1984-04-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren (for Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I will just wait for the applause to die down a little before I have my chance for the last kick at the cat on Bill C-12. We have debated this matter at some length, and I suspect that the Bill will finally be dealt with today and hence go to the Senate for final approval and Royal Assent. After that the chickens will come home to roost, undoubtedly, in the educational community across Canada.
The Bill itself, as we have discovered during the course of debate, is extremely complex. It contains mathematical formulae which are unintelligible to me and I assume to most other people who have looked at it. If we look into what the Bill really does, it becomes quite apparent. Its objective is to cut down the amount of money being made available by the federal Government for institutions of higher learning, money which would have been funnelled through the provinces into universities and like institutions.
What is the quantity of funds which will be taken out of educational budgets? If we look at the Bill, we find that in the 1983-84 fiscal year the cutback is to be in the amount of $118 million. For the year thereafter, the 1984-85 fiscal year, the cutback will be even larger, some $260 million. The worst fears of the provinces are being realized.
Several years ago the provinces became trapped into these types of cost-shared programs with the federal Government.
The federal Government, at that time flush with funds because the economy of Canada was in much better shape than it is today, gave the provinces an offer they could not refuse. They sucked them in. It said that for every dollar they spent on some kind of approved program, it would give them 50 cents. The provinces had been pretty happy before. They had funded things in their constitutional jurisdiction out of taxes they were able to impose. Along comes the federal Government with the objective of having a reasonable degree of standardization across the country and offers them these extra moneys. Of course, any province which did not take advantage of that program was unable to compete with the provinces that did. However, what they lost in this exercise was flexibility. Medical care expenses, hospital care expenses and higher education expenses were no longer subject to changes to be made at the provincial level. There was always this federal influence. They lost flexibility and they lost control over areas which under our Constitution were mainly within their domain. They just could not refuse to accept that money even if they would have liked to do so.
Then what happens when times get tough? Times are pretty tough right now. I suspect they will remain tough as long as we have a Liberal Government in office. The first area the federal Government looks to to cut back expenses is in the cost-shared areas, such as higher education, as we see in this Bill, medical care and hospital insurance, as we have seen previously. It says it will withdraw money from those areas. Then the provinces, who are the deliverers of the services, will get the political blame when students cannot enrol in universities, when people cannot get the medical care to which they feel in a country like Canada they should be entitled.
It is easy for the federal Government to cut back in these areas because it is not the deliverer of the services or the programs. It is the provinces which do that. The federal Government expects that the political flak, the distaste of the electorate, will be shown against the provinces rather than against it. The provinces in these matters have been left holding the bag.
Yesterday I was fortunate to participate in a very interesting meeting with representatives of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. It was a most worth-while exercise. I learned a great deal at that meeting talking with the representatives of the university teachers across this country. At the meeting we were told of the low morale that permeates universities and their teachers. Most of this can be attributed to the lack of funds for teachers. They told us that teaching in universities is suffering in many cases as a result of federal
2970

April 12, 1984
Established Programs Financing cutbacks. They told us that research efforts in Canadian universities are also suffering because money is not available for that purpose.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) and other members of the Treasury benches tell us how excited they are about the new age in Canada. I believe they call it the new information age. They tell us that there is a need for a highly trained workforce in Canada. If we as a country are to survive in the forthcoming years, we have to be highly literate. When Canadians come out of schools and universities and take up some kind of profession, they should not in the future feel that they are in that one particular job indefinitely. There will be a need for continuous education, continuous training throughout their lives. As one job disappears and another comes on to the scene, it will be easy for people to transfer from one task to another.
We have to look at a different concept of the labour force in years to come. If we do not do these things, we will lose out on the modern world toward the end of this century and into the next. If we do not devote sufficient attention and resources- financial, human and otherwise-to these training needs, we will not survive as a trading nation. We will not be able to sustain the high standard of living which we previously enjoyed in Canada.
We asked the Canadian Association of University Teachers how much money we were talking about. We asked whether it was a billion dollars, which is not that much today. We wanted to know how much they were talking about, what level of funding would solve their problems. The answer was rather surprising, and it was really not all that much money. The answer was $280 million. That would seem to be a large amount of money to some people. However, it can be contrasted with the billion and a half dollars that went to bail out Canadair. It can be contrasted with the $350 million that was given to de Havilland the other day to save just a few jobs, and I do not think it will even do that because those jobs will be fast disappearing. The amount of money required is not that great.
From the more than $80 billion of federal expenditures, it would not, in my opinion, be too difficult to find $280 million to invest in higher education. That money does not have to be found by increasing taxation or increasing the deficit but can be found by priorizing expenditures. If we did not find ourselves in these bail-out schemes which get worse and worse as they go along and never seem to end, and if we did not have to devote the resources of Canada, through taxes on gasoline, to Petro-Canada so that it could buy out Petrofina but instead invested that money in higher education, we would be much better off down the road.
There was another point brought to our attention by the Canadian Association of University Teachers and I would like to touch upon it just briefly. The association mentioned the difficulty it has with governments, both provincial and federal, when universities wish to put their own houses in order. If
those charged with the financial administration of a university, realizing the difficult straits in which they find themselves, wish to rationalize their own affairs and discover how they can put available moneys to better use, they find that because of complex funding arrangements with governments they are unable to put their plans into effect.
We were told, for instance, that a certain university might desire to close down a small department in which there is not a great deal of interest or a great many students. There would obviously be the need for training in that particular area but perhaps a university nearby would specialize in that field. If a university wished to close down a certain department and use some of the funds that were saved thereby in another department in which it has expertise and for which there is a great deal of demand, it is not possible to do so because of financial arrangements with the funding bodies. If the university cuts out that one department, then all of the funding that went to that department is taken away. The universities are not able to rationalize sensibly. I believe there is a greater need for flexible arrangements in the financial field between the provincial governments and universities so that this type of thing does not happen.
When we were dealing with second reading of this Bill, I gave a presentation which went into a fair amount of detail about the effect of the tax system in Canada on university financing. I do not wish to go into it again but, because I feel it is a very important point, I would like to mention it briefly in passing. In the past, a great deal of private money went to universities. People tended to endow things like chairs to universities or make donations. However, because the Canadian tax system almost forbids the accumulation of private wealth, that no longer takes place.
If one were to speak to financial administrators of universities, one would find that, by and large, most of their money, even a portion of that which comes by way of tuition fees, comes from the federal Government, the provincial governments and in the form of research grants. Invariably, it comes from government. They are becoming almost exclusively dependent on state financing. I continue to consider that to be a most dangerous trend. I do not think there is anything particularly wrong with government funding of universities, but they should also have operating funds coming from elsewhere. Otherwise, while I do not think it will be today since the Government, as bad as it is, has not yet tried directly to influence hiring and firing in universities and to tell university professors what to think, it should be kept in mind that eventually this could very well happen in future unless universities retain some degree of independence.
When it comes to the role of the state in university financing, I think it does have a role. There has always been a role. If one looks at it in a historical context, monarchs of old have secured for themselves everlasting fame and a place in the history books by their support of universities and institutes of higher learning. It has always been the case that the govern-
April 12, 1984

ment of the day or, in past times, a particular queen or king has been remembered for their support in the founding of institutions of the nature we are talking about. They have been remembered for their continued support of them and for the bringing together of expertise into one establishment.
As well, when one looks at it in a historical context, it will be seen that something that might have been done in the year 1500 did not really pay dividends until 1595 or some 100 years down the road. It is the same in Canada today. We must continue to support our universities in order that 50 or 100 years from now Canada can still hold its head upright in the affairs of nations. I am afraid that the Government may well go down in the history books not as a body of people who have supported education to the end that things might improve 50 years hence, but as a group that has neglected that important field of human endeavour.
Now, in the brief minutes that remain to me I want to touch very quickly on three issues of local concern to me in the Northwest Territories. My first concern is the problem we are having with adult education in the communities. For some time, orginally as a government initiatives, we have tried to provide the opportunity for adults, many of whom have never gone to school or only to grade three, four or five, with the opportunity to become literate and take the jobs that are coming as economic development becomes more available in northern Canada. We are having some problems with the funding thereof. In my opinion, it is something that should get a high degree of priority if we are not, in northern Canada, to have a large proportion of our population put aside, unable to take advantage of the many opportunities that are coming forward, particularly in the resource exploitation field.
We have in the Territories one institution of higher learning, Thebacha College. It is having problems with the amount of money made available to it. I wanted to bring out one particular area of concern which it is experiencing now and that is with its library. There is a very nice college, with some excellent staff, but it is a little short on books. If any Hon. Members who are listening can think of a way that we can bring some books to our library at Thebacha College in Forth Smith, Northwest Territories, I can assure them that they would have the absolute support and gratitude of the staff and students attending that institution. Perhaps someone could find a university that has a collection of books since we do not have books and would like to become a university.
My final point deals with the teaching of the French language in the Northwest Territories. A Bill was introduced in this House, unilaterally, I might add, and I have some doubts about its value and worth, which I will not get into now. The effect of this Bill, if it goes through, will be to make the Yukon and Northwest Territories officially bilingual, whether or not that is a good idea. It will cost a lot of money to do this. All the Hansards of the legislature will have to be translated at great public expense. All the ordinances and regulations will have to be translated. The operation of the courts will become
Established Programs Financing
very difficult and expensive. There will be a lot of money needed for that.
But, believe it or not, students who want to learn French in the high schools are unable to do so because they cannot raise another $50,000 or so to hire a French teacher. There are a couple of high schools that have had this very problem. They have not been able to get French teachers to teach these students who want to learn French. Yet the Government can come into Parliament with a Bill prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars translating dry documents going back to the time of Rupert's Land. That, in my opinion, does not make any sense whatsoever.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Mr. McMillan:: I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member who just spoke, Mr. Speaker, whether he believes that the establishment of a university of the north should be considered in light of his remarks about funding? If not, would the Hon. Member think it at least appropriate to beef up university opportunities available to northerners through, say, satellite courses, programs or even junior college facilities?


Dave Nickerson: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that that question was asked. The observations of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) are excellent, Sir. We should be working towards the establishment of a full university in Canada's north. It is not something which can be done overnight. We can use existing institutions such as Thebacha College which I have already mentioned, the college with no books, as a base. We can make arrangements with existing southern universities to come up to the north, perhaps have a university college there and work in association with territorial institutions. Perhaps the first year or first two years of a university course could be given in the north; then the students would again have to go south. However, we must work towards this idea of the establishment of a university in the north. It is not something which can be done overnight but it is something which we are and definitely should be working toward. I believe the opportunities there, both on the teaching side and the research side, are excellent and I would like to see this trend continue.
We have had some problems with southern universities which previously were most pleased to be able to take students from the north, particularly those universities in Alberta and some in Montreal and Quebec. Now, however, because of the cutbacks in funding, they are becoming much more parochial and are saying: "We only have so much money; we should concentrate on taking students from Alberta or Quebec", and so on. They are much more reluctant to allow territorial students who have no universities of their own to go to those southern institutions. So that is definitely a problem.
With respect to the final point of the question, the use of modern technology for educational purposes, this will come, probably not so much for university programs, but it will allow us to give a lot of basic literacy courses and vocational-type training in remote communities without the people having to

April 12, 1984
Established Programs Financing go to a central institution. That again is something which should be encouraged.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments? If not, the House will now proceed to debate.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the third reading stage of a Bill which, when implemented, will limit increases to 6 per cent for the first year and 5 per cent for this year in the amounts the federal Government contributes to post-secondary education. It is obvious that the Government is determined to implement this policy with no amendment, retraction or remorse for the damage it is inflicting on an educational system already in crisis.
This is not the only Bill which will accomplish that. A few weeks ago the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) announced what amounted to a reduction in funding to postgraduate programs administered through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. I am sure the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will try to impose the same kind of limits on the education of young native people for which it is legally responsible. These limits come at a time when we have 1.5 million unemployed, probably 40 per cent of whom are young people.
As a result of this large scale unemployment, our universities and community colleges have been flooded with applications for enrolment. It had been assumed that, because of the declining birth rate which began some 20 years ago, the number of students wishing to attend universities and community colleges would decline. In fact, the number of those who want to attend is at an all-time high. At the same time the federal Government decides for purely financial reasons, not because it has looked at the need for education, to limit the amount of money it will provide to help fund post-secondary education. This Bill will have a very serious effect not only on post-secondarty education, but on all education. The provinces share in the cost of post-secondary education and they will now have to try to meet some of the shortfall in funding caused by these limitations. One way of doing that is to be very careful, cautious and hard on the elementary and high school systems for which they have the responsibility.
All of this comes at a time, Mr. Speaker, when, because of new technologies, our educational system has to be revamped to help those who have lost or will lose their jobs because of automation. That is the time that the federal Government picks to get tough. In addition to those people, Mr. Speaker, there are whole groups in our society who have been shortchanged through our educational system's failure to meet their needs. Let me just indicate a few of the groups who have real trouble.
We have had hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have come to Canada in the last 15 or 20 years whose language is neither English nor French. They have been encouraged to come to this country because of the policies put
forward by the federal Government, a Liberal Government for 19 of those 20 years. We find those people in big cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. Our school systems have found that the children from these families where the first language is not English or French, in order to fit into our society and play a useful role, need more teachers and teaching aids, new kinds of text books. Special efforts have to be made and extra costs are incurred. But at the same time the federal and provincial governments are saying to them: "We cannot afford to help you".
According to a number of studies we have several million people who are functionally illiterate. Those people are not finding and will not be able to find good jobs. Even when the economy improves, they will not be able to find jobs in the new technological age. There are really no programs on the part of the federal of provincial governments, so far as I can tell, which deal with the problem of those people. When the federal Government says it is going to put a cap on the money it spends for education, Mr. Speaker, that means we are writing those people off.
The last group I want to speak about, Mr. Speaker, is our native people. The education of many of our native people, including those now attending school, is at about the level they would get in a Third World country. There has been some improvement; native children are attending schools longer and getting higher grades than they did 10 or 20 years ago. But the number of native children who graduate from our high schools can be numbered at a few thousand, I am sure. I have seen some studies which indicate that in many areas in Manitoba- and I am sure it is the same in many other provinces-not one single native student from a reserve will finish high school. What are we doing about that? Very little. When we put a cap on our spending on education, we are writing those people off. That is not acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to any person who cares about people in this country.
In this rapidly changing environment of computerization and information technology, the pressure is on the primary and secondary school system to integrate with the new technology and prepare this generation of children for the implications of the changes taking place. What are we saying when we limit our contributions to post-secondary education? We are accepting that we are not going to face the problem. We say the Government should provide special capital grants to enable financially strapped school boards to consider offering computer-related programs which they do not now offer. We New Democrats, Mr. Speaker, are not noted for believing in tax concessions.
[DOT] (U40)
However, I would suggest a practical option is to change the tax system so that corporations could donate appropriate equipment to schools. That would be a practical way of helping the schools meet their problems. Both the above measures could apply equally to vocational and technical colleges, high schools and polytechnical facilities which, due to the recession and Bills such as the one we are dealing with
April 12, 1984

today, are attempting to train for the future with obsolete, outdated equipment.
Originally the federal Government provided capital grants to assist in constructing and equipping these institutions. In a period of rapid technological change it is not unreasonable that the federal Government should show some leadership and concern and provide for the renewal of some of the equipment in these institutions, so that they can do the type of jobs they are supposed to do. They were set up to a large extent with federal funding. In order for them to do the job they are supposed to do, they must have the proper equipment, otherwise they can only fail.
It seems to me that the guiding principle of the Government in matters of education is to cut and slash. It wants to minimize its involvement and concern in order that the allimportant deficit be reduced. Meanwhile federal budgets heap more and more tax breaks on the multinationals and conglomerates that the Government looks up to for leadership. The tax system permits the wealthiest individuals to pay little or no taxes. We know, Mr. Speaker, that more than 250 people who had incomes of more than $250,000 paid no income tax in the last year for which we have figures. We know there were over 7,000 people who had incomes of over $50,000 who paid no income tax in the last year for which we have figures. I suggest that an equitable tax system would do away with the necessity for the kinds of restrictions which the Government is proposing in this Bill.
The attack on educational and social programs by both the Liberal and Conservative Parties, both here in Ottawa and in the provinces, is going to have a disastrous effect on the lives of the people of this country. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has attacked the Government for the deficit which we face. This comes at the same time as he and his colleagues are calling almost every day for the Government to inaugurate new programs to help the farmers, the fishermen and other groups. There is not much honesty in that type of approach as far as I am concerned. One of the candidates in the Liberal leadership race, Mr. Turner, is basing his candidacy on a pledge to further cut the deficit. I suggest that, in effect, means lowering the level of social and educational services which we have provided in the country.
The major problem with the Government is that it has lost touch with the people it is sworn to serve. In the City of Toronto, for instance, there are 55,000 young unemployed Canadians. A substantial number of them are skilled, but have the wrong skills to meet the demand for jobs that are available. Statistics Canada reports that there are some 540,000 young Canadians who are unemployed and looking for work. This is almost double the official unemployment rate for the nation. This represents a staggering cost of billions of dollars of lost productivity which we will never recover. Some estimates have indicated that the total number of unemployed youth is not the 540,000 young Canadians that Statistics Canada reports, but that in fact at least 200,000 more young people have given up their search for a job because there just are not any.
Established Programs Financing
It does not make sense for the Government to be cutting back on federal funding for post-secondary education at a time when such a crisis of unemployment for young people has exploded across this country. Officials in the core areas of our cities where the poor and unemployed tend to live have noticed an increase in vandalism, petty crime, prostitution, shoplifting and breaking and entering. These officials feel that such events can only signal deeper social unrest in the months ahead. The apparent reaction of the Government is the Bill before the House today which cuts back on the services I have indicated. This will only accentuate the difficulties I have alluded to.
Why does the Government persist in this policy? I can only guess that the Liberal Government has lost sight of the effects which these cuts can and will have and has no strategy for implementing real solutions through the educational system, whether it be vocational training, skills retraining, secondary school orientation for career paths or post-secondary specialization and post-graduate support. Federal Government education support and manpower training are not now geared to any over-all strategy or vision of the future. Despite a number of studies which have been made that indicated clearly that the Department of Employment and Immigration should make a bigger effort to deal with the lack of education and the illiteracy which I referred to earlier, the Department has allocated less and less funds for training those kinds of people in recent years rather than making a bigger effort.
The effects of cuts such as will take place as a result of passage of this Bill will be evident if we examine what is happening in the provinces. I think all Members know the difficulties which are arising in the Province of Ontario. The universities and community colleges have been told that they must cut back on the expenditures, that they cannot meet the needs of their students and that they are going to have to limit the number of students they can accept for training and education. The clearest indication of what happens when the federal Government or the provinces decide to hold the line, or in fact to cut back on educational funding, can be seen in the Province of British Columbia. That province has used the cuts in federal funding for post-secondary education as a justification of its own efforts to slash support for universal access to education and diverse educational programs geared to meet the needs of the workforce. In British Columbia less than 10 per cent of the student age population is in university or other post-secondary institutions. The figure for all of Canada is 12.68 per cent while the Japanese rate is 40 per cent and the U.S. rate is 20 per cent.
Can we look forward to anything, Mr. Speaker, other than a situation in which Canada will fall further behind other modern industrialized countries in meeting the needs of the new technology? This Bill does exactly the wrong thing. This Bill will create a situation which will have adverse disastrous effects, and not just in 1984, 1985 and 1986. The tremendously serious effects of these cutbacks and reductions will be felt in this country for generations to come. It is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we oppose this Bill.

April 12, 1984
Established Programs Financing


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said in his otherwise very thoughtful speech that the New Democratic Party did not in principle believe in tax incentives. Does that position indicate that the NDP is opposed to tax incentives for ordinary Canadians, for example with respect to registered retirement savings plans, contributions to charities and even donations to political parties, including the NDP itself?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) asked that question. I suppose I was trying to keep in mind the fact that I had a limited period of time and I oversimplified our approach. Of course, we are not opposed to contributions and tax credits for charitable or educational purposes. We are very skeptical about many of the tax concessions and tax credits which are given to industries, particularly when many of those do not create any new jobs or increase productivity in this country. I was trying to say that we would want governments to look very carefully at any tax concessions or tax credits to make sure they benefit not just the company or the individual who is getting a tax credit or tax concession, but that they benefit all the people of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this Bill has gone on for some time. It brings out many of the problems in Canada today, namely lack of consultation between the federal Government and the provincial governments. This is a serious situation in which the Liberals have placed us. The Liberals have taken Bill C-12 and they have tried to say: "Because of our six and five program we have to reduce the expenditure for education". If the Liberals had made an honest attempt to work out the problem with the provinces- because education is a provincial responsibility-then they could have possibly stayed with the six and five. To me, Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that the Government can increase its own spending by in excess of 11 per cent on salaries and by many more per cent in different directions, yet on the most important subject in modern Canada, what do we have?
Education must be addressed. Many speakers have referred to higher education and specifically to universities. That is just one segment. There is another major segment and that is the retraining of Canadians-retraining and retraining. People will possibly go through a retraining program four or five times during their lives. Universities are not the only vehicle. We must develop more community colleges. We must develop more trade schools. We must get co-operation with industry. Today is the day we must encourage people to become more knowledgeable and more literate both in language and in computer technology.
I have spoken before on this Bill and I speak on it again because there are many more points to be made. For instance,
I heard the red rump going on in the same direction about tax credits.


Mr. Keeper:: You mean red Tories.


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Government cannot afford what we are doing now under present circumstances. The only way this country can be turned around is to get the economy turned around. In that way, if the Government provided the same percentage of GNP and the GNP was higher, then the education program problem would not be serious. But we must address the importance of education in Canada today. Without co-operation with the provinces, that will never happen.
I would like to recommend to the Government that it sit down with each province individually and try to work out the needs of each province. If the Government works out the needs with each province and then holds a federal-provincial meeting to get consensus on the importance of education in Canada today, this would be helpful.
We brought down a task force report last weekend that was probably one of the most brilliant pieces of literature that I have had the opportunity to read. It brought forth the problems that Canada would face in the next 20 years. That first 20 years will move into 50 years. We are at a critical stage. We did not address this problem soon enough, as the Japanese did and as the Americans have. The Japanese, for example, were aware of the problem back in the 1960s. They built up their institutions and education to a level that could compensate for new technology and get people trained so they could fit into that requirement.
New technology is not the only criteria, Mr. Speaker. We have to deal with Canadians and give Canadians encouragement. Because of our deficit, there is little room for the Government to manoeuvre. I accept that. The only way out of that is by increasing the GNP.
I suggest that the Government bring in equity in taxation credits for education. An example that was recently brought to my attention was an article in the newspaper. The article was written about a young lady registered at McGill who took some of her courses at another university. She did that to fit into the program in which she wanted to become proficient. Because of that, Revenue Canada denied her the opportunity of deducting her expense against her income. I am not necessarily talking about deductions for students because students have such a hard time earning any income this day and age when there is such a shortage of work. I am talking about parents of students.
I recall that when I was young a life insurance salesman approached me when my first son was born and asked me if I would like to take out an insurance policy on him. My first reaction was that I did not want to benefit from my son's death. The salesman then explained to me it was an education program and that by putting so much money per month into this insurance program I could guarantee my son an education. That is forward thinking. We had that 30 years ago. Today we are looking from day to day, going from brink to brink, and we
April 12, 1984

have to stop. We have to start dealing with the long-term problem.
I believe we should provide some form of a program, such as the RHOSP, whereby parents can put money aside after a child is born and during his lifetime in order to create a fund to provide education. But I would go beyond that and say that parents should also be allowed to put funds aside to create a program for retraining themselves. We are in a critical stage. We must address the problem of my peers and the younger people who will be getting into our peers' age group in a few years. They will have to put money aside and they cannot afford to do so after taxes. We must do something about this. If the Government cannot provide for proper funding, then the individual will have to provide more of the funding. In order for the individual to do that, he must be given the incentive to do so.
The key point I am trying to make is that we must encourage Canadians to be productive. We must encourage them to become involved in the voluntary sector and different industries. However, we are discouraging Canadians; the great master state is now looking after them from cradle to grave. We have to overcome this and encourage people to help themselves.
Grants are given for new buildings and new institutions. There are a number of churches across Canada with basements that are not fully utilized. Those basements could be used for computer training at night or during the day, but no, the state wants total control. On that subject alone, some churches and other bodies have voluntary organizations and charge a fee for people to learn a new trade. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act a man is denied taking a fulltime course at one of these institutions unless he will commit himself to the fact that, if so required, he will drop his schooling and return to the job. It is far more valuable for a person, rather than taking a temporary, part-time job, to be retrained in something which will provide him with a life-long skill. If we put a deterrent in the way of that gentleman, we are being totally unfair to the Canadian public. It is things such as that in the Income Tax Act which are forcing the Government to be the big daddy who will look after us and do everything for us. We must create an incentive for Canadians to help themselves. The Government must lead the way but it has not done so.
Many times in committee NDP members stated that the provinces were not keeping up their contributions. There is a way of dealing with that, and that is consultation. If after consultation they still refuse to increase their expenditure in education, then we can deal with it and participate on an even basis with the provinces. If we do that, the provinces will get smart very quickly because it is important to them to have funding.
In these times when we have gone through tremendous deficits, all provinces have competed with the federal Government to see who could be the biggest spender. One province in
Established Programs Financing particular has been attacked on this point, the Province of British Columbia. Perhaps some of the things it has done have been too radical, but its intention was to reduce expenditures and ultimately reduce the provincial deficit. Provinces cannot afford any more than the federal Government can afford.
Again I say that the problem is critical. If we do not provide funding through the federal Government for training and retraining, we will continue having 1.5 million people unemployed who, according to the information I have been given from many sources, are costing our economy $50 billion. If a portion of that $50 billion was put into training, retraining and education, we would not only solve the unemployment problem but the problem which was brought to my attention last week by Mr. Fred Pomeroy, Vice-President of the CLC. He stated that we had to go abroad to bring in personnel to work in areas of new technology because we were bankrupt in the field. He said that we have not properly trained people for the upcoming high technology. Labour is on our side on this point. It is concerned and sick of Canada always depending upon bringing new people into the country to solve problems. We have approximately 25 million Canadians. Surely to God we can provide the training required for the new technology. We are not doing it. The Government is not addressing it and this Bill does not address it.
I have spoken in the House many times against Government spending on Crown corporations, particularly de Havilland and Canadair, which has amounted to some $5 billion that could have been put into education and would have probably reduced unemployment by at least a third. It is a shocking situation. Something has to be done.
We have to call for a national strategy to deal with the post-secondary educational system. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, in a report by Dr. Symons and Dr. James Page, indicated very clearly that this matter must be discussed because it is of critical importance. Furthermore, the universities are shocked because they must recruit teachers from overseas. Again, with 25 million people in the country, we cannot provide adequate teachers to teach our own students! Visiting professors from other countries is a great idea, but they should be just that, visiting professors to assist our own people to upgrade their teaching skills and their knowledge of the new technology. This report is of critical importance. It is totally non-partisan, but no one in the Party opposite has indicated that a meeting will take place to develop a national strategy to deal with post-secondary education.
Also I would like to point out the importance of communications with the provinces. There is a weakness in the system before the post-secondary education stage. Some of the present costs are for upgrading student skills in English and basic arithmetic. I have talked to people involved in the universities about this and they maintain that part of the trouble is that everything is based on the GPA-the average mark. Some people are experts in mathematics, some are experts in English. A young man who may want to go into physics and maths may obtain 100 per cent in those subjects, but he may be excluded from the course because of a weakness in language

April 12, 1984
Established Programs Financing
skills. We have to address this problem. We have to provide for such people. They are the geniuses, the brains and the inventors of new ideas for which there is a dire need in Canada.
Before sitting down I want to say that Canada is so far behind in education, as shown in the development of new technologies, that we do not have the choice of waiting to develop our own technology. We must buy technology from overseas and license it in Canada to get the country moving. This is a direct result of the lack of sufficient funds in the post-secondary educational stream. In order to turn around the economy and get it growing again, tax incentives must be put in place so that parents from the time their children are born receive tax deductions for saving money to educate the children and/or themselves. I plead with the Government to reconsider this. If it does not, I can promise that the next Government, which will be formed by the Progressive Conservative Party, will address this problem. We are aware that it is a critical problem. We hear words from different Members opposite, but we do not see any action. Through the polls, the Canadian public has told them very clearly that they are sick of their inaction and ready for a change of government. No matter who they put in charge, they still want us to take over, manage and run the economy in a proper way.


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


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a comment for the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) who presented some very interesting thoughts on both the subject of post-secondary education and education in general, as well as expressing his concern in the health field in relation to financing. He touched on a subject that has been presented to me on many occasions, and that is that there is lacking in our system a body or group that can overview government policy before it comes into operation.
Specifically the need is for consultation between government and organizations and parties actually involved in fields of activity such as education and health. Does the Hon. Member think there is any specific way that there could be a vehicle for consultation, particularly in the area of education? It has been the complaint of all those in post-secondary education and other areas of education that they do not have the opportunity to input to government officers and departments their views and concerns on educational matters. The Hon. Member for Ontario expressed his concern that the Government did not pay sufficient attention to people in the field of education, that is, those with special knowledge. Even if they do not react to what they are saying, there should at least be an opportunity for presentation of views. Can the Hon. Member comment on that and perhaps indicate what specific steps might be taken? I know he has great knowledge of the matter.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that comment. It really comes into the view of our Party that our committee system is not working. If we had a proper committee system in
this House, we could deal with a Bill like this in an intelligent way rather than by restriction in a committee where I must ask a question in five minutes and get an answer in five minutes. We could go into depth, bring in experts and bring in the provinces. If we were given that opportunity in this House, we could develop programs that are acceptable to Canadians, not only to those on the government side.
Another point is budgeting in this country. It is an absolute disaster. We are shown the Estimates a week before we have to approve them. A prime example is the $240 million for de Havilland. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) knew when he requested that $240 million that he would be back at the table within a month to ask for more.
We are not managing this country properly. We are not managing the Crown corporations. If we could have proper budgeting through a parliamentary committee and proper committee input into legislation, this country could be successful, Canadians would be employed and we would be turning on the economy at full speed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no other questions or comments, we will continue the debate.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. When we observe the way the Government and the Minister have handled both education and health in terms of dealing with the problem, we see that the Government brings forward programs without enough negotiation with the provinces. In other words, they promote a political program, put it forward and then tell the provinces to pay for it.
In the area of health, our Party is dedicated to the universal medicare program. We believe it should be given high priority. However, this should be done through negotiation with the provinces. We should tell the provinces what it will cost, what will be the program and arrive at arrangements regarding the cost-shared programs. What do we have ? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) takes a certain direction for political expediency and dumps it on the provinces. That is very unfair.
In terms of education, I have been particularly concerned about on-the-job training. There are steps the Government could take to strengthen the Canadian position and prepare people to pick up education on the job. This would strengthen our economy.
I want to deal with small businesses and farming in relation to education. How do we prepare our young people to take on these jobs? There is no educational program in the case of small business. Our young people receive book training. We send them to school for a number of years. However, we then throw them into the job market. They are not prepared to meet that challenge.
I have seen this happen in the construction business for years. There should be training programs for the various trades such as carpentry or construction in general. Are we
April 12, 1984

preparing our young people? Do we have proper training programs to educate our young people to go out on a job? This is one area that the Government should take a close look at, and not only in terms of construction.
Let us take a look at the rural areas. One problem in this country is that we have become too centralized. We have had a program of centralization. The Liberal Government has poured too much into the large centres and this has created problems. We should now look at decentralization, possibly even in terms of education and preparing people for jobs. People must go where the jobs are. I will use a homely example. You may need someone to operate a tractor. If you want to hire a young person, you run into a number of government regulations, both provincial and federal. These regulations would, in fact, even preclude what I would call on-the-job training so that a person would be able to operate a machine in a proper way. This, of course, requires direct input from the person who operates the small business or farm so that that kind of an education program can be extended. The Government has done nothing to extend training in a practical way.
Unless we get down to a practical base at both the provincial and federal levels, we will not solve our problems. I think one of today's most overrated phrases is "high technology". There should certainly be emphasis on high-tech education, but I would like to express my opinion about this subject, Mr. Speaker. I do not presume to be an expert in the area of high technology but I have seen things work in a practical way in the small business and agricultural sectors and even on the assembly lines. It is my opinion that high technology will not solve all of the problems. We must become very practical and find out where the jobs are and where the productivity is. This will mean that our educational system will have to offer massive retraining programs, yet I believe that the system has not even begun to explore the various practical ideas and solutions that governments could implement.
Through the years, I have had the opportunity to employ many young students who were perhaps 16 or 17 years of age and were brought up in a small town. These students had no experience of operating construction or agricultural machines. Teaching these students takes a great deal of patience and costs a lot of money. Teaching a student to use a piece of equipment which costs $100,000 requires a great deal of responsibility. Someone must tutor a student by showing him how to check the oil in the morning and how to operate the machine in a variety of circumstances. If the Government were to offer tax benefits to operators in the construction and agricultural sectors to teach students, we could create some employment. I have heard of cases of young people who, because they were not working, got into trouble with the law. I think this is one area in which the Government can act in terms of practical education which will put people to work.
I shall now turn to the part of the Bill which deals with health. I think it is most unfair that the Government has used
Established Programs Financing the issue of health for political expedience. It has become evident in the last few months that the Government has been mining for favourable subjects to use because the Government in front of us is bankrupt. It is most unfair of the Government to use the issue of health as a political issue. Health care is something to which we are all entitled.
It is unfair that the Government, instead od dealing with the provinces in a businesslike way and with the best interests of the Canadian people at heart, has used the issue of health as a political tool. I think that is very, very wrong, Mr. Speaker. If we are to have a country which is united in its strengths, we must remove from the political spectrum the type of thing we have seen demonstrated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Ministers responsible for health in the various provinces feel very strongly about the misuse of this type of issue. They feel very strongly about the fact that the Government has indicated that it is the only entity in Canada which is interested in the health and welfare of the Canadian people. We on this side of the House are certainly dedicated to the health, education and welfare of the Canadian people.
Per capita transfers to post-secondary education will escalate quite significantly. It will become important to look at the future and implement a program to address the problem of education. We must redirect people from one area of education to another area of employment. This is probably one of the greatest problems the country will face. Young people who spend many years educating themselves in their desired professions find out that the whole system has collapsed on them. One of the greatest problems facing young people in the days ahead will be that, after having chosen a profession and educating themselves in that profession and having spent time, money and effort, they find that there are no jobs. This Government or the next Conservative Government must face that great challenge.
We must explore the areas of high technology but that is not where the answer lies. High technology may answer the problems of a few people but it will also create some problems. We must explore the area of practical training so that our young people do not find themselves in the chaotic situation which exists today.
The unemployment rate is the highest it has been in the history of the country. I heard this morning that in the maritime provinces the unemployment rate is staggeringly high, as high as 30 per cent. This should not be happening in a country with such vast opportunities and so many natural resources. Canadians could be accused of over-emphasizing the natural resources of this great country. However, I think that when preparing our young people for the challenge ahead, we have missed the point and are not redirecting Canadians so that they may do the things which they do the best.
Without zeroing in on a great deal of expenditure and bad mismanagement on behalf of Canadians, we have seen some good examples of this in recent days. I believe the Minister responsible for education on the government side should be

April 12, 1984
Established Programs Financing reconsidering this program and asking himself whether Canadians are being directed toward areas that will stimulate the country, productivity and ensure jobs for young people in the future. We need a new program for the redirection of funds and efforts so that young people are not trained or retrained in fields in which they will not be able to find a job.
Some may say that it is unfair to address this issue in those hard terms, but I suggest it is the Government's responsibility to be the vehicle for opening doors so that the private sector and the Government can study areas where this can be accomplished. We cannot accomplish the goals we set for this country when governments get caught up in political bickering.
When I consider the tremendous potential of this country, I cannot help but think of the situation in western Canada with regard to the National Energy Program. I have seen thousands of jobs lost when the markets of the world were there for us. The House will recall the period when we were importing oil from Mexico and losing jobs. Oil rigs were shut down and I believe as many as 275 went across the line. This meant the loss of thousands of jobs for our young people and thousands of dollars to our treasuries. As well, it cost us in terms of welfare payments. It was a terrible loss to the country and one from which we have not begun to recover at this point.
There must be long-term planning with a view to providing what we are asking of our young people. Is the Government asking them to go without jobs, to be ill-prepared and continue in technologies which we have not been prepared to deal with through our educational system? Furthermore, when government mismanagement is added to this, it results in a very serious situation. I suggest that it is important to look at this whole area of retraining and fiscal responsibility as it relates to the balance of payments between provincial and federal governments so that we can give young people the opportunity to prepare themselves and assure their future with stable jobs. This can be accomplished in this country with good management.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments. If there are no questions, debate.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-12 which relates to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, having particular application to both secondary education and health, is drawing to a close. For that reason, I believe it is important to highlight some of the major features of Bill C-12 as it affects the legislative base for the federal-provincial arrangements that, in turn, govern the delivery of post-secondary education services and health services right across Canada.
First and foremost, we must recognize that federal-provincial relations have evolved over a long period of time. In more recent decades, federal-provincial relations have been formalized to a great extent with the result that the federal-provincial conference has become a kind of institution. In the last few years the process of institutionalizing federal-provincial relations has fallen into difficult straits. On several occasions, we
have read in newspapers and other forms of media publications that federal-provincial relations are dying, that co-operative federalism is dead. That presents difficulties for governments at federal, provincial and indeed municipal levels. If there is one thing that is essential to the welfare of this country and the governing of all parts and aspects of our national life, it is co-operation among the various levels of government, particularly the federal and provincial governments.
In that context it is important to review Bill C-12 and its effect on post-secondary education and health programs across Canada. In order to illustrate my point, I would refer to a report published by the provincial Ministers of Finance in April of 1983. It is made very clear in that report that, in the opinion of the provincial Ministers, there are great and grave difficulties with the federal Government's policies with respect to the funding of post-secondary education and health.
One point made in that report is that the federal proposals with respect to funding bear no relationship to actual provincial spending on health and higher education. I suggest that the importance of that point escapes many Members of the House of Commons and possibly other Canadians. It is a terrible reflection on the policies of the federal Government when provincial Ministers say in a formal report that its policies with respect to funding of the important area of post-secondary education and health are not related to what is actually taking place in those fields and that the funding of education and health is an academic exercise, a national operation that bears no relationship to what is actually happening.
As a result, health and education expenses in the provinces can go up in order to meet the needs and challenges of people of each of the provinces, while the federal participation, in effect, can go down. That points out very clearly and concisely what the problem is. It is that the Government of Canada, in dealing with the important subjects of health and education, has escaped from reality into formulas that may protect the federal Treasury but do not provide the services which all Canadians have agreed must be provided.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) mentioned in his speech earlier today that the federal Government takes advantage of the fact that the province is responsible for actually providing services in health and education so that any failure to provide an adequate service reflects immediately on the provincial government and officers while not affecting, in an immediate way, the Government and officers of Canada. That creates a very difficult situation because if the Government of Canada takes advantage of that type of insulation from the people of Canada in the important areas of health and education and in effect tries to deceive the people of Canada with respect to the role that the federal Government plays in these matters, it will undermine the confidence of Canadians not only in the federal Government but in government at all levels.
One might suspect my motives in making that statement, but in fact even more extreme statements have been made by responsible persons, such as the President of the Canadian
April 12, 1984

Medical Association. In fact, I have a publication here dated March 20, 1984, in which the President of the Canadian Medical Association said this, and I quote:
The President of the Canadian Medical Association today accused the Minister of National Health and Welfare and members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of perpetrating political fraud against the Canadian public.
When you put together the statement contained in the report of the provincial Ministers of Finance and the statement published by the Canadian Medical Association accusing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) of political fraud against the Canadian public, you realize the state of federal-provincial relations and what a disastrous effect that must have on very important fields like health and higher education. I believe that is an important observation and one which should concern all Canadians with respect to Bill C-12 and its effect on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, which in turn determine the services which will be provided in the fields of health and higher education. Health and education become the victims of difficulties in federal-provincial relations.
The death of co-operative federalism takes its toll in those important service areas of health and education. I believe it is a sad day for the House of Commons and for all Canadians when, as a result of the failure of the federal Government to deal properly with the provincial governments, those needed services in health and education suffer.
The pith and substance of this Bill and related legislation is that, in fact, it reduces the funding available to post-secondary educational institutions and to the deliverers of health services in Canada. One can present many statistics but the bottom line is that there will be less money available. When you are talking, Mr. Speaker, of education cost across Canada, you are talking of a total expenditure of $4.7 billion. Governments provide almost 72 per cent, 73 per cent of that amount, approximately $3.4 billion. The balance of the funds, which amounts to less than 27 per cent, 28 per cent, comes from the private sector and tuition fees. Therefore, if the federal Government reduces the amount it is willing to spend in the field of post-secondary education, it does not take much calculation to realize that the bottom line is increased tuition fees to the students of Canada to the extent that the private sector cannot make up the shortage of funds. Any dramatic increase in tuition fees of Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions immediately affects the accessibility of young Canadians to higher education. If there is one objective which most Canadians have, it is to acquire a higher education, if their abilities and capacities permit them to absorb that level of training and education.
We cannot divorce the problem from the realities of life. When we reduce the amount of federal funding to post-secondary education, it not only leads to reduced services at the universities, but affects in a very real way the accessibility of young Canadians to a university level education. I want to point out again, as I have in the past, the realities of this
Established Programs Financing
legislative measure as it affects Canadian university students. We are not talking about a small number of Canadians, Mr. Speaker. There are over 500,000 young Canadians enrolled in post-secondary institutions on a full-time or part-time basis. In addition, there are many more persons who are, in effect, students at Canadian universities and post-secondary institutions pursuing subjects of instruction which will not result in a university degree, but which, nonetheless, allows them to participate in the process of secondary education.
Finally, I would like to express my concern for Canadian university students by pointing out that in 1982-1983 there was a 15.9 per cent increase in tuition fees across Canada. With measures like those contained in Bill C-12, that increase is liable to escalate dramatically in the next years. The importance, I should note, of that average 15.9 per cent increase across Canada is that in some provinces it is quite extreme. In the Province of Newfoundland, the increase in tuition fees for 1982-1983 is estimated to be 37.1 per cent. Provinces which have delayed increasing tuition fees can expect even greater increases in the next time period. It is anticipated in the Province of British Columbia, for example, that tuition fees at the University of British Columbia could increasee by 33 per cent or more in the next few years.
We have a real, practical problem, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking in abstract about a cold and sterile process of government funding. We are talking about the ability of young Canadians to have access to higher education. We are talking about the level of the services provided to students at universities and post-secondary institutions, and other things of a very practical nature.
There are many other concerns, Mr. Speaker, in the educational field which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. However, I would like to deal now with the other part of Bill C-12 which affects the health field. In addition to Bill C-12, we have before us in this House Bill C-3 which enacts the new Canada Health Act. We know what difficulties that Bill has created for the health professions across Canada and for other persons and institutions involved in the delivery of health care services. I have already mentioned the accusation of political fraud which has been made by the Canadian Medical Association, but again we have the practical effect of a reduction in financing on the services provided by those persons and institutions who depend upon that government financing.
Provinces like the Province of Nova Scotia already expend over 25 per cent of their revenue dollars on health. It simply has no more funds to apply to health care services. I believe that is true of most provinces in Canada as we approach this lower level in the economic recession cycle. The unfortunate part, Mr. Speaker, is that it is very unlikely that the situation will improve even with an improvement in the economy, because all we can do in the next decade is reach the status we have enjoyed in past decades. There is very little opportunity and chance totally to revitalize the economy in such a way that funds will be generated from normal taxation sources to make up the deficits which have accrued, not only in the total

April 12, 1984
Established Programs Financing
national revenue picture, but in all the services which are involved in that picture, and health services, including medical care, is one of those services.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is unlikely that anything will happen in the next year by way of economic improvement which will generate any great amount of funds for a service like health care. We must, therefore, rely on the standard sources of funds. We must rely on the standard programs which have been provided to support health care.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is another example of reducing in a very insidious way the amount of funds which will actually flow through to the deliverers of health care services. Yet, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that reduction in funding available for health care, the Government pretends and purports to be improving health care in Canada. The Government purports to be helping Canadians in relation to health care. There should be little wonder that the Canadian Medical Association has accused the Minister of National Health and Welfare of political fraud.
One always likes to be positive, particularly when the subject is post-secondary education and health. However, there is an element of fraud in what the Government has been doing in the legislative field as represented by Bill C-12 and by other Bills in the House. There is ample evidence that a fraud is being perpetrated on the Canadian people. At the very time that the Government is withdrawing funds from important areas like health and education, it is pretending to assist and advance the services provided in those important fields.
The debate on Bill C-12 is drawing to an end. It may well be that my remarks will terminate the debate on third reading. I believe it is very unfortunate that as we terminate that debate it is on the note that not only are there difficulties now in the fields of health and higher education, but that those who are involved in those very important fields can look forward in the next few years to even greater difficulties. This lack of funding will have its effect on those who will now be required to pay for the services. In the case of post-secondary education it will be the students, in the case of health services it will be the provincial Governments, the alternative being a reduction in service. Either way it is going to be difficult for the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. If not, debate.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Is it for a
question or for debate?


Raymond John Skelly: Just a short question. From watching the Conservatives perform in debate on this legislation and on the health Bill, it would appear that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. They advocate support of, but vote
against, in some cases, provisions which would improve postsecondary education.
I notice that most of their speakers failed to touch adequately on native education. The Hon. Member talks about the Government committing a fraud on the Canadian people. I wonder why we have not heard anything from the Official Opposition on this subject, which is clearly a federal responsibility. We should be insisting that provinces make an adequate contribution to the post-secondary education of native people. There should be a high spending priority on university education and technical and vocational training programs which could be funded at the post-secondary level. For example, native people on the coast of British Columbia could be obtaining forestry training for employment in the forest industry. There are some serious human resource deficiencies in band administration. One of the biggest problems for native people is developing a base of trained individuals who could take over band administration, develop new economic activities and carry them forward. There is certainly a deficiency on the part of the federal Government in special areas of native education.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, my concern about health care for native people. There are not enough doctors in the many remote native communities. There are not sufficient community health care clinics for native people. Would the Hon. Member be prepared to stand up and say why his Party has said absolutely nothing on these critical topics affecting native people?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, there is a very short and simple answer I can give to my hon. friend. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party who address matters in the House of Commons abide by the rules in that their statements must be relevant to the matter before the House. Bill C-12 relates to i Established Programs Financing, which applies to all Canadians. We might speak of Japanese Canadians, Chinese Canadians or Greek Canadians, but it applies to all Canadians. Therefore, there is no need to distinguish between native persons, aboriginals or people of other ethnic groups. We want the best possible health care and the best educational services for all Canadians.
My friend has referred to his interest in the problems of native persons, Mr. Speaker. I do not think these problems can be attacked in some silly, piecemeal way, as my hon. friend suggests. The difficulties which be set native persons across Canada, particularly in western Canada, have to be addressed in another way. I do not think we can tack on provisions with special application to native persons to Bills before the House which relate to all Canadians. We have to attack the real problem, which is the treatment native persons receive in Canada under the legislation affecting them.
I am proud to say, along with other Members of the House, that we have have had a special committee on Indian self-government. I know it was the mandate of that committee to consider all aspects of special concern to native persons. The report of that committee, of which the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) was a member, has been
April 12, 1984



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
presented to the House. That is a step in the right direction. That is to say, if we can permit native persons to present in an organized way the special needs and solutions to their particular problems, that is the way to go.
If the Hon. Member is asking whether I would tack on to health legislation relating to all Canadians a special provision for native persons, would I tack on to general parliamentary legislation on education a special provision for native persons, my answer would be no, I would not want to do that. I do not want to isolate native persons as a group in that kind of demeaning way. To the extent that it is essential to provide special programs and special policies to assist native Canadians, then we should do it in a direct way.
["Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.\nAt 1 p.m. the House took recess.\nThe House resumed at 2 p.m."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any further questions? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is as follows:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is as follows: Mr. Lalonde, seconded by Mr. Roberts, moves:
That Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be now read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I de.clare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and Bill read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-14, an Act to amend an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House of Commons the seriousness of driving while impaired. In a Private Members' Bill I urged that something be done to end the terrible and needless tragedies which take place on our nation's highways. A recent news story gives cause to have the issue addressed with renewed urgency.
Last year a woman lost her 17-year-old son in a traffic accident caused by an impaired driver. Shortly after, she joined an organization called Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, in the hope that something would be done to end these terrible tragedies. Last summer the same woman lost her 25-year-old son, again because of a drunk driver.
There is a cry for action. In 1981 there were nearly 158,000 impaired driving convictions in Canada, or more than 400 per day. A study done by seven provinces from 1973 to 1978 shows that 11,500 Canadians were killed in automobile accidents. In over 42 per cent of those cases one of the drivers had been drinking. These statistics call for action. I beg that we respond in favour of the innocent. It is high time that innocent Canadians get a break from the law.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, when the Government finally screws up sufficient courage to call a general election, whether it be in August, November or, God forbid, even later, the people of Canada will be faced with a clear choice.
On the one hand they will have the Liberals, aided and abetted by their friends the NDP, who favour a policy of zero growth, continuing high unemployment alleviated, if at all, by expensive, stop-gap, temporary, make-work programs, oppressive taxation ruthlessly imposed, and ever-increasing intrusion by the state into the private affairs and business dealings of Canadians.
On the other hand, Sir, they will have the fresh ideas of the Progressive Conservative Party. Here we find policies designed to allow everyone to grow and prosper in an atmosphere of full employment, stable interest rates, and sound financial management with lower and simplified taxes. We find policies

April 12, 1984
designed to release initiatives and enterprise which will astound Canada and astonish the world. I have made up my mind, Sir. So have most other Canadians. Therefore, let us bring on the election.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, is the resolve of the Progressive Conservative Party to protect British Columbia's salmon industry weakening, now that one of its corporate friends in formally seeking access to salmon producing rivers for power generation? Apparently it is. The Kemano II project in northwestern British Columbia, proposed by Alcan, poses a serious threat to the future of our fragile salmon stocks which are already seriously impacted by the first Kemano project. Yet it is apparent that this project will have Conservative support.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently held public meetings on this matter in British Columbia, but no one from the Tory caucus bothered to show up to register their concern. We can only assume that they are not concerned. Or, if they do have concerns, they are not prepared to stand up and publicly oppose Alcan's haste. Also, the Conservative Member for Vancouver Quadra, in a letter to the President of the Terrace Chamber of Commerce, states that:
Bruce Rozenhart of Alcan has been keeping the British Columbia Caucus fully briefed on their expansion plans and I can see no problem to having such Federal approval as is necessary for such expansion.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, When the crunch comes, the true Tory colours will show through and they will continue to put the welfare of their corporate friends ahead of the welfare of British Columbia's fishermen or of the salmon stocks upon which they depend.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Why do you never criticize the Liberals?



LANGUAGE RIGHTS


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) is so afraid that John Turner will become the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada that he deliberately attempts to distort the comments made by the former Minister of Finance concerning the language issue, in order to gain political advantage.
In my opinion, intellectual decency requires that he should differentiate between the basic rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution and which the federal Government has the
obligation to protect, before the courts, if need be, and entitlement to provincial government services in the minority language, which comes under the jurisdiction of each Province.
This is basically the distinction made once more by John Turner in Montreal yesterday. Therefore, it cannot be said that, by saying he respects the provincial jurisdiction in Quebec as far as linguistic matters are concerned, John Turner is accepting official unilinguism in Quebec. In fact, Quebec is one of just two Provinces in Canada-New Brunswick being the other one-where institutional bilinguism is officially recognized under Section 133 of the British North America Act, which provides for the equality of both French and English before the courts and in the National Assembly.
The fact that the Chairman of Alliance Quebec has stated that he was satisfied with John Turner's position as concerns the linguistic rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec should urge the Conservative Leader not to be such a demagogue in the future.
By the way, if, as he has proclaimed, the Conservative caucus is now united behind its Leader in relation with the issue of French language rights in Manitoba, the Leader of the Official Opposition should say in the House whether he would accept a recorded vote on this issue.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I never fail to be amazed by the extravagance of the Government. As Members will recall, certain Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition committed their time and energy to the formation of a task force charged with the investigation of certain activities of Revenue Canada's stormtroopers which were rumoured to be unacceptable. After a month and one half of travelling across the country and speaking to Canadians in all tax brackets, we have finished what I feel to be a complete and well documented report. The total cost of the venture was in the neighbourhood of $100,000, and the time spent was less than two months.
In light of the above, how can the Minister possibly justify the hiring of a private firm to do similar work at a cost of $1.5 million over a period of one and one half years, especially with the Liberal Government's deficit approaching $30 billion? This is a mammoth undertaking and will, no doubt, enrich some pockets at the taxpayers' expense. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed outrageous. It is extravagant. It is overblown, preposterous and disgusting. It is gross, revolting, unforgivable, sickening, wasteful, redundant, thoughtless, unpalatable, ridiculous, and does not make any sense. Why does the Government not just resign? It would be a lot cheaper.
April 12, 1984



ABORTION


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court decision in the Medhurst case and ruled that the father of an unborn child has no legal status to prevent the unborn child from being aborted.
The Supreme Court based its decision on previous court rulings which have declared that an unborn child is not a person. The decision thereby prohibits a father from acting legally as a "next friend" of the fetus which he and his wife created.
While the Criminal Code allows for abortions if an abortion committee in an accredited hospital finds that the woman's life or health would be endangered by the pregnancy or birth, the judge in the Medhurst case stated that even if there were reason to believe the abortion committee had not fulfilled its legal requirements, it would still not be for him or any other judge to decide whether or not a woman should have an abortion.
In light of the Medhurst case, and the undisputed scientific proof set out in the Borowski case in which Judge Matheson of the Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan acknowledged beyond question that a fetus is a human being, I urge the Government to initiate action under the amending formula to amend the Constitution so that the human fetus will be included under the protective provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as has already been done in West Germany.
* *
*



VIA RAIL

[Stage Direction]
5.0.	21
facilitate a spirit of consultation and co-operation, might have this promised meeting.
Surely the new co-operative program as expounded by the Minister of Transport will not just apply to the riding which the Minister represents where that consultation process took place. Surely all Canadians in regions where 20 per cent of VIA Rail was cancelled are entitled to a hearing.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition, who describes himself as a Quebecer, the petit gars from Baie-Comeau, hoisted his true colours: unaware of and incompetent in international niceties, he jeopardized Canada's efforts to promote good relations by implying that the OECD is a frivolous and dissolute organization.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, far from being proud of his country and his fellow citizens, the petit gars of the Opposition debased himself in the eyes of Canadians by suggesting that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is not qualified to fill the prestigious position of OECD Secretary General.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I would expect all Members of the House to be very proud of any Canadian who might be appointed to that prestigious post. I take the Leader of the Official Opposition to task for his petty remarks about a fellow French-Canadian.



TORONTO-PETERBOROUGH-HAVELOCK-CALL FOR MEETING ON RESTORATION OF SERVICE

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an extremely urgent matter dealing with the restoration of the VIA Rail passenger service which formerly operated between Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock. When I first raised this important question on September 20, 1983, I received constant assurances from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) that the decision-making process would be conducted on a basis of consultation with all those involved, including the Minister himself. Since that time I have worked with local politicians and passenger association representatives in an attempt to secure an audience with the Minister responsible for VIA Rail but, as yet, all our efforts have been in vain.
During a November, 1983, discussion with officials from his Department, we were promised a meeting with the Minister at his convenience, and we arranged for three tentative dates, all of which have long since expired. Therefore I strongly urge the Minister of Transport to honour a commitment to myself and to other Members of Parliament on this VIA Rail line so that the representatives from Peterborough and area, in order to



FINANCE


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request today that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Government remove the 9 per cent sales tax on fuel used by farmers and by fishermen. This request has been made by numerous individuals in order to reduce the extremely high costs of fishermen and farmers. The Government has driven those costs up through high interest rates and through enormous price increases in gasoline and diesel oil and then imposed an additional burden in the form of a 9 per cent sales tax on fuel. If this were removed there would be an additional $250 million placed in the pockets of farmers and fishermen which might help them survive the other costs imposed and the dangers of bankruptcy as a result of the actions of the Government.

April 12, 1984
Oral Questions
This House is today going to deal with an obscene Bill that will give a tax break, a major tax break, of that amount to oil companies. That Bill is going to do absolutely nothing for consumers. That money will wind up on the balance sheets of major multinational oil companies in this country. The Tories and the Liberals are going to wind up supporting that Bill. There is no real care or concern for consumers and no real concern for the moral aspects of this particular situation. The Government is going to feather the nests of the major oil compagnies at the expense of the consumers.
I appeal to the Government, Mr. Speaker, as do many other people-remove this unfair 9 per cent sales tax as soon as possible.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Minister answering for de Havilland in the House. I believe it is the Minister of National Revenue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On Tuesday the Minister responsible for de Havilland in the other place said that the Dash-8 program would not be viable for at least ten years. This is a program which is condemning a company that has been a Canadian success story to a bleak and uncertain future. Since taxpayers are being asked to support the company for a total of just short of a billion dollars, since workers are being asked to make concessions in their pay, and since other workers are being laid off, will the Minister explain why the Government did not tell the full story to Parliament, to taxpayers, or to the workers, at a time when the decision was being taken? Why the cover-up? Why the rush to make this decision that is going to condemn this company?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks of a cover-up and asks why hasn't the full story been told. I have argued that the full story has been told, but the Hon. Member in his question gives an example of a cover-up. He says that Canadair had been a success story until the Government took it over. Surely that is a gross distortion of the reality, de Havilland was taken over because its parent company in Great Britain wanted to get rid of it because it was not a success story, and the Government took it over in order to save that technology for Canada. The Hon. Member should not cover up on the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be gone from this place if he is going to distort my words the way he has just done.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I said this company has been a success story. It was, with the Dash-7, which was after the Government took it over, and it still was up until the time that this decision was taken.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, taxpayers, as well as workers, and suppliers to de Havilland deserve some assurance that this decision was based on more than blatant political considerations. Will the Government release a detailed cost-benefit analysis which would outline in depth the social and the economic benefits that will offset the obvious negative aspects of the business decision that was just made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the negative aspects come from people like the Hon. Member who try to put a poor image on de Havilland. The Minister has appeared before committee. He has appeared before the Canadian public. He has appeared before the press and he has answered the questions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And he has been very frank in saying-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have noes on the other side, but it is a matter of record and of fact that he has appeared, that he has been asked questions and that he has answered them, and that if more questions are to be asked of him he will be prepared to answer them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Prime Minister to read the transcripts of some of the statements made by the Senator in the finance committee. He has not answered the questions. He has hidden the truth until after the decisions had been made, and that is a fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Government to saddle de Havilland with the program which will probably never make money is creating great uncertainty for de Havilland employees, its suppliers, other people, and for taxpayers. Will the Government refer this whole matter to the finance committee or to an independent committee so that we can get a clear understanding of the future of de Havilland, so that those jobs can be saved, and so
April 12, 1984

the company can be strengthened and preserved for the future of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know what point of view the Hon. Member and his Party want to defend in front of the committee about which he is talking. I have heard Members on that side do all they could to prevent the continuance of Canadair and of de Havilland.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Sir.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are switching a little bit now. Let me say that the Senator made it quite clear that he envisaged de Havilland would not be making money over the next several years. He made that quite clear. The Government has accepted that. The Government has made a decision that, in spite of it, and rather than repeat the old scenario of the Arrow which the Diefenbaker Government let die with all its technology, we would keep it alive at public expense, at taxpayers' expense.


Mr. Stevens:: At any cost.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a difficult decision. It would be in the short-term more tempting to say: "It is a loser, let's kill it". The Government did not do that. Ministers wanted to save the technology. They were gambling on the future improvement of the market for the Dash-8 and they took that chance. Is the Hon. Member telling me that he would say in committee we should let it die if it is costing taxpayers some money, or is he saying that even if it is costing taxpayers some money-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Give us the information.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it should be kept alive? For which of the two is his Party standing?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I sincerely thank the Prime Minister for his statement in the House yesterday relating to the whole question of morality and the use of people who are on the government payroll and people who are playing an important part in various leadership campaigns for members of his Government.
For instance, is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Michael Ronan is allegedly handling public relations and advertising for the leadership campaign of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and, at the same time, is under contract with the Privy Council Office, which I think must come under the Prime Minister, as part of a group acting as special advisers to the Cabinet Committee on Communications? Is the Prime Minister aware of this gentleman's dual role? If not, would he take steps to end either one position or the other?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Hon. Member said that he was full-time on the leadership race and full-time on the Privy Council contract. If that is the case, obviously one of the two should be stopped. However, I am not sure what are the facts as he stated them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Of course I think it does not matter whether he is full-time or part-time on either one or the other. The point is that if a person is on the government payroll in almost any guise, should he also be acting, in the Prime Minister's words of yesterday, "in an important way in a leadership campaign". That is why I wanted to congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement, but 1 will give him another example.


ROLE OF DAVID ZUSSMAN
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am told that Mr. David Zussman is listed as a special policy adviser to the Minister of Energy, yet on the Minister's tour of both the Atlantic region last week and this week's western tour, I am told Mr. Zussman was very prominent in his political activities, not in his government advising activities nor in any departmental role. Will the Prime Minister insist upon some sort of an explanation from his Minister about this one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to follow up on both those cases, but it would seem to me the Hon. Member's assumption that it does not matter or is of no relevance if he is full-time or half-time does not necessarily follow. I do not know the case, but if a gentleman is on half-time contract, or on contract for two days a week for the Government, I do not think prima facie it would preclude him from being involved in political activities the rest of the week. This obviously does not apply to full-time public servants, but he cites the case of a contract. It is worth looking into.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. The Minister will know that we have lost one million jobs in Canada since 1981. I want to ask the Minister directly whether he is prepared to undertake to recommend a guarantee that any government moneys made available to companies in Canada for the purpose of technological change will be tied directly to those companies' undertakings to provide new employment?
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science

April 12, 1984
Oral Questions
and Technology): Mr. Speaker, it would appear from the studies I have read, and from the general consensus of Ministers involved with economic development, in the OECD group of countries that technological change of the kind to which the Hon. Member refers would inevitably result in more better paying jobs for the citizens not only of Canada but of our trading partners as well.


Ian Deans: Surely the Minister is not suggesting that as one undertakes technological change, which goes from the computer age to more highly sophisticated machinery this, will somehow or other create more jobs for people working in the plants.


EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ON EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister acknowledged very little could be done for the very large numbers of women who would lose their jobs due to technological change, what kind of proposal does he have to put forward which will take up the slack in our economy as a result of the tech change having thrown over a million people out of work?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think one can specifically assign a number in Canada to those who have lost their jobs because of technological change. However, the point the Hon. Member makes is an important one-how do we remove the anxiety of those people who are currently in the work force and may see themselves threatened by technological change?
That is the very purpose of the extensive training and retraining programs provided under the National Training Act. Moreover, that is the purpose of the centre for labour productivity-and I am sorry I keep forgetting its name- which was established by my colleagues, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. As Hon. Members know, it is established in the sense that it is sponsored by the Government, but in fact it is the result of a consensus which was struck between the labour movement and the Business Council on National Issues. This forum is designed specifically to address the kinds of problems the Hon. Member is raising. We all hope that the recommendations coming from that group which, as I said, combines the interests of business and labour, will be recommendations upon which Governments, provincially and federally, will be able to act.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister knows that we have created no more than 350,000 jobs over the course of the last number of years, that we need 700,000 jobs per year just to meet the demand and that, with a million fewer jobs, any amount of retraining will be of no value because there are not jobs for retrained people.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT FUNDING BE TIED TO CREATION OF JOBS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that retraining is already paid for by workers mostly through unemployment insurance premiums, what kind of commitment can the Minister make that in fact a requirement will be placed upon those who take advantage of government subsidy, either through tax reduction or through direct subsidy for the purpose of technological change, to create jobs in Canada's economy?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is embarking upon a subject on which I could speak at great length this afternoon-the impact of technology on traditional sectors, the increase of productivity in those sectors, the job loss in those sectors as a result of technology, and the job creation in complementary sectors and in service sectors as a result of the introduction of that technology. These are complicated issues and ones which I am delighted to discuss at length with the hon. gentleman. The fact of the matter is that we know when-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Minister, they are hardly the kinds of questions which can be answered in Question Period.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would he explain why the Minister of Transport would send a telegram to NTCL, which they are proposing to privatize, informing of an independent evaluator and containing the words "maximum assistance to expedite", "must be no delays" and "would like to assure a sale in least possible time"? Does he believe that the Minister of Transport should be allowed to sell this company before replying to questions on the Order Paper which have been on the Order Paper for four months, before answering questions that the United States Air Force is asking the company, and before the Minister deals with conflict of interest regarding the Edmonton managers of the company? Is this reason for the proposed quick sale by the Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we talked about privatization of some companies, I believe, in the Speech from the Throne in 1980. I have heard proposals from the Minister of Transport to privatize Northern Transportation for quite some time now. I do not know of the questions on the Order Paper. If they are there, they will obviously have to be answered. I do not think the move to
April 12, 1984

privatize is something that the Hon. Member's Party should be scandalized about.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I am not concerned about privatizing. I am concerned about questions in the public interest being answered before the company is privatized.


CASH ASSETS OF COMPANY
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, it is odd that a Crown corporation should have $20 million cash on hand at the time that it is being privatized, at the same time that it shut down its Athabasca operation, has slowed down its Churchill operation, and has not been as competitive as it could be in the North. Could the company be bought out with its own cash? Will the Prime Minister ensure that these questions are answered before this company is put up for sale to the general public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The company has not been put up for sale. It has been known that the company wanted to dispose of it for quite a while. It has been said on various occasions. Obviously if it is not sold for the right valuable considerations, $1 and other good and valuable considerations, the Opposition will have time to ask questions and will be entitled to have answers.
I wonder about the attitude of the Hon. Member. I think his Party is supporting some privatization. The Hon. Member nods his head in assent. Why does he want to delay this particular one? I just said that questions will have to be answered and should be answered if the sale is not proper. It sounds as though the Hon. Member would like to wait to privatize a little later when we have a new Liberal leader. I want to make it clear that I am all for privatization too.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week we were treated to shocking statistics expounding on the unemployment situation which, in Atlantic Canada, can be described as nothing less than crushing. Moncton has the horrible distinction of having the highest unemployment rate of any city in Canada. Eighty per cent of the construction trades in Saint John, New Brunswick, are out of work. It is now the norm rather than the exception. Newfoundland fishermen are in a horrible state. What advice does the Minister have to give to labour officials in Saint John, New Brunswick, whom he met a few weeks ago, when he was perceived as being more concerned with getting himself a job rather than arranging for a job for anybody else?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I was recently in Saint John,
Oral Questions
New Brunswick. The reason was that a conference was held in Saint John with my provincial counterparts. We had extensive and serious discussions about job-creation possibilities. As the Hon. Member should know, but I suspect does not, there have been continuing discussions between the Government of New Brunwsick and our own on how to take advantage of the arrival of the frigate program to create jobs in his area. The discussions we held in Saint John were serious, as opposed to the rather frivolous nature of the question of the Hon. Member on a very serious subject.


PLIGHT OF JOBLESS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, that is cold comfort for those in despair, with no jobs, shattered families, broken homes and worse. For the first time since the Great Depression, soup kitchens have become a way of life in Atlantic Canada. Will the Minister go there and break bread with those still proud people who are taking bread in those soup kitchens, in the hope that he will become motivated to help rather than to hinder?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may want to wear his heart on his sleeve, but he is not the only person in this House who is concerned about the plight of the jobless. He should not arrogate to himself feelings about the people in his constituency. I have been there and I talked with the municipal authorities. I know about the problem. We are helping. If the Hon. Member had cared about it, he could have talked to me at any time in the past four years about these problems instead of waiting until today in the House of Commons.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Samia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Tricil Corporation plans to bury some 6.3 million kilograms of highly toxic cyanide-coated film chips from the Chicago area in a landfill site near Sarnia. This material was refused by three States in the United States. Will the Minister act to close the border and stop this dumping of poisonous waste?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member and other Liberal Members for having raised this matter so swiftly. I assure him that I have directed the officials in Environment Canada to get in touch with the U.S. Environmental Agency to establish, first, when this application will be made. I am told that 30 days would be required before permission for transportation can be granted. Second, they are to discuss alternative means of disposal of this product. In the end, I draw to the Hon. Member's attention that the control point will be whether or not there will be a site available in Ontario. That is a matter of

April 12, 1984
Oral Questions
decision under the jurisdiction of the Government of Ontario. I understand that Liberal Members there raised this issue in the provincial House yesterday.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since Canada joined most other nations at the United Nations in condemning the Guatemalan Government's human rights violations, the Minister knows that many Guatemalans have good reason to flee from their terrorist Government and often have no alternative country of refuge except Canada. Will the Minister tell the House why, in spite of the pleas of many churches and other responsible agencies, he decided to prohibit all Guatemalans from entering Canada except those with visas?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the application of the visa, which is not an extraordinary arrangement, is one which was designed to enable us to put in place a refugee program for Guatemalans. We, more than any other country, are giving assistance to refugees in Guatemala, as the Hon. Member recognized in his question, saying there were not other opportunities for potential refugees in relation to other countries. The reason is that Canada has been the most open and extensive in offering refugee assistance. In order to be able to do that, we put in a place a visa program so that we have some controls in order that there will not be a flood of people seeking to take advantage of those much more generous provisions which we have put in place. Indeed, there are considerable signs that the program which we have put in place is working and is of great assistance to those Guatemalans who need the program.


PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY APPLICANTS FOR VISAS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's own departmental records show that at least 70 per cent of Guatemalans who came to Canada before the visa requirement were found to be bona fide refugees. That is a very high record, placing Guatemala in a very different situation from many other countries. The Minister knows that there is not a record of abuse in that case. Why has the Minister not only imposed this visa requirement but publicly announced that Guatemalans in Guatemala who want to come as refugees must apply to the embassy? Does he know that, by going to the embassy to apply to be refugees, they place their lives in great risk at the hands of the Guatemalan security forces? Is the Minister aware of what he is doing to cut off the possibility of genuine refugees coming to Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be unaware of the fact that they do not have to apply in person. It is possible
to take advantage of these provisions through intermediaries and third persons. There is no need to place themselves in the kind of jeopardy which the Hon. Member has described. Indeed, in relation to the program, that has happened on many occasions already.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BELGIAN MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to call to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of Mr. Daniel Coens, the Minister of National Education for Belgium.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General perhaps I could put my question to the Minister of Supply and Services who is involved in this matter as well. Could the Minister confirm that meetings have taken place between the various Departments involving the purchasing practices when obtaining armoured cars for personnel here in Canada or VIPs from abroad? Can he confirm that some initiatives are being taken to ensure that purchasing practices in his own Department are in proper perspective?
[Translation\


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not providing me with enough details to enable me to give an accurate reply to his question. We regularly purchase armed or armored vehicles both for the Canadian Armed Forces and for the RCMP, but if he would give me more details on the type of armored vehicle he has in mind, I may be able to give him a more accurate reply.


REPORTED DEFICIENCIES IN VEHICLES
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I refer specifically to the Prime Minister's limousine and to the vehicles which were purchased for the Summit meeting which was held a few years ago. I am also referring specifically to the Hesse-Eisenhardt Company, and to Protective Materials Inc. I understand that allegations were made that some bids were submitted which were lower than those which the Department accepted.
May I also ask the Minister if he has been made aware of the deficiencies which exist in the Summit Seven vehicles? I refer particularly to the discrepancies in weight between
April 12, 1984

apparently identical vehicles, the fact that the glass appears to be faulty, and that apparently some of these vehicles failed test procedures at Val Cartier. I ask these questions in view of my deep concern for the safety of our diplomatic corps abroad, and my deep concern for the safety of the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time Tory members became concerned about my safety. I hope that in my remaining months they will be more gentle with me.
I think I would like to take this opportunity to say that I have refused delivery of the latest limousine. I want it to be delivered clean, fresh and unused, to the next Prime Minister of Canada who, presumably, will be a member of the Liberal Party. That limousine has great advantages and is very solid. I do not like it because the windows do not open, so I have gone back to using the old limousine.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who is responsible for Canada Post. In February the President of Canada Post, Mr. Michael Warren, spoke to an American association in Ottawa and told its members how good our Post Office was. He obviously expected that the members of that association would not know the difference. He then sent all 220 grams of his speech, printed in both official languages, to the riding offices and Ottawa offices of each Member of Parliament. A quick calculation tells me that that comes to 123,200 grams of paper, the posting of which would have cost over $700. Would the Minister who is responsible for Canada Post not agree that that money could have been better spent replacing those pickup boxes in small communities which have been taken away, or at least spent in an effort to improve the postal service?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to convey this comment to the President of the Canada Post Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the incidents we heard about yesterday, namely the
Oral Questions
mining of Nicaragua's Puerto Corinto harbour. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has received any information concerning the safety of a Canadian ship which entered the Puerto Corinto harbour this morning with 11 crewmen and 19 cadets from Rimouski's Institut d'enseigne-ment maritime? Has the Prime Minister received from our embassy and the Government of Nicaragua the assurance that the safety of Canadians on that ship is not threatened?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, according to the information received from the Boreal Navigation Agency and the news we got this morning from our embassy at San Jose, Costa Rica, it would seem that the ship is not in any danger. This ship-La Mesange-will steer towards the Puerto Corinto harbour this afternoon, following two fishing vessels equipped with fishing nets which would automatically retrieve any mine that might lie in waters through which this ship is navigating. Besides, as an additional safety measure, divers will surround the ship as she nears the Puerto Corinto harbour.
That is the information we received this morning from the embassy and the company. Company officials also told us that the ship's underwriters do not consider that she is in a war zone and, therefore, the standard insurance premiums apply in this case. Last week, another Canadian ship, the Alexander II, sailed to the same harbour, berthed at the same place under similar conditions and no untoward incidents were reported.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In light of the Minister's answer to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Laurier yesterday, I would like to ask the Minister why he finds the idea of individuals saving for their own education or re-education with the help of the tax system, so startling and so regressive?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if that is so, the answer the Minister gave yesterday misled the House.


USE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND MONEYS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week the Minister misled the House again when he indicated that $1 billion of unemployment insurance funds were going into training under Sections 38 and 39. The Minister should know that about $250 million, one-quarter of that amount, was budgeted and used last year. I wonder if the Minister could stand in the House and correct the impression

April 12, 1984
Oral Questions
he left on Monday about the amount of UIC training funds, and correct the impression he left yesterday that any idea that was not already being used was both startling and regressive. Could he apologize to the House for those two answers? They were deliberate attempts to mislead the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is unparliamentary for an Hon. Member to allege that someone is deliberately misleading the House. Would the Hon. Member withdraw the word "deliberate"?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I do not know what the Minister's motivation is. I am quite happy to withdraw the word "deliberate". However, he did mislead the House on two days out of three this week, and he did so in a very serious way. I wish he would apologize to the House.


John (Moody) Roberts: That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. However, I would be quite happy to support in some detail the position which I took in the House. When Tory recommendations are good, those recommendations are already in place. When Tory recommendations are not already in place and are startling, they are regressive.
For instance, the Conservative Party proposed allowing people to set up tax-deductible educational savings plans similar to Registered Home Ownership Plans. That is indeed a kind of proposal which favours high income earners. In fact the present national training program provides direct assistance to trainees by paying for the cost of training. It is an entirely different approach from the one recommended by Tory members, and is more satisfactory.
As another example, the Conservative Party proposed federally guaranteed loans for the needy to enable them to take advantage of training and other educational programs. The fact of the matter is that institutional training programs do not require that the needy pay for their own training. An allowance is provided to them which pays for the cost of the course.
The Conservative Party proposed tax incentives for employers to offset the cost of employee retraining and upgrading of skills. The fact is that the industrial training program currently reimburses employers directly for most of their training costs and pays for half of the trainee wage costs. Training expenses are already tax deductible. I could cite eight or ten such examples and each one of them would substantiate exactly what I said in the House.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, may I commend the Minister of Agriculture for his ambition, may I ask him a question, and may I wish all Liberal leadership candidates as much success as the Minister should expect?
In this day of computers and electronic technology, why can the farmer not, on his final payment of grain, receive a full accounting of his personal share of costs to the Canadian Wheat Board's administration or to demurrage at the ports, in other words, to indicate precisely the difference between the world price and the final price he receives? Is there any other business that would be denied that vital information?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I would double check with the Wheat Board. I agree with the Hon. Member that, in our modern age of computers, nearly anything should be possible.


REQUEST THAT INFORMATION BE PROVIDED TO FARMERS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to say that if the Minister is not just going to ask them but to make that representation, I commend him for doing so. Certainly it is important in the politics of today that farmers be able to have their industry represented on a personal basis as to cost deducted from world price. They need that information, and I would ask that the Minister give the House the undertaking that he would ensure that on every cheque sent out, that documentation is available so they can, on a personal basis, reflect whether there are inefficiencies in the Wheat Board, inefficiences in demurrage, or wherever they might lie, so that it can be understood on a personal basis.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows as well as I do that the Wheat Board is one of the most efficiently run operations in the grain world. I am not the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, but I will bring this to the attention of the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, who knows that in 1983 the average monthly farm bankruptcy rate was 41 per month and that in 1984 the average jumped to 57 farm bankruptcies per month. It is a change in Canada from one year to the next that is now shown to be 58 per cent.
Yesterday the Canadian Federation of Agriculture published a brief in which they set out a farm bankruptcy index that indicated, if 1979 equalled 100, at the current time that would be equal to 620. What is the Minister proposing to do about the situation, or has he decided, with his leadership announcement of today, to give up on farm bankruptcies and concentrate on his Party's leadership, which is also bankrupt?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member uses figures and he knows that there are
April 12, 1984

many circumstances involved in the plight of the farmers. There are poor crops, bad weather, and all of those things that compound the position some of them are in. He has made a lot of loud noises about their plight but has not made any really substantial suggestions about what should be done for them.
As I said, the farmers are pleading with us at the present time, and pleading with the provincial Governments. I must say that the NDP Government in Manitoba does not seem to be doing very much, and the previous Government in Saskatchewan hardly did anything for them because we spent twice as much money on agriculture in Saskatchewan and twice as much in Manitoba as the provinces. So, if he has any substantial suggestions, other than trying to use the Question Period for political reasons, he can let me know.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Calgary West to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On April 10 the Minister indicated that $1 billion a year was being spent for training under the Unemployment Insurance Act, specifically under Section 38 and Section 39. That is in Hansard. The Minister knows that there is no money spent under Section 38. That is for job creation. Under Section 37 there is $27,000 being spent. According to the Estimates and a check with the Minister's office, there is $259 million being spent under Section 39. Would the Minister tell us where he found the other $3.25 billion?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will go back and check the record. My understanding is that the question was about funds being used and the suggestion was in relation to funds being used from unemployment insurance for both training and job creation. That is taking place, as I indicated in my answer.
Clearly, in citing Section 38 I was citing our efforts in relation to job creation. My understanding was that the Conservative Party had suggested using unemployment insurance funds for job creation and training. My reply was that we are already doing that under Section 38 and Section 39 of the Act. That is already in place.
The serious question to be asked in relation to unemployment insurance funds is whether one should only be able to do that in a sense by using the entitlements which people have and therefore be required to encourage or entice them to do so by top-ups, or whether we should be looking at other ways of using the Unemployment Insurance Fund which enables us to take more money out even if we do not have that kind of agreement with the recipients. Clearly the Conservative proposal was both in terms of job creation and training. So was
Oral Questions
my answer. That was the reason I cited both Section 38 and Section 39.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary to the Member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: It had nothing to do with job creation. It concerned the Minister's statement in Calgary last week that more unemployment insurance funds should go into job training as opposed to income maintenance. My question was prompted by that.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister if he is now prepared to correct the misleading statement that he has left on the record of the House,
' namely, that $1 billion of UIC funds is going into job training? That is just not in accordance with the facts.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything that is misleading. In Calgary I said that I wanted to see more unemployment insurance funds going into both job creation and training. We have already started that process of looking at other ways, such as combining the recommendations of the Skill Development Task Force leave report with the operation of the unemployment insurance. I suggested that that was the kind of approach which should be considered as we move into the next Parliament. There is nothing inconsistent with that and what I have said in the House.


TOURISM
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. It concerns the 9 per cent tax on tourism materials. Can he report anything further to the House with respect to his representations to the Minister of Finance on having that tax removed? I remind him that this is a serious irritant between Canada and the United States and may lead to the Americans retaliating by removing the tax deductible status of U.S. conventions held in Canada.


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to report in terms of representations made to the Minister of Finance. The basic problem is that Canadians have to pay this tax and it is a question of whether or not it is fair to Canadians to pay a tax if Americans who were advertising in Canada did not have to pay the same tax as their Canadian competitors. It is under review. I have not yet heard.
I might point out that while I believe there is a Bill that was introduced by a Member of the House of Representatives, it is

April 12, 1984
Oral Questions
not sponsored by the U.S. Government. It is somewhat akin to a private member's Bill, with not much chance of passing.


David Kilgour: The government administration and Congress both give us an impression contrary to that of the Minister.


EFFECT ON CANADIAN PRINTING INDUSTRY
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister realize, for example, that this tax of his is causing Canadian printing jobs in the tourist industry to go south of the border where they do not have the tax? Does he believe that this is the kind of productive employment policy that we need in Canada, or is he planning to change this in the interest of Canadian tourism and of keeping jobs in Canada in a sector which, I remind him, employs 11 per cent of the Canadian work force?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think that this Government certainly recognizes the importance of the tourism industry and has taken initiatives that underline that. It is because of some of the reasons the Hon. Member has pointed out that I have made representations to the Minister of Finance.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Is the Department of National Defence considering forward or advance basing of F-18 fighter aircraft in Canada north of 60?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman perhaps has read the press reports on the aircraft indicating how Canadian Forces airmen who are using the CF-18 are pleased with that aircraft, notwithstanding all the criticism that we heard from the other side of the House on that particular government procurement.


Mr. McDermid:: If you were a pilot you would enjoy it too.


Mr. Blais:: The hon. gentleman said that if I were a pilot I would enjoy it too. I want to indicate to him that I did fly the aircraft and I did enjoy the experience.
With respect to the question relating to north of 60, indeed, as we are looking at the deployment of that aircraft, all various options are under consideration.


AIRCRAFT'S RANGE
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, if a threat to Canada's sovereignty ever originated in the North, due to the limited range of the F-18, it is unlikely that it would be able to get from southern bases, do its job, and get back again. Therefore, even if the Government is not thinking of
putting bases permanently in the North with F-18 aircraft and crews attached, at least it might consider putting in the facilities so that, if anything untoward happened, at least within a few days the aircraft could be moved there and the runways and everything else would be ready to go.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. gentleman's comments as a representation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Northumberland.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Nielsen:: He knew you were going to do it.


George Harris Hees: He knew I was going to ask him a question and he has ducked out of the House, Mr. Speaker. Would he like to come back in and face the music?


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, the Hon. Member will ask his question another day.


EXPO 86 GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it is not clear to me to whom I should address my question. However, I will try the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, who is talking to his fellow candidate. It has to do with Expo 86. Could the Minister tell us, in light of the uncertainties which seem to be surrounding the future of Expo 86, what decisions the federal Government is planning to take under the current circumstances?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that question should be addressed to me. In any event the only information I have, of course, is what I have seen in the newspapers, the recommendation of the Chairman of Expo, Mr. Pattison, to the Premier, and, as far as I know, the decision of the Government of British Columbia has not yet been made public, if in fact it has been taken.


PETITIONS
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 presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, April 11, 1984,
April 12, 1984

and that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on the usual question relating to House business.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on this auspicious occasion, 1 wonder if the Government House Leader would be good enough to take the House and the country into his confidence with respect to the important business to be considered by the House today and until the adjournment of the House for the Easter recess next Wednesday.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member on his new responsibilities. I look forward to working with him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: At the same time I also want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Yukon on his promotion. I hope that for many years to come he will remain responsible for the transition group!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: Many, many years!


Erik Nielsen: It's later than you think!


Yvon Pinard: It was also a good experience to work with the Hon. Member for Yukon and I wish him well.
In so far as the business of the House is concerned, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, as I have indicated, is an allotted day. Monday will be an allotted day as well. Next Tuesday and Wednesday we will be dealing with the second reading of the Bill to be introduced at the beginning of next week. Notice of that Bill will be given today or tomorrow. The Opposition Parties have been made aware of the contents of the Bill by the Prime Minister. It is an Act to create a peace institute. We will want to debate the second reading of that Bill next week in order to be able to send it to a standing committee before we adjourn for Easter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity at the first House Leaders' meeting which I attended to make inquiries of the Government House Leader with respect to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I just want the Minister to advise us whether he thinks there will be any possibility of that particular Bill being brought forth for first reading before we adjourn for Easter.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I must consult with the Minister of Agriculture who has always been very well aware of the needs of farmers in this country. I will be able to provide the
Business of the House
Hon. Member with specific answers once the Bill is about to be introduced, or once it is on the Order Paper. We have an Order Paper which is rather impressive. As House Leader, I usually deal with the legislation which is ready to be proceeded with on the floor of the House. However, I will look again into the request made by the Hon. Member. I will raise the matter again with the Minister of Agriculture and if it is likely that such legislation is to be introduced in the short-term, I will be glad to negotiate a package which would include such imminent legislation. However, if such legislation is many weeks further down the road, then, in the short term, I will have to deal with the Bills on the Order Paper, as usual.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a supplementary and then the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have one final question, Mr. Speaker, in terms of House business. I wanted simply to say to the Government House Leader that, as he well knows, in terms of the proposed legislation which he has referred to relating to the peace institute there has been correspondence carried on between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. It has been a serious exchange of correspondence, a serious exchange of points of view with suggested amendments on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.
There had been a previous exchange of correspondence with respect to the resolution relating to the Prime Minister's peace initiative and the peace debate generally, which came to some fruition. I simply say that I feel it is regrettable that that exchange of correspondence was not allowed to come to fruition with respect to the content of the Bill before the Government indicated its intention to bring that forward. I hope that a reasonable period of time will be allowed for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party to see whether or not there can be some agreement as to the contents of that proposed legislation.


Yvon Pinard: I make two points, Mr. Speaker. First, during the debate on second reading it will surely be possible to consider any good suggestions made by the Opposition Parties on the content of the legislation. Second, the Bill will go to committee and we expect that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence will look at the Bill during a few days, certainly a few weeks, so that there will be an opportunity to look at serious amendments.
From the correspondence exchanged between the Leaders of the Opposition Parties and the Prime Minister, it seems that some of the requests may be accommodated at the committee level. That is why we are very confident that the legislation will ultimately be acceptable and that one month or so down the road we will be able to give third reading to that Bill. That is why we will want to start debating that Bill next Tuesday.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I also want to join the Government House Leader in congratulating the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on his new position as the Official Opposition House Leader. I say to the Hon. Member for Yukon that I

April 12, 1984
Business of the House
have worked with him for the last couple of years and it was an enjoyable experience. It certainly did sharpen the senses.
I want to ask the Government House Leader if he might consider what the business will be when we return from the Easter break. Perhaps he can give us some inkling, if not right now. Quite clearly he is not in a position to do that right now. Perhaps by tomorrow, or by Monday at the latest, he might be in a position to tell us what he has in mind for the two or three days immediately after our return from the Easter break.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the suggestion made by the Hon. Member that I try and let the House know as early as possible next week what the business will be when we come back is a good suggestion indeed. I will try to accommodate the Hon. Member accordingly.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, as the House Leader will remember, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans passed a unanimous resolution that that Committee be empowered to travel to the West Coast to study the plight of the West Coast salmon fishermen. I know the House Leader some days ago took a question on notice as to whether or not there would be a House order which would enable that Committee to travel to the West Coast. I believe as yet there has been no response.
As the Government House Leader will know, the fishermen are facing a very poor summer, from all reports, and the working season is coming on. It is imperative that these fishermen know as soon as possible so that they can adjust their work schedules to the travels of the Committee. Could the Government House Leader or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give us some indication when a House order is going to be presented to us which will empower the Committee to travel to the West Coast to work with the salmon fishermen there?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I still have to consult with the Minister, but as I understand it the Committee is already seized of a reference relating to the subject matter described by the Hon. Member. It seems to me that the procedure would be that the Committee would come forward with a report to seek permission to travel. We do not have such a report at this time. If we have one, we will consider whether to accept it or not.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the President of the Privy Council. Before doing so I want to join in congratulating my colleague from Saskatoon West on his elevation to the new position of Opposition House Leader. I am certainly going to miss him in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It has been a very interesting experience working with him on the security legislation and on other matters.
My question is with respect to legislation on access to information. The President of the Privy Council will recall that some time ago I asked him about designating a committee to effectively oversee the implementation of this important legislation as well as that of the Privacy Act. He indicated that he was awaiting the outcome of the proposed security legislation. The committee is now seized of that particular Bill and it will possibly be seized of the Criminal Code reforms and the Divorce Act. Therefore, when does he intend to designate a committee, hopefully the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, to commence the very important process of review of the access to information and privacy legislation?


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member knows that we would prefer that the committee have this responsibility. Of course, if the report on the security legislation is made in a very short period of time, it will be easier for us to make a decision in that sense. But we will have to wait and see over the next few days and I will be in a better position later on to give an answer to the Hon. Member.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Government is dragging its heels on the designation of this very important committee. There is another matter concerning a fundamental democratic right in this country, the question of redistribution. As the President of the Privy Council will be well aware, riding boundaries are still based on the results of the 1971 census. To the best of my knowledge there have been reports from all the redistribution commissioners to the Government, which are on the Order Paper, and I am wondering when the Government is finally going to move to ensure that the representation in this House more accurately reflects the population shifts in the country.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as to dragging heels, I just want to indicate again to the Hon. Member that if he does not drag his heels we will be able to get the security Bill back to the House very shortly. It will then be easier for us to make a decision in answer to his first question.
In so far as the objections to the reports of Electoral Boundaries Commission which appear on the Order Paper are concerned, and there are 45 of them, if the Hon. Member would indicate to me which one he is concerned with-because if he asked a question he must have made an objection-I will try and see if we can schedule debate of his objection, and others if possible, within a reasonable length of time. I have to take into account other business on the Order Paper but, failing to get a very specific and firm agreement on all of the 45 objections, it will be very difficult for the Government to start debating only some of them knowing very well that nothing can be done or completed unless all of the objections are disposed of.
I would welcome the Hon. Member indicating to me his personal concern on the boundaries. I will then raise it again with House Leaders. If we can come to some very specific agreement to dispose of all the objections, then I might consider scheduling some of them for debate in the short term. Failing that consent, we would have to deal with the other items on the Order Paper before we use Government time in the House to deal with these objections.

Si


April 12, 1984


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, regarding the attempts of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to go to the West Coast to meet with fishermen, the House Leader knows I have raised this question for the last three weeks. The Committee presented a report to the House on February 17-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the same question has been asked by another Member today. As far as the Chair can determine, it is substantially the same. This is not intended as a period of debate. A question specifically regarding House business is in order but the Chair does not intend to allow repetition or prolonged statements.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, the information I wanted to submit is that the Committee has in fact tabled a report requesting an opportunity to travel. Could the Government House Leader indicate whether he would now be prepared to meet with the Minister and confirm the support for the committee who wish to go to British Columbia?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will talk again to the Minister. I note that the NDP also cares for fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), bearing in mind that we have had a number of questions.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, passage of Bill C-16, which would provide substantial help to the extremely depressed shipbuilding industry in Canada, would be of great assistance to the industry. It is my understanding from informal discussions that representatives of all Parties would like to see that dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Would the Government House Leader be prepared to indicate when that Bill might come forward if all Parties are in fact making these statements in good faith?


Yvon Pinard: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. This matter was discussed with the House Leaders at 1.30 today and we hope to come to some firm agreement within a reasonable period of time. I hope we will be able to get this Bill passed shortly after Easter, if not before.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River. Let it be short, please.


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader knows, the Act concerning multiculturalism was promised in the Speech from the Throne in December. Given the workload he has been allocating to us, will that Act be brought forward? If so, when? Also, will it be referred to the special parliamentary committee which has been dealing with visible minorities, or will the Government be setting up a standing committee on multiculturalism which was unanimously recommended in Equality Now\l


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member knows very well that when we promise something in a Speech from the Throne, we always deliver; so he should be a little patient.
Motions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Petitions.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would think that of the vast majority of petitions presented in the House by Hon. Members the Hon. Member himself is in favour of the content. Yesterday I was in a position where I felt that as a Member of Parliament I had an obligation to present a petition but I did not agree with the suggestion that legislation be introduced to bring back capital punishment.
Do we have the obligation to present petitions? Having presented that petition, a lot of people thought I had changed my mind on capital punishment. I have not, but I felt an obligation to my constituents who signed the form to present that petition.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is not in the habit of answering this kind of matter. If the Hon. Member wishes to put his request in writing, an appropriate reply will be prepared.



FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.


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

['Agreed.\nPetroleum and Gas']
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions between the Parties. I think if you ask you will find that there is unanimous consent that the following motion be put:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, when the House adjourns on May 7 1984, it shall stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on May 8, 1984; and That the address of the President of Mexico, to be delivered in the House Chamber that day before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to

April 12, 1984
Order Paper Questions
the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That the aforementioned proceedings be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcast system.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council have unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 338, 388, 612, 704, 726 and 753.


Mr. Heap: 1.	Did Canadian National buy railway lines in the northern United States and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did CN plan to route trains from southern Quebec or Ontario through the U.S. to western Canada, south of the Great Lakes, bypassing the Sudbury route?
3.	Did CN consider eliminating service or track between Capreol and Ottawa?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	In June, 1980, the Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, subsidiary of Grand Trunk Corporation (the holding company for wholly-owned American subsidiaries of Canadian National) acquired the Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railway Company. Presently the Grand Trunk Corporation is involved in Interstate Commerce Commission hearings regarding the possible acquisition of the Chicago, Milwaukee St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. Such acquisitions are designed to improve the ability of the GTC to compete with consolidated American railway systems by offering longer on-line hauls deeper into the American mid-west and south.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Mr. Howie: 1. What was the total cost of the Barrack Point Terminal in Saint John Harbour, New Brunswick including the computerized loading system?
2. What is the full capacity of the loading machinery in terms of tons per hour?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows:
1.	Ports Canada spent $21,269 million and the terminal operator spent approximately $20 million. The operator's costs included the computerized loading system.
2.	Two thousand, seven hundred metric tonnes per hour.


Mr. Manly: 1.	In the past five years, were any lease payments made to the Canadian National Railway for Lot 160 (in the Cowichan Regional District, Area "D", Vancouver Island) and, if so, what were they?
2.	In the current fiscal year, what is the projected income for the railway from the lot?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. Yes. $160,000. 2. $35,000.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Pierre De Bané: 1. Yes.
(a) and (b)	(c)
Executive Assistant	C. Canuel
Special Advisor	T. O'Reilly
Special Assistant	S. Langis
Special Assistant	R. Fournier
Special Assistant	J. Levesque
Secretary	L. Fournier
Receptionist	L. Tessier
2. No.


Mr. St. Germain: Since April 1, 1983, was any amount expended under the Special Recovery Export Financing Fund and, if so, what (a) total amount (b) firms have received assistance?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
$180 million Special Recovery Export Financing Fund (SREFF) was established as part of the Special Recovery Program so to enable the Export Development Corporation to seek out export opportunities more aggressively than it would otherwise be able to do. The Fund was in particular intended to enable EDC to make financing offers at competitive terms on capital projects in developing countries which would entail
April 12, 1984

financing requirements over and above what was available for EDC's regular export financing programs. Financing offers made possible by having the SREFF in place now amount to over $3.3 billion. It is likely that not all of these offers will be taken up in the highly competitive world market in which Canada is pursuing export projects, but the government's financial support does mean that Canadian exporters are competing on an equal footing with other countries, as far as export credit terms and conditions are concerned.
In view of the time required for export projects to come to fruition the Government did not expect that SREFF funds would be expended immediately. It is for that reason that the Fund was planned to be non-lapsing, and to be kept in place into 1988, as back-up to EDC's regular program. As negotiations are still under way on the projects being pursued by Canadian exporters, it is not possible to divulge the names of the firms involved.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Department of Supply and Services and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Charles Lapointe: 1. The Minister of Supply and Services currently employs eight exempt staff as shown hereunder.
(a) (b) (c)
Executive Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Receptionist (part time)
Receptionist (part time)
2. No.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Petroleum and Gas



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-14, an Act to amend an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the debate on Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. This is basically an Act to amend the PGRT, which has become very famous initials, and to put in line with a number of other Acts a number of definitions that had been placed in the previous Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.
This Act is also intended to give credibility to some of the Budget provisions that have been in place for a number of years now for which the legislation has never been passed. It is astonishing that Budgets can pass this House and on the evening of the Budget taxes are in place and being collected by the Government. Yet the Government does not move with any speed legitimately to pass the legislation in the House that gives the tax some effect. This is the case with this legislation.
The $250,000 tax credit has been in place. It allows for a corporation to have an annual credit of up to $250,000. That liability can be deducted from the petroleum and gas revenue tax. It has been in effect since it was announced in the NEP update. It is basically a good measure. This allows a company some cash flow and allows it to make further decisions, hopefully to drill in the Canadian basin.
We also have a reduction in royalties. This is another tax relief measure. We have royalty reduction from 16 per cent to 14.67 per cent, which really is a reduction from the exact rate of 12 per cent to 11 per cent. That was effective from June 1, 1982 to May 31, 1983. It has also been announced in the NEP update. This measure is being provided for in the Bill yet in effect it has already lapsed. This Bill is giving legitimacy to the Budget which put forward this reduction in royalties. A Bill has never been passed to give that royalty reduction any legitimacy. It could be argued that although the measure is no longer in effect it still allows corporations legally to file for that reduction.
In the April 19, 1983 Budget there was also introduced and placed in this Act an enhanced oil recovery program. It basically provided for a reduction from income of capital costs in enhanced oil recovery projects. The damage of the national program was already in place. Companies such as Dome and Imperial Oil had projects in place in Judy Creek. There are still large amounts of oil in the ground but it cannot be brought out of the ground by conventional pumping methods. A series of expensive measures must be used to bring this oil to
Elisabeth Nadeau Martin Boulianne Brian Kelly Claude Lussier Lise Tremblay Reine Villeneuve Martin Cauchon Diane Gagnon

April 12, 1984
Petroleum and Gas
the surface. Some incentive is required for companies to take on such a project. Many projects which had been envisioned by companies were cancelled when the National Energy Program came in. They did not have the cash flow any more to go forward with these projects.
I can remember an exciting project just west of my home. When carbon dioxide is pumped into a well it provides what many of the people who work in the area call the "milk shake effect". It stirs up the oil in the ground, takes it out of the pores of the rocks and allows it to be pumped to the surface. The proposal that was put forward was to use the carbon dioxide from the coal-fired electrical plant for this process. That carbon dioxide was going into the atmosphere as waste. It could be used with no production cost. It could, in effect, give life to that field. Of course, that project was cancelled with the National Energy Program. Now we have a Bill that is attempting to bring some more life into the enhanced oil recovery program.
If we look at the statistics, we will find that much of the western oil basin that has been producing oil since 1948 basically-some wells in the Turner Valley area before that, but the major discovery was after 1948-has been declining at a rate of about 30,000 barrels per day per year. The statistics do not show that because we have brought on stream two tar sands plants. In the last few years since coming on stream they have produced a substantial amount of oil, which shows increased production from the western oil basin. In effect, our oil production from coventional crude oil was, in 1982, 16 per cent less than in 1979, and it is feasible to believe that unless we find more oil in these basins that could decrease by as much as 10 per cent per year in the future.
Part of the reason we are not adding to that western oil basin or supply is that since the National Energy Program far fewer wells are being drilled searching for oil. In the last few months there have been some interesting discoveries in northern Alberta. There has been some substantial drilling going on in the Saskatchewan basin.
Why is it that we have more drilling in the Saskatchewan area? It is not because of anything the federal Government has done. The National Energy Program is still in place. The PRGT is still in place. But the Saskatchewan Government has allowed oil companies that find oil a royalty holiday of up to five years on these new wells. You might ask why they would forgo that kind of income. It is logical to say that if there are no wells drilled, there are no jobs, no trucks are bought, no people are working and there is nothing to tax. It is far better to allow companies that are prepared to take this kind of financial risk a royalty holiday so they can provide employment to the local citizens in the area. And if there is a possibility of finding oil they can quickly recover their costs.
When you consider that wells in the western basin cost upwards of $500,000 per hole at this time, you can understand that the companies do not want that money sitting for very long. What does this do? Perhaps this is something we should
consider applying in other areas, and the federal Government ought to take some leadership in this regard. As this Bill is reducing the PGRT in certain instances, perhaps we might make the suggestion that for new wells drilled in Saskatchewan, Alberta-in any part of the nation-the federal Government forgo any portion of the taxes it levies on the oil industry, and that the provincial governments match the amount in royalty. We then have to get the industry moving again.
What would this do? This would move us more quickly to self-sufficiency. One of the objects of the National Energy Program that has not come about is a move toward self-sufficiency. By removing billions of dollars from existing oil production, mainly in western Canada, and placing that money through the PIP grants into the so-called Canada Lands in the North and in the offshore in the main, we have not been as fortunate as many who proposed the program thought we would be. We have not found energy that could quickly be brought on stream in the Northwest Territories, in the Beaufort, and in the eastern offshore.
However, there is a plus side. This has brought forward the potential of about 1.5 billion barrels of oil in Hibernia. This most likely will not come on stream for up to six to ten years. The Beaufort Sea still has promise, but there has been no development of a commercial reservoir yet. Part of the reason, I believe, is that the petroleum incentive grants have been on the exploratory side and not in the production area. What the companies are tending to do is drill wells to find the extension of the field, rather than delineate the field for actual production. In other words, to detemine the extent of the field where they have drilled and found oil, and whether the field can produce. We are spending billions of dollars in incentives and yet we are getting very little in the sense that there might be some production in the near future.
When a well is drilled in the western Canadian basin and oil is found, the potential to bring that oil on stream very quickly is excellent. That could quickly add to our self-sufficiency needs. What would be more in the interests of our nation is to get some equity in the system so that both could take place, and in that was we could again encourage drilling so that oil can be found in the western basin with thousands of jobs being provided.
One of the negative aspects of the National Energy Program is the taking of money out of the western basin and putting it into the off-shore, because it costs $100 million a well to drill in the off-shore, whereas the cost is approximately $500,00 a well in the Western basin. Both require approximately the same number of men to perform the duty. It is no wonder that since the National Energy Program was brought into existence we have lost about 40 per cent of the jobs in that industry in the Western part of Canada. This translates into anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 jobs. Those jobs could be quickly brought back on stream if we brought some order into this taxation system and the grants as they are now in place.
Another difficulty with the PGRT, the up-front taxation of oil, as it comes from the well, and natural gas, is in the area of the petrochemical industry. We have in my constituency two
April 12, 1984

large world-scale plants. One of those plants provides all the basic stock for the total industry of Canada. Within the nation we have a number of these large world-scale petrochemical plants. We have them in Sarnia, Montreal, and there are two in the Edmonton region. They are required to move their product into the international market. They have been doing very well at that until recently. We now find that their competitive edge, because oil prices and natural gas prices have not gone as high as predicted, is being lost to the gulf region of the United States, to Mexico-which is bringing on a petrochemical industry-and to Saudi Arabia, a large petrochemical region. They are not charging upfront taxes. In fact, feedstock going into those petrochemical industries is basically going in at the country's cost.
Given our advantages and given the need to find and hold on to new markets before our competitors are in place, we must quickly react to the proposals of the petrochemical industry task force which indicated that there ought to be a market-responsive price for the feedstock going into that industry. This means that rather than taxing the product as it flows into the petrochemical plant, taxation by the Government ought to be on the product as it flows out and into world markets.
The task force also indicated that if there was no tax we ought not to be concerned because we have in place thousands of people who are working. If we do not get the system in place very quickly, the add-ons to the Prentiss and Joffre plants in my constituency will not take place and the people there in the construction industry will lose their jobs. Are we prepared to accept that so the Government can continue to collect the upfront taxation on the feedstock going into those areas? Would it not be better to have the jobs in place and the markets found, anticipating that perhaps in the future there might be profits of which government could take advantage and tax. That makes more sense to me.
It is important as will to look at the many definitions in the Bill. One has to be somewhat of an expert-and we have a few in this Party-to understand a production royalty versus a resource royalty. There is an attempt in the legislation to extract the proper definitions. This is important for companies that are looking to find the most available tax system under which to operate. There are some proposals in the Bill which deal with the definition of royalties.
This Bill will not in any way assist the very serious problems resulting from the National Energy Program. It provides some things which are attractive to the industry, but it does not deal with the lack of drilling in the western sedimentary basin, with the lack of proper tax incentives to get an upgrader in the heavy oil areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta, or with the jobs and oil available from the tar sands which we know can be onstream in a number of years. While this legislation provides a few minor changes which will be beneficial to the oil industry, it does not address the serious problems with which we ought to be dealing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Petroleum and Gas


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the entire speech of the Hon. Member, but I would like to ask him some questions. There is a real problem with petrochemical industry producers. They came up with a task force report. With all the locked-in gas in Saskatchewan and Alberta which as a very low value, could we go beyond what the task force report recommended?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I think the task force was fairly broad in its recommendations. It suggested that we ought to use that shut-in gas, that it was much better to use it in the petrochemical industry than to leave it in the ground, and that the Government ought to look very seriously at a market-responsive price for feedstock going into those plants, not only to ensure that they can continue production in world markets but that there be an expansion.
As far as the eastern Canadian petrochemical industries are concerned, most of their feedstock is in oil. The Government ought to look at providing some incentives to those companies to take a portion of that oil-based feedstock out of production and put in its place liquids from natural gas such as propane, and butane which can be used to provide the needed petrochemicals. They are readily available from the shut-in gas which is in place in the western basin.
If we moved on those recommendations, we would see a substantive change in our competitive nature. Surely there are always ways of improving the situation. We might look at the task force report in detail and suggest that the Government make some rapid moves in that direction. I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) whether he was looking at its recommendations. He confirmed that he had a group in place which was looking at the suggestions of the task force, and I encourage him to get on with it.


Thomas Scott Fennell: If I recall, they recommended 15 per cent and that the gate price and the gulf price should be reduced even more. What effect would that have on drilling in the West?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: By getting natural gas in use, small companies that explore for oil and gas are encouraged to continue. Unfortunately they have been finding more gas than oil in the western basin in the last few years. Thousands of these companies have substantial revenues locked up in shut-in gas which they cannot use. With an immediate 15 per cent drop in the price, as was recommended, more natural gas would be flowing into petrochemical plants, not only in the West but hopefully in eastern Canada as well. As a result the cash flow to small companies would be increased, and they could use that money for a continued search for oil. That is what we are looking for. There is a lot of natural gas in place, more than we can realistically use in 30 years or 40 years. We ought to be trying to put it into value-added products which provide jobs and cash for those companies.

April 12, 1984
Petroleum and Gas


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Alberta industries are in desperate shape. Some minor modifications to the Act were brought in. Will they resolve the unemployment problem in Alberta? I know they will not affect the production of half-ton sufficiently. Is this only a partial step toward getting Alberta back to where it was in 1980 before these guys took over again?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Absolutely, that is essential. The large thrust of the National Energy Program was to remove cash from the western exploratory system and put it into the Canada lands. This has put tens of thousands of people out of work and has resulted in Alberta having the lowest net return on investment last year of any province in Canada, including Prince Edward Island, whereas before we were the highest. The effect upon the Province of Alberta has been devastating.
Of course this legislation has limited effect. In most cases the incentives included in it are already too late for this year. Our drilling this year will be less than it was in 1981, which was the lowest it had been for many years. What is essential is that which the provinces have been putting forward, such as the royalty holiday of the Province of Saskatchewan. If these could be matched by the federal Government in the interim, until we come into power and bring some order to this whole system, that would certainly help.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin if there is any move by the provincial governments to lower their royalties or taxes on natural gas, or natural gas liquids, in view of the fact that the Government of Canada reduced that tax to zero as of February 1 this year.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Alberta Minister of Energy has been in constant touch in the last year with the national Minister to have reductions in place that will allow for more drilling. They have been encouraging the Minister to bring in a better pricing regime for export gas so that we can retain the 4 per cent of the United States market that we now have. These are essential to get markets back into place in western Canada. The provinces are very open to positive suggestions where both the province and the federal Government can share in providing incentives to drilling companies in western Canada.


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


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in that part of this great country from which I come we saw water power being used to turn the wheels of machinery, only to have those water courses diverted into hydraulic raceways to supply yet another form of economic energy. Our earlier generations harnessed the great Niagara to provide electrical energy in an economically expansive manner. Energy as we saw it then and the cost of energy were matters of concern to those people who lived in that area a long time ago. We knew then that Canada's energy resources could be, and still can be the engine of growth that this country so badly needs.
We in Niagara remember well the 1980 election. That was the election in which the Liberal Party talked in terms of 18 cents at the gas pumps. They hoodwinked the people with respect to the cost of energy: "Tell the public that what the Conservatives are proposing to do is nothing less than usury, but for goodness sake don't tell them the truth about the cost of energy production and, for goodness sake, don't tell them what we as a party in power or in government would do with respect to the cost of producing energy."
It took the present Government less than one year to raise the cost of that energy production in excess of 18 cents at the gas pump which it was so quick to deny and denounce during the 1980 election campaign. Gasoline prices today, of course, bear no relationship whatsoever to that which was suggested in the fall of 1979 or early months of 1980. If the voters in 1980 had known what they know now, if they had known that $2 a gallon for gasoline in 1984 would be a bargain rate, the election result might have been different. The Government across the way might have been faced with a lesser degree of credibility.
Might I suggest that the voting public soon began to realize the lengths that the Party in Government would go to keep power. For them, history has shown that power does corrupt. This is why I am disappointed with the legislation before us today.
There is no visionary outlook in Bill C-16. This Bill offers nothing new to what was announced earlier, first in the National Energy Program update in June, 1982 and in the Budget of last April. Canadians looking for relief from soaring energy costs will find no comfort in this legislation. Even worse, this legislation fails to put energy mega projects such as the tar sands or any other imaginative program back on track so that energy can be the engine of economic Canadian growth. It lacks the vision of working thousands. It lacks the vision of the wheels turning and the building of pride and confidence in being Canadian. Instead, Parliament's time is being devoted to a rather technical Bill, almost of a housekeeping nature, sanctioning past Cabinet decisions. The opportunity is gone. The opportunity to address the problems which all Canadians know exist under the National Energy Program is being thrown away.
No one, and least of all this Party, can have any reservations about supporting the goals and ideal principles of the National Energy Program. Canadianization, security of supply and energy self-sufficiency are all endorsed by us. If the House will forgive me, they are motherhood issues. We like them. However, the comment cannot be said of the means by which this Government has chosen to reach these goals.
In its self-righteousness, the Government has created a monster Petro-Canada, destroyed the energy megaprojects, has driven record numbers of oil rigs to the United States and elsewhere and has sent energy prices soaring in all spheres of activity. Bill C-14 does not address the serious deficiencies of the National Energy Program. Indeed, legislation has not even been introduced to address one of the most contentious aspects
April 12, 1984

of the National Energy Program, the Canadian ownership charge.
This charge was introduced to pay for the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. Petrofina has long since been paid for, yet Canadians go on paying the ownership charge every time they purchase a litre or gallon of gasoline. We question again the morality of this Government and the integrity of that Party which fixes a 4.5 cents a gallon charge for the clearly specified purpose of purchasing Petrofina and then continuing to gather from the consumers of this country $800 million a year, long after the Canadians people paid the cost, excessive as it was, of Petrofina.
It is not too cynical of me to suggest that the only necessity for the continuation of that charge is this Government's continuing appetite for spending; for example, purchasing ridings at the rate of $500,000. In my view, Canadian consumers would do a much better job of efficiently spending and effectively getting a return from the $800 million a year charged to them through this ownership charge.
Even though the Canadian ownership charge is bad, Canadians should not be allowed to forget that it would have been worse had it not been for the bell ringing episode of March, 1982. Buried in that mammoth energy legislation introduced as Bill C-94 was a proposal to allow for the raising of this charge, not to 4.6 cents per gallon but to 16 cents per gallon. Had the legislation been allowed to stand as it was, and had this cash-starved Government raised those charges as it had earlier proposed, Canadians would be losing over $3 billion a year. We on this side of the House stopped that increase dead in its tracks. However, we could have done so earlier with the full support of Canadians across the country.
Canadian people knew perfectly well by that time the worth of the Government's promise or commitment. They had seen its actions and had been deceived by the Government through the National Energy Program. Then as now, we demanded that changes be made to the National Energy Program. Bill C-14 is but one small part of what needs to be done.
As the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out in Calgary last November, energy policy in the country must once more reflect a sense of realism. The fanciful dreams of bureaucrats and Cabinet Ministers have caused enough damage already. It is self-evident that the sense of realism most needed is an acceptance of the fact that the National Energy Program cannot operate in a vacuum. For example, unrealistic revenue forecasts led to the creation of a Petroleum Incentives Program. Those revenues did not materialize, but the program continues nevertheless. The program continues to the extent that the Auditor General, when looking at the number of grants made, was moved to ask where the returns are.
Many complaints can be levelled against this program. My complaint and the complaint of anyone with a modicum of concern for the Canadian shipbuilding industry is about its negative impact on that industry alone. To put it into perspec-
Petroleum and Gas
tive, Mr. Speaker, the House should consider that the private sector once accounted for over 80 per cent of the work done in Canadian shipyards. The private sector today accounts for less than 20 per cent in tonnage terms of the work done in those same shipyards.
While there may be many reasons for this reversal, the petroleum incentive grant is a major factor and I will tell you why this is so. A Canadian company leasing foreign-built offshore oil rigs is eligible for grants to cover 80 per cent of those leasing costs. If a company decides to buy a foreign-built offshore oil rig, the company can recover up to 80 per cent of the duty paid. However, a company buying a Canadian-built rig for offshore drilling is not eligible for the grants at all. This is the Government's greatest lesson in a give-and-take program.
Not surprisingly, then, Mr. Speaker, most of the offshore rigs operating off the East Coast or in the Beaufort Sea are foreign built. Not surprisingly then, our shipyards are looking for work. In St. Catharines, the Port Weller Shipyards are working at less than 30 per cent capacity with less than 30 per cent employment.
The program clearly needs adjustment on a priority basis. Yet today we are discussing Bill C-14, part of which gives legislative blessing to a measure which has already been adopted and, in part, even lapsed. I would have thought that the shipbuilding industry warranted greater consideration than that.
Others in the House, particularly those of us on this side, have discussed at some considerable length the technical aspects of this legislation. I do not propose to review that ground. However, other Hon. Members have pointed out how perplexing it is that this Bill should precede Parliament's consideration of matters of pressing concern in the energy sector.
Why should the cost of our energy needs at the gas pump, in our homes or elsewhere be so much higher in this country than the cost to consumers in the United States of America? Where is the justification for continuing the expropriation charge made in the name of a Canadian window on the industry? These issues along with the Petroleum Incentives Program have been pushed aside by Bill C-14. This is a reflection of the depths to which the National Energy Program has fallen. The Government has clearly lost any sense of direction and Bill C-14 is further evidence of that. The Bill will never even begin to restore its direction.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker made some fairly interesting remarks and certainly his concern for the shipbuilding industry is very commendable. However, one of the things which 1 did not understand about his presentation today was how the Conservative Party can justify the fairly major tax break represented by this legislation. We are not talking about incentives for the enhanced oil recoveries, we are talking about a straight tax break to the oil companies in terms of remission from PGRT and the IORT. If the figures are correct, that kind of a tax break would amount to more than
3002

April 12, 1984
Petroleum and Gas
$200 million. That is a very substantial amount of money. It will accrue in large measure to multinational oil companies which hold large reserves and which make substantial profits. Their profits were good last year and are improving this year.
I am interested in how the Hon. Member's Party can justify blanket operation legislation such as this, rather than specific incentives to target groups such as those mentioned by previous speakers. At the same time, no attempt has been made to define how that money is to be spent. For example, the multinationals could determine that they want to improve their cashflow, improve their profits and provide better dividends to owners across the line. This is absolutely within the confines of this Bill.
How do you justify this? This is not the first piece of legislation the Government has promoted which gives a major tax break to the oil companies. How can you justify giving oil companies an unconditional tax break of this magnitude when you are not prepared to pass on the tax breaks to the consumers? How can you justify that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could I perhaps remind the Hon. Member that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member who just spoke had not supported the Liberal Government in December 1979, he would have had the opportunity to see just what the difference would be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lloyd Reid: There is a very fundamental difference in approach to Canadianization and development. While there are some who are very good a rewriting history, we could look at the Diefenbaker years and the establishment of the National Energy Board. This Party has followed that program since, on the basis of encouraging Canadian investment and incentives to Canadianize that natural resource which is ours and can be the energy of economic growth. The approach would have been entirely different. The controls would have been entirely different and would not have followed the socialistic programs of spending money gained from consumer's purchases at the gas pump to socialize and acquire such things as gasoline service stations across the country. The program would have dealt with resource discovery and development and would have made the difference between what now exists and what could have been if not for the intervention of the New Democratic Party.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, what we heard from the NDP was garbage. The money that they are talking about is money that was stolen from the producers and the Province of Alberta. Their argument is garbage. How could they give a tax break when the money was stolen in the first place?
I have a question for the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). Let me phrase it very carefully. The majority of large engine half-ton trucks were used at the western oil patch.
When the National Energy Program was introduced it had a devastating effect on Ontario with respect to their use. Was there any direct effect to his own town as a result of the National Energy Program?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have further clarification of the last part of the question?


Thomas Scott Fennell: What direct impact was there in his riding as a result of the introduction of the National Energy Program?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the comment was related to trucks in particular. However, I want to point out that while I come from an energy conscious community, I also come from an automobile producing community. General Motors is the largest employer there and as a result of the high cost of gasoline we have experienced the greatest hardship and the greatest number of unemployed. St. Catharines used to be a high income area but we have moved from that to an area with one of the highest unemployment rates. We have only recently begun to recover, but it has not been as a result of the oil prices in Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it was a rather interesting comment which the previous member made about garbage. Let me suggest that perhaps the problem in St. Catharines concerns the fact that that money, instead of going back to consumers, farmers and fishermen, is going back to oil companies. You can use the term "stolen", but when we look at the Bertand Commission, with respect to $12 billion being stolen from the Canadian public, including people in your riding, you are not doing anything about calling those people to justice. They are the same ones to whom this legislation is giving tax relief under the remission of the IORT and the PGRT. How can you justify, as a responsible Member of Parliament, that kind of activity?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must ask the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair and not directly to his colleagues.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member based his question on a completely different philosophy and approach. As was pointed out, for a company to operate in our enterprise system there must be some margin of profit which can be used for further expansion and development or further use in the larger national interest. Certainly in this particular instance there are producing companies as well as government agencies involved in source discovery and development. Certainly a large number of those dollars will never be recovered because a certain percentage of the petroleum or gas wells will not be commercially viable. We must consider what the final consumer cost will be.
If we are going to tax a commercial corporation out of existence, it must be the sole responsibility of the Government to look at that source discovery and development. I am suggesting that the cost, in that instance, would be no less than the existing operating costs of those commercial corporations.
April 12, 1984

I come from an area where Petro-Canada stations have purchased Petrofina and BP stations. There used to be the occasional gasoline war, but since they are all controlled and operated by Petro-Canada there are no longer gasoline wars, or that competition. That competitiveness which reduced the price for the consumer no longer exists. We want to return to a system with greater competitiveness and greater productivity.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Issuance of lay-off notices to workers, (b) Contracting practices-Effect on railway employees; The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni)- Canada Pension Plan-Eligibility of married women; The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-Labour Conditions-Size of labour force-Statement made by Minister of Employment and Immigration, (b) Use of unemployment insurance funds to retrain workers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration fo the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-14, an Act to amend an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas. As Hon. Members have pointed out, this is something that has been in effect for some time. We are merely debating it now.
I suggest this demonstrates the policies of trial and error of the Government. With that kind of approach to the management of the most important affairs in our country, we have a situation in which the Government first, through its policies of trial and error, destroys and then attemps to restore. In this case we are dealing with a classic example of a very basic and
Petroleum and Gas
fundamental policy failure. This kind of government mentality and philosophy in the National Energy Program has destroyed one of the most viable industries in the country and one of the major engines of growth. It was one of the major job creators which, in many respects, was distinctively Canadian, at least at the exploration and service level. The Canadian content and participation in terms of the number of jobs was a very major component to this industry.
It causes one to look at other policies which follow this same philosophy of trial and error; destroy and restore. Look at what the Government is doing in the case of VIA Rail passenger service-clearly the same thing. It unilaterally, without any consideration for the public, without any public input or reference to parliamentary debate, dismantled 20 per cent of Canada's rail passenger service in this country.
We now have a new Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) who is trying to put it back together again, at least he says he is. We are not sure, however, whether we can believe him or not, because every time he speaks about the issue he mouths a different policy. He was out in Jasper last weekend and talked about the need of restoring the rail passenger service between Vancouver and Edmonton. He said if it was going to be restored it was going to have to be a joint funding arrangement with the three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal. Does that mean there is a complete new policy with respect to the rail passenger service in this country? Or is it just simply a policy for the west? However, that is merely a side issue, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this Government sought in 1981 to destroy the rail passenger system in this country and now it is attempting to put it back together.
So it is with this particular piece of legislation. I could talk about FIRA and the investment attitudes in this country. The combination of the National Energy Program and FIRA caused a net investment outflow of something like $17 billion over the last four years. That is both foreign money and a good portion of Canadian money. It is part and parcel of the lack of confidence which these policies of trial and error have created in the minds of a vast number of Canadians.
When I think about people being put in these very important and key positions such as the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Transport, and the Minister in charge of Industry, Trade and Commerce, responsible for FIRA, I can only refer to them as "fly-by-nighters". As one who was involved in the automobile business for a number of years I have known what we call "fly-by-nighters" who come in and set the community on fire for a period of a year. They promise everything but they can never deliver and never live up to the promises they give their customers, or the expectations they create. And there is a deterioration in the goodwill of their customers because they cannot fulfil their promises, and they end up going out of business.


Ralph Ferguson: Are you talking from experience?

April 12, 1984
Petroleum and Gas


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I am talking from experience, you bet. I remember some of the things they used to do in those days, Mr. Speaker, especially the used car operators. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, when the Chrysler Corporation-and this is not a plug for Chrysler because I was not a Chrysler dealer-came out with a very attractive warranty. It was called five years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first. Some of these used car fly-by-nighters used to set up their business and a customer would come in to buy a car and ask what the warranty was. They would be told it was five and five. When asked what it stood for, the dealer would say "five miles or five minutes, whichever occurs first". But if the customer did not ask the question, he would have gone out thinking he was getting something more than he really was. If he did not ask, he would assume it had some meaning.
That was exactly what happened with the National Energy Program, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly. Canadians really thought they were going to get a fair break in terms of price. They thought they were going to be treated fairly. They thought there was going to be some opportunity to invest. They thought there was going to be some opportunity to expand the energy sector in this country rather than have it contracted. The fact of the matter is that those things did not occur. That policy of trial and error did a great disservice to the energy sector of this country, particularly the fossil fuel sector.
It is really interesting, Mr. Speaker, to remember that this National Energy Program was to have helped Canadian companies, but the Canadian companies which really got drawn into the finite elements of the National Energy Program are the ones which find themselves in the most difficulty, Dome Petroleum, Sulpetrol, Turbo, all because they were lured into making huge investments and undertakings on the basis of the National Energy Program. What is more tragic, Mr. Speaker, is that a very vibrant and vital service industry, the service and exploration industry, which is a very vital component of the energy sector, was literally gutted and dismantled, and with it hundreds upon hundreds of small business enterprises went down the tube. Many of these small businesses were family enterprises. Many of them started with the boom of the oil industry, going back to the 1950s.
What we are doing now, Mr. Speaker, in the process of this Bill, is attempting to repair and restore some semblance of fairness and equity into the policies which affect the development of energy. We hear a lot of things from Liberal leadership candidates these days about the National Energy Program. Some support it and some do not, which is rather strange. The Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston) does not like the National Energy Program. 1 take it that the honourable John Turner does not like the National Energy Program. It is amazing how those boys were silent when the National Energy Program was delivering such a crushing blow to that very vital industry. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) was in Edmonton two or three weeks ago talking to the Liberal Party faithful. He stated that Alberta should welcome the collapse of the boom because the megaprojects were too big,
too difficult to manage, too difficult to finance and too risky. What he is really saying is, "Well, boys, you are really lucky that the National Energy Program came along because we saved you from the boom, from the fact that these megaprojects were going to be too difficult to manage, and were going to overheat the economy". What he is really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of Alberta should thank him for the 14 per cent level of unemployment, for the crashing real estate market, for the bankruptcies and the broken dreams, hopes and aspirations of so many who went down the tube.
The national energy policy, as far as most people in Alberta are concerned, was the most odious policy ever perpetrated upon one single region. Quite frankly, I think it was more than simply a policy of trial and error. I think it was a deliberate plot to destroy one of the very main engines of economic activity in Canada. But I give thanks for the intelligence of Canadians. The people right across the country recognized, long before this Government, that it was unfair, it was not working and that it was affecting the central Canadian heartland. They recognized, for example, that for every dollar spent in western Canada, Ontario receives 42 cents; Quebec, 13 cents; Alberta, 29 cents, and the other provinces, 16 cents, and for every job created in the energy sector in western Canada two jobs are created somewhere else.
When the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) responded to the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), he alluded to the fact that when the energy industry slows down in western Canada there are fewer trucks sold, fewer compressors sold, less pipe manufactured, less cable and fewer pumps and electrical motors sold. All of it is tied into one total economic package which reverberates throughout the whole of the economy.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Government believed that it could plan and manipulate. It wanted to remove itself completely from the market and it believed that it could replace the geologists with accountants and bureaucrats to really orchestrate the energy activities in this country. But it has not worked. It has been an absolute and total failure, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to quote an article from The Edmonton Journal of Tuesday, March 27, which I feel puts the whole thing into perspective in terms of an average Albertan's point of view of the National Energy Program. It is a letter to the editor. It is entitled, "Explain the NEP to us", and 1 quote:
Oh boy! Here we go again! What sort of idiots do the Liberals think they are dealing with-not just here in the West, but across Canada?
The quotes attributed to Alberta Liberals and taken from the Bill Sass report {Journal, March 16) leave me quite speechless!
I would suggest-in all seriousness-that Messrs. Decore, MacGuigan, Schepanovich, Taylor and (Greg) Schmidt call a meeting to be held in Commonwealth Stadium, where they could explain themselves to an audience restricted to Albertans who have been directly affected by the implementation of the National Energy Policy.
By listening to the people of Alberta-
April 12, 1984

Here is the salient point, Mr. Speaker:
By listening to the people of Alberta-the welders, stenographers, machinists, truckers, designers, salespeople, millwrights, secretaries, engineers, etc., etc.- they just may get a handle on the realities of unemployment, foreclosure, bankruptcy (both personal and business) and the destruction of Alberta's economy!
First on the list of speakers should be Greg Schmidt, to "make clear why some of the things we have done have been advantageous to the West."
Most of all, I'm looking forward to the question period which should follow the speeches! It should make a very interesting day for all present.
This letter was signed by F. Peter Young, Sherwood Park. I do not know the man but I want to tell you that he certainly put the issue into perspective. It is not the big bad oil companies that we are dealing with here, as the NDP tried to suggest; we are dealing with ordinary people who relied upon the energy industry for their livelihood. That has been thrown out the window by the policies of this Government.
We talk about the depressed state of the economy and I will quote from the Canadian Business magazine of June, 1983, which says-	.


Roy MacLaren: Canadian Business?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Canadian Business.


Roy MacLaren: Excellent magazine.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am glad the Minister believes this is an excellent magazine. That goes to show that when I speak on a subject I am not subjective in the items I quote. I try to look for things which are objective, and here is an objective assessment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, we talk about the depressed state of the economy, Mr. Speaker, and month after month the Ministers across the way blame it on the international situation or the weather. But this very objective and, as the Minister suggests, excellent magazine says:
-without the National Energy Program, we would not have declined as far as the Americans; instead we sank much further. Besides, the cynical vote bride of cheap gas that won in 1980 has left enduring gas pains as we endlessly overpay at the pump to finance Petro-Canada takeovers.
That puts the whole thing in perspective. That is why Canadians across the country feel they have been gypped by the NEP.


Mr. Masters:: That means that you are going to sell PetroCan?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, we have Cabinet Ministers over there who are going to sell Petro-Canada. That is very true.


Mr. Foster:: Would you sell the whole thing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, the service station operation is part of Petro-Canada, at least in my view. Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Would you sell it all?
Petroleum and Gas


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I am talking about the policies over there.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You must like it or you would sell it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why don't you sell it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the House to listen attentively to the speech of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Members will have an opportunity later on to put questions or make comments.


Mr. Turner:: Sell it to the Chinese.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for suggesting that Hon. Members across the way listen attentively. I think it would do them some good, because I am not talking about the technical aspects of this Bill, I am talking about some very practical aspects, and I speak from some experience.
The Hon. Member wants to know whether I want to sell Petro-Canada. This issue does not deal with Petro-Canada. It is a going oil company owned by the people of Canada and it is in place. It has nothing to do with this legislation. If you want to bring in a bill to denationalize Petro-Canada, we will deal with it. That brings me to the issue of Canadianization.
There have been lots of statements made about Canadianization. What has happened is that there has been very little improvement in private Canadian ownership. Canadian ownership has come about largely as a result of nationalization. We are not really achieving any of the major goals enunciated when the NEP came out.
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against the intent of this Bill. It is repairing a measure which was ill conceived at the outset. It just demonstrates how far out of line the Government was when it first initiated the NEP.
There were three principles as the major pillars of the NEP: self-suficiency, fairness and opportunity. Dealing with opportunity first, that brings into context the question of Canadianization and how well we have been doing. I put a question on the Order Paper which was answered on December 9, 1983. I asked what percentage of the petroleum industry in Canada was foreign-owned and Canadian-owned in 1980. The answer provided was that it was 73.9 per cent foreign-owned and 26.1 per cent Canadian-owned. At the end of 1982, and 1 do not have the 1983 figures because I was told that the date for 1983 is not yet available, the foreign-owned percentage was 65.8 per cent, Canadian-owned was 34.2 per cent. There has been some improvement but the key is which portion of Canadian ownership was Government owned? In 1980 it was 3.8 per cent, in 1982 it was 8.6 per cent. Private Canadian ownership was 22.3 per cent in 1980, and 25.6 per cent in 1982. So there was a measly 3 per cent increase in private Canadian ownership. So much for fulfdling the goal of Canadianization. Need I go any further on that particular point?

April 12, 1984
Petroleum and Gas
Let me just talk about fairness for a minute. I do not think one has to deal too long with that. Quite frankly, energy prices today are more than double what they were in 1980. The fact is that there is a great deal of price discrimination in a number of areas.
Let us talk about self-sufficiency. Quite frankly, the only thing helping us improve that is the slowdown in the economy. If you consider the heavy oil going south of the border right now, we are probably net exporters. However, we are still reliant on foreign suppliers for light and medium crude.
On this whole question of opportunity, the one I really wanted to hit on, there has been massive discrimination. Under this Government's policies and its PIP grants there has been a shift of exploration and development activity from the western sedimentary basin to the frontier and offshore. I am not arguing that that kind of exploration should not take place in some form, but it should not be shifted in total. We are the only country in the world which pays a company to drill a dry hole. We pick up 80 per cent of the tab. It cost $35 million to drill a hole in Hibernia and you could drill 120 wells in southern Alberta for that and your chances of finding oil would be a lot greater. Furthermore, to invest in the upgrading and enhancement of heavy oil would be logical way to increase our self sufficiency.
There are so many loose ends, Mr. Speaker, which need to be brought together in a cohesive and coherent energy policy that it does not seem this Government has the capacity, ability or the will to do it. I guess the only thing we will be able to do is hope and anticipate that there will be a new Government so that we can once again use energy as a major engine of economic growth to turn that natural resource into an economic opportunity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the speech of the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It is one of the few opportunities that we in the House have to see that Party, and the individuals within it, aligning themselves clearly with the major multinational oil companies in this country. Those are the same companies that the Bertrand Commission identified as ripping off $12 billion from the Canadian people. The previous speaker knows full well that that occurred. The previous speaker for the Conservative Party recognizes that that kind of activity is still occurring today in different forms. He knows that this Bill proposes to legitimize the return of tax dollars, the IORT and the PGRT, to those multinational oil companies. It proposes to return to them amounts which we could use to give relief to farmers and fishermen without increasing the deficit. The previous speaker knows that farmers in his area of the country would benefit tremendously from a 9 per cent reduction in the sales tax. This would be about a $250 million cost to the Treasury. Instead the Member, along with other Members of his Party, is supporting the kind of legislation that redirects that $250
million back into the pockets of the multinational oil companies. To my way of thinking, and that of many other people in this country, that is inexcusable.
The previous speaker attacked FIRA, the lame duck organization that was developed by the Liberals to protect us from these kind of organizations, to ensure that foreign investment would not be a handicap to Canadians. My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that the Party which the previous speaker represents is certainly misguided. I took from the Member's speech that his Party will be supporting the return of roughly $250 million of Canadian taxpayer's money to the oil companies.


Thomas Scott Fennell: No it is not. It is producers.


Raymond John Skelly: My third point, and I am hoping-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the Hon. Member could raise an additional point later on. Both comments and responses should be as brief as possible.


Raymond John Skelly: I would like to make a full comment available to the speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Let us hear the answer. Other Members wish to put questions. That is the difficulty the Chair finds itself in. The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted that the Member asked the question. If he had been paying a little more attention to the activities in the House of Commons, rather than going across the country engaging in flimflam and rhetoric of the kind we are hearing here today, he would know that under my name there is a Private Members' motion for the removal of the 9 per cent federal sales tax on fuel for farmers and fishermen. If he paid any attention to the proceedings in the House of Commons he would also know that that particular motion gained the unanimous consent of the House of Commons. That particular motion, Sir, has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He does not have to try to ride on the coattails of the Progressive Conservative Party to drum up a little support for the removal of the 9 per cent sales tax on fuel for farmers and fishermen. I am glad he has come alive and awakened up to the fact there was such a tax. I do not think he even realized it.
I am glad he tied those two questions together. The PGRT, which is a production type tax, is exactly the same thing as a federal sales tax. He cannot suggest for one minute that the PGRT, which is a production type tax, is not handed down right to the consumer. It filters through the whole pricing mechanism, and it is the consumer who ends up paying it. It is the consumer who is paying the PGRT, not the big bad oil companies. It will be the consumer who gains the benefit of the reduction of the PGRT, not the big bad oil companies. I am absolutely amazed and appalled that that Member cannot follow the simple sequence of sound reasoning that has been presented by Members in this House. We are looking for cheaper energy prices for the consumer; for the farmer and the fisherman. This man wants to see the 9 per cent sales tax and
April 12, 1984

all the federal taxes stay so that the Government can build up its slush fund and create several kinds of makework projects which may be more politically motivated than job motivated.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) explain for the benefit of the New Democratic Party exactly what took place in the House with regard to the question of our Leader to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in regard to federal tax on farm fuel yesterday?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Questions and comments should be related to the speech of the Hon. Member. It is my opinion that the Hon. Member is raising a new matter. However, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Members of the New Democratic Party are here physically but they do not pay any attention. There are always those Members who will attend a meeting but do not listen to what is being said. Yesterday was a clear example of the further commitment of this Party to reduce the 9 per cent federal sales tax. This Party has always stood for the reduction of the Government take, whether in the form of the PGRT, excise tax or a sales tax.
I am glad that the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) is in the House. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and I know of his interest in agriculture. He may want to suggest to his Minister of Finance that it might be appropriate to take the 7 per cent excise tax off at the source so farmers would not have to pay that in advance and then claim back for it afterwards, given the fact that they are in a very tight cash squeeze position. It would not cost the federal Government one red cent. As a matter of fact, in many respects it would reduce the administration and the bureaucracy required to send out the refund cheques. I put that to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary as a positive recommendation. Remove the 7 per cent excise tax on fuel for farmers and fishermen at the source. That would give these individuals that much extra cash during the course of the year. They have to pay for it then claim for it later.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask a question. This is really another revision. It is another baby of NEP. They started off with NEP, then they had the baby NEP, now this is the infant of the baby NEP. We are now getting into exactly what we have in the Income Tax Act. We have an original Act which will now have the same number of revisions in it as the Income Tax Act. Why do they not abandon it and start again?
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Vegreville a question. Just before I came into the House today I received the annual report of the Canada Oil and Gaslands Administration. In the report under Drilling Activity, I noticed that they referred to 33 exploratory wells which were drilled. None of these appeared to be too large. Would we have been in a better position today if a portion of those funds had been applied to
Petroleum and Gas
the tarsands and the heavy oil, or do you think we would be in the same place with reserves?
That calls for a 20 minute speech.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, that is a 20 minute speech. Let me make one point very clear at the outset. I think we need to explore and develop in every area of Canada. When I say there has been a dramatic shift, I mean there has been a shift almost in total to the frontier and to the off-shore. I am suggesting there should be a better balance. For example, it was estimated that there will be 12 to 14 wells drilled off the eastern seaboard during the 1983 season. You could have drilled 86 deep foothills wells and the chances are you may have had a better probability of discovering oil.
But in the case of the tar sands and the heavy oil just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, the oil resources are there and all that we have to do is put in place the upgraders and the facilities. We have the technology. All we have to do is strike a proper royalty and taxation level. These projects will go ahead and they will produce oil and we will become more self-sufficient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: We have come to the end of the question period. We are resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing debate on Bill C-14, which is an amendment to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, usually referred to as the PGRT. I think what we are really discussing today is not so much the technique of how to sink an oil well or where development in the oil industry should occur, we are discussing in effect a taxation question. PGRT has a lot of impact on where development will take place, in which part of the country and could even effect different sectors of the economy.
This particular Bill chooses to deal with moneys that are collected and recycled into the petroleum industry. As I go on in my speech, I will point out where I think equal amounts of money could be used to better advantage in a period of time when the country is suffering from very high employment. I would like to spend a moment or two to set the stage and point out some of the difficulties that have arisen with regard to petroleum taxation over the past five or six years.
In 1978 of total net petroleum revenues of $8.4 billion, the federal Government received $751 million. In 1979, total revenues rose to $10.6 billion and the federal share was $797 million. In 1980, the total revenues reached $13 million from $8 billion two years before, and the federal share was $795 million. In effect the federal share of petroleum revenues had levelled out and the share of the industry and the share of the other players in the game had gone up by about $5 billion in that two-year period. The producing provinces in the petroleum industry received all of that increase. The federal Government actually lost ground in terms of the share of the

April 12, 1984
Petroleum and Gas
petroleum revenues in Canada during the 1979 to 1980 period. That was recognized by the Government in power.
When the Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was read into this House in December 1979, a section appeared to recognize not only that the federal share of revenue was dropping in proportion to what it had been, but I think it recognizes very clearly that the Progressive Conservatives considered that as a principle the federal Government had the right to tax oil and gas revenues. I mention this in my speech very early, Mr. Speaker, because it is something that Members of the Official Opposition now proclaim is not the policy of the Party. But when the Conservatives were in Government, not only did they recognize that the federal Government had a share of those revenues, but in the Budget of 1979 there was a section which states, and this is from page 53 of the Budget Papers, that it is the intention of the federal Government to impose a new energy tax which would capture roughly one-half of the returns accruing from annual price increases in excess of $2 per barrel per year on oil and 30 per cent per thousand cubic feet per year on gas.
I think it was very clear in that Budget that the principle of federal rights to taxation on gas and oil was recognized by the Progressive Conservative Government of the day, and that it was prepared to increase that share.
In fact, taxation experts have calculated that that revenue would be under such a program. They estimate that between the years 1980 to 1983, which was the proposal in those Budget papers, the increase would be $7.5 billion minus whatever amounts the federal Government decided to give back by way of production incentives or tax incentives.
The policy was very clear, very well stated, and quite clearly understood, I think, by people across Canada. I only raise the matter again because sometimes it is forgotten. The question then became, how would this new tax be distributed; from where would the increases come since it had been agreed that oil prices at the wellhead would be locked into a step by step increase?
Between 1979 and 1982, the federal Government's net take from up-stream revenues increased by about $1.25 billion. They were in the neighbourhood of $795 million. During the same peak period, however, the producing provinces take rose by about $1.65 billion and the industry's share increased by $2.87 billion. The proportions of the share have changed in the ensuing years with the National Energy Program. The federal Government is now taking a larger percentage of the share, but the overall price that consumers in Canada are paying for oil and gas has increased by some 54 per cent. The Government attempted to increase the size of the pie, and at the same time increased the piece of the pie which the federal Government expected from that larger pie.
Part of what we have before us today is a decision to change the rules as they apply to the PGRT. This change covers two separate sections. I would like to stop here, Mr. Speaker, and go into that portion of my speech in the next session of the House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS

['It is so ordered.']
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are a number of Senate Bills before us which deal with the Marriage Act. I think if you seek unanimous consent you will find that there is an agreement to deal with these Bills en bloc at all stages without debate. In discussions we have found there is consent on all sides. However, I understand the Hon. Member for Edmonton West has a comment he would like to make with regard to these Bills. You might allow his comment, Mr. Speaker, If I may suggest, prior to seeking unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal? The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in disagreement with the passage of these eight Bills enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary, except I wish to enter a caveat on behalf of myself and many of my colleagues with regard to the presentation and passage of further Bills.
There is this group of Bills, and I am informed that there are 20 or 30 queued up in the other place at this time of a similar nature, some of which seek to legitimize almost incestuous marriages, or almost incestuous unions such as between a man and his half-sister. We have established norms of morality in the country for a number of reasons. It is my considered view that it is not the job of Parliament, the Senate or the House of Commons, to suddenly allow someone to buy their way past those laws, having come through by Private Members' Bill in the Senate and in the Commons. All of this means that there is a good deal of money involved when it comes down to it to legitimize what society otherwise considers to be unacceptable unions of legal marriage.
I am one of the few Members of the House who was here in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the House was subjected to hundreds of divorce petitions which used to come through like sausages out of a sausage shop from the other place. I was one of those Members whose duty it was to oversee that committee, as far as the government was concerned when my Party was in power, and then subsequently in opposition. In many of those Bills the evidence indicated that there was a good deal of collusion, pure out and out perjury, and standards of evidence before the Senate Committee which would not even make its way through the doorway of a court. This was
April 12, 1984

divorce not only in Quebec, the odd other one came through from other regions. Ultimately Parliament did away with that by amending the Divorce Act, and Quebec accepting divorces. Let me assure the House that we wasted a great deal of time.
Before we now start a new series of Parliament legitimizing-I was going to say queer unions-otherwise irregular unions, something should be done to debate legislation to amend the Divorce Act, the Matrimonial Act or the statutes of any province, whatever they may be, before we are caught up in a regular flow of such legislation. This is something about which the word soon gets out and we could see a steady flow.
I have four Bills here, all of which deal with either an uncle marrying his niece or an aunt marrying her nephew. As I say, there are some others which are coming down the pike. I will emulate one of my colleagues who said, "Very well, these eight are held up until there is introduced into the Senate a Bill for consideration and passage in that House". I understand that there was a Private Bill introduced in the Senate which will be the one that will come to us.
Today I am merely introducing a caveat. In so far as myself and some of my colleagues whom I have consulted are concerned, we will let these Bills through because that was the agreement reached, but there will not be any others acceptable that way unless and until a Senate Bill has been passed and introduced into this House for consideration to put in the necessary changes to whatever statutes are involved to eliminate this sort of sausage machine legislation affecting private individuals who have enough money to come through the Private Members' route.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal put forward by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that we deal with the eight Bills en bloc without debate at all stages in this sitting?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed and so ordered.



John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-2, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Gerald Harvey Fudge and Audrey Marie Saunders, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-3, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Louis Philippe Nadeau and Marie Therese Rita Brule, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Marriage Act


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-4, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Ernest Hodel and Norma Dora Laurie, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-5, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Benjamin Josheph Andrade and Heather Winnifred Andrade, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-6, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Juan Andrade and Emilia Rodriguez, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-7, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Henri Patry and Aldea Bea Pitt, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-8, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Joseph Roland Rejean Daoust and Marie Lise Sylvie Girard, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


John Leslie Evans: that Bill S-9, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to the marriage in the case of Pearl Kim Lee and Thomas Siegfried Wieland, be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: By unanimous consent, Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Masse, moves that Bills S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8 and S-9, Acts to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think that in identifying each of the Bills there should be reference to the marriages in the cases of the individuals concerned so that we just do not deal with numbers in Hansard and that Hansard will give a true record of what has been done and what parties are affected by each Bill. I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that you should read them out, but could it not be deemed that after Bills S-2, et cetera, that you gave the names of the parties-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. All the Chair can do from a procedural standpoint is to make sure that we read the Bills. The Bills will have been read and it will be a matter of public record who is mentioned in the Bills. Meanwhile, it is the duty of the Chair to put these Bills through second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?

April 12, 1984
Marriage Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed. Pursuant to Standing Order 58, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to, Bills read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into Committee thereon- Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: Order, please. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bills S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8 and S-9, to provide exceptions from the public general law relating to marriage.
Shall Clause 1 of these Bills carry? The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask you ... By way of introduction, each Bill should be called as follows: Bill S-2, an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Gerald Harvey Fudge and Audrey Marie Saunders. Could all Bills be called that way, because we want to identify-


Eymard G. Corbin: The Chair has no objection at all. I am speaking for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), if he would care to listen to me for a moment. The Chair has no objection and would be prepared to entertain the wish expressed by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, but we can take it for granted at the outset that the full title of the Bill will be printed in the Journals of the House of Commons. However, should the Hon. Member for Edmonton West insist, the Chair will be pleased to seek or ... I will read the title of Bill S-2: an Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Gerald Harvey Fudge and Audrey Marie Saunders; Bill S-3, an act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Louis Philippe Nadeau and Marie Therese Rita Brule.
Bill S-4, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Ernest Hodel and Norma Dora Laurie.
Bill S-5, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Benjamin Josheph Andrade and Heather Winnifred Andrade. [Translation]
Bill S-6, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Juan Andrade and Emilia Rodriguez; Bill S-7, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Henri Patry and Aldea Bea Pitt; Bill S-8, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to
marriage in the case of Joseph Roland Rejean Daoust and Marie Lise Sylvie Girard;

Bill S-9, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Pearl Kim Lee and Thomas Siegfried Wieland.

Shall Clauses 1 of these Bills carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Clauses 1 agreed to.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the preamble to the bills carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the title of the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Bills carry?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I have one brief question. I presume that most of these Bills will enable marriage to take place between people who would normally be prevented from doing so because of this normally prohibited degree of consanguinity between them. Would I be correct in assuming that the relationship between the people who wish to marry is not in any case that of a brother and sister?


Eymard G. Corbin: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it is the Chairman's understanding that agreement was given at the introduction of second reading of these Bills that they would proceed as a group without debate at all stages this day. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can enlighten the Chair in that respect as to that was indeed the agreement. That is the understanding of the Chair of what it is. Therefore, the Chair is not able to entertain any comments or debate at this time.
Shall the Bills carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Bills carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Bills agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall I rise and report the Bills?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bills reported without amendment.
April 12, 1984


John Leslie Evans: that the Bills be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: When shall the Bills be read the third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: By unanimous consent, now.


John Leslie Evans: that the Bills be read a third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and Bills read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items preceding Item No. 19 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It is so ordered.



MOTIONS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the payment of municipal taxes out of after-tax income is both an unfair form of double-taxation and an impediment to home-ownership for the average Canadian; and
That the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to permit the deduction from income, for the purposes of calculating taxable income, of all or of some maximum portion of, municipal taxes paid regarding a principal residence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have placed this motion in the narrowest possible context in order, I hope, to obtain the consent of the House for the appropriate referral. Members will not be surprised that it is my view that we need to do a great deal more than this for the encouragement and development of home ownership in the country. I believe that many of the values that have underlaid development of our society related to the ability to be secure in title to one's own property.
I could have moved a motion today that related to the deductibility of mortgage interest, that dealt with a number of issues, but that matter has been debated in an election campaign. I do not know whether it will be the subject of another election campaign. I do know that Members opposite took the position at the time that the deductability of mortgage interest
Income Tax Act
was not something they were in favour of. Therefore, today I have framed the motion in the context strictly of what I believe is an equally important matter.
Members know that every Canadian pays directly or indirectly municipal taxes, whether one is a home owner or a tenant. Every Member of this House knows, no matter what they say today as private Members if the Bill is talked out, which I hope it will not, that such a system is unfair. I want to speak briefly about the two sides of the issue. One is the unfairness of the system and the other is the need to do something to encourage home ownership for the average Canadian.
I do not think I need to say a great deal about the unfairness. Virtually everybody here knows that in order to pay $1,000 in municipal taxes today, you have to make quite a lot more than that in pre-tax income. The way our system reads, we are required to pay our municipal taxes out of our after-tax income. On its face, that is unfair. It is unfair both to home owners who have to do it directly and unfair to tenants who have to do it indirectly.
The Province of Ontario moved part way to recognize this dilemma when it brought in its property tax credit scheme. Those filing income tax returns this month in the Province of Ontario see on the form the opportunity to adjust to some degree the taxes they owe the Province of Ontario in an attempt to eliminate the double taxation system. In my view, on a straight matter of tax equity, the time to move to allow a similar deduction at the federal level is overdue. That is self evident. A great deal more does not have to be said about it.
Members of this House will recognize that there is an impediment we place through the Tax Act on the ownership of a home. I can express it as simply as this. Through tax policy, I as a taxpayer am encouraged to save for my old age by making an investment in a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. In some cases, I am encouraged to make those investments for my old age by borrowing money and in some cases the interest paid on the money borrowed is deductible from my income. However, the dream of the average Canadian is to own a home and let the home be the pension plan in the end.
In effect, Mr. Speaker, the tax policy encourages people to borrow money to do certain things but not to exercise the option of borrowing the same amount of money and putting the capital investment into a home. I believe that bias in the tax policy is one of the reasons we have increasingly become a society with a greater proportion of tenants and a smaller proportion of owners.
I represent a constituency in which 60 per cent of the residents are tenants. Not many people would expect to learn that about the riding of Don Valley West in the City of Toronto. However, that is a very normal urban phenomenon these days. A whole series of policies have led to that situation, including density encouragements for developers, land use policies of municipalities and the general attraction of cities like Toronto which bring more and more people to a relatively

April 12, 1984
Income Tax Act
confined area. As well, various levels of Government have placed impediments on the development of ownership housing.
In the simplest of terms, one of the costs a home owner must bear is his municipal taxes. Since that is a cost which is not deductible, my view is that the tax system creates a bias against a home owner. In my view, we have an obligation to correct that bias. If that were not enough, we are in effect telling people to pay one level of government tax from aftertax income and, in my view, that is an unfair system.
This matter should not be debated at great length. I believe any member of the House who does not understand this by now, after having hearing years of debate, has not been listening to the arguments on this subject. I do not believe there is a need for such arguments any longer. I would hope that Members would understand, therefore, that I have phrased this motion as narrowly as I possibly can. I believe it is time we told home owners who are struggling to maintain a home, or those who would like to be home owners but, under the current system, cannot afford to buy a home, that we believe the system is biased against their dreams and that we wish to remove that bias.
There is no suggestion in this motion that it refers to anything other than the municipal taxes on a principal residence. The motion expresses no suggestion that anyone should necessarily have the right to deduct all of their municipal taxes on all of their property. If appropriate, I am perfectly prepared to discuss with Hon. Members opposite in committee whether there should or should not be a limit on the amount of municipal taxes which may be deducted. I believe all of those questions are still open and I am perfectly prepared to have that debate. However, my personal view is that the general principle of double taxation applies no matter how large a municipal tax bill one pays. It all comes from after-tax income. I do recognize the constraints on the Treasury and I recognize the political constraints. Therefore, I have put this motion in a narrow form so that we could take one small step toward recognizing the hundreds of thousands of Canadians for whom the dream is to own a home, but cannot do so today.
If we were to begin to say to those Canadians who wish to own a home that we will begin to remove this impediment, that tax equity means we should allow municipal taxes to be deducted in whole or in part and that we will adopt the Ontario system so that tenants and home owners are treated equally, both having the right to deduct municipal taxes paid directly or indirectly, we will be taking a step in the right direction. The scheme to which I last referred would refute the argument that was advanced during the last election by some Members opposite regarding tenants' rights. In fact, most of us support the rights of tenants, and I hope it is understood that I intend this motion to apply to tenants as well as home owners.
If we could take those small steps, we would be saying that as a simple matter of principle, we want to remove the bias against home ownership from the tax system and leave the system in a more neutral position. Not only would we remove the tax bias but, in a small way, we would be stating our intentions to encourage more Canadians to attain the dream of
owning a home for themselves and their children. We would be encouraging Canadians to protect themselves against outrageous rent increases by buying a home. We would be encouraging the old Canadian tradition of saving for old age through a piece of equity which most Canadians were brought up to believe was the protection for their old age.
I offer this motion to the House in hopes that, because of its fundamental justice and because of its narrowness which eliminates the concern for those who, during the election, were worried about the breadth of this issue, I may obtain from my fellow Members of the House, in their private capacity during this hour of Private Members' Business, a recognition that action in the area of this motion is long overdue. I would therefore ask Hon. Member of the House today to allow this matter, if they possibly can, to be referred to committee for further study.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley). I must say that the proposal he has put before the House this afternoon is interesting, and in some ways appealing. Any motion which makes something deductible that is not now deductible, thus reducing federal Government income tax, is at first blush very interesting, and perhaps very appealing. However, to say that the present system is an unfair form of double taxation may not be totally accurate and could perhaps be misleading.
The Income Tax Act applies to income whereas municipal taxes are levied against property. It is wrong to suggest that the same income is being taxed twice. Through municipal taxes, we are paying for certain services provided by the municipality, just as we pay for any essential goods and services provided by the private sector. Those private sector costs are paid with after-tax dollars. Does that mean that they should be tax deductible as well?
The fact that we pay federal income tax in no way supports the conclusion that municipal taxes should be exempt. It has always been an important principle of our income tax law that expenses in connection with property for personal use are not deductible, whereas those which are paid by a landlord are deductible because they affect business income.
I believe that we must look at the question of equity for renters. Property owners do receive an advantage over renters because the equity in their home or property is exempt from capital gains tax and, indeed, during the past few years when property values have risen rapidly this capital gain has been an important source of income for the retirement of many people, and has not been subject to tax. The tax deduction mentioned in this motion would again treat home owners preferentially. It would tend to favour the more affluent since they are more likely to own homes and have more valuable homes.
Regarding the position of landlords, it may be argued that landlords receive preferential treatment since they may deduct property taxes when computing their taxable income. However, the rental income of landlords is taxable and municipal
April 12, 1984

property taxes, like other costs incurred while earning the landlord's business income, are properly deductible. The same does not apply to home owners and renters nor does it apply, of course, to the personal residence of a landlord. He can deduct the property taxes for the rest of his development, but for his own personal residence he cannot deduct those municipal taxes.
It might be argued that in some way renters could be allowed to claim the property tax deduction instead of landlords. This would no doubt result in landlords raising rents in order to compensate for their increased income tax liabilities. As a result, many renters would be left probably no better off, and those renters who pay no income tax because of their low incomes would be worse off. They would be paying higher rent but getting no tax advantage.
If, for some reason, it was decided to allow both renters and landlords to claim the deduction, the result would be an undue incentive for rental housing.
With respect to the cost of the proposal, it is estimated that full income tax deductibility of municipal taxes paid by home owners could cost some $1 billion in forgone federal tax revenues. The cost could rise to approximately SI.5 billion if the right to this deduction was also granted to those households-more than one-third of the total-who rent their homes, assuming landlords were also allowed to deduct the cost against their rental income. I suggest that is a significant figure. We are talking about $1.5 billion. If it is forgone because of the deductibility of one's personal municipal taxes or the resulting personal municipal taxes passed through to the renter, of course it has to be collected from other sources by the federal Government.
The consequences are that the federal deficit is increased by these very substantial amounts, the federal Government services to Canadians are reduced or an equivalent amount is made up by increasing federal taxes in another direction.
The motion implies that some further incentive is needed to increase home ownership, since it calls the present tax system an impediment to this goal. There is no strong evidence that the tax system is an impediment to home ownership. Approximately two-thirds of Canadian households own their own homes. This proposal would be a windfall gain for those households already owning their homes. It would be no incentive for them. Thus it would be a costly, inefficient form of incentive for home ownership. There is already a major program of incentive for home ownership in the form of registered home ownership savings plans.
I suggest we should look at the effects on other levels of government. The benefits to home owners from this proposal could be eroded in two ways: First, it would be easier for municipal councils to increase local taxes, knowing that the federal Government would absorb part of the added burden through the income tax deduction. This would mean a weakening of an important discipline on local governments by encouraging wasteful spending. It would also be an unneces-
Income Tax Act
sary and undesirable intrusion in provincial and municipal affairs.
Second, provincial Governments might well decide to take advantage of the situation by reducing their own transfers to the municipalities. They are already being reduced. The net result could thus be simply a transfer of fiscal resources from federal to provincial Governments with little or no benefit to the taxpayers. It would favour home owners as compared to renters, unless some way could be found of extending the deductibility to renters. It is a move which is not advocated by this motion.
It would favour the more affluent as compared to lower income families, since their tax savings from a deduction is greater as a result of their higher tax bracket. The deduction for the wealthy would likely be higher as well, since they live in better houses and pay higher property taxes.
There would also be inequities among provinces in the benefits provided. The level of property taxes varies significantly among provinces due to differences in methods of financing local Governments. Some provincial Governments finance a larger share of municipal services than do other provinces. The home owner in such a province would pay lower municipal taxes but higher provincial taxes. The deduction proposed today would discriminate against such home owners.
A number of provinces have instituted various forms of relief for property taxes. These amounted to a total of approximately $1 billion in tax credits in 1982. The introduction of a federal tax credit would lead to further interprovincial inequities. For instance, in the Province of Ontario there are significant tax credits for senior citizens. In some cases, I am told, this results in practically no municipal taxes being paid. This would further add to that. I doubt that it would really provide the equity that we should be seeking in any move in this direction.
In view of these complexities, it seems more reasonable to leave responsibility for municipal taxes to the provinces, which have the constitutional responsibility to determine the appropriate degree and nature of any tax relief for municipal ratepayers. While this proposal may seem to have a great deal of appeal at first glance, there are many complexities relating to it, such as equity between lenders and home owners, to home owners who own their homes and those who are paying them off, and many inequities between provinces which provide greater or lesser transfer payments. It seems to me that before such a project or proposal is adopted, it requires a great deal more consideration.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly on this subject. It is my intention to support the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley). I believe it is a very sensible proposal and one which would do much to stimulate home ownership and housing construction in Canada. I congratulate the Member for bringing this forward today. It is not a new idea, however. It was an integral part of the proposals to stimulate home ownership and housing construction by the

April 12, 1984
Income Tax Act
Clark government in 1979. It is indeed unfortunate that that government did not stay in office long enough to implement some of its very worthwhile proposals in this field.
I could not help but rise to my feet when I heard the presentation by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). He read a speech that had evidently been prepared for him by departmental officials, in which he said that the matter had been considered in great detail and discarded. From listening to his speech, I cannot see how any great deal of consideration had been given to these eminent proposals. For instance, he said that the costs of the scheme would be some $1.5 billion. If I listened correctly to the first Member who spoke, he did not propose full implementation. His idea was to allow a partial deduction. For instance, 50 per cent would be some $750 million.
We can look at other areas where the Government is spending money. It has spent $1.5 billion in Canadair and will likely spend more in order to "save"-we do not know if it will-just a few thousand jobs at best. The same type of approach has been taken toward de Havilland with $350 million going into that company. We know that it will have to sink more money into it in the years to come. When we contrast the proposed tax expenditure, or money that the Government will no longer collect, with moneys that the Government is spending on these other porkbarrel type programs and expenditures, it will be seen that the amount of funds involved is something quite reasonable. I do not believe that we can write it off out of hand without studying it in the detail that it deserves, and the detail into which evidently the Hon. Member for Algoma has not gone.
In a typical Liberal fashion, Sir, he says to contrast the simple straightforward proposal put forth by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West with the Registered Home Ownership Program presently in the Government's portfolio of crazy ideas. The RHOSP Program is a typical Liberal program. It is very difficult, confining and very bureaucratic. It necessitates Government taking money, giving it back again, and very detailed treatment as regards taxation. It is something typically bureaucratic, the type of thing you would expect from the Liberals, whereas the proposals coming from this side of the House have been very simple and straightforward, a simple deduction contained on one line of the income tax form. One does not need a doctorate in accounting to be able to Figure it out. Everyone can understand it. It is a great idea, Sir.
The proposal has been criticized by Hon. Members on the other side in that it perhaps would encourage municipalities to increase their taxation. That is not necessarily bad if they could do that without increasing the effect on the taxpayer. Municipalities are strapped for funds. They have very limited areas of revenue generation available to them. Nearly all of their revenue comes from property taxation, and they have worthwhile things to do. I suggest that were municipalities able to collect a little more money through the jurisditional
area given to them, property taxes in particular, then they would not have to be scrounging to provincial or federal Governments. They would be their own, men, so to speak, and I would like to see that happen.
I do not like the idea which is so prevalent among Hon. Members on the other side, that the federal Government should get in there and tax everything and not allow any room for the other two levels of government. The federal Government takes everything, then gives back to the provinces and to the municipalities, either directly or through the provinces, some of this tax money. In my opinion, there should be a proper amount of tax room for all three levels of government sufficient for them to carry out their duties and responsibilities in their jurisdictional fields without having to go to other levels of government.
There was a suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Algoma that such a program might disproportionately favour people in the middle-income bracket. The Hon. Members opposite always pretend that they are the great friends of the poor and are not really concerned with the average Canadian or the person who would like to have a little higher income than he or she does at the present time. I do not believe this is a strong objection to the proposal.
I understand that in the Province of Ontario where there is a provincial system of rebates for municipal taxes, it has managed to address this problem. It does it in a way and manner which is both fair to the owner and to the tenant.
In the Northwest Territories where there is a territorial rebate of certain municipal taxes, that is done in a simple way, but in a way which is quite fair. Rebates are given at a rate of 50 per cent of the municipal taxation up to a limit. So if one has a 4,000 square foot home and is obliged to pay $3,000 or $4,000 a year or more in municipal taxes, one cannot get 50 per cent of $4,000 but just 50 per cent of a certain amount up to a maximum. It is not entirely equitable but it is reasonable. Everyone sees that an attempt has been made at fairness and there are no real complaints about that. So I do not really agree with the objections put forward at all.
My final comment is that, in my opinion, it is a form of double taxation. It is the same type of double taxation which we now have in the case of mining or oil and gas companies. There is no deduction made for provincial royalties paid when it comes to computing federal income tax. It is that type of approach to life which makes it seem that the Government, in its wish to get more and more revenue, is not willing to take into account anything which might be fair and reasonable if it would decrease revenues which it might otherwise obtain.
We think we are good at thinking up new taxes here, but taxes have been around for thousands and thousands of years. In ancient Alexandria in Egypt 2,000 or more years ago they had thought up nearly every method of taxation and revenue raising that we have today. However, they thought of one more, and I do not really like to bring this to the attention of the Government because it might very well adopt it. However, what they did in ancient Alexandria, Sir, is make it necessary, after you paid all of your taxes, to get a tax receipt to show to
April 12, 1984

the enforcers that the taxes had been paid. Someone had the bright idea of a tax payable on getting your tax receipt, a tax on taxes paid. I just throw that out in case Hon. Members opposite might want to raise another few thousand dollars from hard-working and already oppressed Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a lot of feeling that I enter into this debate today. Having been involved in the 1979 election and believing that it was not a fair tax at that time, 1 have no notion of being in support of it today. This motion tells us a great deal about the relative priorities of those who would advocate its adoption. It would cost the federal Treasury approximately $1 billion in lost tax revenues to carry out this proposal. That means the Government would have to find that much money in some way to provide this kind of tax benefit to Canadians who own their own homes. This could be done by increasing the deficit or borrowing the money at a time when both the Government and the Official Opposition favour reducing the deficit.
If this tax benefit were not provided by deficit financing, then it would be necessary to reduce other government expenditures, or increase other taxes to offset the cost. There is no free lunch, Mr. Speaker. One billion dollars is a great deal of money to offset. It would take some deep cuts in government services to Canadians or a substantial increase in the burden carried by taxpayers.
But let us assume that we can free up $1 billion in resources available to Government to spend where it thinks the need is greatest. What this motion argues, by inference at least, is that the $1 billion should be spent on Canadians who own their homes. It has been said that "to govern is to choose". We do not have unlimited resources. We have to choose our priorities. I believe we must help those who really need it most.
The last two Budgets set out a number of major priorities and announced a series of initiatives to meet them. Their goal is to build a strong and lasting expansion of the economy that will increase employment in Canada. I mention last year's Budget because its Special Recovery Program was planned for the medium term. Half of it was in the form of direct federal spending to provide new capital facilities that will increase competitiveness and generate new jobs. The other half was in the form of incentives for private investment to improve the competitive strength and job-creating capacity of the private sector. The Special Recovery Capital Projects will have their peak impact-estimated at $1.1 billion-in the new fiscal year just begun.
This year's Budget dealt with other high priorities: expansion of the youth opportunity fund to improve employment prospects for young people, new initiatives in employee profitsharing plans, tax simplification for small businesses, pension
Income Tax Act
reform, and increased security for home owners in the mortgage market. These are priorities of Government policy which have an important call on the available financial resources.
Do supporters of this motion claim that a billion-dollar tax benefit to home owners commands an equal or higher priority when it comes to allocating scarce fiscal resources? What would be gained by allowing home owners to deduct their municipal taxes from income subject to federal income tax? The motion states that this action would remove an impediment to homeownership for the average Canadian. I suggest that the level of municipal taxes has not been an impediment to a great many Canadians in deciding to become home owners, and the fact that two-thirds of Canadian households own their homes is an indication of that. Yet these are the people who would receive the bulk of the proposed tax benefit.
If we want to spend $1 billion as an incentive for Canadians to become home owners for the first time, surely the incentive should be targeted at them, not at those who have shown they no longer need that incentive. In spending Government money on new programs or tax incentives, it is vital that the money be used in the most efficient way possible. That means applying the incentive at the margin, to influence future decisions, and not using most of the financial resources to reward decisions that have been taken in the past.
Another important weakness in this proposal is that it would introduce a most regressive aspect to our income tax law. A basic principle of tax law is that citizens should be asked to pay taxes according to their ability to pay. Wealthier taxpayers should be expected to carry a proportionately heavier tax burden than those who are on lower incomes.
There is a great deal to be said in favour of leaving the responsibilitity for local taxes in its present form. It exercises a certain discipline in that people are directly responsible for their community expenditures. Having spent ten years of my life in municipal government, I believe that they really know where their dollars come from and where they go. I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of putting on the record a few of those thoughts.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on this Bill, I cannot help but relate back to the proposal of the Opposition when they were in government and the home owner's interest deductibility which would have cost the Government of Canada approximately $3.5 billion. It is not easy to find a valid rationale for adopting the proposal urged in this motion. Should it be in the form of an incentive for home ownership? The motion suggests that, since it describes the present tax structure as being an impediment to Canadians owning their own homes. Should it be done in order to correct a great defect in the tax structure? That seems to be the position taken in this motion, since it talks of correcting "an unfair form of double taxation". Or is it intended simply as a transfer to benefit home owners? It certainly looks as though that would be the result, if not the motive, and we should consider whether such a transfer is justifiable.

April 12, 1984
Income Tax Act
Let us look at the question of providing an added incentive to home ownership. The cost of this proposal in reduced federal tax revenues could be about $1 billion, assuming full deduction of municipal property taxes. That is a pretty rich benefit and the sponsor of the motion apparently recognizes that since the motion suggests there might be some limitation in the form of a ceiling on the amount of property taxes which could be deducted.
It is hard to accept the argument that the present nondeductibility of property taxes is an impediment to homeown-ership. About two-thirds of Canadian households live in their own homes-a remarkably high percentage by any standard. Therefore, if we are to regard this proposal as an incentive to homeownership, it clearly would be a very inefficient and wasteful one. Almost all of the tax benefits would go to those who now own their homes. And in any event there is little evidence that the level of municipal taxation is acting as a deterrent to those who might want to become first-time homeowners.
If we want to devote government financial resources to encouraging people to become homeowners, it makes sense that any incentive be directed specifically towards them and not diverted to existing homeowners. That is precisely the purpose of the existing tax provision for contributions into registered homeownership savings plans. The RHOSP tax benefit involves a cost to the federal treasury in forgone tax revenues of around $100 million a year. At last count some 540,000 Canadians were contributing to their RHOSP accounts. I should remind the House of the change to the RHOSP program introduced in the Recovery budget of April last year, allowing taxpayers extra tax deduction by topping up their RHOSP contributions to the maximum $10,000 in order to buy newly-built homes before the end of 1984.
In addition there are substantial amounts provided through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to a number of major housing programs to assist Canadians-including home renovation and rehabilitation, the financing of social housing for low-income households, and rental subsidies for households needing housing assistance. It must be obvious that this kind of approach is a far more effective way of using federal tax resources to improve the housing of Canadians. I would like to turn now to another argument made in support of the proposed motion-the idea that an income tax deduction for municipal property taxes would correct what the motion calls "an unfair form of double taxation". That is an intriguing and puzzling argument. It is true that homeowners pay their municipal taxes out of their income after paying federal and provincial income tax. But the same applies to payments of every form of tax that is not income tax-sales tax, customs tariffs, excise taxes, dog taxes, liquor taxes. Do all of these amount to double taxation? Are we to provide for income tax deductions for all of these other taxes as well, on grounds they constitute double taxation? That seems to be the logic of this motion.
I suggest that homeowners view their municipal property taxes as payments which finance essential local services. I doubt very much that they see these taxes as representing
double taxation. I agree that property taxes are paid in so-called "after-tax" dollars-after payment of income tax- but the same can be said for every other purchase of goods and services. It is a far stretch to call this double taxation.
We must conclude that this proposal cannot be justified either as an incentive to homeownership, or as a necessary correction to some supposed problem of double taxation. We are left, therefore, with trying to justify the motion as a worthwhile and necessary fiscal transfer to homeowners. Can one argue that this is really a high priority area for the allocation of as much as $1 billion in federal government resources?
We hear much from the Opposition about the need to reduce the federal deficit, so one can perhaps assume that the sponsor of the motion would not want to increase the deficit by another $1 billion.
That leaves two alternative approaches. If we are to offset the cost of this proposal by reducing expenditures in other areas, the supporters of this proposal should take the responsibility of specifying which federal services should be cut. Or else they should make clear what tax increases they advocate in order to make up the lost revenue.
If we are going to find $1 billion by some general increase in tax revenues, the implication is clear: it means that taxpayers as a whole will be asked to subsidize homeowners. You would be asking families who cannot afford to own their own homes to provide tax assistance for those who do. Since home owners are generally at higher income levels than those who rent, this means seriously regressive taxation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago when workers in the western shops of the CPR in Winnipeg learned that a number of their workers would be laid off permanently they sent a telegram to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) protesting the lay-offs and urging the Minister to take some action to alleviate the hardships which would arise. Yesterday I brought this to the attention of the Minister and asked him to look into it. I also informed him
April 12, 1984

that I had learned two days ago that a number of workers in the car shop in Winnipeg had been told that they would be laid off shortly. I asked the Minister to take action. Of course the Minister gave the usual reply that as a result of the passage of the legislation ending the Crow rate agreement there would be a substantial increase in the number of people working across the country and in Winnipeg.
I put it to the Minister yesterday, and I do so again today, that 57 full-time jobs are being terminated in Winnipeg in the diesel shop, the power house and the wheel shop operation. A number of workers who have worked for CPR in Montreal and Toronto are being moved to Winnipeg. This will cause a good deal of dislocation to them and their families. I also pointed out to the Minister that lay-offs are now taking place in the car shop.
I would like to remind the House what the Minister said on March 25, 1982. He said:
We are talking about the kind of investment that will restore the urban centres of western Canada to their pre-eminence as transportation centres. We are talking about the creation of employment across Canada, from the steel mills in Sydney to the locomotive shops in Quebec and Ontario and the major urban centres of western Canada. The change in the Crow rate will have multiple benefits for every community across Canada. It will create employment.
That is the question to which I am trying to get an answer from the Minister. Where are these jobs? Why are these people being laid off?
The Minister can say that the new programs have not started yet and that it will take some time. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian Pacific is one of the largest, if not the largest corporation in Canada. In 1983 it had gross revenues of $2,430 million and a net income of $184 million, an increase over 1982 of almost 50 per cent. Canadian Pacific is a big, sound, profitable corporation. It got to the position it is in, Mr. Speaker, because of the benefits it received from the people of Canada. Since it was started it has received billions of dollars in grants, hundreds of thousands of acres of land, and untold mineral wealth. If this corporation cannot see its way to carry a few of its employees, for whom there is no work right now, until the time when they and the Minister have assured the people of Canada and their workers that they are going to expand their work force, that says something which is not very commendable about both the CPR and the Minister of Transport.
My second question to the Minister of Transport concerns another issue which has come to light with regard to both the CNR and the CPR. They are continuing and expanding a policy of contracting out work which they started some years ago. When I asked the Minister about that and urged him to do something about it, he said he would talk to the CPR. But he said, "you know, the railways have to be more efficient." What efficiency means when you put the word "efficiency', together with the words "contracting out" is that the railway lays off fulltime employees, permanent employees, who because they are permanent employees and because they are represented by unions have been able to negotiate a decent wage, working conditions and benefits for themselves. What contracting out does is to get rid of those employees and
Adjournment Debate
replace them with people who are casual employees who work only when the company has a specific job to do. They work for much lower wages and do not get the benefits and so on which permanent employees get. Studies have been done in Toronto, Windsor, and my own city of Winnipeg which indicate that contracting out services are not as efficiently done as work done by fulltime experienced employees. Contracting out services suffer from high turnover and poor workplace safety standards, and these jobs are often done at minimum wage and produce high returns for the agency-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, like other industrial and commercial businesses, CP Rail must occasionally redistribute its human resources and adjust its hiring operations according to the variations in the demand for its product, that is, rail transportation. The most recent staff reductions planned by the CPR in Winnipeg are the result of decisions reached by the directors to maintain an efficient and profitable service. I would like to emphasize that, as a private enterprise, the CPR is required to make profits for its shareholders.
In 1983, in spite of lay-offs and recalls of employees in various occupational groups, there was a net increase in the number of CPR shop employees in Winnipeg. If the current economic recovery keeps up, the opportunities for permanent jobs should continue to improve.
I would add that the temporary shop employees hired by CP Rail were warned at the time of their hiring about this situation so they would be sure not to quit more permanent jobs. In addition to that, the collective agreements covering the laid-off permanent employees protect them against excessive hardship.
The CPR alone has undertaken to allocate something like $450 million to equipment projects in 1984. The purpose of this record high expenditure program is to increase its capacity to move ever-increasing freight volumes. The program flows from the new Western Grain Transportation Act which, for the first time in years, requires payment for the movement of grain.
The CNR and the CPR have initiated many projects which will improve their ability to move the products of Western Canada. As the Minister has said: "We are embarking on a major economic development". The companies are now contracting for purchases and projects which will benefit nearly all the regions of Canada.
The purpose of work distribution by railway companies is not to avoid paying unionized workers. Companies bid for the equipment projects through the normal channels, and I can

April 12, 1984
Adjournment Debate
assure the Hon. Member that selection is made on the basis of price and quality of the proposals and not of the fact that the workers are unionized or not. On the other hand, both the CNR and the CPR have found out that most major contracts have been awarded to companies whose workers are unionized. In some cases, service contracts, such as herbicide spraying and cleaning services, have been awarded to small local companies whose employees are not unionized when they were the only bidders or those were the only services provided.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION. (B) USE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUNDS TO RETRAIN WORKERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 take advantage of this adjournment debate to correct for the record some of the outrageously misleading statements of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts). I specifically refer to a question I put to the Minister on April 10, 1984, which can be found at page 2899 of Hansard. My question was prompted by the public musings of the Minister in Calgary, Alberta last week.
On Friday last, the unemployment figures were released by Statistics Canada. On that occasion the Minister, who should have been in the House to answer for the increase in the unemployment rate, was musing publicly in Calgary that the reason unemployment had gone up was that more people participated in the labour force. The actual fact was that the participation rate had gone down while the unemployment rate had continued to escalate for three months. So much for the Minister's knowledge of the labour force and the labour force survey.
The second thing he said in Calgary last Friday was that in his opinion more unemployment insurance funds should be targeted toward manpower training as opposed to income maintenance. He is the Minister responsible for unemployment insurance. When he finally came into the House on Tuesday, we put questions to him. I have referred to these questions.
I asked the Minister, if he is the Minister responsible for unemployment insurance and if he believes that more unemployment insurance funds should go into training as opposed to income maintenance, why does he not do something about it? That was the question. It is there for anybody to see. The Minister's answer, as I said, was outrageously misleading. He said:
The answer is, of course, that we are. That is exactly what Section 38 and Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act now permits . .. That is what we are doing to the extent of something like $1 billion a year.
The Minister went on to say facetiously:
Once again the Hon. Member has shown his profound lack of knowledge of what the facts of the situation are.
The Minister has shown once again his profound lack of knowledge of what the facts are. Canada faces one of the greatest challenges in this modern time; that is, the training of
our unemployed and the training of our work force to cope with technological change. There are many thousands of young people unemployed, a half million. Many people today are under-employed, especially women. Eighty per cent of the service sector is made up of women. They will be left behind unless we make provision now to train these people.
What are the facts? When the Minister made that statement in the House I checked with his office and then I checked the Estimates. I find that the Minister was wrong on all counts. Let us look at the current Estimates for 1984-85.
Under manpower training we find $259 million of the unemployment insurance fund targeted for training. That represents about 2.5 per cent of the total unemployment insurance paid out in this country. In trying to explain himself today, the Minister said he was not only talking about manpower training, but he was also talking about job creation. The record implies clearly that he was not talking about job creation but manpower training. Even if he was, the fact is that on checking the records we find that under the current Estimates only $207 million was targeted under UI for job-creation purposes. That is still only half of what the Minister said was being spent, if we take his word today that he really meant not only training but job creation as well.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about. He is preoccupied with other things. He is preoccupied with a losing campaign to save his credibility as a Minister, because we know he is not going anywhere in terms of the Liberal leadership of this country. Now he obviously has to do something about his waning credibility.
In his reply to me, incredibly he indicated for example, and I quote from page 2899 of Hansard:
That is exactly what Section 38 and Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act now permit.
Section 38 has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with manpower training. There is not one cent being spent under Section 38. He obviously meant Section 37. Under Section 37 of the Act, only $25,000 is being spent to retrain some 50 workers. The rest is being spent under Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is an expenditure of $259 million a year.
We pay out almost $1 billion a month in unemployment insurance in this country. People who draw these benefits should be able to use them to be retrained; to be trained for new jobs, to be trained to cope with new technology, and be trained in the use of computers. We should be using the unemployment insurance fund to train women to meet the challenges of the new technology, to train the half million young people who will be left behind if we do not do something about training them now to handle the jobs with, hopefully, a little more emphasis on research and development and productivity, the jobs that will be created in the future if we can get our economy back on the rails.
This is a very serious matter. We have a right to expect that the Minister of the Crown responsible for training, employ-
April 12, 1984

ment, manpower and unemployment insurance would not only be here but that he would be well informed. Not only is he not here, but obviously he is ill informed. He is either ill informed, misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead the Canadian public. I know the Minister would not do that. I cannot accuse him of doing that, so he must be misinformed. Either way he stands indicted for incompetence.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to pick a particular month and compare it to the most current month and draw whatever conclusions one wants. The fact is, as previously stated, employment growth on an annual basis has been relatively favourable in comparison to labour force growth. Using the latest 12 months or the latest quarter compared to the corresponding one a year ago gives a more clear indication of the true situation. For instance, on a year-to-year basis, the absolute increase in employment between April 1983 and March 1984 was 242,000 while the labour force grew by 222,000. Comparing the first quarter of 1983 with the first quarter of 1984, employment grew at an annual rate of 334,000 while the labour force grew at an annual rate of 183,000. It is clear therefore that while the Government is still not satisfied with the high level of unemployment, jobs are being created at a faster rate than the growth of the labour force.


CANADA PENSION PLAN-ELIGIBILITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in today's late show flows from my intervention during Question Period yesterday. I have to admit that my intervention arose from a certain degree of anger and utter frustration because of a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). He threatened the Government with the usual defeat because, he said, we keep attaching a price tag or condition to any help that we might give to farmers or fishermen. On second thought, I felt I did not have to apologize for that anger I felt or the frustration. I felt it reflected very accurately the anger and frustration of the people who have put the farmers and the fishermen in their jobs, that is the wives.
We are all politicians in this House. I agree that probably the Leader of the Opposition is reacting to a strong lobby on the part of western farmers in particular. I do not fault the farmers for having made that lobby. They were probably putting forward their own legitimate claims. I do fault the Leader of the Opposition for his insensitivity to the fact that the people who need his help most are very often the inarticulate, the needy, those who cannot afford to present this lobby. Very often that is the housewife of Canada. Until these voices can be heard, regardless of the amount of money and regardless of their ability to articulate, we are not in a very good democracy. We have to admit that. It is our duty as representatives of all the people in Canada to make sure that we are attuned to the silent voice, which very often is the most needy. This is so, particularly when it comes to the plight of farm wives.
Adjournment Debate
A few years ago, I was privileged to represent Canada at a symposium for rural women of America in Washington. It occurred to me that Canada could well do likewise and call a conference of the rural women of Canada to find out their particular problems.
Rural women do have problems which are different from those of women in urban centres. Obviously, one of the problems is isolation. Another is the amount of sheer hard work that must be done. Few city dwellers like myself will not admit that the work done by rural women is at least three times as hard as the work done by most men. For those rural women and for housewives in the city I am not asking so much for financial gain, but I am asking that a degree of dignity and justice be afforded them and that their work be recognized. The only way dignity and justice can be given to these women is by allowing them to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
The inclusion of housewives in the pension scheme would be a highly significant innovation which, to some extent, would recognize the economic worth of raising a family. As well, it would provide an element of financial independence for elderly unemployed women.
This idea is not a novel one, Mr. Speaker. For instance, such a program has already been adopted in Germany and France. In 1978, I had the Library of Parliament research a paper for me. I have been pursuing this question since my first election to the House in 1974. We have made some progress but not enough.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has asked that housewives be allowed to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. More recently, our own parliamentary task force, with all-Party agreement, recommended that a homemaker pension be available to those who, in any year, work only or mainly in the home to care for a spouse, a child under 18 or a dependent and infirm adult relative living in the home.
I would like to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am not only asking for money. Money could be provided as, under certain circumstances; it is already being provided by the OAS and the GIS. I am asking for the recognition of the work done by these women throughout our country, and I am asking that they be accorded the justice and dignity they deserve.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been particularly attentive to the needs of women in formulating its action plan for pension reform which was released in the Budget of February 15. Before providing some details on the Budget proposals that will benefit women, I would like to point out that farmers' wives are already able to participate in the Canada Pension Plan if they work in the family business. As well, wives who work in the paid labour force do contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.

April 12, 1984
Adjournment Debate
The Government announced an impressive list of proposals that will be of particular help to women. Bills to enact these proposals are now being drafted and will be introduced as soon as possible. Elon. Members will then be asked to ensure speedy passage of these bills so that their benefits will be felt at an early date.
Let me remind Hon. Members of the proposals to help women which are included in the Budget. These include a $50 per month increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement for single pensioners. This proposal will benefit 750,000 elderly people, three-quarters of whom are women, and will ensure that they can lead a decent life. They include as well improvements to the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that survivor benefits are not terminated upon remarriage, that pension credits are split upon marriage breakdown and that pensions are split at age 65. These proposals will provide retirement income to women in their own right.
In addition, there is reform of private pension plans to ensure inflation protection, vesting after two years and splitting of pension credits upon marriage breakdown. There is improved survivor benefits, equal benefits for men and women, greater membership in private pension plans, major tax improvements to encourage retirement income and better information in respect of both public and private pension plans. Taken together, these proposals will ensure that working
women receive in the future a much better deal from the pension system.
The Government has already sought the approval of provinces for changes to the Canada Pension Plan, and there is every indication that provinces will agree to their speedy enactment. Provinces have also been asked to reform private pension plans falling under their jurisdiction, and the federal Government will be working to achieve Canada-wide reforms.
While these are in themselves major reforms of the pension system, the Government is also committed to discuss later this year further improvements to the Canada Pension Plan. The issues which will be discussed with them include whether or not homemakers who work in the home should be covered under the CPP, survivors and disability benefits and the financing of the Plan. These are complex and difficult issues which will require careful consideration. The implementation of any major changes will also require consent of the provinces. I can therefore give the Hon. Member every assurance that the Government is fully aware of the matter which has been raised and is working diligently to ensure that elderly women do not live in poverty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 13, 1984