that; bring in your shoulders". Then the rear part of the camel's anatomy was getting cold. He said: "Do you mind, Mr. Boss, if I bring in my back legs?" He thought for a moment and then said: "Well, I guess it would be okay". A few minutes later he said: "Well, I have everything in except my tail, I may as well bring the rest of my body into the tent". He brought his whole body into the tent and pushed out the Arab. There was not room for both.
That is similar to what is happening in this instance. First the federal Government put in its head, then its shoulders, then the rear end and now it is the whole thing. The provinces will either be kicked out or penalized.
I do not like extra billing. I wish it was not required. If the federal Government still paid 50 per cent of the health costs, as it agreed to at the beginning of medicare, there would be no need for extra billing. Doctors could be paid a proper fee.
I do not like the idea of some of our specialists leaving this country. It will hurt all of Canada. We need the best physicians, surgeons and psychologists. We can keep them by providing an incentive for them to have a good standard of living. If we drive them away we all suffer. We need the top practitioners and surgeons all the way down the line. We want them to be happy.
I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) why the federal Government is now double-billing the people of Alberta. The Minister has publicly stated that the provinces must follow the rules set out by the federal Government. In spite of the BNA Act, if the provinces do not follow the rules they will be penalized. The federal Government will keep the money the people of Alberta pay. That is where the federal Government got the money; it came from Alberta. The federal Government says it will keep that money and the Alberta Government will have to double-bill for the difference. That is just as bad as, if not worse than, a doctor double billing. I do not like double billing in that case either, but that is what the federal Government is doing to the people of Alberta and those in other provinces where there is difficulty meeting health costs. The provinces are being helped by doctors billing the rich, those who can pay. Whether this is done by double billing, taxes or insurance, those who have the money will be the ones who pay.
Using Alberta as an example, those on welfare do not pay. The doctors do not double-bill them. Those with an income below a certain amount are not double-billed by the doctors. Pensioners are not double-billed. That is one advantage of an insurance scheme. With taxation, everyone who is eligible would have to pay the taxes. Those on lower income probably would not pay. That is only proper.
What irks me is that under this Bill the federal Government is unilaterally taking over health care in this country. It is driving the provinces out. It may well drive out the best physicians and surgeons or make them so unhappy that they will not do their best work.

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
The federal Government is doing the very thing it says is wrong. It is double billing the provinces, making the people pay twice. I question the legality of the federal Government taking over health services without changing the BNA Act. I question the Canadian Government's right to take money that comes from the provinces and put it in a special fund. That is neither sound nor right. That is not penalizing the Government of Alberta or any other province. It penalizes the people, the poor as well as the rich. I wish the Government would take a second look at this. It should at least take this question to the Supreme Court to see whether it has the right to do it. I question its right first to put its head in and then to take over. That is not sound.
I now want to deal with education as it relates to this Bill. I do not think the story is quite as explicit for education as for health with regard to how the federal Government got into it. It has not taken it over completely but is playing a very important part. It is either maintaining educational services or reducing them. That is what is happening.
According to the tables that have been provided, in 1983-84 the Province of Alberta will receive $11 million less as a result of Bill C-12. That is not hay; it is a big part of a province's wherewithal. In 1984-85 there will be a further reduction of $24 million. There will not be one province which does not get a reduction. Even though the Maritimes are having a difficult time, they will receive a cut as well. The only two areas not affected are the Northwest Territories and the Yukon; they are not provinces. In 1983, 1984 and 1985 there will be a $378 million reduction as a result of Bill C-12. That will have a tremendous impact on the budget of every province, especially those that are having a difficult time. The other day a Member remarked what a difficult time Manitoba was having trying to keep their costs in line and provide the necessary services. Their deficit is becoming worrisome. Every province will be in that position.
If this trend continues with the federal Government taking more and more authority, we could end up with no provinces. We will reach the point where we will have no provinces because they will no longer be able to operate. This has happened with some municipalities: costs increased until the municipalities could no longer carry on. There is provision in the provincial Acts for the dissolution of such municipalities. They completely disappear. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some provinces will disappear if this trend continues. That would be a catastrophe. It would be shocking.
In conclusion, we talk about where the federal Government is going to get its money. I have checked some documents which show that we have been lending money to many countries. I do not mind if we lend money to these countries if it will assist them to develop and help themselves.
Having lent this money, in 1977, without going to the people, the Canadian Government announced that, as part of the direct Canadian contribution to the special action program aimed at the needs of the least developed countries, Canada
would convert all of these loans to grants. I checked the figures and $231 million in loans were forgiven. Some of this money did a good job, but a lot of it was completely wasted. It was provided by the people of Canada. Now we are saying to the people of Canada that we cannot afford to keep education up and we cannot afford to pay 50 per cent of your health. We are too busy forgiving loans to other countries of the world. What a catastrophe!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct one question to my colleague. We always enjoy the Hon. Member's speeches and even his story about the camel, although I did not exactly understand how that fitted in. From the Hon. Member's remarks it would appear that he is against medicare as an institution. At least, that is the way I understood the Hon. Member to speak. How does that fit into the Party position that seems to have been adopted to accept the health Bill? Is there a division in the caucus?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I will allow the Hon. Member to answer. I appreciate the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) alluded to medicare in his initial remarks and I think there is a broad, general connection. We are on second reading and talking about health services. I caution Members, nevertheless, not to debate a matter which has already been debated. The Bill on medicare has been referred to committee. It cannot be in two places at the same time in this institution. Nevertheless, the question has been put. We should keep that general rule in mind.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I cannot understand how the Hon. Member could get the impression I was against medicare. I fought for medicare just as hard as anybody in this House and I will continue to do so. I do not believe that any man, woman, boy or girl who does not have the money should be denied hospital and medical care. I would fight the right to the very hospital door if it was necessary to do so. It will not just be talk.
This Party is not divided on medicare either. Simply because we discuss something and want to keep it good and make it better does not mean we are opposed to it. There is no division in this Party. We are for medicare. We just want a fair deal for all the people of Canada. We do not believe that some people should not be double billed while others are doubled billed through taxes.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who has about 40 years of experience in government and has dealt extensively with medicare and its implementation. In the many years when he was in the provincial Government of Alberta, did that Government pose an employees' and workers' tax on hospitals? We have this in Manitoba and it has been a tremendous burden on the hospitals. It is causing them great difficulty to live up to proper medicare standards. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on that? Did the Government of Alberta impose an employees' tax, which became a tremendous burden on hospitals, causing them to lay off people and
February 1, 1984

reduce standards in all the wards in the hospitals because of this NDP anti-labour tax?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I can say, without qualification, that we at no time did anything which would lower the standards in hospitals or reduce the service to people in hospitals. There was no such tax ever introduced in the Province of Alberta and I do not think there ever will be. Even at the present time when the Minister gave hospitals the right to impose user taxes on the richer people of the communities if they wished to do so, the hospitals have decided not to do this. They will provide excellent service within the realms of their budgets. Throughout the years the policy of the government which I was a part of was to keep the standards of hospital services high and keep the medical men happy in providing service to the people in order to have the best medical service possible for the poorest to the richest people of Alberta. They are all human beings.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the last exchange. As we are on the subject of post-secondary education and aid to it, it is interesting to note that Manitoba is the only province in the country which is passing on the full amount of the extra federal funding. In fact, it has added to it, which is totally different from the case history of every other province in Canada.
I, too, enjoy the Hon. Member for Bow River's comments, particularly his story about the Arab and the camel. If the Arab in his story had neglected the tent until it was rotten and tattered and finally thrown on the scrap heap, surely he would not deny the camel that he referred to, or another Arab for that matter, the chance to rebuild it from scratch in order that it again might be used for the purpose for which it was intended, especially if the camel had paid 80 per cent of the cost of the tent or his relatives had provided the hides from which it was built.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I cannot follow the analogy. All of this happened in one night. A tent is not going to disappear in one night. I think the Hon. Member better read the story and get it straight.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to speak on Bill C-12 today. This is an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. In actual fact, if the title were clearer, it would mean that the federal Government is capping the moneys which will now be used for universities. It means that they are going to set a low limit and universities will have to live within that limit or live without it. It is a closed effort relating to the funding which universities are going to have.
Since I have come to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, there has been no Bill which more directly affects my constituency of Saskatoon East than this particular Bill. Saskatoon East is built around the University of Saskatchewan. The University of Saskatchewan is an institution which has been there since the time of the pioneers. It has many distinguished graduates all over Canada. The late Right Hon. John Diefen-
Established Programs Financing baker, who was a graduate back in 1916 or 1917, lies buried at the University. There are other Members sitting in the House this afternoon who are likewise graduates of the University.
From its beginnings the University of Saskatchewan has been a heartthrob of our part of the world. I actually lived on the University campus for a number of years and when I go and visit the University I am constantly reminded of the fact that, when the pioneers went west in the early days of this century to establish a new land, one of the first things they did was to establish a university. Some old photographs which can be seen in the museums show this little tent city of Saskatoon with a few ramshackle houses and a few actual tents that were erected in the beginnings of the city.
There, on the plains of Saskatchewan, was the beginnings of the University of Saskatchewan. The pioneers marked out an area so that the city would grow around it. The area is still there. It is a green belt within the city. They began to build the University with the grey fieldstones that had come with the glaciers, the stones that were on the top of the prairie land. The University has frequently been referred to since that time as the "Greystones" because it was built out of the very material that nature and history had produced and brought into our particular part of the country.
I would like to speak to this Bill and to the fact that funding is now going to be reduced and cut back for our University. I would like to try to compare the mentality that would do that with the mentality of the pioneers who came and faced the difficulties of setting up a province, founding an agricultural industry on the bare prairie, finding ways to build roads, schools and all those different things. They were still able to see the vision and knew that it was required if Saskatchewan was going to become a fruitful place for Canadians to live. They knew a school or university for higher learning would be needed. I pay tribute to the people who began to build this University.
When dealing with the matter of capping funding for institutions of higher learning, I think it is important to remember that institutions other than universities will be affected. Over the years the Kelsey Institute in Saskatoon has trained many young people in the technical skills that they will require for the future. Such schools are affected by the limit put on funding to universities and institutions for higher education.
Last year the Province of Saskatchewan received an increase of 7 per cent in funding for universities. In fairness, I must say that this was passed on to the University, although apparently that was not true in every part of the country. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), for instance, pointed out in his speech that in British Columbia the increase was not passed on.
There must be co-operation between the federal and provincial Governments to ensure that one of our greatest resources, the educated young person, is looked after. According to a conversation that someone in my office had with an official in the office of the registrar of the University in Saskatoon

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
yesterday, it seems that there is a possibility of student fees being increased this year by 15 to 20 per cent.
Some weeks ago, representatives of the student body of the University, Beth Olley and A1 Shypth, came to see me about the difficulty young people are having paying university tuition and finding employment during vacations in order to help them with the finances. As things stand, they also have great difficulty getting grants and bursaries to continue their education. These young people are probably the most precious resource the country has and they are finding themselves in a catch-22 situation. They want to continue their education but cannot find the necessary funds.
This year the University of Saskatchewan is asking for a minimum increase of 10 per cent in funding for its programs. Enrolment has increased substantially. In a recent visit there I saw crowds of young people and I must congratulate the faculty for being able to deal with an increase of 8.3 per cent in the student body.
The proposed cutback will put great pressure on the University. Members of the staff and students have told me that the University does not have the capacity for any more students, and besides, the equipment, machines, tools and scientific instruments are getting old and are breaking down. The libraries are also under great stress because of the increase in the number of students. The University facilities are not capable of handling the numbers.
The University of Saskatchewan has a sense of the international community. Over the years it has offered programs for students from other countries and, has sent staff members to other countries. Recently a member of the staff, Dr. John Owens, told me that he has attempted many times to set up an international development office at the University but that funds are not available. I realize that this does not strictly come within the provisions of the Bill, but I think the Department of External Affairs, CIDA, IDRC or some other organization should look into the matter. They could look at the projects that are offered to the University of Saskatchewan from other countries, make a judgment, and recommend to the President of the University what kind of development programs it could carry out.
Yesterday I talked by telephone to the President of the University, Dr. Leo Kristjanson, a Canadian educator of high repute. He is extremely interested in what is taking place in the House today, as I am sure presidents, comptrollers and staffs of universities all over the country are. Dr. Kristjanson said that federal involvement is very important so that there is at least the appearance across the country of some justice and some semblance of equality for all Canadians. I can understand that. It is important that people who happen to live in an out of the way place in Canada through the accident of birth should also have open access to a university or school of higher learning.
Dr. Kristjanson indicated that in the current situation the federal Government must provide enough funding to ensure that students will not be prevented from entry to a university because they themselves do not have the necessary funds. I
believe he is saying that the opportunity to receive a higher education should not depend on the ability of a parent or someone else to pay the fees, that entrance should not be restricted to those people who have money. That is an extremely important principle, Mr. Speaker, and because of the proposed cutbacks I feel it will become more and more important. There is the possibility that students will be denied access to a university not because they do not meet the standards, but because they cannot find the money. There should not be any rationing of students because of financial restrictions.
One of the main reasons universities are under such strain and stress at the present time is the large numbers of unemployed young people. I have met students at university who had left high school, found a job and then lost it. In one way, this has served as a positive experience, showing them that further education would lead to more opportunities in the future. There is a mixed blessing in the fact that they cannot get a job at this time. It does give them a chance to rethink their lives and go back and get some higher education.
However, the Government must face the reality of high unemployment. We do not have a six and five rule, or any rule at all, when it comes to unemployment. We have a six and five rule when it comes to the salaries of civil servants and the funding of universities, but we do not have any rule when it comes to those who are unemployed. That is a number which seems to get larger and larger.
An interesting point which I believe we must face as we debate this issue is the fact post-secondary education in some countries where we do not expect that kind of emphasis is having a great effect upon world economies. In other words, the number of students being put through the university system in some countries has increased rapidly. It does not mean that the percentage of students in university is equal to the Canadian level.
However, there is a higher rate of increase in the numbers of students now in secondary or higher education in, for example, Korea and in China. I personally experienced this several years ago when I travelled to China with the then Secretary of State for External Affairs. China had a major problem after the cultural revolution when 10 years of university life were wiped out. It is now facing the problem of finding professors to fill the gap. West Germany, Sweden, Japan and the United States of America all have a higher rate of increase in the percentage number of students entering the universities than Canada. These countries, if you look at them, are the countries where economic expansion and growth are taking place at a far more rapid rate than in our country. I fell, therefore, there is a link between the percentage of people being put into higher and more highly trained education and your actual economic growth rate. Unless we take that as a very serious criterion when we decide who will get funding and who will not, we are really cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Why should we cut off funds to universities in an attempt somehow or other to try to help the economic situation, when
February 1, 1984

the evidence would indicate those countries which are taking over in the economic realities of the world are countries which are using their universities, their secondary training centres, to put more students in so they can take the lead and get ahead in the economic race in the world today?
At the University of Saskatchewan, and I suspect at other universities in Canada, there has been a major problem to accommodate the students who go to the faculty of arts and sciences. The reason for that is that most of the other faculties are already closed. These would be, for instance, the faculties of engineering, commerce, law, medicine, veterinary medicine and dentistry. These faculties already have a full list. Students apply and a certain number are chosen and the rest cannot get into these faculties. The faculty of arts and sciences is under a most severe stress right now and the cutback which is coming will be most damaging to this faculty.
I believe it is important to remember that although the cutting back of funding affects the whole university as a unit, it affects certain parts of the university in a special way. Because of the fact that the arts and sciences department is required to take more students, it is probably more difficult for that faculty to continue than it is for the others which have had a more exact number of students at all times.
The University of Saskatchewan was basically established as a place for research in agriculture. In the Province of Saskatchewan right now-and we must look at this in terms of the future-there are two things happening to the land. There is soil salinity, which means the land is becoming saturated with salts and the basic structure of the land is breaking down because of agriculture. I believe it is extremely important when we look at this Bill that we look at all the effects which the cutting of funds will cause.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made the statement that one of the reasons the universities are so full is that many of these students have nowhere else to go. I wonder if he would comment on the relative value of training or retraining and further education as against welfare or unemployment insurance in the social structure of the communities of our country.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I believe if young people are going to school and they can see they are making progress, such as at Kelsey Institute where people learn to be nurses, plumbers, or mechanics, or they are moving forward to the University of Saskatchewan, they are doing something which is positive, human activity. They have a greater respect for themselves and for everything around them and are treated accordingly. On the other hand, when a person is out of work and trying to find a job and cannot, the whole effect, as far as I know from people I have talked to, is a very negative one in a personal way.
If we are making a choice, what I would like to see first of all is full employment and a regulation or a kind of six and five rule, some kind of rule relating to unemployment, so that that would become the priority. But barring that, I believe if funds which are now being used for welfare and other similar things
Established Programs Financing were directed to the upgrading and training of people in universities and technical institutes, not only would the country benefit from that action, but the people involved would benefit also because they would be treated more like human beings, which is what life is all about.


Mr. Whelan:: I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question, Mr. Speaker. As a parent with three members of my family at university all at the same time, but all at different universities, I do know a little about what is going on, though perhaps not very much. However, I remember also, Mr. Speaker, when we first decided to fund the higher schools of learning, I believe S26 million was given to them at that time. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson said that every young Canadian should have equal opportunity to education whether they live in a have or have-not province. I believe last year about $5 billion went to the schools.
I am concerned, as Minister of Agriculture, about how they are being educated, if they are being educated for the things we need them for. I met with the Vice-President of the University of Western Ontario and the people at the University of Windsor in my own constituency. I remember when we had to raise a certain amount of funds or the province would not give Assumption College and Canterbury College the right to become universities in the City of Windsor. We did not have a university at that time and the degrees were issued out of the University of Western Ontario in London.
The Hon. Member talks about the salinity of the soil, and so on. For instance, in Saskatchewan I believe our contribution of federal funds to the universities in Saskatchewan is about 60 per cent of the cost of administration of those schools, which is something which was never intended. It was never supposed to be over 50 per cent. And in some provinces in the east it was even higher than that amount of money. When I talk to scientists, and I talked to the head of the University of Saskatchewan, about educating the kind of people we need, I have no say whatsoever. They are the ones who decide what the courses are going to be and what the faculties are going to do.
The Hon. Member talked about salinity of the soil. Does he not realize that is a provincial resource, one which has been badly neglected by the province? We know how to overcome salinity of the soil through practices we have experimented with at Swift Current, Lethbridge and other stations in western Canada. Does the Hon. Member not think we are making a sizeable contribution to higher education?


Robert Joseph Ogle: I wonder if the Minister wants just a yes or no to that question. I do appreciate his remarks. I sometimes have difficulty following the figures the Minister uses when he answers questions. He referred to 60 per cent, and I really cannot direct a yes or no answer to that because I am not aware of that as being the correct figure. I will take the Minister's word for it at the moment but I have my doubts.

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
I thought the Minister indicated that he was in favour of taking over more control of university curricula. I do not think that is what he meant at all, because the university has traditionally been a place in which the staff and students would have the intellectual freedom to decide these things.
As to soil salinity, we appreciate the fact that the Department of Agriculture has found certain remedies for the problems developing in Saskatchewan now. What I was trying to say in my remarks about the necessity of having universities involved in this kind of a problem, particularly in a prairie province such as where I live, is that the information be given out at that level to the community, the student body and those who are going to be living there. I appreciate that in the early days of farming in Saskatchewan people did not understand- and maybe they do not understand that well yet-the effects farming would have on the soil, the basic natural resource we live by. Farming of the last 60, 70 or 80 years, depending on the part of the province, has had results that I do not think anyone foresaw-that there would be a breakdown in our soil structure. I was just indicating that it would be very important that this kind of research, study and teaching be continued because it will have a very long and powerful effect on our future.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member tell me how he believes the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) could conceivably think that the federal Government transfers about $5 billion to education when the amount this fiscal year is $1,952 billion and drops to $1,917 billion next year? Is that because Members on this side do not get the message across to the Government, or is it because he does not believe the Minister of Agriculture understands the estimates and the transfers in the first place?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Out of those two choices I think I would have to select the second. Again I go back to the point that many times I felt my friend, the Minister of Agriculture, was able to reel off figures and percentages without too many facts. I appreciate that and I accept that.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member aware that if the scientific and technical knowledge we have was used in western Canada now, in two years they could increase grain production by 30 per cent?


Mr. Mayer:: Not under this Government.


Mr. Althouse:: Not without a little rain.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I was just going to say that. The Minister indicates by that remark that we get rain in Saskatchewan every year. I still believe the major thing we count on in agriculture is that we get enough moisture. I am sure if he has been in the Prairies during a period of time when there is no rain-and I grew up there during a period of time in which there was no rain-there would be no crops. Neither his Department nor any other Department will produce crops or double production unless we have natural conditions, which he does not as yet have any control over, as far as I know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for questions and comments has lapsed. Debate.


Eugene Whelan: I would enter debate, then. I will be very short in my debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister rising to make a speech or not?


Eugene Whelan: A short one, yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture for a speech in debate.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to take too much time of the House, but when the Hon. Member talks about dry weather, he should study the statistics again. We should all be aware of what scientists have been able to do. Even in a year with less rainfall than the worst drought year, our farmers were able to grow their crops because of the practices they used. I do not pretend to have any more wisdom or powers than the Hon. Member has, but I have powers in an amount equal to his. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was about to call the Hon. Minister to order. We are now debating transfer payments to the provinces not the topic of agriculture. We are now open for questions and comments, I suppose. The length of a speech makes no difference; this is now a period for questions and comments.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister heard my comments earlier with respect to transfers. The Minister indicated that transfers for education were in the $5 billion range. The fact is that this fiscal year the transfer will be $1,952 billion, decreasing next year to $1,917 billion. Can the Minister explain this loss of some $35 million? Has it evaporated? Is it fresh air and sunshine that will help students and help finance education? Could the Minister of Agriculture tell us what kind of fertilizer he has been spreading, what he has to offer the students in the provinces, and how we are going to finance education, research and development in this country?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can use that figure if he wants; I may have been using the wrong year. But if he is going to tell me that is the least we ever paid, he is wrong.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is what you are paying.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will be well aware of the difficulty many young people are having in their effort to get into the faculties of agriculture at various universities as a result of increasing tuition fees. I draw his attention to the fact that the University of British Columbia tuition fee is increasing this year by 33 per cent, and fees at universities in Saskatchewan are going up by 25 per cent.
February 1, 1984

At a time when research and development is required in our country like it has never been required before if we are to remain competitive, and given the fact that new farming technology is coming onstream in countries around the world, and if Canada is to play a meaningful part, how are young people going to obtain access to faculties of agriculture in our universities with skyrocketing tuition fees? They are already at levels that would prohibit youngsters from low income families. These are families unlike his own. It is not that he is a wealthy man, but not many Canadians are fortunate enough to have a father with the income of a Cabinet Minister. I am talking about average families in western Canada. How can people afford to send their youngsters to university?


Eugene Whelan: The Hon. Member intimates that I come from a rich family or that I may have a tremendous income as a Cabinet Minister. I can tell him that our daughters are not able to get student loans because of the fact that I am in the Cabinet and a Member of Parliament. So the three of them work part-time and one of them works as a waitress in the university bar to earn money so she can go to school. We think that is the way they should go to school. They should earn as much money as they can, if they can find a job.
What I am saying is that in most universities the faculties do not provide the kind of people we need. Right now I have about 60 people we have taken from universities. We are paying them to upgrade their education to at least a master degree or Ph.D. so we can do the research that we want.
I have seen many universities that are not even providing the kind of courses we need for those kinds of people. For instance, the private sector should be doing more research, the kind of research we want in agriculture. They are not doing it but we think there will be a swing. We have been meeting with some of the companies and asking them to put 1 per cent of their GNP into that kind of research. We think we are having some success.
There will have to be a change in the universities in educating those people. This Friday I will go to the University of Guelph for the installation of the new President of the University of Guelph. We will have more discussions there. That is a school that has a background of agricultural education but it is the only one in all of Ontario, which is the largest producer of agricultural products in Canada. It is the largest producer provincially speaking. It is the one university in all of Ontario that has an agriculture faculty. There is one at the University of British Columbia. British Columbia does not produce as many agricultural products in dollar volume as three counties in Ontario, Essex, Kent and Lambton, when you add them all together. There is a need even in the Province of Ontario to be doing more because it is the greatest province. Education is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, under the Constitution.
I remember the provinces warning Mr. Pearson when he was saying that Newfoundland did not even have a university at that time. They said: "You are interfering, Mr. Prime Minister, in provincial jurisdiction". That was said during the
Established Programs Financing
discussions that took place at that time. He replied: "I do not care. Every young Canadian should have equal opportunity to education, no matter where they come from in Canada".
So in our society we have probably developed one of the best systems. We did it very fast in order to make university education available for many young Canadians and with a program that is probably one of the most reasonable in terms of cost of any university system in the world. Even today with the increase in tuition fees, it is still one of the most reasonable ones in the world.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, from the short remarks we heard from the Minister today I think it was established that there is a new concept in economics. It is no longer a question of inflated dollars that we must worry about, since the Minister has discovered something called an inflatable dollar which is worth something like $5 billion from $1.9 billion.
He raised a couple of other interesting aspects of university funding in his remarks. One was the question of being able to finance agricultural research. I note that the veterinary colleges do receive some funding across borders from the federal Government and sometimes from neighbouring provincial governments. Those sources of income are becoming traditional in the country. I believe that under the provisions of the Bill before us, funds have been used to finance the agricultural colleges on an ongoing basis.
I would ask the Minister to comment further on the aspect of the post-graduate M.A. and Ph.D programs. He tells us that the colleges do not have very many candidates in those kinds of programs. Would he not admit that part of the reason there are not many candidates in those post-graduate courses in agricultural colleges concerns the ability of agricultural students to get loans? He pointed out to the House that his daughters were not eligible to get student loans, not only because their father is a Cabinet Minister, which is a very good reason since Cabinet Ministers do have some net income. However, the fact is that most farm children are unable to get student loans because of the way the asset base is computed on the student loan form.
A very small farmer may have several children, virtually none of whom will be eligible for a student loan until they quit school and get a job for a year or two in order to prove they are independent of their family. At that point, in spite of what they have been earning at their other jobs, they are distinctly separate from the farm and their parents and thus eligible for student loans. But when they come directly through high school and the initial college level and if their parents own assets at all, they are not eligible because they are the children of such parents even if the parents have no net income.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will be as short as possible on this question but I can remember very well when there was no such thing as a student loan. Most of the complaints I get from young farmers is that the course they want to take was overloaded. It was not because they did not have funds to go there; there was no room for them.

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
I have hardly received more than six letters from young farmers who are saying they were unable to obtain a student loan. That says something in itself because it is based on how much one is earning. If a farmer is not earning any money, the daughter or son can obtain a student loan if they are not in that earning bracket. I do know of some young farmers who have been able to obtain student loans. I know a lot of others who work in the summer time to earn their way and do not want to have that kind of encumbrance as far as a student loan is concerned.
For instance, if there had been student loans when I grew up maybe you would not be so critical of the language I use in the House of Commons and I might have got a better education!


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) wants to mislead the people of Canada. I have had personal experience-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order must relate to procedure, not debate. If the Hon. Member is commenting on the Minister's remarks-


Fred Alward McCain: Accuracy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Points of order must relate to procedure in the House. If the procedure we are now following is correct, I do not believe the Hon. Member has a point of order. He is relating his remarks to debate but I will hear him out for a few more seconds.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have had personal interviews with farm children whose fathers had assets exceeding the guideline for student loans. They could not get them even though they showed a serious loss in the year of the application.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that that is very much debate.


Fred Alward McCain: But it is true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Points of order should not be abused in that fashion. Debate.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting afternoon. As well, this is a very important piece of legislation. Bill C-12 is an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act of 1977. I do not object to reviewing periodically financial arrangements between two levels of government and that is what this Bill essentially does.
I think this Bill is important for another reason. It can provide us with an indication of the Government's intentions and priorities with respect to the country. Thus, it shows us in what direction the Government sees our great country, with its great potential, taking in the next number of years.
What it does, as I understand the Bill, and I want to quote from Clause 7 which is the formula by which transfer payments are going to be made, is essentially imposing the six and five guidelines on funding, 6 per cent on the 1983-84 fiscal year and 5 per cent on the 1984-85 fiscal year. There is nothing wrong with reviewing financial arrangements periodically. As time goes on, we have inflation and many other factors and things change, so I think rightfully you should have a chance to review such arrangements.
Everyone talks about cutbacks. Somehow those words do not sit right with me. Cutback simply implies something bad, something negative. If you cut something or move backwards, you are moving in the wrong direction. Again, we need to look more at the intent of this Bill rather than at the amount of dollars involved. The amount, however, is rather substantial. It is roughly $360 million over the next two Fiscal years.
Not only does this Bill cut back the number of dollars to be transferred from the senior level of Government to the provinces, but it also lowers the base upon which future payments are going to be made. The number of dollars involved is substantially more than $360 million. It is a Figure I do not think anybody really knows but it is extremely large.
I have difficulty with Clause 7 of the Bill. I want to read briefly from it in order to point out how complicated this formula is. It reminds me of what we had in Bill C-155 which was before us in the last session. We had a freight rate formula in that Bill which was something like this. Clause 7 in part reads:
(2)	For the purposes of paragraphs 19( 1 )(*), 21(l)(c) and 27(3)(6), the escalator for a fiscal year is the cube root of a fraction of which
(a)	the numerator is the per capita gross national product for the calendar year ending immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal year; and
(b)	the denominator is the per capita gross national product for the fourth calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal year.
(3)	For the purposes of paragraph 19(2)(6),
(a) the escalator for a fiscal year that ends before April 1, 1983 or begins after March 31, 1985 is the cube root of a fraction of which
(i)	the numerator is the per capita gross national product for the calendar year
ending immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal year, and
(ii)	the denominator is the per capita gross national product for the fourth
calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal
year;
(h) the escalator for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1983 is the lesser of
(i)	1.06, and
(ii)	the cube root of a fraction of-
And so it goes on. There is another whole page. One can see how very complicated this Financial formula is. I guess you could make the argument, Mr. Speaker, rather facetiously that if this is the kind of law by which we are going to have to live, we need to have more people in institutions of higher learning so they can better understand this gobbledygook which shows up in the Bill as a formula by which transfer payments are to be made. That simply makes the point, at least in my mind, that we have become very complex and complicated in Canada, and in many cases needlessly so.
February 1, 1984

If somebody had sat down and put their mind to it, he or she could have developed a much more easily understood formula by which transfer payments could be made. This would have eliminated a lot of paper work and I suspect it would have cut down on some people's time on the job. It might have even removed the necessity for a few jobs.
Provinces as a result of this Bill will have less to spend on post-secondary education. That is the area on which I want to touch and I want to relate specifically to agriculture. 1 am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is here. He said that we have enough knowledge now to increase production on the Prairies by 30 per cent. I think if the Minister were to go there and spread around the kind of thing he does from time to time, the extra grain and the extra nitrogen that would result might increase yields even more than 30 per cent. That does not take a lot of technology. It just takes a lot of the kind of thing the Minister puts out from time to time.


Eugene Whelan: I am glad to say the same mind is productive. I wouldn't say the same thing about yours.


Charles James Mayer: The Minister has not heard me out yet. The Minister does not know whether what I am going to say will be productive or not. I would submit though that the Minister was making a good argument in the answers to some of my colleagues' questions. 1 think he was making a good case to vote against the Bill if he only knew what he was saying.


Mr. Huntington:: If he knew what the Bill said, too.


Charles James Mayer: That is right. That is the other problem. What we will see-we have already seen it-is an increase in enrolment at post-secondary institutions. My colleague from Saskatoon spoke about Greystones in Saskatoon. It is an institution from which I graduated. I feel very proud to be a graduate of that institution. It has a good record in many areas, particularly the agricultural side. I was glad to hear reference made and tribute paid to it here today.
When we see a decline in the economy, we see an increase in enrolment at university. Students have faith in the future of this country. A person does not get an education for tomorrow or the next day, a person gets an education for the future.
Obviously the young people in this country see some potential and some opportunity. They want to go to university. They want to obtain a higher education. I go back to the kinds of thoughts people must have had in the 1930s when people went to universities. People did graduate from universities in the 1930s. There was not a lot of hope then. 1 am not old enough to remember it first-hand, but I am old enough to have seen some of the physical and psychological scars on people who lived through that period of time. The students at that time had faith in the country. Students today have faith in the country. They are obtaining education in increased numbers.
But at the very time you have an increase in enrolment, this Government reduces funding to universities. That does two things. It selects in favour of people who have more wherewithal to go to university, in other words, it decreases the number of
Established Programs Financing people who go to university. As well, you have less quality and therefore less capacity in terms of education.
That poses problems, and it is something we need to address. We need to sit down and define what our priorities are. Are our priorities to look after, in many ways-and I do not mean to be unkind-the dinosaurs as far as industry is concerned? Do we need to spend literally billions of dollars on Canadair? Do we need to spend many hundreds of millions of dollars on other ventures? I could name many other institutions or businesses which have had the largess of this Government, based on what priority and on what decision-making process, we do not know. But if we are going to spend money, we had better decide to spend it in the areas we think will be an investment. When we run large and increasing deficits, we had better make sure that what we are doing with those deficits is making an investment in the future and not simply pouring dollar after dollar into paying for what some people call yesterday's groceries.
We are relatively young people in this country. I had an opportunity to grow up in the middle of Saskatchewan and I plowed land for the first time that had never been plowed before. That was the frontier. It was a very exciting time. In many ways we face an equally or more exciting time as far as the frontier is concerned, namely the technological revolution. It is the frontier of the mind. That is the kind of thing this Government has decided it does not want to support. The Government has indicated that by reducing funding for postsecondary education. I am not saying we do not need to address some of what goes on in the ivory towers at universities. There are some things that can be weeded out and there are some efficiencies that can be had. But simply throwing money at a problem will not solve it.
In addition to providing funding, the federal Government if it chose could provide a leadership role in other areas. For instance, the Department of the Minister of Agriculture-and I give him a lot of credit-spends a lot of money on research. In addition to the money spent on research there is a role for the federal Government to play in co-ordinating and getting other people involved in agricultural research. There is research going on now.
In the last month I have had a chance to visit four or five campuses and I have talked to some of the people involved in biotechnology and in the genetic engineering side of things. They are not thought of as agricultural researchers, but they are, neverthless, very much involved in what will be an advantage for agriculture in the future. Biotechnology and genetic engineering will have great implications for both medicine and agriculture. Because these people are not considered traditionally as agricultural researchers, they are not involved and therefore they are not able to contribute as much as they are able as far as the future of agriculture is concerned.
By having this attitude and not showing the kind of leadership I think the federal Government could, in many ways it appears to be a colonial attitude. We have a frontier. We do not like to hear ourselves called colonials. We resent that because of some of the associations we have had with the past.

February 1, 1984
Established Programs Financing
We do not like to think of ourselves as hewers of wood and drawers of water, which is perhaps tied up with the colonial kind of approach. But this is exactly what we are doing now.
Canada has some tremendously able peole. We have a history of being able to contribute as far as research is concerned. But at the very time when we should be going ahead and putting more emphasis on the frontier that I would like to call the frontier of the mind, we are reducing our research. We are not giving it any prominence. The federal Government is not setting an example by leading and showing us where we can co-ordinate and obtain better value for our dollars. We may look back 15 years or 20 years from now and say that we missed that opportunity and as a result Canada is still a colony in the sense that it imports goods from other countries rather than doing what it is capable of doing and letting the rest of the world benefit from what we are able to show them how to do.
That is an important point which 1 think the federal Government should consider. It is the kind of thing which should be included in Bill C-12. The Bill says more to me than simply that the federal Government is cutting back on the amount of dollars it will spend or reducing the amount of money. When it moves in this kind of direction and I see the other areas where it is spending money, I become very concerned about the way it sets its priorities.
I had an opportunity to pose a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about a year ago concerning the amount of dollars spent on Canadair. It was exactly the kind of thing which concerned me at that time. When I see this Bill show up as a result of the six and five program, it makes me wonder why such questions have not been asked with much more vigour in the past or why we have not received some better answers.
1 would like to give a couple of startling examples of where Canada has gone in terms of research in the last number of years. If we take a list of countries-Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States-we rank at the bottom as far as percentage of GNP spent on research and development. Figures can bore us to death and we can lose the point, but out of eight countries Canada spends less as a percentage of GNP than any of the countries I mentioned. This tells us where is the Government's emphasis as far as research is concerned.
Walter Bushuk, an internationally-honoured Canadian plant scientist, made an interesting point when he spoke at a farm business association meeting in Winnipeg during the first ten days of January. He said:
Canada lags 10 to 15 years behind many other countries in the employment of genetic research to increase the yield and quality of farm crops.
Also he said:
Canada is already seriously short of agricultural scientists. It is expected that by 1990 it will be short about 400.
I have had conversations with some of the people who are involved in this area. When they graduate with an undergraduate degree and obtain an honours degree, then they have a chance. Usually by this time they are in their mid-twenties, have families or some kind of personal commitment, and a chance of working in the private sector. They earn enough money to keep body and soul together. If they remain in university to obtain Ph.Ds to make use of some of the ability or knowledge they have acquired for further research, in some cases they are offered a third, or certainly less than half, the amount of money they could earn in the private sector.
This is the kind of thing which is happening in Canada. Right now we are short of engineers, Ph.D graduates and capable research people. It will get worse because, as I said, the Bill before us accentuates the problem.
I would like to refer to another interesting figure. In Great Britain the yield of cereal grains in 1982 was 6.2 tonnes per hectare. I do not know what that translates into in bushels and acres, but the figure to remember is 6.2. That has doubled in the last 25 years. It has risen 3.4 tonnes per hectare in 25 years.
What have we done in Canada? In Canada it has risen from two tonnes to three tonnes. Not only did we start from a lower base but the increase was 50 per cent less. At that rate, by 1990 we will be 30 years behind Great Britain. If that trend line continues, by 1990 we will be in exactly the same position as Great Britain was in 1958. That is the prospect for the future.
Turning to Japan, it has 15,000 lawyers in the entire country. That country is half the size of the United States. I do not have the figures for Canada, so I will quote United States statistics. As I said, Japan has 15,000 lawyers, whereas the United States has 35,000 graduates per year. The Japanese have a saying which goes something like this: "Engineers make the pie grow larger; lawyers only decide how to carve it up". That is the kind of problem we have in Canada.
I would like to refer to another startling, almost shameful figure. In Japan the ratio of engineers to lawyers and auditors is roughly 100 to one; there are 100 engineers for every lawyer and auditor. In Germany it is roughly eight to one and in France it is about the same. In Canada the proportion is roughly equal. That tells us where we are going, and that is why we get into this absolute garbage. When we talk about the formula to amend this Act, I do not think anyone can read it and tell me what it means in simple terms in less than a couple of days. Why is this so? It is because we have people who regulate rather than people who want to be productive.
I remember a very distinguished thinker who died last year, Arthur Koestler. He was a very distinguished gentleman in many disciplines as far as the scientific world was concerned. I remember reading some of his comments a long time ago when he said that the dinosaurs on this planet disappeared because their bodies got too big for their brains. Also he said that if man kept going in the same direction, we would disappear because our brains were getting too big for our bodies. In many ways that is true and almost scary.
February 1, 1984

We have a tremendous future in front of us as far as a new frontier is concerned and our ability to work with nature. In many ways we could cheat nature and pretend that it is doing something which it is not, especially in terms of the hormones we are capable of using on plants. At the very time when we should be encouraging and placing emphasis upon such things, the Government draws back and with a broad brush tries to treat certain parts of the economy of the country the same as it would if it decided not to buy something very physical or very immediate.
I am not saying that we should spend to get ourselves out of debt or to solve our problems. However, 1 am suggesting that if we want to back up and look at our strengths and opportunities, post-secondary education is one area which we should not be cutting back. We should not even think about it. We should be doing everything we can to increase our research and ability to make ourselves more productive. In fact, it is almost an embarrassment. I am told the reason the federal Government became involved in post-secondary education was that after the Second World War many veterans returned and wanted to attend university. There was a crisis in terms of capacity. I give the Liberal Government of that time credit; it met the challenge. It became involved and provided some extra funding.
In many ways we face the same challenge today. We are in a crisis situation. We have to be competitive around the world. Japan and Taiwan are no longer solely relying on labour. They are going to high technology because they know they cannot compete without it. At the very time those things are ongoing around the world, the Government wants us to cut back and short-change the mind. That is the tragedy of this Bill.
Established Programs Financing
In the time remaining I would like to make a couple of other points. Let me say that I feel embarrassed to see a Bill presented in the House which short-changes the country because it short-changes the future. I do not feel particularly proud to be part of the process. If we had some old-time Liberals listening in today-
An Hon. Member; Any Liberals.


Charles James Mayer: I do not know about that, but obviously some of these guys will vote for it, so I do not consider them to be old-time Liberals. The ones to whom I am referring saw the challenges of the past and met them. Today we have a Government which is surrounded by sycophants, hangers-on, and dilettantes who do not have any faith in the future.
In the last session we had the bankruptcy Bill. It was an indication of how bankrupt is the present Government. We have been afflicted too long with this kind of a government. The sooner we have an election to remove that affliction or yoke from the country, the sooner we will be able to look to the future with confidence and the better off we will be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time is about exhausted; there are a few seconds remaining. Is the House disposed to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 2, 1984