1984-01-27

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, President Reagan, in his State of the Union speech, Wednesday evening, announced a proposal to allocate funds of almost $55 million for acid rain research projects. How disappointing! The Reagan administration is still foot dragging and continues to rule out a program to curb the pollution that causes acid rain.
What is needed is not more research, though that is welcome, but actual programs to carry out the clean-up. It has become evident that the President's re-election schedule is far more important than acid rain. This is a token attempt, and was only outlined because the Democratic presidential candidates have taken a strong stand on what they would do in respect of acid rain. It is not enough.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the theory of the divine right of kings, namely, that the ruler governed by divine ordinance, or that perhaps he himself was a divinity, has long since been discarded. Well, almost discarded. Today we appear to have a new version namely, the divine right of the Prime Minister. For instance, he laid his hands upon his loyal aide and servant and the anointed one was supposed to go forth and win Spadina. Something went wrong and he lost. Now, according to The Globe and Mail, the said anointed is not only at work in Spadina but is going even further afield-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has some concern about the use of Standing Order 21 for this kind of attack. It has been raised before by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and other Hon. Members. I can only say that the device of an attack on individual Members through the use of Standing Order 21 is not in order in the House. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, recently colleagues of mine have been pressing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) about the human dimension of the unemployment problem, about what he intends to do, and about what he thinks Canadians should do who find themselves in the position of being without work or unemployment insurance benefits, and without a Government with the will to do something to create the jobs they need.
I would call to the attention of the House, particularly to the Government, the people who find themselves in the position of a number of constituents 1 have had the opportunity to meet, who would be in their mid to late fifties, and have been laid off. They have done warehouse work perhaps, or something like that, for 30 years, and now find they cannot do that kind of work any more. They have been laid off in favour of younger men. They are not old enough for old age pensions, they are not disabled enough for the Canada Pension Disability Pension and they are not young enough to find a job somewhere else, doing what they are able to do. What does the Minister of Finance have to say to those kinds of people who find themselves in this twilight zone between being able to find a job and being old enough for a pension?
I implore the Government to do something to meet the needs of these hard-working people who cannot find a job. They do not want to go on welfare. If we want to continue to call ourselves a civilized society, the Government has to move on this issue and do something for people who find themselves in that kind of situation, either by amending the Unemployment Insurance Act and/or the Canada Pension Act.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) made three announcements designed to support Canadian micro-electronics, universities, and the natural sciences. In view of the deplorable state of research, innovation and development support provided by the Government for the past 16 years, these announcements seem to be wonderful on the surface, and very welcome. But to someone stranded for days on the desert, a mouthful of water and a soda cracker seem like a banquet, and this is what we have. They are imponderable and impossible to judge by thoughtful and

January 27, 1984
reasonable Members of this House, or by the science community, or by the business community at large. These initiatives sound great, when in reality they may be misdirected efforts and the wrong application of funds.
If Parliament is to be effective in evaluating research opportunities to generate wealth for Canada and real jobs for Canadians, it must have a meaningful forum in which to do so. Such a forum would be a standing committee on science and technology, made up of Members in all Parties, a committee that would be able to listen to the concerns and ideas of the real world. The committee could hear scientists and experts on important subjects, such as specific job creation in high tech industries, the upgrading of lower tech industries, a more efficient extraction process in mining, better means of transportation, reduction in acid rain emissions, and many other important issues which must be effectively addressed if we are to regain our economic stability.
Last year all Parties in the House agreed to the need for such a committee. A joint recommendation was made to all three House Leaders, and they agreed with the need. Is it because the Government is still unaware of the real value of science and technology and has learned nothing in the past 16 years that we do not now have such a committee? Does the Government intend to continue issuing spurious announcements which are intended only to influence voters?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.

[Translation)


CITY OF MONTREAL POLICE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a very special reason for asking to speak in the House today. I suppose that like most Canadians and especially Quebecers, you were able to follow what happened during the last forty-eight hours to a little Montreal girl, Veronique Rocheleau, who is eight years old. Yesterday, the story had a happy ending, and today in the House, I wish to emphasize, first of all, the work done by the Montreal Police Corps and by all the people of Montreal. All Quebecers and people everywhere in Canada were anxious to hear the little girl had been found, and as the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean and speaking on behalf of the people of my riding and my colleagues, I would like to say that we are very happy that this story ended as it did and that this little girl was able to escape and go back to her parents.
Mr. Speaker, this series of events was particularly moving since as a result, the whole country became involved, at least in
spirit, and we must thank God that everything turned out well and hope there will be no similar incidents in this beautiful country of ours.


EDUCATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian universities have reached the crisis point, and it is up to the Government to decide whether it will contribute to the problem or to the solution. Universities have the capacity to decide whether Canadians will be active participants in the research and development boom or simply passive bystanders.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada recently told the Government that there are not enough Ph.D.s in the very professions which are required to meet present R and D demands, and there are certainly not enough students enrolled in graduate programs to meet future R and D demands. On the one hand the Government has boldly stated that R and D is a priority, yet at the same time it has refused to make education financing an area of priority.
Meanwhile, university enrolments are increasing, due in large part to massive unemployment among youth, created largely by the Government's policies. At Brandon University, for example, student enrolment is higher than it has ever been. Again, the Government is not listening. It is not responding.
There is considerable evidence that universities can fuel the re-entry of women into the workplace. Once again, by refusing to make education financing a priority, the Government is failing to meet the challenge. In effect, universities are pleading with the Government of Canada to answer the challenges of tomorrow. The Government, regretfully, has answered the plea with one word, no.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, many times in the House the Minister of Finance has made statements leading up to his forthcoming Budget, indicating that recovery is upon us. I would like to point out that there are many groups which are not sharing in the so-called recovery. The farmers of Canada are an important group in our country who reached a net income in 1974 which, for the first time, was equivalent to the average industrial wage earner's. In 1974 the net income of farmers was $3.5 billion. It is interesting to note that in 1983 the net income for farmers was again $3.5 billion, in spite of inflation, and the cost of living rising more than two and one half times.

The solution that has been offered by many politicians and economists of late is increased productivity. In the past 10 years Canadian farmers have increased productivity on a per man and woman basis probably faster than any other group in our economy. Yet they were rewarded by having their real net incomes cut in half.
The Minister of Finance, in his Budget which is soon to be presented to this House, would be wise to remember that if a recovery does exist in this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I know that he has been making numerous press statements. In light of the safety hazard problems revealed in the federal Government's report on Air Canada, plus yesterday's very expensive smoke in a 727 cockpit which forced an emergency landing in Winnipeg, the day after weedless Wednesday, and the news that the Minister has ordered daily monitoring of safety on Eastern Provincial Airways, can he assure the House that the safety of the travelling public is not endangered?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that all these measures clearly demonstrate that safety is very much a No. 1 priority, both of my Department and of the Government. We have taken unusual steps, first, by establishing for the first time a comprehensive audit to examine the full operating and maintenance activities of Air Canada. We will be undertaking that program on a regular basis with all the major carriers, so that there can be a regular system of full scale examinations to determine what corrections or improvements might be made.
That audit itself clearly pointed out that the safety standards in Air Canada are very good ones, but in any system there is always room for change and improvement and that is the purpose of the audit, to draw attention to where we can provide for some structural and procedural changes. It does demonstrate that we are very much committed to ensuring that there is both proper maintenance, and certification, and observation of the safety activities of our airline systems.


WORKING RELATIONS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT AND AIRLINE COMPANIES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Minister for the answer, as far as it goes.
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that the audit does point out certain specifics that should be corrected, and also underlines something called "coziness" between the Department of Transport administrators and Air Canada officials, what does the Minister intend to do about that, and when, so that the safety regulations will be enforced and administered as definitively as possible?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, under what is called a letter of privilege the Ministry of Transport transfers to airlines a number of activities for which they are in a sense self governing, or self examining. One of the primary findings in the audit which we are recommending is that many of those requirements for standard setting and maintenance would be taken back and we would be pursuing those activities more rigorously. That is now under way through discussions between my officials and Air Canada about how recapturing those responsibilities will take place, to make sure there is a very clear demarcation line between the regulatory requirements and safety area and the activities of the airlines themselves.
I think the Hon. Member knows from his own experience that there must be a close working relationship between the airlines and our Department. There is much shared information and knowledge. At the same time, however, the audit did point out that, particularly in the airworthiness standard setting and the certifying of some of the maintenance activities, those activities should be taken back by the Ministry of Transport, which we are now in the process of doing.


EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS-EFFECT OF LABOUR RELATIONS DISPUTE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for helping to clarify this situation which I think is causing unusual concern across the country.
1 would like to ask him specifically about the EPA situation and the disturbing news that federal inspectors are reporting daily on safety procedures of EPA, and especially on the tension in the cockpits due to the ongoing labour strike. When will corrective measures be taken to resolve this very untenable and unhealthy situation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as 1 pointed out yesterday, the technical standards of EPA are certainly being met. If and when there may be incidents that would transgress those, they are immediately reported and action is taken. The Hon. Member would probably know that just last week we issued two show cause orders to two pilots because of incidents on landing and in certain areas where they did not meet the minimum equipment list. We will be taking those actions immediately.
However, as a result of the very bitter labour situation that has evolved in that airline over the last several months, there is a feeling that if the tension level-the measurement of which is sometimes indefinable because there is no technical standard to use-and the psychology that works there, begin to impinge

January 27, 1984
Oral Questions
upon safety, we have to be in a position to monitor it very carefully.
We could go and set up a special task force or a special team to conduct a far more intense series of examinations and inspections on board Eastern Provincial Airways. We have authorized Mr. Sinclair, the Air Administrator, to take actions, such as pilot separation, if in his judgment after receiving these detailed reports he feels the situation is reaching a point where there could be incidents or situations which might lead to a safety problem. We are trying to anticipate, to preempt, to provide a preventive situation just to make clear such a situation would not happen, and to give a very clear signal to the airline that it must resolve that issue in order that safety will not be threatened.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. He must be aware that public confidence throughout the Altantic region in EPA has eroded substantially in recent months. It has to do not just with safety but also with the level of service being provided by EPA. Flights are being cancelled summarily, departures and arrivals are consistently late, and even the airplanes themselves leave an awful lot to be desired. In light of those facts, would the Minister be prepared to launch a full scale ministerial investigation of Eastern Provincial Airways, not just a task force having to do with safety, to satisfy himself and the public as well that Eastern Provincial Airways is meeting its firm commitments to the Atlantic Provinces under federal charter as the regional carrier.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been taking a number of extraordinary measures over the past several months to ensure that the operations of Eastern Provincial Airways will not be affected by the labour dispute through which it has been going. We have to be very careful. I know my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has been very watchful of the situation that, as a federal Government, we do not intervene in that labour dispute directly, which is a matter that must be resolved between the parties to the dispute.
The basic principle of our labour relations conduct has been that we do not try to come down one side or the other in such a dispute. We have to honour that requirement until or unless it gets to the point, as I said in response to the previous question, it may begin to impinge upon areas that would threaten public safety. That is why we took the preventive actions that we have taken. If there are service problems, those are problems that can be clearly brought to the attention of the Canadian Transport Commission, and that is why the CTC is there.


Mr. McGrath:: The Minister is ultimately responsible.


Lloyd Axworthy: The CTC is in the position of being responsible for judging whether public convenience and necessity under the National Transportation Act are being met. If there are charges that they are not being met, then they can be brought forward by individuals, or by provincial authorities, or others. I think that is really the course of action to take. If the Hon. Member can cite a number of incidents that he would like to bring to my attention, I will be quite happy to take them to the chairman of that commission and he can follow through. I think we also want to be careful that you do not undo or injure the service of that airline because it is a very important ingredient in the whole transportation system of the Atlantic region, and you have to strike a balance.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has missed the point entirely. There is overwhelming evidence that we have here an airline under federal charter in deep, deep trouble, to the point where the very safety of the travelling public is being jeopardized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING SAFETY OF PUBLIC
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, what will it take for the Minister of Transport-a major catastrophe-to take his responsibilities seriously? He cannot slough this off to the Canadian Transport Commission. He is ultimately responsible. Will the Minister accept his responsibilities as Minister of Transport to investigate a very serious problem that is threatening the safety of the travelling public? What will it take for him to accept those responsibilities if the evidence has missed his attention already?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would say the first question of responsibility is a responsibility of Members of Parliament in this House not to engage in sensational tactics in which the last Member of Parliament just engaged.


James Aloysius McGrath: It was a CBC report.


Lloyd Axworthy: This is not a matter with which to play sensational politics. It is a serious issue.
1 have outlined the steps we have taken to provide a preventive system to ensure that there will not be safety problems. I have authorized the Air Administrator to take immediate action if any of the reports he receives from his team in any way suggest there is a jeopardy. The kind of statement just made by the Hon. Member really does not do him any good, the airline, or the people travelling. That is the most irresponsible statement I have heard by a Member of Parliament in a long, long time in this House.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It follows on questions posed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain in the last couple of days. The Minister of late has been travelling across the land touting the recovery which he sees as presently being under way. In some big business sectors, it no doubt exists. Yet today there are more than four million Canadians living in poverty, 900,000 more than there were two years ago. What does the Minister see in this much ballyhooed recovery for these four million and more poor people?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the statistics for 1983 he will find that once again real wages, that is, wages after inflation and taxes, will have grown for workers in our country. Also he will find that, despite the fact we had a very deep recession and had to cut in a number of areas, we have maintained support for full indexation of the transfer payments for those who are really in need, the poor, is spite of the fact that we were asking others in the community to accept limitations on their wage increases or on the prices they wanted to charge.
I have indicated that, as resources become available, as far as the Government is concerned we would try to direct those resources toward helping those most in need. The Hon. Member knows that in the Speech from the Throne, for instance, the Government committed itself to trying to find ways of further increasing the support for single persons on the Guaranteed Income Supplement, so as to try to bring them at least above the level of poverty.
These are the measures the Government has taken and has announced in the past. When the Government is ready to proceed with those measures, I hope they will have the support of the Hon. Member.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Increases in real wages are only good for those people who are getting wages.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET ASSIST PEOPLE WITHOUT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks again of the safety nets which are in place. Yesterday in the House the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain made the case to the Minister that one of those safety nets, unemployment insurance, has loopholes so big that 25 per cent of those in need have fallen through the net. If the Minister would care to come to my constituency, I could introduce him to many such people. Will he assure the House that his Budget due in just a few weeks will patch up those loopholes, offering some hope and some income to those who are now ineligible for unemployment insurance?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to visit the Hon. Member's constituency to know about such situations. I have some in my own constituency, and I meet such people on a regular basis. I will take the Hon. Member's views as representations.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I will put my final question in very simple language. What does the Minister propose to do for all those Canadians who are presently without jobs, with no prospects of jobs, with no unemployment insurance or any other source of income? What are those people to do?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is not what I can do. It is a question of what we can do as a country. As a country we have to work together quite closely- governments, labour, and management-to ensure that we will be more competitive, more productive, and more efficient, and that we will meet and beat tough competition around the world. If we succeed in doing this, Canada will grow and there will be more jobs for all those who do not have jobs at the present time. This is a collective effort which has to be developed between all economic agents of the country.
I am very happy in that regard to have seen this morning that labour and management-all major unions and major business groups in Canada-have agreed to sit down together to study ways and means of improving the labour market, productivity, and employment growth. They have invited governments to participate in that national effort. It is an important step toward ensuring that the Canadian economy will indeed again be a leading economy in the world.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who has appointed an investigator to look into the Tax Department and periodically give the Minister secret reports. I presume that the Minister has established some schedule for the receipt of these secret reports from the investigator. Will he tell the House of Commons when he expects to receive the secret report on tax collection quotas, when he expects to receive the secret report on the special hit list the Department has established for celebrity taxpayers, and when he expects to receive the secret report on the Government's raid on private bank accounts? Will he also tell the House whether, upon receipt of these secret reports, and in the interest of the House of Commons and the public of Canada in knowing what is going on in the Tax Department, he will agree to publish and table those secret reports immediately?

January 27, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am a little surprised at the Hon. Member's question, and especially at the way it was formulated. First of all, I have already informed the House that as soon as I receive Mr. Farlinger's final report, 1 shall table it in the House and it will be made public.
I would also like to say, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, that Mr. Farlinger is busy assembling a multi-disciplinary team that will examine the very considerable mandate he has been given for his study, and as soon as that is finished, he will start on the actual study.
Still in answer to the Hon. Member's question I intend to meet Mr. Farlinger next week, if possible, to discuss how he is to keep me informed and advise me of the progress of his study. I may add it is not a matter of having secret reports. The purpose of this study is to correct certain situations, if necessary, and to do so as quickly as possible. The reports will probably be in the form of discussions and advice given at meetings between Mr. Farlinger and myself.


REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we have is an indication that there will be no formal reports that might even leak into the public. Not only will the Government not release them, they might not even be leaked. There will just be discussions between the Minister, who is the man most guilty with respect to what is going on in the Tax Department, and his investigator.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister tells us that he will submit a final report to the House. He has already said that that final report will not be ready for a year. In a year's time, that Minister will not be in this House of Commons.
This issue is far too important for the Government to carry on another coverup. I ask the Minister whether he has the courage to recommend to his House Leader that there be established a special parliamentary committee to look into this question which is daily causing pain and outrage to constituents across the country. I have a letter here. Every member of this House is receiving correspondence every day talking about the rudeness, abuses, and pressures being brought upon individual Canadians. Why can we not have a parliamentary committee to look into this question? Why is there a coverup?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that if he really feels that certain situations must be corrected, and if he honestly wants such corrective action to be taken quickly, he must agree that it is important for me to get advice as quickly as
possible and to be able to discuss the matter with my senior officials in order to correct the situation, if necessary.
I also wish to point out to the Hon. Member that he is not only attacking the reputation of a person who has just been entrusted with the responsibility for a study but also the reputation of the firm that will be conducting the study. If the Hon. Member does not trust Mr. Farlinger and Woods Gordon, he should come right out and say so.
I myself am confident that these people are honest, that they are competent professionals who will do a thorough job, and that Mr. Farlinger's report will contain his findings and recommendations, and that report will be made public.
The next point, Mr. Speaker-and here we have the megaphone for the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Nielsen:: Why not a parliamentary committee? [Translation]


Pierre Bussières: -suggesting a Parliamentary Committee, which is my next point. Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I wanted an investigation and speedy action if I am advised on short notice that certain situations should be corrected. The approach we have selected is to obtain advice quickly so that with departmental officials, we can take steps to correct any situation that, according to Mr. Farlinger, ought to be corrected.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister wants rapid action, but he will not get the report for a year, so it is going to be "rapid" a year late. That will not help the thousands of Canadians who are now victims of his Department.
The Minister has had advice. Advice has been coming from all corners of this House for a month now. All he has done is appoint an investigator who gives him secret reports. This matter is too important for this Government to engage again in the kind of coverup that has become its trademark. I ask him again what he is afraid of. Why is he afraid to have the House of Commons of Canada look into this question which touches the lives of Canadians, indeed which touches the very trust which is essential to make a tax system work?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, according to the media, the Hon. Member has had time to go to academic institutions, I forget in what capacity. Perhaps he should consider dropping law and taking up logic, which might help him to straighten out his thinking, which has a tendency to twist the facts-
January 27, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Minister please answer the question.


Pierre Bussières: -and understand what the facts are. He said that we do not want to act. Well, I have asked Mr. Farlin-ger, to give any advice he has on a regular basis, and I repeat for the benefit of the Hon. Member and the House and all Canadian taxpayers that I want to have this advice quickly, in order to be able to take corrective action if necessary. There is no question of wanting to cover up anything, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Every day in the House during Oral Question Period, 1 am available to answer questions by Hon. Members, and I try to answer them as clearly as possible, and if the Hon. Member's mind is too obtuse to understand the answers, it is not my fault.


NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE DRILLING-PETROLEUM INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO COMPANIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a statement said that during last year when the province ordered the rigs in during severe weather conditions an industry official stated that he was left with no doubt that the Petroleum Incentive Payments would not be applicable to any cost incurred by his company during the period that drilling operations were suspended in response to the provincial stop-drilling order. Are the companies under any threat of recrimination or threat to withhold payments if in fact they obey the province's ban which is now in effect on winter drilling, in the absence of adequate search and rescue?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, there is no threat against anyone. There are federal regulations which the companies are following. They make their own decision on when they will operate the rigs. It is not for an armchair admiral to decide. Anybody who knows about marine operations knows that it is up to the captain of the rig to make a decision, not someone who is trying to use blackmail against the federal Government. It is up to the company to make the decision. They are paid for drilling. I hope they will continue drilling.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, there are 500 Canadians out there working under very hazardous conditions. The Minister is putting their lives in danger by his partisan attitude to save face on this matter.
Oral Questions


SEARCH AND RESCUE CAPABILITIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister if he is prepared to allow the rigs to obey the provincial ban on Winter drilling until there has been an assessment of the industry charge-not the Government's charge-because there is consent in the industry that search and rescue capabilities are inadequate to meet the emergencies that could arise during severe winter drilling conditions. Is he prepared to do that?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the search and rescue facilities have been increased this year compared to last year. Last year the Government of Newfoundland found that the search and rescue was good enough to give them permission to drill in the Winter. This Winter we have improved search and rescue, but in that business it is never enough.
The companies, with the federal Departments of National Defence, and Energy, and others, and with the presence of the people representing the Government of Newfoundland, in the Fall discussed for weeks the improvements that are in place today. It was only many weeks after the decision was made that Mr. Marshall tried to blackmail the companies. I am glad to see today that the companies are not being blackmailed. On top of that, there was a radio program in St. John's a few minutes ago and more than 58 per cent of the people support the federal Government in that.


James Aloysius McGrath: An open-line radio show?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They do not go for the business of not respecting the judgment of the people who go to sea. Nobody is obliged to go to sea. If some people find it too dangerous, they can stay on shore.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They do not stay on shore but go out and earn a living as they should do.


James Aloysius McGrath: Say that on an open-line show to sustain your argument.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. Deans:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was quite incredible.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. He will know that the statement just released by the major oil companies in Canada indicates that in the year 1983 they enjoyed an increased profit

January 27, 1984
Oral Questions
margin to the level of about $1.1 billion. I would point out that these are the same oil companies that receive $1.1 billion, or perhaps even more, from the Governement in PIP grants. Yesterday the Minister asked me where we would get the money to pay for the people who are presently unemployed and who do not get unemployment insurance, who are not eligible for welfare, and who cannot feed their families. Why does the Government not redirect this money that is currently being given to already prosperous operations, to those who need it most?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not quite understand how the oil industry operates.
When he talks about the overall profits of the oil industry, he should keep in mind the investments made in that industrial sector as well as the yield of those investments. He would come to the conclusion that the yield on the money invested is not excessive when one considers the facts and analyzes the profit-investment ratio. As to the Government grants, the Hon. Member will recall that we have discontinued the old system by eliminating tax incentives and replacing them by a grant system for Canadian businesses, which now receive more generous grants as an incentive to promote the oil industry.
The Party of the Hon. Member boasts that it wants to foster the growth of the Canadian industry. That is exactly what we have done through our tax reform in the oil sector. We have done away with tax incentives and replaced them by equivalent grants especially earmarked for the Canadian industry.
That is why I think that my colleague has a rather vague notion of what has been going on in the oil industry.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am talking about fairness. It is unfair to tax Canadian taxpayers to provide money for multinational oil companies whose profits are already considerable. Those profits are derived primarily from Canada.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister if it is not reasonable to think that we have an obligation to those hard working Canadians who have no jobs, and who, as a result of the Government's policies, find that they do not have the possibility of getting a job, who cannot afford to meet their commitments to their families, and who are in absolute desperation?
Dammit, is there no way the Government can find money to redirect to pay for those people's needs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a strong way of arguing in favour of the unemployed. If I were to follow his advice I would end up throwing tens of thousands of Canadian workers in the oil and gas industry, out on the street-


Ian Deans: You did that already.


Marc Lalonde: -in order supposedly to help people who are unemployed at the present time. The way to help the unemployed is not by creating more unemployment all over the country in the oil and gas industry.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the interpretation his Department gave of Section 23(3)(b) of the Charter of Rights before the Ontario Court of Appeal last week.
Considering the rather restrictive and ambiguous interpretations being given by a number of observers regarding the rights of the minority to manage and control school facilities, could the Minister clarify his interpretation of Section 23(3)(b) in order to clear up once and for all the position of the federal Government on this matter, and finally, could he inform the House whether the Government intends to present additional briefs to the Court that would remove any ambiguity that may have been present in the federal interpretation of this section?


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the Hon. Member's question bothers me somewhat, but the second part should be in order. The Minister of Justice.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there are two principles in the federal Government's position on minority-language education. With the exception of Section 93 of the Constitution, the provincial Government has no obligation to share jurisdiction over education with its residents. The provinces therefore have full discretion to either keep authority over education within the Ministry of Education or to share some of that authority with School Boards and parents in the province.
Should a province decide to share its authority over education with its residents, it would then be under the obligation to ensure equal treatment of the majority and minority groups in the province. In the light of my hon. friend's representation, I shall certainly reconsider our Government's presentation before the Court, but as yet I have no indication that the Court has any difficulty interpreting our position.
January 27, 1984


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he is very angry at the statement made by the President of the United States that he is only going to approve further study up to some $55 million for acid rain rather than something concrete. Has he discussed this with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and with our ambassador in Washington in order to have them make further representations to the U.S. Government about how important and disturbing this is to all Canadians?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to make representations on this matter on behalf of millions of Canadians who are concerned, and on behalf of the interests that are being damaged in our economy. I am referring to forests, the fisheries, tourism, and even our cities. I would also like to point to the fact that there are millions of Americans who are affected by acid rain and who are very distressed by the announcement made the other night by their President.


CANADIAN INITIATIVES
Stan Darling: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister has any further plans for something new which he is going to be able to present to the Canadian people to show that we mean business? I am aware there may be a reduction in automobile emissions and less leaded gas. However, has the Minister any new plans or ideas which will help us to sell this to the United States because we have a great many supporters over there, as the Minister is aware?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the conclusion of the Hon. Member. I am working on plans, and I will announce them at the appropriate time. I hope it will be in the not too distant future.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will recognize that of late budgets have really become an analysis of a change in the Income Tax Act. In that light, having regard to some of the comments which have been made in the House, has the Minister placed himself in a position, after reviewing his departmental performance, to make specific recommendations to the Minister of Finance for his forthcoming Budget which will bring some relief to the taxpayers for whom Hon. Members on this side of the House have been
Oral Questions
speaking, so that that relief might come prior to the expiration of the year for his administrative report?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, in his question the Hon. Member mentioned the responsibility of the Minister of Finance for tax policy. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced that there had been many consultations and that these were being continued. Consultations are also taking place with his Cabinet colleagues, and although 1 cannot discuss the nature of the recommendations I made to the Minister, I did mention certain concerns.


John Albert Gamble: I am encouraged by the possibility that the impact on the Minister may have some effect.


DELAYS IN ADJUDICATING TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS
John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with something specifically. About two weeks ago I made a recommendation in the House which seemed to have the approval of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. It related to the shortening of the time by which the Minister's Department might delay a decision after an objection has been filed by a taxpayer who has been assessed. Of course the great problem, as the Minister will recognize, is that when assessments are issued the tax must be paid, and it may be some long time before a matter in dispute may be adjudicated upon. That period surely should be shortened in the interests of justice for the taxpayer. I am wondering whether that kind of recommendation which I made, and which seems to have some support on this side of the House, would in fact find its way into the recommendations which the Minister is making to the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is in the House. He has heard the Hon. Member's representations, and I am sure that he will consider them.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is aware that his Department issued a memorandum on January 3 expanding its own Affirmative Action Program to include more than women, indigenous people, and the disabled. Will the Minister indicate whether the strategy of his Department for the visible minorities will include more than the black people of Nova Scotia? If not, could he indicate the rationale for that type of directive in his Department?

January 27, 1984
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the directive is part of the general program of the Government to apply the Affirmative Action Program in all Departments. It is based upon the trial experiments which were previously undertaken over a two-year period in three Departments. We are simply fulfilling the requirements and obligations under that general Affirmative Action Program, but doing so in a very enthusiastic spirit, because I believe it is one of the most important and necessary initiatives which we can take to ensure equality in the work place.


REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF ALL VISIBLE MINORITIES
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would he indicate what type of consideration he is prepared to give within his own Department to include all visible minorities in the work place analysis which he will be doing this year, with the intention of including all visible minorities in that Affirmative Action Program within the Department?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that might be a question which is better directed to the President of the Treasury Board who has the over-all responsibility for the application of the program. It is my understanding that visible minorities are part of the affirmative action targets. They would be included in both the analysis and in the direction. I would like to point out that, in terms of my own Department, we have initiated special programs for recruitment and training in areas such as northern Canada, and other remote areas, to ensure that local populations are being given an opportunity to break down some of the barriers which previously prevented them from getting employment in our Public Service.


ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTROCHEMICAL INSTITUTE IN SHAWINIGAN, P.Q.
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, if I can get his attention. In a letter in 1981 to the Minister of Finance, who was then the federal Minister of Energy, the Ontario Minister of Energy requested assistance from the federal Government to establish an institute for hydrogen and electrochemical systems. Following an initial period of co-operation, the National Research Council was directed to proceed with a plan which resulted in the establishment of an electrochemical institute in Shawinigan, Quebec, on January 20, 1984.
Would the Minister of Energy now admit that he blackballed the Ontario initiative and that he deliberately misled the House, when on December 9-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is unparliamentary to allege that an Hon. Member has deliberately misled the House. Would the Hon. Member phrase his question differently?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he will deny having misled the House on December 9, 1981, when he denied having directed the National Research Council to establish the Shawinigan institute?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member's question. There were no funds available for such a development in the National Research Council and funds were made available from the La Prade area. In 1978 there was a cancellation of the La Prade heavy water plant. There was a fund established for the area, and it was out of these funds that the money was transferred to the NRC-


Mr. Mazankowski:: Porkbarrelling!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -to build a lab in the area of La Prade, and that included the city of Shawinigan.


PLANNING FOR INSTITUTE
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in answer to his response to my first question. Will the Minister confirm that on January 20, when he announced the establishment of the Shawinigan institute, that planning for this had been going on for two full years, as stated in his press release, and that the decision was made six months after the Ontario initiative began and after it had been refused the co-operation of the National Research Council?
Second, I would like to ask the Minister if he knows what electrochemistry means, and that the institute which the Minister established, using federal funds, is in direct competition with the Ontario initiative?
Finally, the Minister has indicated that this is the first electrochemical institute in Canada. In fact, because of his failure to co-operate and negotiate with the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we now have three "first" institutes of electrochemical and hydrogen system studies in Canada. This has happened precisely because of the failure of the federal Government to bring this important area of study under one roof in order to develop this important technology in the interests of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have been the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for 17 months. I have not had any direct communication from the Minister of Energy of Ontario on that subject. The NRC was interested in establishing a lab of that nature, and there was some La Prade money available. It was absolutely normal to offer these funds for the development of that lab in an area where the first electrochemical industry in Canada was established at the beginning of the last century.
January 27, 1984


MINES AND MINING
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Mines I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it relates to jobs in the mining industry. We have a tantalum mine at Bernic Lake in the Lac du Bonnet area of Manitoba, a byproduct of which is lithium. There is now a market for lithium, especially in ceramics in the French market. The only competition is from the United States and Zimbabwe. There has been an application to the federal Government for an experimental project to see whether Canada could get into this market. This would result in the hiring of a number of people now unemployed because of the situation in the mining industry. Could the Minister find out what the federal Government's response is to that initiative?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister and Minister of External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a subject I was exposed to in recent times, and my hon. friend understands that. But it is an interesting one, and I will research it thoroughly as soon as I can.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), by filing with the Clerk of the House on Thursday, January 26, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for information purposes. When you stopped me in the middle of my remarks under Standing Order 21, you said something about an attack. I was simply making a criticism, which is done every day in this House. Does this mean we are no longer able to criticize the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for things that he has done?


Mr. Speaker:: When Standing Order 21 was adopted as a substitute for Standing Order 43, guidelines were prepared for the Chair. They were circulated to all Hon. Members and they included the following.
The use of this opportunity will be regulated by the discretion of the Chair and Members will be expected to observe certain guidelines. The opportunity is not intended to be used for making personal attacks, conveying congratulatory mes-
Tabling of Documents
sages, reciting poetry or for anything other than serious purposes.
I do not wish to suggest the Hon. Member was not serious, but the Chair would have considerable misgivings if Standing Order 21 meant rude attacks on both the Leader of Opposition, the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the NDP.


Erik Nielsen: All Members.


Mr. Speaker:: The nature of the presentation obviously calls for a judgment, and in the judgment of the Chair this was a personal attack, not an attack relating to a Member's capacity, office or things that were done. Knowing this is Parliament, a place where opinions are expressed and people are not always polite to each other, the Chair invites Hon. Members to observe the rule of falling short of personal attacks on Members of this or the other place.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would mind reading the "blues" because I had no intention of making a personal attack. It was a criticism but not a personal attack. There is nothing personal about it. I think if you read the "blues" you will see that is so.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair paid very careful attention and there was a reference to someone being divine and so on. That comes very close to being a personal attack.


Erik Nielsen: You mean he is not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Taylor believes he is divine.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Further to a request made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) last Tuesday, and pursuant to Standing Order 46.2, 1 wish to table, in both official languages, correspondence exchanged by the President of the Iron Ore Company and the Minister of Finance and his Department between January 19, 1982 and January 25, 1983.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) whether the documents, which 1 have not yet seen of course, constitute the entire package of correspondence he was referring to earlier this week? Has all of it been tabled?

January 27, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: I have tabled all the correspondence between the dates mentioned, January, 1982 and January 25, 1983, received from the President of Iron Ore. That is all we have in the files.


Erik Nielsen: That is what I wanted to establish. Is there any other relevant correspondence, because I am sure the Minister has had his officials check the files very carefully, with respect to the statements he made in Question Period the other day?


Marc Lalonde: Because of previous experience, Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the Hon. Member that I have asked my officials to provide me with all the correspondence received from the President of Iron Ore between the dates mentioned, and this is what they have provided me with. I am assured that this is all there is. If for some reason someone finds something else, or if some of my officials find other documents, I will be very happy to provide them. But these are all the letters I have received.


Erik Nielsen: We will be very happy to examine what the Minister has tabled and if there are any omissions, which from time to time occur on these occasions, we will certainly be letting the Minister know about them.


CRIMINAL CODE
Gordon Edward Taylor: for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will reinstate capital punishment in Canada for persons who are found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of murdering another human being.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4, 10, 37, 54, 58, 88, 103, 118, 119, 160,183,208, 225, 299 and 320.
[ Text]


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to a letter from Public Relations and Information Services of the Department of Public Works to the Canadian Government Exposition Centre, dated January 28, 1982, file number 8310-3, how many back-lit signs
with the Canada Wordmark have been installed and what was the (a) projected cost of installation (b) total cost upon completion?
2.	Is the installation complete and, if not, what is the (a) total cost, to date (b) projected cost of completion?
3.	What was the total cost of fabricating a prototype or scale model of the signs?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No
Canada Wordmark back-lit signs have been installed, (a) Total projected cost-$30,000. This amount included research, development, production and installation, (b) Project cancelled after research and development. All expenditures incurred for the project totalled $15,391.
2.	No. (a) and (b) See reply to part 1 (b).
3.	No prototype or scale model was produced.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Does Petro-Canada purchase any pipes, machinery, equipment or any other materials from Czechoslovakia to be used by the Corporation?
2.	Does Petro-Canada have a contract with a manufacturer in Czechoslovakia to purchase the pipes, machinery, equipment or any other materials and, if so, what is the name of the manufacturer?
3.	For how long has Petro-Canada been dealing with this manufacturer and, during this time, what was the total amount paid for the goods received?
4.	Did Petro-Canada ever advertise asking Canadian companies to tender on the manufacturing of these pipes, machinery, equipment or any other materials and, if so, what was the (a) highest (b) lowest bid and from which company did the bid come?
5.	Did Petro-Canada ever advertise world wide asking companies to tender on the manufacturing of these pipes, machinery, equipment or any other materials and, if so, what was the (a) highest (b) lowest bid and from which company did the bid come?
6.	Is it the policy of Petro-Canada to purchase goods from communist countries?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1.	No. However, Petro-Canada has purchased from a Canadian distributor, Sabre Oilfield Sales of Calgary, certain products which originated in Czechoslovakia.
2.	No.
3.	Since January, 1979, Petro-Canada, Pacific Petroleums, Petrofina Canada and BP Canada have purchased from Sabre Oilfield Sales of Calgary, $2,700,000 worth of seamless oil country tubular goods (downhole casing) which originated in Czechoslovakian steel mills. Most of this, approximately $2,000,000 worth, was purchased during 1980-81 when a shortfall existed in domestic supply and when there was only one Canadian source, namely Algoma Steel of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
4.	and 5. Since there is only one Canadian supplier of tubular goods at present and in order to ensure that sound procurement decision-making is not threatened by the practice of single-sourcing, Petro-Canada accepted sealed bids from foreign manufacturers and/or distributors as well as from the sole Canadian supplier.

January 27, 1984

Pricing and other commercial data included in any bid is held in strictest confidence by Petro-Canada. Divulging details of any bid would violate that confidence and seriously impede future bidding arrangements.
6. No.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the Bank of Canada exempt from abiding by any statutes applying to prospective borrowers and, if so, what is a complete list of such exemptions?
2.	Is the Government aware of statements by Mr. Henry Knowles, the former Chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission that (a) dealers in government debt should not be exempted from registration (b) a study should be undertaken to determine whether the Bank of Canada should continue to be exempt from registration of prospectuses and, if so, what would be the effect of the Government acting on each of these suggestions?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1.
Provincial securities statutes are silent on the Bank of Canada. The Bank does not make public issues of its own debt or share capital, nor retail government debt instruments, and therefore its activities do not come under provincial securities legislation.
2. The Government is aware of the statements made by Mr. Henry Knowles that dealers in government debt should not be exempted from registration and that a study should be undertaken to determine whether the Bank of Canada should continue to be exempt from registration of prospectuses. The federal Government has not undertaken a study to determine the effects of requiring dealers in government debt to be registered, or requiring prospectuses to be filed with federal government debt issues.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, did the Department of Labour conduct any studies into alternatives to strike action?


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: No. While the Department of Labour has not conducted any studies into alternatives to strike action during the period specified, it has attempted to minimize the occurrence and duration of work stoppages through the provision of experienced conciliators and mediators and the appointment of industrial inquiry commissions where required. In addition, innovative dispute resolution techniques, such as "med-arb" (a combination of mediation and arbitration), have been utilized in certain bargaining situations with the concurrence of the parties to avoid disruptive work stoppages.


Mr. Howie: How many field workers of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are employed in New Brunswick?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Twenty-six (including inspectors, officers and support staff).


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, media relations or publicity are employed by the Department of Labour?


Normand Lapointe: Fourteen.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Prime Minister travel to New York in March, 1981 and, if so, what was the total cost of the trip and what percentage was paid by the taxpayer?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister was not in New York in March, 1981.


Mr. Stewart: Is there a Simulated Work Experience Program (SWE) and, if so, since its inception, how many persons (a) were enrolled in the program (b) received payments from (i) unemployment insurance benefits (ii) training allowances and what was the total amount of such payments to all trainees?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: There is not a Simulated Work Experience Program. However, since 1981-82, under the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program (ILAP), the Commission has purchased simulated on-the-job training for laid-off apprentices and other workers in Critical Trade Skills Training (CTST) occupations.
(a)	Since 1981-82, approximately 2,350 laid-off persons were enrolled in simulated on-the-job training under the auspices of ILAP.
(b)	Of the above number, an estimated (i)-1,760 persons received UI benefits, and (ii)-590 persons received allowances; all of them received a $25 per week incentive allowance additionally.
Total payments since inception of the initiative are approximately: $2.3 million for allowances; $4.2 million for UI benefits; $6.5 million in total.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Is there a Forest Industry Renewable Energy Program and, if so, for the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83 what were the total expenditures under the Program?
2.	For the fiscal year 1983-84, what is the estimated budget of the Program?


David Charles Dingwall: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:

January 27, 1984
Order Paper Questions
1.	Yes. (a) $11,966,000, (b) $19,775,000 and (c) $12,324,000.
2.	$7,514,000.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was a study on the metric conversion of sports rule books conducted on behalf of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, if so (a) what were the terms of reference (b) which sports were included (c) what was the cost (d) to what use will the results be put?
2.	Will all sports organizations operating in Canada be required to convert their printed materials to the metric system?
3.	Will the Government help sports leagues underwrite the costs of metric conversion and, if so, to what extent?


Judith A. Erola: 1. No, however, a study is currently underway on behalf of the Sports Sector Committee of Metric Commission Canada.
(a)	The terms of reference, under the direction of the Sports Sector Committee are: (i) to conduct in-depth research on the status of metric usage in printed sports rule books and major competitions;
(ii) to list and priorize those sports whose rule books are soft-converted or use imperial measurements and to choose sports on which to concentrate efforts initially, according to sector terms of reference; and (iii) to consult with chosen sports groups by acting as a resource to assist in the conversion of rule books to hard metric.
(b)	All sports.
(c)	It is anticipated the cost will be approximately $89,190 over a two-year period.
(d)	The data will be used as a monitoring tool by the sports sector and as a data base for further work with individual sports associations interested in changing to the use of rounded metric measurements in their rule books.
2.	No.
3.	Other than the cost of this study, Metric Commission Canada has no plans to help sports leagues underwrite the costs of metric conversion.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Ministry of State for Economic Development and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development is concerned:
1. (a) (i) 19, (ii) $161,098.53. (b) (i) 30. (ii) $425,576.12.
2. 1981-82. (a) C. Heneault. (b) $22,940, (c) Undertake research, writing, and editing projects on economic development issues.
(a) Monk Communication Assoc., (b) $22,250, (c) Perform policy analysis and research for special project in the Communications field.
(a) Herman Smith Inc., (b) $22,442.89, (c) Provide project management assistance in clarifying roles and responsibilities of the branches of the Ministry, and preparing the required job descriptions for sumbission to the Treasury Board.
1982-83. (a) Russell Banta (b) $79,426.15 (two contracts)
(c)	(I) Develop a project management system for the Federal Economic Development Co-ordinator in Alberta; and, (II) Make recommendations concerning the operating policies and practices of the federal Government with respect to the National Energy Program and the petroleum industry.
(a) G. H. Beatty, (b) $22,778.17, (c) Design and develop various strategies concerning the oil and gas sector.
(a) F. Bogdasavich (b) $21,849.95 (two contracts) (c) (I) develop and make recommendations on the tourism industry in Alberta and British Columbia; and, (II) develop and make recommendations on the Slave River hydroelectric development.
(a) Mack Erb Consulting Ltd. (b) $62,662.00 (two contracts), (c) (I) develop and implement proposals for the reorganization and expansion of the Communications Branch; and, (II) develop, implement, and evaluate the role and function concepts, organization structures and operating systems for the new Regional Analysis and Major Projects Division.
(a) Lange Michener Cranston Farquharson and Wright, (b) $24,464.20, (c) special advisor to assist in the establishment of the Regional Federal Economic Development Co-ordinators in the Provinces.
(a) Monk Communication Assoc., (b) $35,680, (c) develop and implement training and orientation programs for new Regional Communications Co-ordinators.
(a) Sealand Management Consultants Inc., (b) $27,824.55, (c) assist in the development of a strategic plan for federal government economic activity in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Blenkarn: Did the Government pay for the cost of the Prime Minister's children accompaning him on international trips and, if so, did the Prime Minister make any contributions to cover such costs and, if so, in what amount?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. The
Prime Minister personally pays for all costs incurred as a result of his children accompanying him on international trips.
January 27, 1984


Mrs. Cossitt: Did the Prime Minister, on his return from one of his trips outside Canada, reply to a question concerning the expense to taxpayers of his trips abroad "What do I care about that. 1 really don't give a damn, nor should you." and, if so (a) is it government policy to tell the Canadian people that they should not care about Prime Ministerial trips made at taxpayers' expense (b) has the Government adopted a policy of giving arrogant replies to questions about the expense of the Prime Minister's trips?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (nn).


Mr. Cook: 1.	Were any drivers approached to participate in Statistics Canada's Fuel Consumption Survey and, if so, how many?
2.	Is there a publication entitled Fuel Purchase Diary and, if so (a) how many copies were printed and assembled (b) what was the unit cost of the publication (c) were any copies of the publication distributed and, if so (i) how many (ii) at what cost?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	The Fuel Consumption Survey is a monthly survey conducted by Statistics Canada under contract to Transport Canada. For cars, light trucks and vans used for personal purposes, the survey collects information on characteristics of the vehicle, details of fuel consumed and factors which impact on this consumption. Approximately 1,780 vehicles are sampled per month and the principal driver of the vehicle is requested to provide details of all fuel purchases and corresponding odometer readings during the one-month reporting period.
2.	The Fuel Purchase Diary is the data collection document provided to the respondent and in which the respondent is requested to record basic information about the vehicle and details of each fuel purchase made. One copy of this diary is mailed to the principal driver of each of the 1,780 sampled vehicles per month. The unit cost of the diary is approximately $1.50 for a corresponding total monthly cost of $2,670.


Mrs. Cossitt: Since April 7, 1981, did any (a) lawyers (b) law Firms receive any payment for legal work within the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so, in each case (i) what is a list of their names (ii) what total amount was paid to them?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned:
Total amounts paid to agents in the constituency of Leeds - Grenville during the fiscal year 1983 - December 30, 1983.
Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	8,844.00Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	376.56Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	287.50Order Paper Questions	Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	512.50Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	565.00Ont.	Brockville	Fraser, Duncan	831.33Ont.	Brockville	Fraser, Duncan	337.50Ont.	Brockville	Hain, David	414.00Ont.	Brockville	Hart, Hugh	530.54Ont.	Brockville	O'Shaughnessy, Michael	983.10Ont.	Gananoque	Delaney, Fred	542.50Ont.	Kemptville	Childs, Philip	100.00Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard	1,110.00Total amounts paid to agents in the constituency of Leeds * during the fiscal year 1982-1983.	* GrenvilleOnt.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	12,945.50Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	131.00Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	145.00Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	275.00Ont.	Brockville	Fraser, Duncan	175.00Ont.	Brockville	Hain, David	70.00Ont.	Brockville	O'Shaughnessy, Michael	639.20Ont.	Gananoque	Delaney, Fred	280.00Ont.	Gananoque	Knotek, Henry	390.00Ont.	Gananoque	McFarlane, R. M.	175.00Ont.	Kemptville	Childs, Philip	898.82Ont.	Kemptville	Childs, Philip	100.00Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard	1,563.29Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard	180.00Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard	430.59
Total amounts paid to agents in the constituency of Leeds - Grenville during the fiscal year 1981-1982.
Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, C. D.	15,172.80Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, C. D.	1,463.75Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, C. D.	717.50Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, C. D.	997.50Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, C. D.	281.00Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, C. D.	322.50Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	442.50Ont.	Brockville	Anderson, Wilson & Co.	125.00Ont.	Brockville	Barr, R. A.	272.50Ont.	Brockville	O'Shaughnessy, Michael	1,810.28Ont.	Gananoque	Delaney, Fred R.	538.50Ont.	Gananoque	Knotek, Henry J.	391.50Ont.	Gananoque	McFarlane, R. M.	1,521.82Ont.	Kemptville	Childs, Philip	40.00Ont.	Kemptville	Childs, Philip	500.50Ont.	Kemptville	Childs, Philip	1,524.50Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard M.	3,576.79Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard M.	224.80
January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing
Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard M.	521.40Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard M.	180.00Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard M.	150.00Ont.	Prescott	Tobin, Richard M.	176.00


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, without having actually seen the answer, for at least giving us an answer to question No. 103. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate when we might have an answer with respect to question No. 101 dealing with the Prime Minister's trip to Australia and Korea; question No. 102 dealing with his trip to Mexico; question No. 104 dealing with his trip to Algeria; and question No. 105 dealing with the Prime Minister's trip to Washington? 1 ask this because these questions have been on this or other Order Papers for literally years now. The Prime Minister is taking so many trips that we will want to know the cost of that we have to start catching up at some point.


Erik Nielsen: Almost as many as Andre Ouellet.


John Leslie Evans: I noted the numbers that the Hon. Member has put forward and I will check into them. I am sure they will be responded to at the earliest possible date.


John Leslie Evans: 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Roy MacLaren: that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to bring certain fiscal transfers to the provinces into conformity with the government's anti-inflation program, the "six and five" program. As a result of this Bill, federal assistance to each province for post-secondary education will be increased by 6 per cent in 1983-84 and by an additional 5 per cent in 1984-85. Other federal transfer payments to the provinces will not be affected. In particular, transfers in respect of hospital insurance and medical care will continue to grow in line with the increases in Canada's Gross National Product, which has become known as the GNP escalator.
Hon. Members will agree that the six and five program has contributed substantially to the reduction in the rate of inflation in Canada. Since the program was announced more than 18 months ago, the annual rate of inflation had declined from 11.2 per cent to 4.5 per cent.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Nonsense.


Roy MacLaren: Hon. Members will recognize that it is desirable to ensure that the benefits of the six and five program are as pervasive through our economy as it is possible to make them.
Hon. Members may note first that we are changing the title of the Act. Formerly it was the "Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977". In the hope of clarifiying the purposes of the Act the title is now being changed to the "Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977".


Ms. McDonald:: That should help students a lot.


Roy MacLaren: The purpose of this change is to clarify the fact that the federal Government contributes huge amounts to the provinces. Over $13.5 billion was contributed for 1983-84 to assist the provinces in financing post-secondary education and health programs. Hon. Members will agree, I am sure, in light of the huge transfers, that it is fitting for the title of the Act to recognize explicitly the areas to which such federal contributions are directed.
As I have noted, Mr. Speaker, the federal transfers under these arrangements are immense. In 1982-83, over $12 billion was transferred to the provinces. For 1983-84 over $13.5 billion, and for 1984-85 over $14.7 billion will be transferred. Federal transfers to the provinces to assist them in financing post-secondary education is one of the four component programs. For the 1982-83 fiscal year over $3.7 billion was transferred to the provinces for post-secondary education. For 1983-84 almost $4 billion will be transferred, and in 1984-85 some $4.2 billion. Accordingly, the amounts transferred for post-secondary education will grow by over $263 million in 1983-84 after this Bill has been passed, and by an additional $239 million in 1984-85.
Federal support for post-secondary education has brought significant benefit since this program began in 1967. Over the years the national Government has also introduced other
January 27, 1984

programs of direct benefit to students, such as the Canada student loans plan, various manpower training programs and certain provisions of the Income Tax Act. In light of these massive transfers, the federal Government considers from time to time how best to allocate the huge sums which it allocates to the training and education of our young people. For some time now, the Government has felt that some of the funds which now move through provinces in a totally unconditional fashion might be more effective if they were channelled through more direct programs.
For that reason, the then Secretary of State discussed with his provincial counterparts the federal Government's objectives in supporting post-secondary education. He reviewed with them the most effective ways in which the federal funds allocated to this purpose can be used. In order to help ensure that these discussions took place expeditiously, the then Minister of Finance in 1981 stated that the Government would have to re-evaluate the future of post-secondary education transfers to the provinces if satisfactory progress was not made.
The Minister of Finance accordingly met with the provincial Ministers of Finance in December 1982 to exchange views on the economic prospects. He indicated that he had been informed by the Secretary of State that some progress was being made in discussions of support for post-secondary education. The Minister of Finance was therefore able to inform provincial Ministers that it might be unnecessary to introduce measures suggested by his predecessor in 1981. He indicated that he would be prepared to see the federal support for post-secondary education increased by 6 per cent in 1983 and by a further 5 per cent in 1984. This would bring such transfers into conformity with the anti-inflation six and five program and the restraint measures that the Government was applying to a broad range of its own programs.
Before describing the changes in the existing legislation, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain why six and five is being applied to the post-secondary education escalator and why we are not simply proposing that the education cash transfer for the total education entitlement grows at six and five per cent. Hon. Members may recall that one of the major advantages of the arrangements introduced in 1977 over the former costsharing regime was that federal contributions were made more nearly equal on a per caput basis. In this way the previous situation was changed whereby those provinces which could afford the most expensive programs tended to receive the most assistance. In 1982 the process was completed which led to exactly equal per caput contributions for post-secondary education and health to all provinces. In order to preserve the equal per caput contributions for post-secondary education, we have chosen to apply six and five to the per caput GNP escalator which I mentioned earlier rather than to the total entitlement or to the cash transfer. To allow the total entitlement to grow by 6 per cent and 5 per cent would not allow for population increases in certain provinces. The different rates of increase in provincial populations would have then resulted in unequal per caput contributions. Similarly, allowing the cash transfer to grow by 6 per cent and 5 per cent would have
Established Programs Financing
resulted in unequal total per caput contributions since the tax transfer grows at different rates in each province.
I should also like to note that because six and five is applied to the per caput escalator and thus provincial population increases are fully recognized, the total education entitlement will grow by approximately 7 per cent in 1983 and 6 per cent in 1984.
Let me describe the precise changes in the Act that are necessary to achieve the objectives of the present Bill. These arrangements involve federal transfers to provinces for the general purpose of post-secondary education as well as for hospital insurance and medical care. The total transfer to the provinces under the current arrangements is made up of an equalized tax transfer and a cash transfer. Under the existing legislation, only the cash transfer is formally divided between education and health so that the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) can make the necessary payments.
In order to appreciate how the transfers will be determined following the implementation of this Bill, let me first describe how the transfers are now calculated. First, the per caput transfer by the federal Government to all provinces under these three programs, education and the two health programs, in a base year, 1975-76, is determined.
Second, this base year per caput figure is increased or escalated each year by a moving average of the Gross National product on a per caput basis. This determines the per caput entitlement for each province in each subsequent year. That entitlement for each province is, of course, equal.
Third, this equal per caput figure is then multiplied by the population of each province to determine the total entitlement for that province for each of the three programs.
Fourth, the value of the equalized tax transfer is deducted from the total entitlement.
Let me point out that the equalized tax transfer is indeed a real transfer from the national Government to provincial governments. On January 1, 1977 the federal Government reduced its personal income tax rates and the provincial governments increased theirs by corresponding amounts, leaving the taxpayer with the same total income tax payable. The tax transfer mechanism therefore results in a transfer of potential revenues, which the provinces took up, from the federal to the provincial governments. It is today very much part of the transfer arrangements.
I might add that these transferred revenues enter automatically into the fiscal equalization formula resulting in increased provincial equalization entitlements. This element of the increased equalization in respect of the tax transfer is therefore taken into account in determining the cash payments to the provinces.
Fifth, the balance, after deducting the equalized tax transfer from the total entitlement of the province, is the cash payment to be made to each province. This cash is allocated to post-

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing secondary education so that payments may be made by the Secretary of State, and to hospital insurance and medical care so that payments can be made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The allocation of the cash among the three programs is made on the basis of the ratios that prevailed in the base year of 1975-76. Thus, approximately one-third of the total cash transfer today is allocated to education. This is a portion that has been allocated since the arrangements came into effect in 1977.
The essential purpose of the Bill before us today is to apply a different growth factor to the education transfer for 1983 and for 1984. In order to apply a different escalator to the post-secondary and education entitlement, it is necessary to distinguish the total entitlement for education from the total entitlement for health. This in turn requires that the tax transfer also be divided between the two elements.
Therefore, after the passage of this Bill, the education transfer to each province will be determined as follows. First, the per caput federal transfers in respect of education and the two health programs in the base year 1975, the same base year, will be separated.
Second, the escalator used in the past will apply only to the health component. The conventional escalator will also be applied to the education component in all years except 1983 and 1984 when instead the growth rates of 6 per cent and 5 per cent will apply.
Third, the per caput entitlement of each province will then be multiplied by its population to determine its current total entitlement.
Fourth, the equalized tax transfer to each province will be split between the education and health components, again on the basis of the ratios that prevailed in the base year 1975.
Fifth, the cash payments will be determined by deducting the equalized tax transfer applicable to each of the education and health components. The cash payments will be made just as they are now. Accordingly, it will be obvious that federal contributions in respect of health will not be affected by the changes.
Members may also recall that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was able to advise his provincial counterparts in early December that transfers for education and health would be some $769 million higher in 1983-84 than had been expected. That major gain arose from increases made by Statistics Canada to what are called historical GNP data, increases in the estimates of our growth in recent years. 1 want to take this opportunity to assure Hon. Members that the application of six and five to the education element will not reduce this gain since it was calculated to include the provisions of this Bill now before us.
Finally, let me point out that these changes will not result in any diminution of the federal commitment to Canadian youth through the many federal programs of assistance to students and young people. In addition to the many ways that the federal Government directly assists Canadian students- through the Canada Student Loans Program, research grants,
scholarships and special tax deductions and exemptions-the Speech from the Throne announced the establishment of the $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund. This fund will also assist students in finding employment during summer months as well as easing the transition into the work force when their schooling, which is so substantially supported by the federal Government, will have been completed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it was a rather humorous effort that was made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren). He did not say anything about the need for education or education funding; he talked only about six and five. Back in the summer of 1982 this program went into effect. It was supposed to control an inflation rate of over 12 per cent at that time. We now have inflation of 4.5 per cent and the Government introduces this Bill. It is supposed to concern inflation but it has nothing to do with inflation at all. This is a tax and transfer of funds to the provinces in accordance with an arrangement made over many years with respect to the division of cash taken from the public of Canada for various programs.
These particular programs, health care and education, are within the provincial sphere. To wind up saying somehow, somewhere along the line, in order to solve an inflation problem you can go ahead and rip apart an agreement without any justification whatsoever, and then rip apart that agreement a year and a half after you start your alleged six and five program to solve an inflation problem you already declare has been solved, is such balderdash to come from a Minister that the Minister himself should resign for even saying it.


Miss MacDonald:: It is dishonest.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is literally unbelievable that this Government should bring this kind of justification to this Bill. My friend from New Westminster-Coquitlam said the Minister just read what he was given.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister says he shortened it a little. How can this House support a piece of legislation justified by a Minister of the Crown on the basis that the Minister just reads what he is given, shortens it a little, does not understand it and gives no justification for it?
The Minister speaks of a Youth Opportunity Fund. The Youth Opportunity Fund is supposed to have a billion dollars somewhere. Yet this Bill cuts off from the transfer for education $260 million in cash in the year 1984-85.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And $120 million this year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I hear my colleague from Kingston and the Islands saying "and $120 million this year". This cannot be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker. The Minister and the Government should apologize for even producing such drivel and should come forth with either a better explanation for the
January 27, 1984

reasons this Bill is here or, in the alternative, the Government should withdraw the Bill.
The original agreement made in 1977 between the federal Government and the provinces looked after and put all the various shared cost programs dealing with post-secondary education, medicare and hospitalization into a block of funds called the established programs fund. The amount of money to be transferred by the federal Government to the provinces was made up of what was deemed to be certain transfers of tax points and certain equalization of that amount in a cash transfer. It was a block funding arrangement.
There was no provision in the original agreement for the division of those funds between health and education. The Government of Canada, in order to do its internal bookkeeping-I say that clearly, its internal bookkeeping-decided to divide the money and tax transfers that would go to the provinces for these established programs between health and education on the basis that health would receive 67.9 per cent of the funds and education 32.1 per cent of the funds. That breakdown did not really apply as far as the provinces were concerned. The provinces accepted the transaction. Indeed, the Bill specifically set it out as one transfer. The Bill did not divide it between health and education; the Bill set it out as one transfer. The provinces accepted the money as a transfer of money.
Under the block funding arrangements the provinces had the responsibility, and have the responsibility under our Constitution, to perform certain services to the public-health, hospitalization and post-secondary education. This money is the federal Government's acknowledged share of the costs. How it is to be used, where and whether more is to go for health or more for hospitals, universities, CEGEPs or community colleges is up to the provinces to determine. That is the way this Act is structured.
The 67.9 per cent and the 32.1 per cent figures were for bookkeeping purposes only to enable the federal Government, when it produced its blue book and set up its Departments, to make sure that the Secretary of State looked after the transfer for post-secondary education and the Minister of Health looked after the transfer for health.
I point out to you, Sir, that the provinces accepted the money as a block transfer. If we go back in the history of things, the question really boils down to the principal sources we use for taxation. In this country our principal source of taxation has become income tax, either on a personal basis or on a corporate basis. The question is really, to whom does that field of taxation belong? There is real ground to say that that field of taxation was first entered into by the provinces which started to levy an income tax. As we all know, that field of taxation through the last World War became taken up by the federal Government and the provinces were prepared to stand back and let the federal Government essentially have that field of taxation. But that field of taxation should in reality be divided in a way that gives us the social results we want. Clearly income in this country is not necessarily earned from a tax point of view where income must be spent from a social
Established Programs Financing point of view. What we really have is a system whereby the provinces collect tax, the federal Government collects tax, but because the federal Government can spread the tax burden across the whole of Canada, there has to be some kind of an equalization system. The equalization system for these established programs is provided by the federal Government under this Act. Under this Act the provinces collect some of the tax and the federal Government tops it up with cash to give the equalized transfer. That was the arrangement in 1977.
What has happened since? In 1982 this federal Government proceeded to abrogate the arrangement. Today it proceeds to abrogate the arrangement even further. First, the federal Government wants to take credit for that which is not its. In the equalization of things we mind up with what is called mythical tax points. I say mythical because they really do not exist anywhere. If a province sends out a tax bill to its citizens and they pay the taxes, why is the federal Government all of a sudden supposed to take credit for collecting the tax when it does not collect it at all?
What happened in 1982 was the federal Government reorganized the Established Programs Financing Act. It charged back the tax money that should be paid to the provinces first so that the cash transferred would become smaller, smaller and smaller. This bill deliberately makes the cash transfer smaller. Officials of the Department of Finance indicated with respect to post-secondary education that the total cash which will be transferred this year to the provinces because of this Bill will be $1,952 billion. Next year the amount of money going to the provinces for post-secondary education will be reduced to $1,917 billion. In other words, under this Bill the provinces, for post-secondary education, will receive $35 million less in the year 1984-85 than they received for 1983-84. So much for an increase; so much for the press release introduced by the Minister of Finance.
On December 8, the Minister of Finance indicated that federal transfers to provinces would exceed $24 billion this year and that over $700 million had been added to April forecasts of EPF transfers. The fact is that the cash goes down; the money is less. That is the only thing with which we deal in the House of Commons. We do not deal with provincial taxes. We deal with the taxes we collect and distribute in the way the federal Government is obligated to distribute them. When we budget in the House, we do not budget what the provinces are supposed to collect in taxes; we budget what we collect and distribute in taxes. The effect of this Bill will be to reduce dramatically the cash we distribute or the cash which is available to be spent by provinces on post-secondary education and health care.
We must remember that there is ongoing inflation. We hope there will be some increase in the nominal GNP. However, the total cash which will be transferred to the provinces under the health and education programs during 1983-84 will be $7,242 billion. Next year, with this "big" increase about which the Minister of Finance talks in terms of growth in the GNP, the

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing growth the country is experiencing and the wonderful times we are having, the Government will increase its transfer to $7,517 billion in cash. Talk about the perfidy of a Minister who issues press releases indicating that billions more dollars will go to the provinces and then comes before the House of Commons with a Bill which gives a piddling increase! This indicates the misrepresentation, the misappropriation of resources and the misleading of the people of Canada by the Government. Is it any wonder they do not trust them?
1 would like to refer to the effect of the escalation in the Bill with respect to post-secondary education. I point out that having divided the transfer scheme into two allocations, one for health and one for post-secondary education, which was never contemplated before, it now creates an escalation system. The escalation system which should normally apply because of the moving GNP average and the population growth should be 9.16 per cent for 1983-84. The effect of this Bill on post-secondary education will be to reduce that transfer to 6 per cent. In the year 1984-85, the effect of anticipated economic conditions would be to create an escalation of 8.3 per cent, and this Bill reduces the escalation for post-secondary education to 5 per cent. That is a breach of contract, a breach of agreement. It is even more than that: it is a breach of an understanding of where we are going in the country.
I would like to refer to a statement made by David Johnston, Principal of McGill University, when he was speaking with respect to education, the new technologies we require and the underfunding of those new technologies. He said that "we were writing a suicide note for our competitive capacities in the 1990s".
The other day in Montreal the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) talked about what was our program for development, where we were going and where he saw growth in Canada. Clearly growth has to come from technology and brain power. As we do not necessarily export hard goods to the rest of the world, we have to export our ideas on technology, the best and the brightest ideas, and be the leading edge. If we do not, we will wind up with a lower and lower standard of living.
All we have to do is take a look at the report of the Economic Council of Canada. This year its report was called "The Bottom Line". The Council indicated that productivity had not grown in Canada for eight years. That situation is unprecendented and potentially disastrous for living standard growth.
Where are we going? Productivity in the country has not grown. It may have grown a little last year, but I point out to the Minister that productivity dropped by 2.8 per cent in 1982. Therefore, if it grew by 2 per cent in 1983, we did not get back our losses in 1982, let alone our losses in 1981 or in preceding years. We must have the development of intellectual capacity in the country. The only place in which that can happen is in the post-secondary educational stream. We require universities, technical colleges and community colleges. If we do not train our people, they will be incapable of competing in a highly technical world, will have to use the technologies of
others, will truly be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and will have to live to the standards that exist in South Korea and Taiwan. It is a competitive world. If we do not keep up and keep ahead, our standard of living will drop to those of other countries. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot depend on the export of metals and minerals to keep us alive and growing. We cannot depend upon the export of raw forest products to keep us growing. We have to depend upon the new technologies coming onstream. If we do not educate our people to do that, our standard of living will become worse and worse and our people will look forward to nothing more than a dull, grey, bleak, cold future.
In this week's edition of Maclean's appeared a very dramatic presentation. Normally Maclean's has a coloured picture on the cover of someone who is well fed and well dressed. This week's issue has a black and white cover showing people in poverty, hungry, without money, without jobs and even without hope. I was impressed with a quote by one of those interviewed. He blames himself. He said: "I should have stayed in school; I only got grade 10". Only grade 10, only grade 12 or only grade 13 is not good enough if our people are to have the standard of living that they demand and are capable of having. They have the brains but they need the opportunity to learn.
You cannot make people learn but you can sure give them the opportunity. We are starving to death our universities and colleges, making it impossible for teachers to teach because there is not enough space. We are turning away young people who want the opportunity to develop themselves as well as older people who want to return to school in order to keep up with the times. We are even turning away those who would be receiving grants from the Department of Employment and Immigration in order to upgrade their skills because there is no damn room in the classrooms.
What does this Government do? It applies six and five in order to save $260 million so that it can boast in its Speech from the Throne that it has a $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund. I know where $260 million of that $1 billion comes from. It comes right out of the post-secondary education stream and goes to another Minister so that he can deal it out a bit at a time to see if he can get some political credit.
This is what it is all about. Break your contract so that you can get credit politically. This Government does not mind bringing in programs providing it can put on the door "The Minister of this" or "the Minister of that", and providing it can send a Liberal Member of Parliament to hand out the cheque. When it comes to the base fairness set out in the Established Programs Financing Act, where it is clear that the responsibility for manning and operating the institutions is provincial and what we have is an honest division of resources to support the necessary ongoing program, if the federal Government does not get its picture in the paper handing out the cheque, it wants to cut back and cut back.
January 27, 1984

Government is not just getting your picture in the paper. Leadership is not getting your picture in the paper. Honesty is not getting your picture in the paper. There is a job that has to be done. We must keep our universities and colleges staffed, growing, capable of doing research and development and training people. That is a priority. This Government wants to beg off on that priority.
The other day Richard Thomson, President of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, made a forthright speech to his shareholders with regard to government debt, expenditure and deficits. He pointed out that the deficit position of this country was dangerous, that the country was very seriously in debt and that it could not carry on with it. We on this side have spoken to that effect on a number of occasions. We cannot go on with the federal and provincial Governments borrowing 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the available money in the country. There are priorities. My colleague from Kingston and the Islands will talk about priorities.
We have a priority in terms of medical care. Canadians want a medical care system that is properly funded. The people of this country have other priorities. One of them is to ensure that our youth, indeed people of all ages, are educated so that they have the opportunity to grow, build and contribute. That is the only way to solve some of our misery and unemployment problems.
We may have to make cuts in the social affairs envelope. I can name all sorts of things, which I have done before in this House, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I would rather see the money here than over there. This may be a matter on which our Party and the Government should get together.
The other day Rowland Frazee, President of the Royal Bank, suggested an all-Party committee to priorize. He said he would be delighted to have his bank supply resources to help priorize. I am sure other groups would be willing to do the same. We have to priorize where we are going and priorize our expenses. This Government refuses to priorize. It just stands. Sometimes it cuts because it does not get enough political mileage. It is not a question of cutting in order to economize. The Government talked about the six and five program. There was only one envelope in the system that stayed within the six and five guidelines. Every other envelope was substantially above the six and five guidelines. This Government does not economize. It cuts when it does not get enough political mileage. What we have to do is priorize our expenditures. Political mileage does not have a darn thing to do with priorizing.
The task force which I and my colleague for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) were privileged to be part of analyzed the federal fiscal arrangements in 1981. It was rather definite that transfers by the federal Government to the provinces were not the cause of the federal Government's lack of fiscal capacity. It was the improper management of the fiscal affairs of the country which was causing the federal Government's financial problems. That report bears reading. It shows that this Government has deviated again. According to that task force
Established Programs Financing
report, tax money that was there was supposed to stay there. Transfers were supposed to stay there. In 1982 there was at least a $500 million cut. That has escalated. Now we have another cut which will also escalate.
I see it is one o'clock; I thank you very much.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill we are discussing today is Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. Because the primary purpose of the Bill is to "six and five" post-secondary education transfers, the Act is given a new title in order to separate post-secondary education from health care funding. It will be called the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
As has already been pointed out, this is a retroactive Bill. Its application effectively began almost a year ago, on April 1, 1983. Its purpose is to limit the increase in post-secondary education funding to 6 per cent in 1983-84 and to 5 per cent in 1984-85. There may be one advantage in breaking out postsecondary education from health funding which is not being six and fived, the advantage being that from now on we will be able to identify more clearly what the allocations are to post-secondary education funding rather than, as in the past, having them mixed in with health and hospitalization funding.
In view of the fact that the Government has, in effect, unilaterally broken a contract with the provinces on the matter of funding, we cannot be very hopeful that this advantage will amount to very much. As we have heard before, and I will not repeat it in any detail, at the federal level the Government made arrangements in 1977 for this new block funding with the provinces with the increases escalating each year according to a given formula. Had that formula been applied in 1983-84, the increase would have been over 11 per cent. Because of the federal Government's unilateral action in six and fiving the transfers, the increase was effectively around 7 per cent.
In the House, almost a year ago, I asked what the federal Government was planning to do with the well over $100 million which was thereby not to be allocated to post-secondary education via the provinces. I received no satisfactory answer to my question and, indeed, I learned shortly after that there was some battle going on within Cabinet as to where these previously allocated funds would go. There were about five Ministers who were interested in having the funds and, I

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing
am sorry to say, the Minister or Ministers-and the reason 1 say "Minister or Ministers" is that it is difficult to know who really does have responsibility for education-lost out, and the money which should have gone, had the contract not been broken, to the funding of post-secondary education went instead to the Minister of Employment and Immigration for certain specific employment programs.
It is not that one does not wish to see employment programs strengthened. One wonders, however, how deep was the commitment, and is the commitment today, of the federal Government to the crisis which has been taking place, and which is deepening, in our university and college system throughout this country.
On March 15, 1983 I made a statement in the House, Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, noting that by this proposed six and fiving of post-secondary education funding the federal Government is, and I quote:
-tightening the noose on post-secondary education in Canada-
It is another illustration of the Government's shortsightedness-cutting funds to the very institutions most vital to our economic recovery, to research and development, and to the training of a highly skilled Canadian work force.
Canadian colleges and universities have been subjected to severe financial cutbacks for the past ten years, while student enrolment, due to severe unemployment, has increased. Canadian youth, unemployed at a rate of 22.5 per cent, are not only denied jobs but are now denied access to a decent education.
The federal Government has abdicated its responsibility to foster educational goals, as outlined two years ago by the then Secretary of State, now the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). The federal Government cries for greater accountability in funding education, but offers no concrete proposals to achieve this. Indeed, in dropping its fiscal transfers to the six and five formula, it robs the universities and colleges of $102 million for the coming year, and has given no indication of how this money will be spent.
The New Democratic Party calls on the Government to engage in urgent negotiations with the Provinces, universities and colleges, to restructure the current system of funding of post-secondary education before irreparable damage is done to the universities and colleges of Canada.
That was March 15, 1983. The Government has done nothing since that time. It did not call a meeting, as I as well as other Members of Parliament suggested, not only of the two levels of government but of representatives of the institutions concerned, both teaching faculties and students. It did not make any attempt to work out a more adequate funding formula, one in which accountability was more realistic. Once the Government had decided to impose six and five, it created a hiatus; or to put it another way, it created a period of time in which this kind of study could have been done. Once the colleges and universities were six and fived, it left a year and a half in which this kind of analysis could have been undertaken jointly with the provinces, with representatives of the institutions concerned and with representatives of their teaching faculties, staff and students. It was a golden opportunity for the federal Government to have entered into these kinds of discussions. Yet absolutely nothing was done and the crisis has simply deepened.
One of the reasons, perhaps, that nothing was done- because I cannot believe that the federal Government was totally unaware of the crisis in the Canadian university and college system-was that there was no Minister in the federal Government charged with the prime responsibility-indeed,
there has never been a Minister in the federal Government charged with the prime responsibility-for seeing to the health of our post-secondary education system. The federal Government puts a lot of money into that system, yet it does not give a certain Minister the prime responsibility for seeing to the federal role in the health of that system.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is responsible for narrow financial matters, or seems to be. No matter what his feelings may be about the university and college system in Canada, on the importance of our having a first rate university and college system, his first duty is purely financial. His first duty is to argue with the provincial Ministers of Finance about the allocation of fiscal resources. His first duty is not, any more than it is the first duty of Ministers of Finance for the provinces, to think about the educational system at the college and university level. This leaves at the federal level, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Employment and Immigration as the next two Ministers who are, or should be, most concerned. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), who was the lucky recipient, as I noted a moment ago, of that $100 million which should have gone to the post-secondary education system last year, is primarily concerned with technical training and retraining programs. And indeed, as important as they are-and I may say he has not done a very good job with them-they do not address the crises in our higher education system. They do not address what kind of high level skills this society needs today and will continue to need tomorrow.
The Department of Employment and Immigration is not concerned primarily with the fact that nine out of 10 of our Ph.D graduates cannot get jobs. That Department is not concerned with devising a scheme of research assistance for those young people who have completed Ph.Ds and are unable to get teaching or other jobs. Research assistance would enable these people to keep "tuned up", so to speak, so that they could become research associates in the different universities of the country rather than being lost to the scholastic sector of our system.
The Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) should have some particular concern in this area. But this area is only a fraction of the total problem, a fraction of the total picture of this level of the educational system in our society. It was the Secretary of State who said a few years ago that the health of the post-secondary system was a priority for this Government. Perhaps the Secretary of State today feels the same way, although I had some doubts when I listened to an answer he gave to a question of mine two days ago, and I will mention that later.
We have the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of State for Economic Development and for Science and Technology, the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), and to some extent the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet), who have an interest in bits of this
January 27, 1984

enormous area of concern. But not one of them has the overall responsibility which the OECD suggested in 1976 should be allocated to a particular Minister. We should have a federal Minister who would have the clout in Cabinet to ensure that attention was being paid to the realization of those national goals, assuming we ever got them.
To my knowledge, the last federal Minister to take a vast interest in this subject, although it was not his portfolio because he was the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the Diefenbaker Government, was the late Sidney Smith. He was chiefly responsible for raising per capita grants from 50 cents to $1.50 in the days of the per capita grants system.
Occasionally, Mr. Speaker, a Prime Minister has had an interest in this. I would urge that the Right Honourable L. B. Pearson had a strong interest. But I have difficulty finding anyone else, as I look back, who spoke up on these matters consistently and persistently in the federal Government. 1 guess the Hon. Eric Kierans came perhaps the closest.


Mr. Benjamin:: And look what happened to him.


Pauline Jewett: Yes, look what happened to him. That is still one of the really pervasive problems we find since March of 1983 when the federal Government limited transfer increases to six and five. We could have had a major examination of the whole question of funding of post-secondary education in this country but we have had nothing.
In September, 1983 1 proposed that if the Government was not going to get some analysis of the problem in place, or while it was getting around to doing so, it could at least establish a joint emergency fund with the provinces to deal with the immediate crisis. The first block of money to go into this fund should have been the money that was not spent when the Government did not raise the grant as high as it should have and was morally obliged to. Then further moneys should have been added, directed only to post-secondary education. They could not have been deflected by provinces to any other purpose. I would add that only provinces which showed a concern in transmitting to their institutions such increases as the federal Government has been giving should participate in such a joint emergency fund.
In September the signals were coming from all over this country that ten years of cutbacks had so seriously eroded our university and college system that we could no longer, in many parts of this country, call it a first-rate system. Yet again nothing was done. I guess I should add to the list the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren), another one with a finger in this particular pie. That makes five or six. When he introduced this measure today-he may correct me if I am wrong but 1 listened very attentively-he did not, as I recall, even talk about post-secondary education. Yet this is what the main part of this Bill is all about. Does he not have any concern at all about soaring tuition fees, highly restricted enrolment, and the fact more and more students are having difficulty getting financial aid? Does he not have any concern that higher education is becoming the preserve of the rich? That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker.
Established Programs Financing
The Minister said he only had a little finger. That is the problem; everyone has just a little finger.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A little mind.


Pauline Jewett: No one on the other side, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), seems to have shown any concern. That is surprising in many ways, having been a universitaire a good deal of his own life.
Frequently, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government says: "Why do you call on us? We already give a lot in tax points and fiscal transfers; why not get after the provinces?" Indeed, the provinces bear a great deal of responsibility for the erosion of accessibility to our university and college system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Especially Tory provinces.


Pauline Jewett: Yes, and Socred.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There is not many of another kind.


Pauline Jewett: There is no doubt that British Columbia, and I will come to the others, took $12 million out of university system financing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who did that?


Pauline Jewett: The Government of British Columbia. Then in 1983-84 it provided no increase in operating grants to the system. It did not even pass on the small federal increase in fiscal transfers for post-secondary education. It is now saying that it will not only not increase system operating grants, it will not only not pass through the small increase from the federal Government, but in 1984-85 it will demand a 6 per cent reduction; that is, $18 million in system funding for the three universities in British Columbia. British Columbia was the only province to pass through nothing of an increase in 1983-84. Even Newfoundland passed through 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the federal increase, such as it was. My friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), commented that most of the provincial governments are Tory and therefore I could not look at any other kind. There is one other I can look at, the Government of Manitoba, which is an NDP Government which not only passed on the full amount, roughly 7 per cent, but an additional 3.4 per cent. Its total increase in 1983-84 was the highest in Canada, 10.4 per cent.
In some ways I do not blame the federal Government. It saw that the provincial governments are not passing on the increases that are granted to them under the Fiscal Arange-ments Act. In some ways you cannot blame the federal Government for being unhappy. The Government started the whole thing back in 1977 by going into block funding. There was no accountability built into it to ensure that the provincial governments were spending moneys allocated to post-secondary education on post-secondary education. The federal Liberal Government started all that.

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing
Knowing what has been happening and knowing how much the provincial governments have eroded the system, why did the federal Government not then immediately decide on the six and five and start working on a new funding formula with the provinces and the institutions? When it says that it is the fault of the provinces, most of us here wonder if it has been that concerned about the lack of accountability. If it has been that concerned about provinces not living up to a moral commitment, why did the federal Government a year ago not immediately set up a highly representative task force to look into the whole question of funding? Or why did it not simply bring together the provinces and representatives of the universities and colleges to start working on the subject? I simply cannot understand why it did not take action when it had time to do it and when it had seen what was happening in many of the provinces. The things that the provinces were doing were all the more reason for the federal Government to have acted.
One really begins to wonder whether the federal Government is really committed to the principle of accessibility. Accessibility means that any student who meets the qualifications established by a university or college can go to university or college. Perhaps he cannot always attend the exact institution which he would like to, and perhaps not always be in the exact program he would prefer, but nevertheless he can go. This principle has been pretty well adhered to by the institutions and most of the governments in this country. Two years ago the federal Government could not have made it clearer that that was the principle which it would like to see our higher educational systems rest upon. It is only if you have a principle like that that you can have a relatively fair system. The young people who did not get through high school, perhaps through no fault of their own, are still being kept out of the system. Young people who have been economically, socially and culturally disadvantaged and who, therefore, have not seen university or college as something within their ken, are still kept out of the system. It is not a perfect principle and cannot work perfectly. For those who are academically qualified at the end of high school it is a fair principle.
Look how it has been eroded. The University of British Columbia is going to be obliged to levy a 33 per cent increase in tuition fees this year. Simon Fraser is going to be obliged to levy a 25 per cent increase. Those kinds of tuition fee increases are going very seriously to erode the principle of accessibility. Requiring a student in British Columbia to borrow $2,300 under Canada student loans before he is entitled to apply for a grant is eroding the principle of accessibility. Cutting off qualified students from entering colleges or university erodes the principle of accessibility. The very rich, the very diligent and those with a background which is very conducive culturally and socially will be the ones who will survive in our university and college system. That is the dimension of the crisis as far as the principle of accessibility is concerned.
Further than that, the institutions themselves are suffering. People forget that if we are going to keep first-class college and university institutions in this country, we have to have first-class libraries, laboratories, computing science faculties
and humanities departments. That is not what we are getting any more. Scientific equipment in the universities and colleges is out of date in many cases. These institutions have not got the money because of this great drain on their finances caused by the underfunding that has been going on. We look at the students and the institutions themselves because the two make up the total system. The institutions include the teaching faculty and the staffs.
I have already mentioned cutbacks in hiring teachers. About one out of ten qualified teachers with a Ph.D is hired. I fail to understand why this is joined by continual foreign hiring, but I will get into that on another occasion. These people with Ph.Ds and other qualifications are going to wither on the vine. In 10 years time when we find that we need highly qualified teachers we are not going to have them. We will not have provided the kind of research associates in our universities and colleges to enable these young people to at least keep up their research.
On Wednesday I asked the Secretary of State particularly about the underfunding of our universities and colleges and their requesting an emergency fund and so on. I reminded him about the principle of accessibility particularly which the Government said it adhered to. At page 721 of Hansard he said:
-it is our objective to ensure that the principle of accessibility will be maintained as much as possible.
It is like being a little bit pregnant. You either maintain the principle of accessibility or you do not. When you qualify it by saying you will maintain it as much as possible, you are really saying you will not maintain it. It is an absolute denial of what the Government committed itself to two years ago on the principle of accessibility. It may have been a slip. The Secretary of State may have suddenly believed that he could not say the Government would maintain the principle of accessibility because the Minister of Finance may go to him and say that it may not be maintained because the provinces will not be given enough money for the universities and colleges in order to maintain it. He may have also suddenly thought that he had better not cross the Minister of Finance, or even the Minister of State for Finance who may also be involved. For that reason perhaps the Secretary of State qualified his remarks by saying that the principle will be maintained as much as possible.
That is an absolute denial of what the Government committed itself to and what I believe most Members of the House would commit themselves to. I believe that we all want to see as high a participation rate of young people as possible. I believe we would like to see it higher than it is and I am amazed to see how low that level has become in my own province and in other parts of the country.
Where will we get the R and D of the future if we continue as we are with this continuous underfunding, higher tuition fees, restricted enrolments and inadequate student aid? There will be a small elite which will benefit from university and college education, particularly university education.
January 27, 1984

On Wednesday the Secretary of State also referred to the constitutional position and since it was a rather confusing sentence I should not try to interpret it. He said, as reported at page 721 of Hansard:
-I remind the Hon. Member that the Canadian Constitution does not empower Parliament to directly force upon the Provinces any stiff conditions as to the use that should be made of funds in the educational sector.
There is a very long history in this country, going back to the post-World War 1 days when the first Technical and Vocational Assistance Act was passed, of the federal Government in fact directing funds to certain specific educational activities, usually with conditions attached. In fact, there was more direct funding of that nature in the years up to 1958 than there has been since. There never was a constitutional challenge or a challenge in the courts. Of course, there will be political problems in the case of Mr. Duplessis. Even the late Premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, never challenged federal involvement in higher education in the courts.
Therefore, I am led to believe that perhaps the Government is saying it is a constitutional problem as a means of not doing anything about it. Incidentally, the Constitution makes it very clear that the provincial legislatures have authority for education "in and for the province". That is the exact wording. That is why primary and secondary education are considered to be in and for the province. But when we are talking about colleges and university education, primarily university education, and when we see the flow of people across the country, we realize that that level of education is for the nation and indeed the international community.
Since most Canadians have realized this over the years there have not been great court cases where the federal Government has contributed money in various instances. Indeed, until 1977 federal Government transfers were specifically for postsecondary education and they had to be audited. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here because I dislike trying to understand what someone means when they cannot help me. The fact is that I do not like this phony argument being perpetuated.
I have talked at length on this matter because I think it is the most important issue next to unemployment, and indeed it is linked with unemployment to some extent and has been for the last several years. It is getting to the point that if we do not do something soon irreparable damage will be done to the universities and colleges of this country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this morning I listened with dismay to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Maclaren) when, in an almost offhand way, he presented the Government's case for Bill C-12. He was not apologetic or defensive. He simply did not seem to care about the consequences of this Bill.
He was very enthusiastic about the tile of the Bill and the fact that it changes the name of the Act from the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health
Established Programs Financing
Contributions Act, 1977. It is as if he thought that somehow described what the Bill is doing.
The Minister indicated that a change in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements is embodied in the Bill. I may say that it is a unilateral change. Indeed, if one can decipher that change, as it is couched in these terms. Let me quote from Clause 7 of the Bill which is the key clause. It reads:
(2)	For the purposes of paragraphs I9(l)(b), 2l(l)(e) and 27(3)(b), the escalator for a fiscal year is the cube root of a fraction of which
(a)	the numerator is the per capita gross national product for the calendar year ending immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal year; and
(b)	the denominator is the per capita gross national product for the fourth calendar year immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal year.
(3)	For the purposes of paragraph 19(2)(b).
(a) the escalator for a fiscal year that ends before April 1, 1983 or begins after March 31,1985 is the cube root of a fraction of which-
And it goes on and on.


Mr. Bosley:: Explain it both languages!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) asks me to interpret that in either of the two official languages. I cannot interpret it. It sounds like a lot of gobbledegook and I am not sure that anyone in even the most advanced computer progrms could interpret it. However, I do know its significance. It meas a $380 million tax grab by the federal Government over the years 1983-84 and 1984-85. It is a federal tax grab from the funding that would otherwise go to post-secondary education. That is what this Bill is all about.
This morning the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) mentioned the figure of $260 million. That is what it will be in the fiscal year 1984-85. It already is $118 million in the fiscal year 1983-84.
I said that the Minister addressed this Bill in a very offhand way, as if it were of no consequence. I would say that the consequences may not readily be discernible to the federal Government, but to the thousands of young Canadians in post-secondary institutions of this country and to the hundreds of people who staff our community colleges and universities, the consequences are very clear. In fact, they are frightening.
Like the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), I was surprised that the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), who is probably the Minister with the primary responsibility in the field of post-secondary education funding, is not in the House today. I wonder why he was not here when this Bill was being presented since it so directly concerns funding which is supplied by his Department. Perhaps he might have felt inclined to stand up and protest what is going on. At least, I hope that is what he would have done.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), in his very eloquent address this morning, said that what we are dealing with here is a question of priorities. Indeed it is. We in this Party know at a time of restraint that there are not hundreds of millions of dollars floating around to be spent in an undisciplined way. You have to determine which things are

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing most important. Obviously the Government has made that kind of determination. It has looked at such things as Cana-dair, where you can put in a few hundred million dollars, or de Havilland, or Maislin, or the maintenance of that great white elephant known as Mirabel, and has determined these are the priorities, not the funding of post-secondary education. In an effort to save $118 million in this fiscal year and $260 million in 1984-85, the Government is willing to endanger the future of the young people in this country, and the many others presently in the work force who are going to be needing retraining or re-education in one way or another.
However, Mr. Speaker, before going on to elaborate on that point I want to take a look at the current situation in the field of higher education in Canada. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South touched on this, as did the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. It is essential to realize that while funding to post-secondary institutions has declined over 20 per cent in the last ten years, enrolment has continued to escalate. It has shown an annual growth rate of almost 4 per cent. Since the beginning of the recession in 1981, that figure has been driven up even higher as many students have returned to universities and community colleges to try and get additional education.
Why are they back trying to get this additional education? Because out there in the work force there are no jobs for them. The unemployment of today is having a major impact on the universities. Full-time university undergraduate enrolment is up about 5 per cent this year from last year right across the country. Similarly, community colleges and technical schools have had to absorb an increase of over 7 per cent this year nationwide to accommodate the additional number of young people entering these institutions. A recent study done for the Institute for Research on Economic Policy by Professor David Foot shows the total university enrolment in Canada can be expected to rise by 6.6 per cent over the next four years. Professor Foot points out in his study paper that this will, of course, require more, not less, resources in the years ahead. Certainly, Sir, that would be necessary if continued erosion in our educational standards is not to take place. Yet the Government continues to reduce its commitment to post-secondary funding. This despite the fact that on the very same day this Bill was introduced, namely January 25, 1984, the Secretary of State said, as reported in Hansard at page 720:
-the Canadian Government has assumed its full responsibility by financing a major share of post-secondary education in Canada.
While the Secretary of State talks about financing a major share, the Minister of State for Finance comes in with a Bill that cuts it back. That is a clear example of the double-speak being used by this Government. I suppose it is appropriate since this is 1984, after all.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is also the year of the rat.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has very eloquently interjected that it is also the year of tha rat. I know there are a good many
people who consider themselves to be the mice across the country who are being gobbled up by this Government.
While the provinces do have direct control over the educational system, it is essential that the federal Government use its financial resources and influence to guarantee the highest possible level of education. That clearly is not the case today, nor will it be if limitations such as are included in this Bill are allowed to continue. Limitations which will only increase the likelihood of higher tuition fees. For instance, there is the 33 per cent jump in tuition fees predicted in British Columbia or the 25 per cent rise anticipated in Saskatchewan. Those are the inevitable fall-out of Bills like this one. What really seems clear to me from the Minister's speech this morning is that the Government, divorced as it is from the real world, does not seem to be aware of the growing crisis in Canadian postsecondary institutions. It does not seem to be aware of what is happening there.
Let me give a few concrete examples, Mr. Speaker, of just how much these institutions are suffering as a result of reduced financial resources at a time of increasing enrolment. I cite Queen's University as an example 1 know well, coming from the constituency of Kingston and the Islands, the volume of acquisitions by the library has been but in half over the past decade. Ten years ago 19,000 journals and 50,000 books were purchased for its library every year. These purchases have fallen to 7,000 and 24,000 respectively. In the science laboratories much of the equipment is outdated, but there are no funds to replace that equipment with the expensive models currently in place in the private sector which the young people need for educational purposes. Even simple things such as regular maintenance of university buildings and plant is impossible today. It is estimated that less than one-half of the normal upkeep is being done because funds are simply unavailable.
Most telling, however, is the growth of student-teacher ratios over the past ten years. In Ontario in 1973 that ratio was 14 to one. It presently stands at 20 to one. Unable to hire enough staff to keep pace with growing enrolment, colleges and universities are forced to increase class size and, of course, to reduce that essential side of education. By that I mean direct student-teacher contact and consultation. Viewed from this perspective it becomes clear that students are being buffeted by increased tuition fees and reduced services. The quality of education they are receiving cannot help but decline. This fact has serious ramifications, not just for the student body or the universities but for the entire country. Because of inadequate laboratories and libraries, because of reduced salaries compared to those in the private or the government sector and because of minimum support services such as photocopying and computer time, it is becoming more and more difficult to attract high quality students into graduate programs.
If you were to select three areas where they are finding it difficult to attract these high quality students that we will need in the private and the government sector ten years down the road, just take a look, Mr. Speaker, at the business, computer and engineering faculties. These are the ones suffering the
January 27, 1984

most. Surely this is the time and place for investment, not for the kind of discouragement which this Bill is bringing. If Canada really wants to maintain its standard of living and be more than a mere supplier of natural resources for other industrialized countries, we must develop our own technology. We must always ensure that we possess a competitive edge above other countries. Without enough highly trained people, without human resources, that will be impossible. Universities are without doubt the major training ground for these people.
This point was clearly emphasized in the brief presented to the Macdonald Royal Commission by the Canadian Association of University Teachers:
Education, in general and university education in particular, has been one of the major factors in the economic growth of the country. The universities of Canada produce the highly qualified personnel needed for today's technological society. The universities perform much of Canada's research and development activity and the universities remain the most significant institutions dedicated to studies in the humanities, arts and basic sciences.
It must be recognized that high technology will not affect only professionals; it will stretch out into every activity and every part of the work force. Nothing will be more directly touched than the work place of the future. It is projected that in the near future people will change jobs probably four or five times during their working life due to technological innovation and change. More and more people will need to be trained and re-educated to be able to move from one job to an other. There will be increasing pressures on post-secondary institutions, not only in terms of numbers of people attending, but in terms of the programs offered and the support services needed.
What do we have today? We have the Government trying for a savings of $380 million over two years at the expense of allowing the quality of life in Canada to continue to decline. It thinks nothing whatsoever of spending equally large amounts on industries which can never recover, or of trying for bail-outs which will never succeed. During this time of what I have said is necessary restraint, the Government has chosen the worst possible vehicle to use as a means to that restraint. It chose post-secondary institutions. Future generations will pay the cost of the folly of the Government.
I realize I only have a couple of minutes remaining, but I would like to sum up by using the words of the Canadian Association of University Teachers in its presentation to the Macdonald Commission wherein it said:
-there is a funding crisis in the universities. Current levels of funding are inadequate to meet national goals similar to those of our major competitors, yet both levels of government have decreased their commitment to fund higher education. The result is a steady decline in the quality of scientific equipment and libraries and a serious loss of morale on the part of professors. This crisis must be addressed by proper funding by both levels of government and by an end to the destructive and mindless quarrel between the federal Government and the provinces over joint funding mechanisms.
Its final statement reads as follows:
As we move into the 21st century, how we deal with our universities, their faculty and their students, will in large measure, determine Canada's position in the next century.
Established Programs Financing
There are many places where money can and should be saved, a point which the Auditor General makes abundantly clear each year. Scrimping on post-secondary education is surely not the answer. Ask the students who need the training, ask the institutions which need the resources, ask the business community which is crying out for trained personnel. They will tell you that this Bill is not the answer. Only a government so out of step with the current and future needs of this country would, to its shame, introduce a Bill of this nature.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. She alleged that I made certain errors in my calculations with respect to the determination of the reduction in cash. Would the Hon. Member confirm that in 1983-84 the reduction in cash is $118 million, which reduces the base for 1983-84, so that when 1984-85 is calculated we will be calculating at a $118 million smaller base, and the effect of that calculation will be to reduce the total cash by another $260 million. Is that correct?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has defined it very clearly and correctly. The base for the current fiscal year is reduced. That means that the amount of transfers of money for the next fiscal year is further reduced and that over the period of the two years when the six and five proposition is put into effect by the federal Government, if it should have its way, a total amount of $380 million is being taken out of the system which would otherwise have been there.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: As a matter of clarification, the amount of the transfer of cash is reduced twice. Does that reduction stay in effect forever because and the base reduced forever?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Of course that is not made at all clear in the Bill. The reduction of the base is there. It would have to be brought in and re-established at the point it was in 1982-83 or at the beginning of 1983 in order to bring it back to the level it was before the imposition of this Bill. The tax base would be permanently reduced unless that change were made at the expiration of this Bill. I trust it will be another government dealing with that particular point.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the debate on the block funding aspect. The Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam indicated situations where $12 million was taken out and used for some other procedure or where money which was sent for education was used for building roads. She said that maybe we cannot blame the federal Government totally for the fact that when we send more money it is simply diverted to other uses.
Is the Hon. Member in a position to tell us what is the position of the Conservative Party? Does she feel that there should be an accounting by the provinces, or does she agree with the block funding procedure?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member who was here in 1977 would look back at the Debates at that time, he would see that when 1 spoke on that Bill on behalf of my

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing Party we agreed with the block funding system, having seen the agreement arrived at between the federal and provincial governments. We supported it at the time. It was only after that, not once but twice, that the federal Government broke that contract unilaterally. That we disagree with.
If the Hon. Member listened to the latter part of my speech, he would know that I said that what is needed is for the federal and provincial governments to overcome their incessant fighting or laying the blame on one another in this field and in a number of other fields.
I see no reason why there should not be accountability. I have no argument with it at all, but I want the Hon. Member to understand that when the money is transferred and when an agreement is reached, one of the two parties to the agreement should not be able to step in half-way through and change it unilaterally.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1 agree in part with the Hon. Member. What concerns me-and I must say that I am being as objective as possible on this-is that it is very difficult for us to defend a situation where we make money available specifically for education under this particular Act and we find that it is not used for that particular purpose.
The Hon. Member talked about the federal Government unilaterally breaking the contract. Whether or not it is written in the contract, the fact is that under this particular Act when money is provided by federal taxpayers out of income taxes and is meant to be used for education but is used for highways, it is somewhat difficult to return to one's riding and listen to the onslaught of provincial members who say that we are underfunding education when the fact of the matter is that the money we provide, even if it is not enough, is not used for education.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware that in 1978 there was a federal task force on federal-provincial fiscal relations. They took a good look at the question of accountability; in fact they agreed with it. At the same time, they made as close an analysis as possible of whether or not funds were being diverted, as the Hon. Member suggested. They could find no evidence of that. If the Hon. Member can stand up and prove it, I can tell him that the task force could not find such proof.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is correct. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) would have a great deal of difficulty proving his last statement, that funds moving toward health care and post-secondary education have been diverted by provinces to building highways. He would have a great deal of difficulty proving that. In fact, if he looks at the provincial-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not wish to mislead the House that the funds were being used for
highways or anything like that. They simply were not being used for education, but were being used for other purposes.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I will accept that correction. Many provinces have found that their costs for education and health care have skyrocketed. Health care costs have increased far more rapidly than education costs. It is very important to decide what is more important to society, a person's health, or educating our young people and retraining others.
If we look at the serious difficulties that both the federal and provincial governments are having in financing the demands being placed upon them, we recognize that it is not important to the taxpayer whether the money needed to provide adequate health care or education comes from the federal or the provincial government. It is still a burden to that taxpayer. He very seldom finds it necessary to discern whether he is paying that tax dollar to the provincial or federal government. All he knows is that it is deducted from his cheque to provide various services.
When we look at the deficits, we find it is absolutely essential, whether it is in the federal House or in the provincial House, to look at the manner in which spending is being carried out. Two areas where spending is of greatest concern are education and health care. We have only two choices, either maintaining the present system of service and at the same time looking for ways of eliminating unnecessary expenditures, or not maintaining the present systems of health care and education. Many Members in the House have said that if we do not have the present level of funding in both of these areas, the only alternative will be to have less service. That frightens all of us because we recognize that this country is entering an era when it is essential that we have highly educated people in order to compete in a very highly technological world so that we can maintain the standard of living we enjoy at this time.
We all know that the federal deficit this year will be in the range of $29 billion. One would think that because of that, the logic of the federal Government is that we have to eliminate expenditures, and one way of doing that is to save $383 million in the next couple of years by indexing the tax portion that goes to the provinces for post-secondary education because the provinces have a lot of room in their expenditures to take up the difference. That is just not the case.
Only three provinces in Canada are not presently running deficits. Some run substantially high deficits. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are in the pleasant position of having some extra revenue because of oil and gas. This year Alberta has run a deficit of $800 million, if you do not consider what it had to take out of the Heritage Trust Fund it set up some years ago for future developments in the province when conventional oil and gas runs out. The budgetary account surplus deficit position of the provinces is not all that great. It does not have the funds to take up the difference in this area.
The task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements recognized this. It said that it is important in a federal system that each order of government have a life of its own and
January 27, 1984

neither is subordinate to the other. They emphasized the very important statements that nowhere is there a need for co-operation between the two orders of government more pressing than in the area of public finance.
We do not solve the problem of budgetary deficits with the manner of service that is provided in health care and education by fighting with one another as to who is going to spend the dollars in order to provide the service. That is why this Bill so obviously should not be supported. It is a unilateral declaration by the federal Government, not a negotiated position as was the original plan in 1975-76 to establish the financing for health care and education. They have the right to do this on their own legally. Even though the Act is not yet passed, it is deemed to have happened in April, 1983. It is obvious that the Government is concerned about this. The push now is on Parliament to pass this Bill.
The parliamentary task force made a very important recommendation that federal expenditures associated with postsecondary education be transferred from the social affairs envelope to the economic development envelope. Why would they say that? It is obvious that in order to fuel our economic development in the future, the only way is to train competent, capable technicians and well-educated scientists.
We have to put that in place today to meet the demands of the high-tech world of the future. If not, we will be left behind. We will not have the research or technical capacity ot meet the demands of the world. As I said beforem it will be impossible to fund people's demands.
Let us look at the whole area of shared funding. Since fiscal 1979-80, the federal share of funding for health and postsecondary education decreased from a high of 50 per cent of total expenditures at the provincial level to 42.4 per cent in the 1982-83 fiscal year. In real dollar terms the federal contribution has risen from $9.3 billion to $12.1 billion, even giving credit to the federal Government for the two tax points it transferred to the provincial Government. There may be a legitimate argument about who really owns those two tax points but let us credit them to the federal Government. That shows that the federal contribution has risen from $9.3 billion to $12.1 billion while at the same time the capital and operating expenditures of the provinces have risen from $18 billion to $28.6 billion. We could say that some of the $3 billion increase has been siphoned off and put into highways or other things. That simply cannot be the case when it is realized that the expenditures of the provinces have increased by $10.1 billion. That argument is just not logical. It is no wonder the federal task force could not find evidence of that but instead found evidence that the increase in health care costs was much more rapid than that in post-secondary education and that perhaps there was some movement of funds into health care. That was because of a desperate need in some provinces, particularly in the Maritimes, which were having difficulty finding funds for their provincial budgets.
Established Programs Financing
If we disregard the tax points collected by the provinces under the tax-sharing agreement, we find that in their view the actual cash contribution of the federal Government has only risen from $5 billion to $6 billion since the 1979-80 fiscal year. In real dollars that represents a decline of 6 per cent in the total federal contribution from 27 per cent to 21.3 per cent. It is interesting to see what this represents in real purchasing power.
We all know what has happened to our dollar since 1968 because of inflation. In 1968 terms, a dollar is worth only 34 cents today. When this agreement was negotiated, a 1968 dollar was worth 56 cents. It must be realized that this extra contribution of money does not give the provincial governments any additional purchasing power. It is no wonder they are having serious trouble maintaining their libraries, equipment, buildings and universities when they are faced with this inflation. All governments are responsible for that and so it is good to see that we are getting inflation under control at the present time.
The federal contribution to post-secondary education has remained at about the 50 per cent level compared with the total expenditures by the provinces. There is a problem with the transfer as far as health care costs are concerned, however. The level has not been maintained. In fact, that amount which used to be close to 50 per cent-about 47.8 per cent of the provincial budgets that went to health care-has now dropped to just under 40 per cent. That is why this Bill, which would take action strictly on behalf of the federal Government, does not solve the serious problem of funding for health care and making sure that young Canadians can seek a very prosperous future.
The federal Government should be looking for ways to put some certainty into this system instead of sloughing off the burden to the provinces. In 1977, when the agreement was signed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that one of the best things about it was that it put certainty into the system; the provinces knew the amount of cash they would get to cover health and post-secondary education costs and the federal Government knew how much it had to provide. What we are doing now is simply putting this back into the pre-1976 era where there was no certainty.
Another provision in the agreement was that it would increase the contribution equal to the percentage increase in the Gross National Product. That was of some concern originally because our economy was growing rapidly. The slow growth in our economy today has caused federal transfers to be even more restricted under the formula of the GNP escalator. Figures available in my province show that costs for education and health are raising very serious problems in this recession and, hopefully, the post-recession period in which we now find ourselves.
The federal Government support of funding, which used to be around 50 per cent, is decreasing. If the transfers were to stay even with the original agreement, they would be about $2.3 billion lower than they ought to be. There is no doubt that

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing
there is legitimate cause for concern. Many Members are aware of that and I am sure they would recommend that rather than the Government taking unilateral action, now is the time for it to sit down with the provinces and attempt to work out another agreement, even if it means accountability.
We must maintain the level of service in health care. We must make sure that health care is offered to citizens before they arrive at the hospital-in other words, preventive health care. We must also maintain the quality of our post-secondary institutions so that they respond to the rapidly changing needs of a hi-tech economy. This cannot be accomplished by the present means. We are faced with an enormous deficit, and 25 per cent of revenues already go to service it. It is very difficult to maintain revenues for post-secondary education if we just slip this matter over to provincial Governments.
The Government has to draw the provinces together. It has to show leadership and to control spending. The people concerned about this must come together at the bargaining table to find a solution.
The federal Government maintains that the split between health care and education is one-third to two-thirds, but in actual fact it is one-quarter to three-quarters. This is something that must be worked out.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has dealt with the importance of post-secondary education in its 1983 paper entitled "Technological Progress and the Workplace". It states that the new technologies affect all aspects of modern life and that new production equipment has an extraordinary potential to be beneficial, but that this will not be automatic. It points out that it is people who will apply these new methods and fuel the promise of this technology, which will then be realized only if adequate regard is given to how workers are affected. The needs of the workplace are changing drastically and we have to meet this challenge or we will be left so far behind so fast that our capability to compete will be like putting a slide rule up against an IBM home computer, according to that paper.
We can look at the area of agriculture. It has been said that if we do not begin quickly to train our technicians and Ph.D. graduates we will find that by the end of this century we are 400 scientists short, and that is serious when we look at what we will require from agriculture in a competing world. There are solutions. The federal Government surely can assist by putting some of the budgeted money into agricultural research in co-operation with the many universities across this country. Rather than building our own research station, surely we can use the scientists and students at the universities and put them to work with federal funds in the area of agricultural research. This may inspire some of those students to go on to become the experts of the future in agriculture.
This is an essential Bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Government will realize that we will not solve the problem by simply transferring the debt from the federal Government to the provincial Governments.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was interested to hear the Hon. Member say that the accountability does not bother him too much. I suggest he speak to his provincial colleagues because it bothers them a lot. They were the people who advocated the block funding, indicating that they were elected officers as well and they were accountable to the people and, on that basis, did not think that they should be required to have this accountability. I remember the New Democratic Party was very forceful in its arguments at that time, indicating we should not let go of this particular measure of control.
With respect to the cost of education, I believe that building colleges of applied arts and technology is one of the better moves which provincial Governments made. The problem in my own province is that almost overnight a college was built in Timmins, Kirkland Lake, North Bay and in Sudbury, and they were all competing for the same students. I believe if there had been a little more accountability at that stage of the game, perhaps they could have been told to phase it in over a particular period of time in order to get maximum benefit. However, when the provinces increase their own expenditures through their own moves because they feel they are dealing with 50-cent dollars, it is pretty hard to talk them into any kind of rationalization and then come back later and say that education is costing much more than it used to.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It is an interesting theory and I cannot speak for the Province of Ontario as to what it did, but I can speak for my own province, as it has expanded the universities and the technical schools. We find today there is insufficient room in the universities and the technical schools in my province to meet the demands of students. In many faculties quotas are in place because there simply is no room for the students who wish now, particularly last year and this year, to go to those faculties and take extra education. That may be in part because of the recession.
I have no strong arguments on the question of accountability. There is no doubt in my mind that both Houses are elected and are responsible to their citizens. When we look at the expenditures which the provinces are making on education and, in particular, health care, I can understand the provinces' reluctance to have to account for them because they can show very easily that they are spending a tremendous amount of their provincial budgets in these two areas.
The Province of Alberta, for example, spends its entire take in personal income taxes just to cover the expenses of health care. All the other Departments in the Province of Alberta receive their budgets from resource revenue. Therefore, the cost to that province is tremendous in just that area alone. That does not even account for the expenses in post-secondary education or education at all. I really do not believe that the province would have very much difficulty accounting for the money which comes from the federal Government for health care and post-secondary education. In fact, I think it finds that it spends that money two or three times over.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, several people have said today that there is a very serious crisis in the

field of post-secondary education. 1 intend to address most of my remarks to the particular problems being encountered by universities. I suppose it is largely because of the fact that until eight months ago I was a member of the faculty of the history department of Brandon University and I know that situation the best.
This crisis, of course, has been caused by two or three basic factors. First of all, the federal Government in days gone by has encouraged the expansion of post-secondary educational facilities, requiring, of course, that the provinces be a part of that particular expansion procedure. Unfortunately, as the federal Government has been wont to do in the past-it seems to me too often-it has initiated programs and then, for a variety of reasons, decided to withdraw them, at least in part, from the field, having left the responsibility for maintaining those programs with the provinces. Unfortunately, in doing that, it has not only financially embarrassed many of the provinces of Canada, but I believe it has very much augmented the financial disparity which is so much a part of Canadian history, and which of course comes as a result of various economic resources within the several provinces throughout the country.
One of the results of this change in attitude on the part of the federal Government is that the poorer provinces remain in a less equal position in terms of providing post-secondary education to their citizens. In addition to that problem, of course, we have seen, tragically so, in the last couple of years a very serious rise in the problems of youth unemployment. Many young people have turned to university education, at least in part because they have not been able to find employment after they have completed their secondary education. As a result of these young people returning to the universities and other post-secondary institutions, there has been a very dramatic increase in enrolment, of which all of us are aware.
Brandon University, for example, has never had the same enrolment statistics as it has now. Enrolment has never been as high. The Dean of Science of the University of Manitoba is quoted in a recent newspaper article as saying that the institution is full to capacity, "we have no more place to put the students". In addition to that problem, of course, we have the impact of inflation, which means that the universities have in fact, as has been said by other speakers, a reduced capacity to purchase much needed new equipment and, as a case in point, library resources.
With respect to libraries, those people who are familiar with the cost of books know that the average price of a book purchased by a university library has more than doubled in recent months. In addition, because of larger class enrolment, the need for reading material has increased as well. At one time it was common practice for the larger institutions to purchase multiple copies of standard reference items, perhaps 5, and in some cases even 10 copies. Now the same university libraries are being restricted to the point where they can purchase only one or two. The result is a tremendous burden upon the students. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the result has been, at least to some degree, a deterioration in the quality of
Established Programs Financing
instruction within our post-secondary institutions. It is very difficult, as a professor, for example, to require students in a large class to research topics, knowing full well that the resources which they need to complete their research are not available in adequate numbers in the local library. Therefore, we have the combination of large classes, which in itself seems to lead to a diminishing quality of education, and we have, in some cases, cancelled classes because of the inability of the university to provide sufficient instructors. We have an inability on the part of universities to meet new demands. Again, I think of Brandon University in the field of computer science where it became necessary, over the last couple of years, to keep the facility open literally all night so that students could get access to computers. One of the byproducts was a tremendous amount of rivalry, sometimes even minor conflicts among students who are compelled out of necessity to be very utilitarian in seeking computer time.
Faculties are frustrated. They are anxious to provide a quality education. They take their responsibility very seriously and are experts in their own field. They are dedicated public servants. But they are frustrated because of, again, the lack of resources, which often means they are not able to use up-to-date equipment, especially in the field of science, to instruct their students.
This is particularly ironic and I think tragic, Mr. Speaker, because the crisis in post-secondary education has come at an exceedingly inopportune time. I have already mentioned the unacceptably high unemployment among youth. In fact, many of them have been seeking the opportunity to enrol in the university of their choice in order to better their chances for employment. As university students and those close to universities know, including parents, there are many universities which have restricted admission simply because of their inability to provide for those students. This is occurring in fields where it has not been the case before, and it has very disappointing results for those students who would have pursued an education in that field.
During my recent years of teaching at Brandon University, I noticed a new phenomenon which excited me greatly. Many older people were seeking the opportunity of acquiring the university education which was denied them at an earlier stage in their life. Some of the most interesting students I had in the last three to four years were people in their sixties, sometimes seventies, who came to university after retirement and were very excited about the opportunity to fulfil a life long desire to secure post-secondary education. They were not always anxious to achieve a degree, but they were very anxious to learn. They added a great deal to my class and I think a great deal to the so-called generation gap. Students of the age of 18 or 19 had an opportunity to listen to people in their sixties who were talking about life experiences. Therefore we moved very quickly from discussions based on theory into very real terms as there was a sharing of information among students of different ages. Unfortunately, if we are going to be faced with restricted involvement and huge classes which discourage par-
830

January 27, 1984
Established Programs Financing ticipation, if we are going to do anything which in any way discourages people from seeking the opportunity for acquiring post-secondary education, whether it be in universities or applied colleges or whatever the case may be, then we are destroying initiative and losing something which is invaluable.
1 have always felt, Mr. Speaker, that education, whether it be at the elementary, secondary or post-secondary level, is an investment. The state facilitates this investment by providing the necessary resources, but it is an investment which bears a return in the years to come. Investing money in post-secondary education is very different from providing short-term, make-work jobs. Tragically, those short-term, make-work jobs end within six weeks or whatever the case may be. So often we take someone who was unemployed and give him the opportunity to work for a short period of time and then turn him back out on the street in the same condition as that in which he or she came. But we have done nothing for that individual in the long term.
I have always believed, and I continue to hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we invest our financial resources in education, we are permitting people to help themselves. We are permitting such individuals to become useful, satisfied, contributing and self-supporting members of our society and economy. 1 have one or two examples specifically in mind, Mr. Speaker, from my recent years of teaching. I am referring particularly to women who have been coming back into the post-secondary educational field in greater numbers in recent years. There are many such people, but the two I think of at the moment were single parents who found, with their new responsibilities as single parents that they did not have the earning power to raise their children in a way satisfying to them. One such person was in fact on social assistance when she came to university. I have always complimented the people responsible for the system for making it possible for her to come to university.
I know there are many other individuals similar to these two, but what struck me was that they were extremely determined to accept their responsibilities as single parents and wished very much to become self-supporting and contributing members of society. Fortunately they went back to university prior to the present crisis, and both are now taxpaying, contributing members of our society. One of them has virtually completed her parental responsibilities in that her offspring have reached the age of maturity. But they have gone into fields where they as individuals have made an excellent contribution. Perhaps they have made even an extraordinary contribution because of their own particular personal life history.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we as a society have a responsibility, including those of us who have played any part in our universities, to enable such people to go to university. It would be a tragedy if we were to do anything which closed the door to such people.
I think we are well known at Brandon University for three things, Mr. Speaker. One is the Faculty of Music, which is recognized throughout the country for its excellence. Secondly, we are well known for our mature student program which was developed a number of years ago. One of the characteristics of
that program was that students who have not, for a variety of reasons, completed their traditional secondary education were enabled at the age of 21 or more to come into university and attempt to fulfil the requirements for their degree, even though they did not have the normal Grade 12 qualifications. 1 remember very distinctly the first man who came to the university when I was registrar. He had been a very successful businessman in his community. He came to university as a mature student, very anxious for the opportunity to attend before his eldest daughter, who was at that stage in Grade 12. Tragically, that man died a while ago, but prior to his death he had the satisfaction of completing a university degree, having achieved a lifetime ambition. He gave up a great deal to do that. His business had been extremely successful. He returned at considerable sacrifice to himself and his family, but I think it was a satisfying experience for him, and it would have been very tragic had this experience been in any way denied to him.
There are many other mature students who, for a variety of reasons, were not able to, or chose not to, complete their secondary education in the traditional manner. In recent years we have been able to bring them back into the university fold, and in most instances they have made an excellent contribution. We must do nothing to discourage this re-education process. In fact, Mr. Speaker, all the evidence indicates that all young people today, regardless of the field into which they enter, will in all likelihood have to be retrained once, and perhaps twice, during the course of their lifetime.
When I think of this topic I also think of the large number of Indian and Metis students who have returned to university in recent years. Brandon University has led the way in this particular endeavour. In many cases, but not all, these students came back to university without being able to fulfil the traditional requirements for admission. In many cases this is because of the lack of formal education prior to their return to university, or because of the inequity in the schools from which they came. I know that inequity well, Mr. Speaker. I took grades eight, nine and ten in a one room country school by correspondence. While there are some things to be learned from that experience, there are many, many disadvantages.
People who come to university from this particular disadvantaged position, particularly Indian and Metis students, have required extra support to bridge the gap between the position from which they came and the one in which they now find themselves. In our experience, Mr. Speaker, bridging that gap has been a fairly costly endeavour. We are very pleased with the results of it. For example, it was at one time the case in the Province of Manitoba that a teacher was inevitably white, including the northern communities where the pupils were entirely non-white. I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the Province of Manitoba today, in many of those classrooms in the north and elsewhere, the teacher is now of the same origin as the students whom he or she is teaching. This was made possible by programs started by both of the previous Governments in the Province of Manitoba and supported by both. This has been a step forward. Universities have been
January 27, 1984

seeking the opportunity to break through what we have traditionally conceived their role to be. It seems to me that while we must never lose sight of that traditional role, we must always remember that universities have been asking for the opportunity to educate those who historically have not been able to come to them.
There are other points, Mr. Speaker, which could be made. For example, the field of Canadian studies is one in which all of us are very conscious of a need to further our academic pursuits. It is a new field of endeavour and one of great interest to students. It is one which we must not now do anything to discourage.
The question of research and development has been mentioned by others. All of us are aware, as a result of the recent reports which have been made available to us, that in Canada today there is a shortage of qualified Ph.D. graduates in some sciences and in engineering. That is extremely ironic because for a number of years we thought we had a surplus. Now we discover that we in fact have a shortage. This is even more ironic, Mr. Speaker, because we expect these same scientists and engineers to lead the field in research and development and to find the new technology needed for the 1980s and the 1990s.
We need several changes, Mr. Speaker. We need more consultation with the provinces. We need the development of a national education strategy. Above all, we must understand that this is not the time to reduce in any way the vital resources which the federal Government has been transferring to the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is now a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments. Does anyone wish to put a question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris on his very excellent address. I would like to make one or two comments and then ask one or two questions. Over the years a considerable number of students from Alberta, some from my home area and some who were once pages in the Alberta Legislature, went to Brandon College or University. All came back with tremendous testimony of the high calibre of staff at that college. With the reduction in federal aid to universities, will Brandon University be able to continue to attract that very high calibre of pedagogy? It is very important that we do.
I would like to commend the Hon. Member and Brandon University for the part which they have played in Indian and Metis education. For many years we have neglected the education of the boys and girls on the Indian and Metis reserves. Over the last few years the University of Calgary has been taking a very definite stand. It was my pleasure to visit the division of the faculty which is dealing with Indian education. I was amazed at the calibre of young people from our native population, largely from the Stony's, the Blackfeet and the Sarcee's, who are attending that school. We made representation to the Ministry of Indian Affairs to provide funding in order that the University of Calgary could establish a full-
Private Members' Business
fledged Indian faculty. 1 think that would have been a tremendous thing for native people all over this continent. That is still the ambition of many people in the University of Calgary.
I would like to conclude with one other question to the Hon. Member. Is the University of Brandon now having more difficulty getting Indian and native students into their faculties?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the questions asked by the Hon. Member for Bow River. One of the reasons why small institutions such as Brandon College, as it once was, or Brandon University, as it now is, and other such small institutions in Canada were able to provide the quality of education of which you speak, was that we had the opportunity to get to know our students personally. We were able to respond to them as individuals because we had reasonably sized classes. Unfortunately, when you have to move into the area of instruction by means of television, which has happened in some universities now, it becomes self-evident that the all valuable connection between instructor and student is lost. One of the things which always pleased me about teaching was the opportunity I had to know my students as individuals and put names to their faces. 1 could not do that in all cases but I could in most cases. That becomes impossible as classes grow beyond reason in terms of size. The same problem occurs with respect to grading of assignments, reading of written material and things of that nature. In larger universities a lot of the teaching of the first year undergraduate courses is performed by teaching assistants who themselves are graduate students. That is not in any way to lessen the significance of their conviction or their determination to do well, but I think there is a self-evident difficulty with that.
The Hon. Member made reference to Indian and Metis education. As I said in my address, this very often requires extra financial support. I believe I am accurate in saying that we could provide an educational opportunity for many more students than we are currently able to if the resources were available. This assistance is necessary in the form of extra teaching assistance, provision of housing accommodation and that sort of thing.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please! The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", '\nMonday, January 30, 1984']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Before starting Private Members' Business, the Chair would like to make a few comments on the procedure followed so far in this second

January 27, 1984
Airports
session of the Thirty Second Parliament. Standing Order 22( 1) reads as follows:
All items standing on the Orders of the Day, except Government Orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper.
Standing Order 24(1), paragraph (3) reads:
Second reading and reference of bills to a committee, notices of motions and notices of motions (papers), precedence being assigned by the Speaker on the basis of a draw;
If I may, I also want to read three sentences from the third report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders. The Committee is recommending that three categories of Private Members' Business be combined. The report reads:
This new category would have precedence assigned by the Speaker for one item per Member based on one draw using the names of Members only.
The names would be printed in sequence on the Order Paper in a section entitled 'Publlic Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers)' under the heading 'Private Members Business' and would be used by the Speaker throughout the Session to establish precedence for one of the above items of business ahead of additional ones of which Members may give notice from time to time.
The last sentence reads:
The Member's name would then no longer appear in the sequence established by the draw.
Some Members, when approached, are not ready to proceed in their turn, thus making way for other Hon. Members down the list to proceed. This can result in a Member being invited, as is occurring today, on two consecutive occasions to introduce Private Members' Business.
The Chair felt that this point should be brought to the attention of the House today and it may be that the House Leaders of the three Parties could propose a solution to this problem.
The Chair does not intend to make a ruling on this question today.
Shall all items preceding No. 103 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Mr. Isabelle seconded by Mr. Flis, moves that Bill C-207, an Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since 1 will have diverging views from the mover, I wonder if you could ask someone else to be the seconder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion will then be seconded by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).

The Hon. Member for Hull.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, further to your comments at the very beginning of this debate, it just goes to show once again that the Member for Hull is always willing to oblige the House, and I hope that in return, Hon. Members will perhaps accept the Bill in my name which is the subject of debate this afternoon. My next comment is that a small mistake seems to have been made in printing Bill C-207. On December 15, in my presentation of the Bill, 1 said that the aim of the Bill was to change the name of Ottawa International Airport to National Capital International Airport. In the Bill the word Ottawa-Hull was substituted. I therefore wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House for continuing the debate on this Bill with this amendment, which may be made or may be read in a subsequent printing of Bill C-207.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If the Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) wishes to propose a change in the wording of Bill C-207, he will require the unanimous consent of the House. If I might have the exact change, I could read the amendment. Could the Member for Hull please say exactly what change he is suggesting?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to change the words "Ottawa-Hull" to "National Capital".

In other words, the only change is that instead of Ottawa-Hull it be replaced by "The National Capital Airport". That is the only change.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, from time to time we all have experiences here with one or two gremlins creeping into the process and causing all sorts of innocent mistakes. Here, I suspect there is a whole army of gremlins because that is a very substantive change. Indeed, I cannot support the Bill in the suggested amended form.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If the Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent to make this change, he must proceed with the Bill as written.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: As I understand it-
[English |


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I just point out for your consideration that since the entire purpose of the Bill is to change a name, I find it a pretty substantive amendment to say that we want to amend the Bill before the House to change the name to change the name. I suspect that that is not simply a technical amendment. 1 would have thought it was a substantive amendment requiring a new Bill. The whole substance of
January 27, 1984

the Bill is to rename the airport. One name is changed to another name.
To suggest that it is a technical amendment, with which I may agree, I suggest introduces the concept in the parliamentary debate that it is a whole new proposal that one achieves by simply coming to the House and asking for it-and I say this with great respect to the Hon. Member. I worry about the principle. I am sure that there are Members, who read the Bill as it was conceived, ready to deal with it today. That is quite a different Bill. It is not simply a name change since the entire purpose of the Bill is to change the name. I say that with respect and regret.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member is quite correct. That is why I suggested that we acquire unanimous consent of the House in order to make the change. Since we do not appear to have that unanimous consent-


John William Bosley: I did not say that. I just wondered if it was proper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I can assure the Hon. Member that it can be done with unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, the wording proposed by the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) can be substituted. If there is not unanimous consent, he must proceed with the Bill as it has been printed.
Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Hull to make the wording change which he proposed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nickerson:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I heard a no. There is not unanimous consent.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that, actually, the correction had already been made, but on account of the circumstances which you described at the very beginning of the debate, the new Bill could not be printed as I had requested when I introduced it in the House on December 15.
I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The important thing is to delete the name Ottawa International Airport and replace it by National Capital International Airport. That seems very simple to me because, for all practical purposes, the Ottawa airport is the airport of Canada's capital. It serves the National Capital Region and I think it should be called the National Capital International Airport.
As an example, as we take off from the Baltimore airport, we often hear Eastern Airlines pilots say that we will be landing at the National Capital Airport in one hour. A lot of people are often confused and wonder if the aircraft will indeed land in Ottawa, whereas it seems that many others do not even know that Ottawa is Canada's capital. Considering
Airports
the fact that we do have a legally constituted region called the National Capital Region, I fail to see why the Ottawa airport should not be called the National Capital Airport. Moreover, I think it is a subject of pride for all people in the National Capital area. It is an airport available to all those who live in the National Capital area, rather than Ottawa citizens only. As I said earlier, Ottawa in my view is still an Ontario city, and reflects in no way Canada's National Capital.
Therefore my comments are very simple, very brief, Mr. Speaker. I am proposing a goal rather than expounding arguments that would only waste time and put me in the bad situation of "killing" my own bill as the saying goes.
We know that 80 per cent of the area used for Ottawa's International Airport are in Gloucester. It would then be much more logical to call it the Gloucester Airport. But since Gloucester is part of the National Capital area, just as the surrounding towns, again I see no reason why that airport would not be called Canada's National Capital Airport.
This is what I had to say, Mr. Speaker, and I shall add no more to these few comments.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is a very interesting situation in which we find ourselves today because as I read Bill C-207 I was ready to present very strong and, in my opinion, reasonable arguments against the Bill. Now we find it was not the intention of the Hon. Member to proceed with the changing of the name of the airport from Ottawa Airport to Ottawa-Hull International Airport but rather to the National Capital International Airport, which is really quite a mouthful.
This is private Members' Hour and I do not pretend to speak for my Party in this instance. I was not at all troubled when the Government decided to name the Toronto Airport the Lester B. Pearson International Airport, but some of my colleagues were. Indeed, 1 could, I suppose, also suggest to you that the timing troubled me because the timing obviously was to gain some partisan advantage, of that there is no doubt. But to honour one of the distinguished Prime Ministers of this country by naming one of the principal airports after him in my opinion was fittingly appropriate. I sat in this House with the late Lester Bowles Pearson. I do not mind saying that I was an admirer of his and I liked him very much. But if you are going to single out one former Prime Minister and honour Mr. Pearson by naming one of the great airports after him, then in order to be fair one has to be consistent. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for me to suggest that Ottawa Airport should be called Diefenbaker Airport after another former Right Honourable distinguished Prime Minister of this country and one who served in this national capital for, I think, 35 years as a distinguished parliamentarian. The late Right Hon. Diefenbaker was Prime Minister for the same period of time as was the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson. It is not unreasonable for me to suggest to the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle)

January 27, 1984
Airports
that while 1 agree with the rationale behind the name change, coming as he does from the City of Hull, making a point that the national capital region is more than the City of Ottawa, I think he, being the reasonable gentleman he is, would be one of the first to agree that my suggestion is not all unreasonable.
We could go one step further and call one of the two Montreal airports, either Mirabel or Dorval, after another distinguished former Prime Minister, a Quebecer, the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and we could call one of the two airports in Quebec St. Laurent International Airport. I do not think this is a bad thing. I think it is fitting and appropriate that we should honour our distinguished leaders in this way. They do it in the United States. We have Dulles International Airport in Washington. There is the Kennedy International Airport in New York. There is also the national airport in Washington, D.C. because there are two airports in Washington. However, you could add the Baltimore Washington International Airport, which makes three airports serving the Washington, D.C. area. However, right in Washington there are two airports: Dulles International and the national airport.
I have no strong feelings against this suggested name change. I do have some sense of fairness, but if we are to single out one of the former distinguished Prime Ministers of Canada in the person of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and call Toronto International Airport Pearson International Airport, then I see no reason why we cannot honour another former Prime Minister who spent so many years of his life in the service of his country in this city in the same way. Why not consider calling Ottawa Airport the Diefenbaker International Airport? As I said, we could also name one of the two Quebec airports after the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
In any event, the hon. gentleman, for whom I have some regard, the sponsor of this Bill, has left me speechless. I came here fully prepared to argue against the changing of the name of The Ottawa Airport to Ottawa-Hull International Airport. However, this did give me the opportunity to put forward what I consider to be a reasonable and bipartisan suggestion.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, may I commend the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) for his thoughtfulness in presenting this Bill. I am, of course, the beneficiary of the name change for an airport. The Lester B. Pearson Airport is located in my riding. I might say that I welcome the constructive comments from the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who I think a touch tongue in cheek was accepting the name change but then going on to say that we should consider naming the airport after the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. That suggestion leaves us open to reviving that famous rivalry that dominated Canadian politics for so long and produced so many sparks and so much colour. That is not why I have risen today, although I do want to mention to the Hon. Member that we have Lake Diefenbaker in Saskatchewan. This leads us to a whole new set of naming opportunities if we follow his logic. We could, for example, eventually end up with, I hesitate to use names of current Prime Ministers, the Joe Clark pond, the Pierre Trudeau lake, and some day the Brian Mulroney sea of tears. We
could end up with various great name-change races going on across the country. However, I do not want to get into that as it would be controversial and against the spirit of this Bill.
I want to take this five-minute opportunity to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that those of us in Mississauga want some action. The Mayor of my city has written to me to say that it is not good enough to change the name from Toronto International to the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. She expects to see-and I agree with her-the proper postal address being used. She is sick and tired of the address being listed as Toronto.
The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) knows full well that Toronto gets all the credit.


John William Bosley: And all the blame.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mississauga does the work and Toronto always gets the credit. We want to see that ended. We would like to see the Toronto International Airport dead and buried. We are happy with that. We would also like to see its address listed either as Malton or Mississauga in recognition of the hardworking people at that airport. We are waiting with bated breath for the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister to send out those instructions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member accept a question?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is the Hon. Member suggesting that it is all right to name an airport after a former Liberal Prime Minister but that it is not all right to name one after a former Tory Prime Minister? He mentioned the fact that we already have Lake Diefenbaker in Saskatchewan. He must know that we have a very distinguished international college in British Columbia called Lester B. Pearson College. That destroys that part of his argument. He has always been a very fair gentleman. Surely he does not mean to suggest that he would be opposed to naming Ottawa International Airport after the late Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is worthy, Mr. Speaker, at least of a royal commission.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I thought the instructive comments in the speech of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) were that it was not the Toronto, Mississauga or travelling public who were the beneficiaries in the name change. He started with a very interesting phrase. He said, "I am the beneficiary of the name change". That is precisely how many people in Toronto are taking the name change, that its purpose was to assist the Hon. Member in his re-election bid.
1 rise to speak on the Bill with somewhat the same difficulties that were expressed by my colleague. If one comes from Toronto or Mississauga, as is the case with the previous
January 27, 1984

speaker, one has some familiarity with the dilemma created in changing the name of an airport which serves more than one municipality. It is always a contentious issue. Frankly, I thought the Department of Transport had resolved the basic issue. It established the principle that airports should bear the name of at least the area they are serving, if not specifically the municipality, in order to obviate the need to make a decision as to what name to put on international airports.
The reason for changing the name of the Toronto International Airport located in Mississauga at this time specifically relates to partisan politics. I appreciate the intentions of the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) with regard to changing the name of the Ottawa International Airport to Ottawa-Hull. When I go home, I land at what most Torontonians will continue to call the Toronto International Airport no matter what official name is put on it, or I drive down a highway which we know as Highway 401 notwithstanding the fact that for good and noble reasons the highway bears signs which indicate "MC" and the road is officially named the Mac-donald-Cartier freeway. It has been officially designated as such for a long time, but no one in Toronto drives down the Macdonald-Cartier freeway; they drive down Highway 401, because that is the name by which they know it.
When one gets involved in the question of changing established and accepted names of transportation facilities, one could argue that if the airport in Ottawa is changed to the Ottawa-Hull International Airport, people would probably still call it the Ottawa International Airport anyway or, if it were called the National Capital Airport, for a time at least people would call it the Ottawa airport.
I do not think these things should be done without a great deal of thought. The Hon. Member for Hull rose last week to make a very good speech and received quite a lot of support for consideration of the development of a formal national capital region. His Bill concerned expanding the boundaries of the official national capital. A number of Hon. Members, including the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), made quite sensible suggestions indicating that we needed to consider the designation of a federal area to become the national capital. Presumably such a designation would have some name decision attached to it. If the name of the region were changed, it would lead to the changing of the name of the airport. That makes sense to me. However, surely the basic policy has to be the one adopted by the Department of Transport.
Most people fly to what they think of as a place. One flies to Vancouver, Winnipeg, New York, Miami or Paris. Not many people know whether the municipalities in which those airports are located bear the same names. In Toronto, one flies into the municipality of Mississauga, but it never made sense to anyone, except the Mayor of Mississauga, to change the name of that airport to the Mississauga airport. Its origins were as the Malton Airport because in fact in its early days it was in the municipality of Malton. It is logical to say that people travel to the area most people know as the area of Toronto and therefore the airport is called the Toronto International Air-
Airports
port. That is the area to which most people think they are going or going through.
I would like to make a distinction between what the Hon. Member said last week about the need to make the national capital region include territory from both provinces and the fact that even when that is done and the territory's name continues to include the name Ottawa, people will continue to believe that they are flying to Ottawa. Therefore it makes sense to name the airport after the region. As long as people refer to this region as the Ottawa region, it makes sense for them to fly to Ottawa.
As far as his proposal concerning the use of the name National Capital International Airport is concerned, it would be simpler to use the equivalent of the Washington situation and just call it the National Airport. I believe the reason for that name being used in Washington was that there was more than one airport. At least that was part of the reason the names of persons were used in New York. Obviously, if there is more than one airport in a geographical area, they cannot be referred to by the same name and the tendency is to find some other name designation.
I hope this whole matter will come up for further study. I did not speak on it last week because I was hoping for some progress from the Hon. Member's Bill. However, I see this Bill in the context of the larger question-what do we do about last week's issue? If we resolve that issue, then I think this issue follows.


An Hon. Member:: What was the issue last week?


John William Bosley: Lask week we talked about the potential suggested by the Hon. Member for Hull with respect to redesignating the name or the area of the capital to include part of Hull. His suggestion was that we ought to consider the establishment of a true federal district which would be the national capital region, truly designated and distinct from one or either of the provinces. It is in that context that I see the question concerning the name of the airport to serve the area, whatever administrative units are designed to deal with it. In that context, I would encourage the Hon. Member to continue the thrust that underlies this and the other Bill.
Finally, as a user of both airports, I have some sympathy with the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) who talked about the urgency pressing upon the Parliamentary Secretary and the need for moving expeditiously on the sign changes.
I wish to make a comment as a user of both airports. We now have a fascinating position in what is officially the Pearson Airport, which I will continue to refer to as the Toronto Airport. I say this because the Hon. Member for Hull is here. I will take only one minute to explain the problem to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is an airport issue related to what the Hon. Member for Mississauga North spoke about.

January 27, 1984
Airports
You come into the Pearson Airport on what is now known as the Macdonald-Cartier freeway. Neither are names which anybody is going to use. That is what the federal Government would like us to call it. You come in from the west on the arterial road connection to Highway 401. The road diverges and you are given a choice of going to either terminal one or terminal two. We are talking about name changes and potential sign changes. Therefore, it might be worth pointing out to the Parliamentary Secretary that there are two big signposts. Those two big sign-boards are after the split. Once you make a decision which road to take, you are only then told which airlines fly from that terminal. If the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with signs, as per the earlier request, he might also arrange for the sign which tells travellers where the airlines are to be placed before the bi-section of the two roads. That might help the travelling public.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to contribute a few thoughts to the interesting proposal of the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and congratulate him for bringing it forward. I agree with my colleague who just spoke. I am a Member from the deep east who has lived in this area vicariously and indirectly for the last 18 years. I think we are remiss in that we in this country have not come to some degree of maturity between the federal Government and the Governments of Ontario and Quebec to define the reality that there is a national capital district. We have the National Capital Commission. It has done many tremendous things since I have been here. It has really upgraded the quality of life on both sides of the river in this capital region. Some day, hopefully soon, Governments at Queen's Park and/or Quebec and here in Ottawa will grapple with the proposition advanced by the Hon. Member for Hull last week in trying to dedicate and define a national capital region.
Coming to the Bill, like others, 1 first heard that the proposed name was going to be Ottawa-Hull. That did not excite me very much. It is a much less objectionable title with the national capital region. I would gather that Hull is right in the heart of the Hon. Member's riding, although I am not sure of the boundaries across the river. When you refer to the national capital region, where is the airport of the Gatineau? I believe it is called the Gatineau Airport.
If you try to have a monopoly of the National Capital Commission with all the best purposes, there is another airport across the way which is attempting to develop traffic into the capital region. 1 do not know whether this Bill will confuse the issue in the distinction between the Ottawa airport and the Gatineau airport if we tried to put it under one name.
In terms of names of airports, I am all for the former policy, and I thought it was still the policy of the Department of Transport, that airports, as my colleague mentioned, carried the place name of the area, not names of people. I am all for history and for recognizing those who have contributed to life in Canada, be it political or economic, certainly in the political sphere.
We have the Lester B. Pearson Building, a tremendous edifice on Sussex Drive in Ottawa. That was a proper commemorative way to remember a man who contributed so much to this country's external affairs. He received the Nobel Peace Prize. That was fine.
I am not as charitable as my friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). The re-naming out of the blue at a Liberal fund-raising dinner of the Toronto International Airport to the Pearson Airport in the dying days of a regime that does not have the confidence of the public by any poll of the last two years, is a sick partisan, political joke. Frankly, I think it would have embarrassed Mr. Pearson, who was a gentleman. 1 must say that I believe it was renamed for straight partisan purposes. My friend from St. John's East talked about a Diefenbaker airport in Ottawa. If you are going to name any airport after Mr. Pearson, name the one in the capital. If we are going to get into name changes why not name the Windsor airport Whelan airport?
Mr. Diefenbaker was from the west. As he is buried in the Saskatoon-Regina area, why not name an airport there the Diefenbaker airport? Mr. Laing a former member of the Government, who was here when I first came to this place, a very respected citizen from British Columbia, has been remembered with the Laing Bridge into Vancouver airport. In Nova Scotia we would have the Borden airport, named after a Prime Minister from that area.


James Aloysius McGrath: What about the Smallwood airport?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In St. John's we could have the Smallwood airport and the Meighen airport in Winnipeg. If, in the dying days of a Government which is searching for anything, you start renaming institutions, you do not fool the public.
I do not wish to take away from the thrust of the motion which was sincerely presented by the Hon. Member for Hull. I am not upset with a crazy name for this airport. That is not what bothers me about the Ottawa airport. For many years the road between downtown and the airport was a disgrace. It was finally improved in the last four or five years, I think before one of the visits of the Queen.
When you get to the airport, whatever its name, it is a thorny rose that does not have a good odour. I know that there is a grand rehabilitation program going on. When we go there weekend to weekend, we trip through the dug-up roads, the wooden barricades and then are led like cattle into the planes. If you come from the deep east and you are out of gate 22 or 26, you do not have covered areas to the planes. They think we are hearty types, used to the salt air and the windy gales of the Atlantic. They make sure that we have to walk half-way out on the apron. My poor wife's toes get wet when this happens. My hair gets curled from the Ottawa snow and rain. The fog closes in bigger, wider and deeper than any fog in the deep east. This is where changes should be made at the Ottawa airport.
Like most Members, I have travelled across this country. The baggage carousel in Ottawa is the slowest working animal of any carousel. It takes the same time to fly half way from Ottawa to Halifax as it takes to get your bag on the Ottawa carousel. Even in Toronto, with the grand terminal one and
January 27, 1984

terminal two, if your bag gets there at all, you get it a heck of a lot quicker than you do with the Ottawa carousel.
I am glad that they are finally improving the edifice at the Ottawa airport, which we all use when travelling and to which visitors to the capital, unfortunately, are exposed.
Hand in hand with that must be an improvement in getting the baggage from the plane to where the passenger picks it up. It is unconscionable to have to wait 15 to 20 minutes for your bag. I do not know whether this is the symbolism or lethargy of government, or because we are in a government situation. I really do not know. 1 think it is high time that we shook up the system. That would do more to improve the status of the Ottawa airport than anything else.
As an addendum, I was at the Ottawa airport on Wednesday night, having been in my riding for a few days. I missed a couple of days in Parliament, which was most unfortunate. I wanted to use the washroom facilities. One is hidden so far away that you would almost need a seeing-eye dog to find it. If you do not look at the symbol, you might go in the wrong washroom and be accosted by some lady. There is a male washroom by the carousel and when 1 went in five men were standing there. There were five men because the first man did not have enough room to turn around to get out of there.
These great designers of airports have created these problems. I hope anything built in the future will be more functional than that little hole in the wall adjacent to the carousels at the Ottawa airport. The Hon. Member is aware of the problem, and is aware of the difficulty with providing services to the public. Just half facetiously I ask, if the name were to be the National Capital Commission Airport, then what would Members of the Government of Quebec think of that? Perhaps the present name is less offensive. If the name were to be the National Capital Airport, perhaps Mr. Parizeau and other members of the Pequiste Government would find it even more offensive when coming to Ottawa for federal-provincial conferences or to talk about federal agreements whereby they receive some tax dollars.
The Mirabel airport has not been mentioned in this debate. By no stretch of the imagination is it a Capital Commission airport and it is not as heavily used as the Ottawa airport. For passengers from Ottawa approaching it by Highway 17, there are many difficulties. I think there is one symbol to show where to make the left-hand turn. A lot of people leave Ottawa at four or five o'clock in the morning to catch a seven o'clock international flight from Mirabel. On two occasions friends of mine have gone into the heart of Montreal and have had to double back. On the way from Montreal to Mirabel the signs are well in evidence. Recently a taxi driver told me that when driving from Ottawa I should cut over by Port Hawkesbury and go down Highway 140 east where the symbols are in evidence.
I commend the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) for stimulating debate on this subject. I think the Ottawa airport
Airports
is fine, the baggage carousel is horrible and the washrooms are almost as bad.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) for introducing this Private Member's Bill, which not only raises controversy about a proposed name change but points up some of the difficulties of getting to the airport, the processing of luggage and other things. It has been an exciting and worthwhile debate, and I should like to thank the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) and the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for taking part. They added a little humour and brightened up our Friday and got us ready for the weekend.
The debate has shown how controversial it can be to change the name of an airport, or any building or institution. I was pleased that the Hon. Member for St. John's agreed with changing the name of Toronto International Airport to the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. I think that was a good move and altered the precedent of how our airports are named. He asked why we should not have a John Diefenbaker International Airport. Why not, Mr. Speaker? 1 agree wholeheartedly. If Canadians feel that that particular Prime Minister made such an outstanding contribution to this country and world politics that an airport should be named for thim, then why not?
Someone asked why we should only have one airport named for a Prime Minister. 1 recommend that the Hon. Member for Hull bring in another Private Member's Bill to suggest the name, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. This would be an excellent move and would give recognition to the peace mission on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has embarked. Usually the first place of entry in Canada of any diplomat, businessman, businesswoman, or tourist, is the nation's capital. It would be great if they were to see the name Pierre Elliott Trudeau when they arrive. All over the world people are talking about the importance of the peace mission he has undertaken, a mission supported by the three Parties in this Chamber. I am sure that if that name were recommended, all three Parties would support it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No!


Jesse Philip Flis: I am sure the Hon. Member for Hull would receive unanimous consent for such a Bill.
We saw how difficult it is to change a name when someone recommended that Daly Street in Ottawa be changed to Solidarity Street. There was great opposition from the grass roots. Daly Street has a certain Canadian heritage attached to it and if it were to be changed, that would be taken away. We must be very careful when proposing a name change. It is easier to give a name to a new building or institution.
In my riding of Parkdale-High Park, some local residents, an alderman and an MPP tried to change the name of the High Park Library to the Copernicus Library. It was an

January 27, 1984
Airports
excellent suggestion on the surface, because Copernicus studied in Germany, Italy and Poland and the name would reflect the mosaic of the people living in the area. I opposed the change because 20, 30, 50, or 100 years ago the people living in Parkdale-High Park collected funds and built the library. Today volunteer parents work in it. Taking the name High Park away would take away the history and heritage of the people who built it and who now live around it. I think that this highlights the difficulties of trying to change a name.
I think the Hon. Member for Hull discovered this difficulty when in a previous Bill he suggested that the airport be named the Ottawa-Hull Airport. He changed that name and I think he got agreement from most people to call it the National Capital Airport. But is the international element reflected in that? I do not think it is and I think people would object. If the word "international" were added, I wonder what the name would sound like-would it be the National Capital International Airport or the International National Capital Airport? There are difficulties with that suggestion.
I was pleased that some of the speakers before me highlighted some of the deficiencies in the Ottawa International Airport. If time permits I would like to highlight some of the expansion programs going on at the Ottawa International Airport because, while working as Parliamentary Secretary to the previous and present Ministers of Transport, one of my duties was to respond to telephone calls and letters of complaint. Many complaints I received in writing were from people who landed at the Ottawa International Airport for the first time and were shocked at the state of facilities, such as the baggage carousel, the washrooms and so on. It left them with a very bad impression. This was their first impression of Canada. We cannot allow people coming from all corners of the world to receive this impression of Canada upon landing at the airport of the nation's capital.


James Aloysius McGrath: Could I ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member can only put a question with unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is the Hon. Member prepared to accept a question?


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: I agree with what the Hon. Member had to say about Ottawa International Airport. I ask the Hon. Member, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, whether he has been to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, recently, the cradle of Confederation, where this country was born, the capital of the Province of Prince Edward Island, and has seen the disgraceful conditions which exist at that airport? The terminal consists of a Quonset hut, a temporary building, and that temporary building has been the only
terminal facility for the City of Charlottetown for the last number of years. Why the Government of Canada has not recognized the need to put a decent airport and terminal facilities in one of the capitals of a province is difficult to understand.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is getting sidetracked from name changes into local deficiencies. Yes, there are a lot of deficiencies in many airports across Canada. However, do we have the funds to upgrade all of them at once? Every day in Question Period the Hon. Member, and other Hon. Members, complain about the large deficit. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we upgrade all of these airports to where they should be and run $40 billion deficit? I believe that is the simple explanation. The Government recognizes the deficiencies in many of these airports, Mr. Speaker, but-


James Aloysius McGrath: Just Charlottetown.


Jesse Philip Flis: -but slowly, the Hon. Member, I believe, can see the improvements which are made, and will be made. Yes, I was in Charlottetown, in the Hon. Member's province. As a matter of fact, I made it a point of camping on a trip across Canada with my whole family, to make sure that I get to know my country and to make sure that my children do as well. As I say, we recognize that many of our airports across Canada need upgrading.


James Aloysius McGrath: Not like Charlottetown.


Jesse Philip Flis: We are working on it. We are not ignoring it.


John William Bosley: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Hon. Member accept one more question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Again, it will require unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give its consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this question is that the Hon. Member is the Parliamentary Secretary. I know he wants to go on to talk about the improvements to the Ottawa airport. However, he did at least imply, speaking as he does as Parliamentary Secretary, even in Private Members' Hour, a change in policy in that more airport names will be changed to reflect previous Prime Ministers. I took that implication from what he was saying. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary very specifically, has such a policy change been made? And is it in fact Government policy, which he was signalling, to re-name the Ottawa International Airport the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, this is why I hope you will allow me to go on because that is exactly what I wanted to address; how airports did receive their names and why. If you will allow me to continue, I will, in my further remarks, answer the question of the Hon. Member. Let us look at the development of the Ottawa International Airport and the association of its official
January 27, 1984

name with the practices followed by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, became interested in the subject of listing airport names in international aeronautical information publications produced by member states. After investigation and consultation, ICAO established a standard subscribed to by all member states, including Canada. This standard, contained in Annex 15, states, and I quote:
The listing of airports in aeronautical information publications, in so far as international airports are concerned, shall include the name of the city or town they serve and the name of the airport.
1 do not think there can be any misunderstanding of this paragraph, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear. It is understood by all ICAO member states. It is the one the federal Government has abided by in designating Ottawa International Airport to identify that facility located in this city, our nation's capital. That is the history behind how airports did receive their names.
One airport set a precedent when Toronto International Airport changed its name to the Lester B. Pearson Airport. There is nothing in what I stated earlier that airports must be named according to those guidelines and those criteria. However, those were suggested guidelines which were agreed to in a gentlemanly manner by many countries.
1 have listed several important reasons for retaining the name of Ottawa International Airport. I believe these reasons can be summed up as; historical usage, international practices, and the importance of a name with the precise geographic location. I am confident that the Hon. Member will recognize the importance of these reasons for retaining the name of Ottawa International Airport. I must emphasize that re-naming Ottawa International Airport the National Capital Airport
Airports
would not be appropriate and certainly not in the interests of flight safety. It is a matter of longstanding policy of Transport Canada that airport names shall include the name of the principal geographical area.


James Aloysius McGrath: How do you explain the Toronto International Airport?


Jesse Philip Flis: This is consistent with the practice of the International Civil Aviation Organization. From a location point of view, the airport occupies land in Gloucester and Ottawa. To be accurate, most of Ottawa International Airport land is in Gloucester. In fact, if Ottawa International Airport were to be re-named the National Capital Airport, the importance of Gatineau airport would be diminished and it would reduce the importance of the Quebec Government's attempt to develop the economies of communities in western Quebec.
From a demographic point of view, Hull is the fifth largest municipality in our area, but in fact it is only the second largest municipality in the Quebec portion of the national capital region. In these demographic terms, the name Ottawa-Nepean would be more appropriate-as was mentioned by the previous speaker-while the Ontario-Quebec dichotomy would, perhaps, be best represented by the name of Ottawa-Gatineau airport.
My time has run out, Mr. Speaker, but 1 believe we have demonstrated to the Hon. Member for Hull that, for the time being at least, it would be better to leave the name of Ottawa International Airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please! The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Monday, January 30, 1984