1984-02-02

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House adjourned, there was still some time remaining to the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer). Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was saying something about a $5 billion transfer. I asked him about the fact that the Government was transferring in cash $1,952 billion for post-secondary education and that was all. In addition, of course, there is the tax transfer.
Even if we consider the tax transfer, the effect of the Government's transfer is that the total entitlement is only $3,973 billion. The Minister of Agriculture, in his usual incompetent fashion, was out of order by well over $1,100 million, even excluding the fact that the Government of Canada never pays the cash.
The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) knows something about agriculture and the training which is necessary for those involved in agriculture and the research and development that must certainly be necessary, although we are told by the Minister of Agriculture that it is unnecessary. Could he advise the House as to what he feels with respect to these transfers; for example, whether the transfer was really a transfer, whether he felt any further money should be spent on education, or whether he felt that the Minister in his representations to the House was correct?


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether anyone could say how much money is enough or how much is too much. What bothers me about the comments of the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was when he said that we, in the sense of the Government, were paying out its money. That to me is a mind-set which is unfortunate. If the Government wants to be honest about it, it does not have any money. It is the money of taxpayers which is held in trust. No matter how much they give, it is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayers' money. That is something we should bear in mind.
As I pointed out yesterday, we had better be sure that our priorities are right. When we are spending large amounts of taxpayers' money, we better make sure that it is used as wisely as possible. To my mind, one of the best ways to use it is in the form of an investment. When you spend money on research and development, by anyone's standard, that is an investment in the future of this country. It shows faith in the country's future. When the Government cuts back, reducing the amount it is prepared to spend on post-secondary education and the development of research, it shows a lack of faith in the future. That is something that this Party does not share. We are concerned about the future. We have faith in the future of this country. When those opposite vote for this Bill, they should realize that they will be voting against the future of this country rather than for it.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member on the excellent address that he gave yesterday. I was particularly interested in the points which the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) raised with regard to research in agriculture.
The Hon. Member referred to genetic increases in crops. There is a false rumour, particularly among city people, that no research is necessary with regard to agricultural matters, that you simply put the seed in the ground, go to Florida and wait for the crop to grow, leaving it all to sunshine and the rain. I completely disagree with that concept. I believe that massive research is required in agriculture. Will the Hon. Member enlarge on this matter, particularly genetic research to increase the yield and quality of farm crops? We still have to deal with frost and hail. There is a tremendous area of research which the bright minds of our country should be working on in order that we can produce more food. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's comments on that point.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is certainly a very wise gentleman. He brings to this House not only long years of experience, but long years of wisdom in his position. He is from an area of the country that is very productive agriculturally. He certainly makes some very good points.

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
One of the problems in this country is that for a long period of time we have thought about the physical frontier. There is a lot of land in this country that is summer fallow and is left idle. We have always been of the opinion that if we want to produce more, we simply have to clear more bush, put on more fertilizer and we can produce more. That is no longer the case. We need a lot of effort and energy directed toward the area of how we fertilize. There is a whole area of micro-nutrients that we know virtually nothing about. We talk about the main plant nutrients. They are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur. There are eight or ten micro-nutrients that are very important in getting a maximum yield.
Some very exciting work is being done in the Hon. Member's province at Lethbridge dealing with nitrogen fixation as far as cereals are concerned. It may mean that in the future we can produce cereals such as corn and small grains without the necessity of such large expenditures on nitrogen fertilizers. We are now capable of this in the area of biotechnology, I am told. Some of these matters are so involved and complicated that I am sure many of us cannot grasp them without a considerable amount of prior knowledge.
There are plants in the far north, for example, that are capable of carrying on photosynthesis at very, very low temperatures, well below the freezing mark. Through biotechnology and genetic engineering, we are capable of being able to pull out some of those chromosomes and put them in plants that are grown on the Prairies. We genuinely could, for instance, have a winter wheat that would be able to produce energy and photosynthesize at temperatures below zero. These are the kinds of exciting things going on in agriculture today. To my mind, that is where the frontier is. That is where the Government should be putting its emphasis.
The Bill before us today is Bill C-12. I attempted to point out last night that Bill C-12 of the previous session was referred to as the bankruptcy Bill. In many ways Bill C-12 in this session is also a bankruptcy Bill because it points out how bankrupt the Government is in terms of ideas and faith in the future. Instead of encouraging research that will lead us to be more productive and competitive in feeding people around the world, the Government is discouraging that by reducing the funding that will go toward developing some of the exciting prospects that the Hon. Member for Bow River referred to.
In many ways this Bill concerns the future of our country and it points out how bankrupt this Government is in terms of its vision for our country.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the Hon. Member's great dedication to research and education. We heard the same comment from the Member for Brandon-Sou-ris (Mr. Clark) who gave a very good speech along those lines. It is good to see a Manitoba Tory who has this dedication to higher education. Could he explain to us why his provincial colleagues, when Sterling Lyon was Premier, reduced their annual commitment to university education during the term of their government and just let us carry the ball instead?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that I would totally agree with what the Member said. I believe he may have seen a reduction in real terms but it was different in terms of actual dollars. I would not agree with it regardless of which government does it.
I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture here because the biggest tragedy of all is that the Minister sat on $9.2 million of producer money for over ten years and did absolutely nothing with it. If the Member wants to talk about a disgrace and about what could have been done with producer money, that $9.2 million never earned one penny of interest during the whole time the Minister of Agriculture sat on it. If he had invested that money he could have more than doubled it so that when it was turned over to people who were going to do research last year, they would have had $18 million or $20 million to work with instead of $9.2 million.
That is what the Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) should be talking about to his own Minister, because he is a Parliamentary Secretary and could do something about it. I will do what I can with my provincial colleagues in Manitoba but the biggest tragedy is with the present Minister.


Mr. Whelan:: They have not done anything with that money since I gave it to them over a year ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. Just so there is no misunderstanding, the eight-hour period has expired and speeches from now on will be of ten minutes duration.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the first point that I would like to make with respect to Bill C-12 concerns something I can agree on with the Government. That is the proposed name change. It is proposed to change the name of the existing 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 Contributions Act, 1977. That is precisely what it should have been called ever since 1977. I am sure that the previous title was used solely for the purpose of obfuscation.
I remember back in 1977, before I was a Member of the House, when I got wind of financial legislation that was being proposed to change the health financing system. I phoned my MP at that time who was not one of the brightest gentlemen in the world-in fact he was a member of the NDP at that time-and asked him if he could get me a copy of the Bill. He obviously flipped through the Order Paper and then told me that there was no such Bill before Parliament. He said that there was nothing there on health financing. It was pretty obvious that all that we had at that time was an attempt at obfuscation. Now that everyone knows what took place, it is only right that we should support the change to the proper name.
The real principle of the Bill cannot be hidden despite all the wording and terminology recited by the Hon. Member who
February 2, 1984

spoke last, including all the cube roots and so on. The real principle behind the Bill is the substantial reduction of the money made available by the Government for post-secondary education. According to estimates, in the 1983-84 fiscal year the reduction will be $118 million and in the following fiscal year it will be $260 million. As time goes on that reduction will remain in place. Even more insidious, the Government has done this through the back door. It has done it in a round about way that makes the reductions more than they would have been had the six and five guidelines been put in place.
When we distribute the reductions between the block transfer payments, we go back to 1975-76 to determine the proportions. At that time the amount of money spent as a proportion of this block transfer for health was some 68 per cent and for post-secondary education it was 32 per cent. The current proportions nationally, however, are something like 75 per cent for health and 24 per cent or 25 per cent for post-secondary education. The result of using figures 10 years out of date to determine the proportions to which the 6 per cent and 5 per cent are to be applied is distortion and a greater reduction in transfers for post-secondary education than would be the case had the current proportions been used. In the Atlantic provinces, for example, the reduction in post-secondary education transfers, using that formula, will be even greater than the reduction on a national basis.
With legislation like this there is a danger of allowing the federal Government to go into areas which constitutionally come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. When a lot of money is available the federal Government can offer the provinces a deal they cannot refuse, thus luring them into the trap that has been laid for them. When times get tougher, however, the provinces find themselves bearing the brunt of reductions which are not allocated fairly or negotiated fairly.
The same thing is happening with the Health Act. The provinces got sucked into the dollar for dollar cost-sharing scheme on health costs. Times are now a little tougher and because the federal Government has mismanaged the economy of the country it has very little money and now wants to cut back. At the same time as it is cutting back on health contributions to the provinces, it is bringing in the Canada Health Act which will force the provinces to deliver services up to a certain standard. The provinces just do not have the money available for that, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion that is grossly unfair and it is the wrong way to go about this.
This debate demonstrates the difficulty that governments have in reducing the amount of their expenditures. Everyone agrees that the federal Government in particular is spending too much. We would like to see a reduction of expenditures and a balanced budget.
When proposals are made to cut down on expenditures in any one particular area, those people whose special interests lie in that area are going to be very upset. That is precisely what is happening here. I might have had some sympathy with the Government on this score-because I realize the difficulty-
Established Programs Financing had it not thrown, for instance, $1.5 billion into Canadair, had it not opened up the public purse for disbursements to Maislin and had it not made all these other unnecessary and irrational expenditures, proving that when votes are at stake it is prepared to use any amount of public funds. However, when it comes to something as important as post-secondary education, that is the area of funding which is cut. I have, therefore, no sympathy, or very little, for the predicament in which the Government finds itself in this debate.
I would also like at this time to point out the predicament in which the universities find themselves. Unfortunately, because of the tax system which we have had in this country for so long, both at the federal and provincial levels, people have not been able to accumulate wealth for themselves. All that wealth has ended up in the hands of the Government. Whereas previously endowments were made to universities by wealthy people and estates were left to universities upon the death of wealthy alumnae, that is not the case any more. People do not have that kind of money. If they do, they obviously have not fully complied with the income tax laws in obtaining that money so they are not likely to throw it around doing good works, at least not in Canada. That money might, however, find itself some place else. What we have ended up with is a situation where institutions of higher learning are becoming dependent on government both federal and provincial. It is a sad state of affairs when universities, in particular, become dependent upon the state for their financing.
The last point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, deals with the Northwest Territories and my riding in particular. To a large extent, financial affairs for health and post-secondary education in the Northwest Territories are not included in this Act. We still will receive the $7.9 million with or without the passage of this Bill. There are still some problems, however. Institutions of higher learning in the Territories are finding themselves strapped for funds. They have not as much money as they would like in order to provide the much needed services and to get our people educated up to the standards of average Canadians, and hopefully, as time goes by, even higher than that. Because there are no universities in the Territories, our students, if they want to go to university at all, must go to the provinces. A few years ago they were welcomed with open arms, assuming they had the proper qualifications. That is not the case now because the provinces do not have the money and tend to take a parochial view and restrict entry to residents of the particular province. That puts us in the Territories in a very difficult position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that his soft dulcet tones are making it very difficult for the person in the chair to hear the speaker. If he would be kind enough to reduce the volume of his remarks a little, it would be very helpful to the Chair.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today in the
990

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing House to speak to a Bill entitled "An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977". While this Bill is titled that way, Mr. Speaker, I suspect a more appropriate name would be a Bill of short-sightedness. It ignores the long-term social and economic realities of this country.
If there was ever a time in our history to be focusing more attention than ever before on post-secondary education, that time has to be now. We are entering a period of rapid social, economic and technological change. We are seeing a society emerge where sophisticated education, training, research and development have become an absolute necessity. Even in the most simplistic workplaces we have people who, almost by definition, require extra special, ongoing training. In other words, we have entered a time in our history where all Canadians, regardless of whether they are cattlemen, farmers, office workers, loggers or fishermen, have to be up to date on new technology, techniques, methodologies and new approaches.
What I am attempting to say, Mr. Speaker, is that in an effort to prepare ourselves for the realities of the 21st century, what happens in our post-secondary institutions, our vocational schools, technical schools, colleges and universities has never been more important. At a time when we need to be investing more private and public money in training and education, what are we doing? Particularly, what are we doing in this country relative to our major competitors? Countries such as Sweden, Japan, West Germany, Switzerland and Austria are investing more and more of their private and public moneys in postsecondary education and training. But if you look around the world you will find one country which has become notable for, in a sense, cutting back on post-secondary education. That country is Canada. If that is not a step toward committing not only economic but social suicide, I do not know what is.
I want to put on record some very clear numbers which show what this Bill does to our post-secondary education funding in Canada. The Bill reduces what provinces would traditionally expect in the way of federal Government increases in postsecondary education funding to 6 per cent in the 1983-84 fiscal year, and 5 per cent in the 1984-85 fiscal year. The provinces will receive $118 million less in 1983-84 and $216 million less in 1984-85. In 1983-84 the total cash flow from the federal to the provincial governments is $1,952 billion. After listening to Members opposite, one would expect those figures are going to increase for 1984-85. Well, for that period the cash flow from the federal to the provincial governments for post-secondary education will be $1,917 billion, or $35 million less next year in total dollars.
At a time when our country requires significant increases in education and training opportunities, Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing a reduction. We now see overall funding for post-secondary institutions, particularly in certain parts of the country, on the decline at a time when full-time university undergraduate enrolment is up 5 per cent over last year,
enrolment in colleges and technical schools is up 7 per cent over last year, and studies tell us that over the next four-year period we can expect university enrolments to increase an average of 6.6 per cent. What is going to happen to our first-class libraries? What will happen to our laboratories? What about the scientific equipment? What about research in the social sciences and humanities?
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but the bottom line is that the young people in our country are in double jeopardy. At a time when so many of our young people are unable to find jobs, they find it not only difficult but in many cases impossible to enter post-secondary institutions where the training they need is supposed to be available. In Toronto, for example, Ryerson turned away 7,000 young people last year. Algonquin College received 18,000 applications for only 4,700 spaces. Just the other day the University of British Columbia reduced its number of first-year students for next year by 500, at the same time increasing its tuition fees by 33 per cent. Simon Fraser University is increasing its tuition fees by 25 per cent. That means not only are we keeping more and more of our young people out of the training opportunities they should be receiving, but we are putting more pressure on the colleges and technical schools.
One would expect there to be more money flowing into the colleges and technical schools to ease this pressure cooker which is beginning to boil out there. But if we look at the Province of British Columbia the situation is virtually at a disaster point. Our colleges are bursting at the seams. While other provinces have passed along what little increase the federal Government has given them for post-secondary education, one province has not passed along a single penny, the Province of British Columbia. This year the Province is saying: "If you think it is bad this year, next year we are not going to pass along a single cent either; and we are going to ask for a 6 per cent cut in university and college funding". British Columbia has been cutting back on the funds which should rightfully go to post-secondary educational institutions.
I want to point out for the record that there is one province in this country which has not only passed along all the money but has increased it by 3.4 per cent, and that is the Province of Manitoba which happens to be governed by the New Democratic Party these days. They see the wisdom of investing in the future of their young people. I wish I could say the same about my own Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. That Province, based on the economic theory of restraint, has now reduced opportunities not only for the young people of British Columbia, but opportunities for the Province itself.
As we vote on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important for us to remember that how we provide for our young people today will decide how Canada is going to perform in the 21st century. If this Bill is any indication of how this Government plans to provide for our young people, it is short-changing them. It is virtually guaranteeing that the young people in Canada do not have the same opportunities as young people in many other countries of the world, particularly those who compete with us in international markets.
February 2, 1984

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in the NDP are unquestionably going to oppose this legislation simply because it is not in the best interests of Canada, and it is especially not in the best interests of our young people.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. At first I had not intended to speak because this seemed to me like a very simple piece of legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is very simple.


Mr. Blackburn:: Written by a simpleton.


Herb Breau: The provinces have steadfastly refused to come to any agreement on national objectives for post-secondary education. The provinces are responsible for post-secondary education and they do absolutely nothing to make sure that the economic needs of this country are going to be met in the future.
There are some extreme examples of this lack of national objectives and of a mechanism for making sure that our tax dollars go to train and educate young people in order to meet the economic needs of Canada's future. One of the examples, Mr. Speaker, is that within 10 years this country will have to go elsewhere and encourage forestry engineers to come here. We are going to have to immigrate forestry engineers. The education system in Canada is not meeting the economic needs of the country. It is very funny to hear the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) say on the one hand that he is condemning his provincial government because it is not passing along all of the money it gets from the federal Government to post-secondary education, and then on the other hand he says he wants the federal Government to give them more. Either the Hon. Member is being very mischievous in his debating style or he does not understand how fiscal arrangements work.
In terms of post-secondary education, Members should realize that unfortunately the money we are giving the provinces for post-secondary education is totally unconditional. It is a very frustrating thing for all federal parliamentarians to realize. No one in this Parliament is accountable to the Canadian taxpayer for moneys which we raise from them and transfer to the provinces for post-secondary education. No one has a clue where the money goes.


An Hon. Member:: You used to.


Herb Breau: No, Sir, there were never any conditions put on post-secondary education funding.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You screwed up when you went to block funding.


Herb Breau: Because of the financial position of the Government of Canada, the discretionary expenditures of the Government are being held at six and five, and in some cases lower
Established Programs Financing than that. All federal employees have been put under six and five. All those who come under federal labour laws come under six and five. Most of the provinces have put on restraint programs tougher than six and five. In terms of the transfers to them we are saying that we are going to limit them, for post-secondary education only, to six and five. Mr. Speaker, they are not transfering six and five to the institutions.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Tell them they have to.


Herb Breau: Oh, tell them they have to. How naive can the Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) be? I went through this in 1981.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What is your Health Minister doing now?


Herb Breau: This is health.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Oh, same thing?


Herb Breau: Health is health and post-secondary education is post-secondary education. The Member who is now sitting in the chair, and some other Members of this House who were on the parliamentary task force on fiscal arrangements in 1981, learned from former Premiers, present Ministers and present officials in the provinces that when it comes to education the federal Government is not even entitled, according to the ideology of federal-provincial relationships in this country, to ask where they are putting the money. Some provinces will not even answer federal Ministers as to where they put the money in education. It is a very sensitive thing in this country which we have to learn to live with. To suggest that the Parliament of Canada can, through some legal mechanism, order the provinces to put the money where we would like, is not to understand the history, tradition and evolution of federal-provincial fiscal federalism in this country.


Ms. Jewett:: That is not true.


Herb Breau: It is one of the things that we have to recognize.
The Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) put some figures on the record and said we are being very tough on New Brunswick. Let me show what has happened in terms of New Brunswick. Members may not realize that in 1981-82 the institutional expenditures in New Brunswick, which includes everything after high school, every technical school and community college, average yearly increases from 1977-78 to 1981-82 9.8 per cent. That is the money they got partly from students, partly from private donations and partly from the provincial government. The increase in the federal contribution was, on a yearly average, 18.4 per cent, which is just about double. The average rate of growth of the provincial government's expenditure was 11.2 per cent. The federal contribution was 18.4 per cent. The federal share of post-secondary education expenditures in New Brunswick went from 93.8 per cent in 1977-78 to 107 per cent in 1981-82. The Government of New Brunswick is making a 7 per cent profit on the transfer of post-secondary education from the Government of Canada to the Province of New Brunswick. In post-secondary

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
education they are not even spending all of the money they are getting under the Fiscal Arrangements Act.


Pauline Jewett: Why did you go into block funding?


Herb Breau: The Member asks why we did it. I only have 10 minutes and that is a long story.


Pauline Jewett: An interesting one too.


Herb Breau: The Hon. Member is an experienced Member and was here when the first post-secondary education costsharing programs came about in the mid-sixties. At that time she had a little more sense and was on this side of the House.


Pauline Jewett: In the mid-sixties? You have your dates all wrong.


Herb Breau: In the mid-sixties, that is what I said. That is when the first post-secondary education fiscal arrangement was worked out.


Pauline Jewett: No, no. 1957 and 1958.


Herb Breau: It was not fiscal arrangements at the time, it was something else. I am talking about fiscal arrangements.
The reason we went to block funding, Mr. Speaker, is that the provinces and the federal Government realized that there was no other way to go once the programs had been developed than to a system where the provinces would have the flexibility to administer these programs in health and in post-secondary education as they saw fit. In health we have a history which has been accepted in the country that the federal Government, when it passed the Medical Care Act and the Hospital and Diagnostic Services Act, could impose conditions. In postsecondary education it has become sacrilege even to talk about imposing conditions. I am frustrated by this. I am sure all federal parliamentarians are.
Since 1977, and even prior to this, the provinces have refused to set up with the federal Government some kind of mechanism through which we would make sure that postsecondary education investments which the taxpayers are making would go to meet the needs of the economy. It certainly is an important responsibility of the federal Government to make sure that our educational investments go, in part at least, to meet the needs of the economy. I do not suggest it should be only for that. We should encourage a society which gives as much opportunity as makes sense to young people to study in the field in which they wish to study. If it happens to be in a field for which there is no demand in the economy now, I am not sure that we should discourage it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is one other fact that particularly the Members of the Conservative Party have ignored when they criticize the federal Government for eliminating compensation for the revenue guarantee. In 1982 there was a deal made between the Government of Canada and some of the Premiers of the Atlantic provinces. At the time we were told they all agreed with it. They received a special payment, called the population recovery adjustment payment,
which they were to pay back in 1982-83 because they had been overpaid according to the census figures we had before 1981. After adjustment of the census of 1981 the four Atlantic provinces alone would have had to pay back to the Government of Canada a total of $190 million. In the Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1982 the Government instituted the population recovery adjustment payment which meant that Newfoundland received $28.7 million plus $41.5 million for the fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82. Prince Edward Island received $3.4 million plus $5 million. Nova Scotia received $20.1 million plus $28.9 million. New Brunswick received $25.3 million plus $36.4 million. Members of the Opposition are forgetting that these additional equalization payments, totally unconditional, are way beyond what the four Atlantic provinces lost because of the elimination of the compensation for the revenue guarantee. No adjustments and no cuts have been made to the payments of the Government of Canada under the fiscal arrangements to the four Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a comment or two on what the previous speaker said. The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) brought up the issue of accountability. I suggest to the Hon. Member that parliamentary tradition indicates that it is the backbenchers who hold the Cabinet accountable and it is the back-benchers who fail to hold the Cabinet accountable. In the brief time I have been in this House, through the last couple of years we have seen Coalgate, a $200 million budget leak, the deliberate putting into the public domain of the letters of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) to the Finance Minister, and today we see the mess in Revenue Canada. I suggest to Liberal Members opposite that if they mean anything by what they say and if they believe that accountability is a principle important to this House, then they have been derelict in their duty and in their obligation to their electors by not holding Cabinet accountable at any time or in any way when it should have been held accountable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member for Gloucester also mentioned that the Constitution takes the federal presence out of that sense of responsibility. May I suggest to him that the federal Government does have a constitutional responsibility for manpower development in this country and that the provinces gave the federal Government that responsibility.
I look today at the unemployment insurance fund. We are spending well over $10 billion in assistance and we allow about 1 per cent of those people to be involved in some kind of educational process. May I suggest that is in the public domain, in the hands of the federal Government, in the hands of this Parliament, and we should do something about that expenditure so as to make it more productive for people.
Let me come to Bill C-12. In my short time in this Parliament there have been several reports that speak to the issue of Bill C-12. The latest is the 1984 report of the Commission on
February 2, 1984

Canadian Studies by Mr. Symons and Mr. Page. I turn to page 77 of this report. This is just a small sample of the advice given to this Government. It reads as follows:
It is going to be difficult, however, to improve much further or faster on the state of teaching and research about Canada because of the human resource problems that at present plague Canadian universities. These difficulties are compounded by the acute financial problems faced by our universities.
That is a 1984 report, Mr. Speaker. Let me go back to 1983. We have a report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) by the skill development leave task force. Again, let me quote just a small portion from that report advising the Government. At page 19 we find this:
"Lack of appropriate education response restricts Canadian growth potential."
The insufficient investment of resources in training and education and the often inappropriate nature of existing programs have been a brake on Canadian industrial production, flexibility and ability to reach employment goals.
That report of 1983 was directed at the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
One of the first assignments I accepted in this new Parliament in 1980 was to act as co-chairman of a specially created parliamentary task force made up of seven members from all three Parties. We spent 14 months touring Canada, listening to witnesses who came before us. The advice given was consistent: education was rapidly approaching a crisis point when it came to funding. We prepared a report for this Parliament. Many, many recommendations dealt with the issue of funding-how to provide more funding for the system, government funding in some cases and private sector funding in other cases. That report was preceded by another special parliamentary task force that dealt specifically with the issue of the transfer of funds from the federal Government to the provinces for the purposes of education and health. The thrust of that report was to increase funding and not to decrease it. Every report in the four years of this Parliament has been consistent in its advice to this Cabinet that more resources are required for education, not less.
The consistent action on the part of this Cabinet, supported by its back-benchers-Liberal Members-is to move in the direction of cutting funding. The advice is to increase; the action is to cut. I think every Liberal Member of Parliament who supports ignoring the consistency of that advice should hang his or her head in shame. Liberal Members of Parliament should be unwilling to go back to their ridings and speak publicly in any kind of positive way about the actions of the Cabinet which they support.
Educational projections tell us that in post-secondary education in Canada the most likely scenario for the next four years is an increase in enrolment of 6.6 per cent. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tells us that maybe we will be lucky and will have inflation below 5 per cent. An increase in enrolment of 6.6 per cent and an inflation rate of 5 per cent produces in post-secondary education, just to hold the line, a need for 12 per cent more funding for each and every year for the next four years.
We have a piece of legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, that cuts funding and takes it below 5 per cent. This is in the
Established Programs Financing face of a 12 per cent need just to hold the line and at a time when institutions are already in an acute financial crisis. Yet we are expected to stand in this chamber and vote for a piece of legislation that will make worse the severe financial situation in which post-secondary educational institutions already find themselves. That is insanity.
If you look into the public accounts of Canada, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the Government of Canada intends this year to give an additional $400 million to one corporation. That corporation is Petro-Canada. The Government says the priority use of public funds is to put them into the hands of an arm's length organization so as to do a couple of things-to buy some service stations and gas pumps and to buy a lot more advertising. The Cabinet says that $400 million spent in that way is necessary. Therefore, the Government will cut $380 million from the post-secondary institutions. That is insanity. It is counter-productive. It defies any sense of logic or reason which any rational human being would bring to Canada.
Do we need university professors, desks, educational opportunities, or do we need the Government of Canada buying service stations and putting ads on TV saying buy our gas instead of the other guy's? This is an insane world. In 16 days this Government will have been in office four years. The Canadian tradition says: "Let's go public; let's debate the issues; let's have an election". Let us see if this Government is insane and we are rational or the other way around. The voters of this country deserve the chance to make that decision and they deserve the chance to make it quickly. It is time for the Government to resign. I say, call an election. Let us debate the future of this country and get on with the job of building a future for our young people as quickly as we can.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this abbreviated part of the debate this morning. At this stage we are allowed only ten minutes to put our remarks in Hansard or on the public record.
Bill C-12 is really a very regressive kind of Bill in some respects. I do not think the Government fully recognizes the regressive aspects of it. By imposing a six and five formula on post-secondary institutions in Canada, we are effectively not only slowing down the growth of those institutions but in some cases are chopping them very badly.
Basically the Bill separates health care funding to the provinces or transfer of payments from post-secondary education funding. I suppose that is the only good thing I can say about the Bill at this time. At least we know in total terms how much is going to health care and how much is going to education, whereas before it was strictly block funding under this legislation. However, it limits transfers for 1983-84 to 6 per cent and for 1984-85 to 5 per cent. In a sense we are debating a retroactive Bill as the impact and import of it have been in effect since April 1, 1983.
Let us take a look at the effect it will have on universities, as far as the six and fiving is concerned, with respect to the transfer of payments. Let there be no mistake about it, the six

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing and Five program did not bring down inflation from 12.9 per cent to 4 per cent. It was the recession which brought inflation down. If we look at the six and five impact on universities or on all post-secondary institutions, we find that they are receiving a net increase in funding of 7 per cent in 1983-84, whereas under the older system it would have been 11 per cent. We are talking about a net loss in increased transfer of payments of $100 million to all post-secondary institutions across the country, whether they be community colleges or the older, more established universities. Of course, this is creating a crisis. For example, it is exacerbating a crisis in the employment field alone.
Let us take a look at its effect on universities and colleges. It is impacting very negatively upon libraries, laboratories, computer centres, teaching centres and upon research and development. Those areas are the very guts or backbone of a modern university. It has to keep up its library; it has to modernize it and keep it up to date. Its laboratories are also extremely expensive, but they must be kept up to date for research purposes. When it comes to research and development, Canada is falling badly behind many other leading countries in the western world. We do not seem to be placing our emphasis where it should be placed. We are talking about the future, about recovery and about job creation. At the same time we are axing transfer payments to universities by $100 million in one year. That does not make any sense to us on this side of the House.
Everyone in the country, from manpower counsellors to high school teachers and politicians, is telling young people to stay at school, to learn a trade, to learn a skill and to go to university to obtain a degree. Statistics show that the longer one remains in school, the better one's chances are of obtaining meaningful employment. At the same time, our universities are bulging at the seams. Across the country they have had to turn back thousands of applicants at the first-year level simply because they do not have the space or the money to train, to teach or to educate them. There is something drastically wrong when the Government is so short-sighted that it cannot see that the future of the country to a large degree depends upon the type of young, educated persons we turn out at the college and university level. I am not saying that we should turn out all Ph.D graduates. That is unrealistic. We cannot do that. However, we are falling behind.
What impact will this cutback have on the educated themselves, the young man or woman who spends seven or eight years at university to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree? One in ten are being hired to teach at Canadian universities. We are virtually wiping out research assistants or associates. They will be unable to keep up with their research, knowledge, training and education. At the same time, we are importing university lecturers, perhaps by the hundreds, from other countries, primarily from the United States and from the United Kingdom, as well as some from France. I cannot see anything more short-sighted than that.
We are also downplaying the traditional subjects at university. We are all caught up with high-tech. I agree that research
and development and high-tech are very important. There was a time not too long ago when the universities were the centres of research and development. Private sector industry looked to universities to lead it into the future as far as science and research and development were concerned. That is no longer happening because universities cannot keep up to the new technology and new learning. That is now being taken over in an extremely limited or restricted way by many multinational corporations, most of which are situated outside the country. If one has a Ph.D in pure science, instead of going to a university and carrying on research one has to go to a multinational corporation with lots of money, go on its payroll and conduct research under its auspices and control.
What is happening to the more traditional liberal arts departments at universities and colleges? Are we abandoning languages, literature, philosophy, history and pure science? If we are, again we are being very short-sighted. Computers will not teach us how to use computers. Computers will not show us how to arrive at moral, humane decisions either in this institution or in any other one. With the so-called old subjects of literature, philosophy and history, at least we had a chance to use the experience and learnings of the great scholars of the past to try to enlighten ourselves as to the present and to plan for the future. Unfortunately in this technological age we think the machine or computer will do the thinking for us. The Japanese are looking toward a fifth generation computer which will do the thinking for us. I will believe it when I see it. Public and private morality are still in the public and private domain, that is, in politics and government, at the university level and with respect to individuals.
Let us look at the impact of this $100 million cutback through this legislation on students. Students today are finding it next to impossible to obtain summer work which pays enough to support them for even half a year at university. This means that there will be even a greater debt burden placed upon them. Not only will they find it increasingly more difficult-and indeed have in the last few years-to find employment during the summer months, but now they will find it increasingly more difficult to obtain loans and grants. Is it fair to expect students to work hard for four years and then come out of university with a minimum of $10,000 in debt hanging over them before they draw their first pay cheque, even if they could obtain a first pay cheque within a few months of graduating from university? I do not think it is fair. I do not think that is a fair debt. If a young student wishes to get married upon graduation, buy a house, a car and a summer cottage, that is his private problem or choice. However, to come out of university with a $10,000 or a $12,000 debt just because he wanted to learn and improve himself indeed is unfortunate in a country as rich as ours. It should never have been permitted in the first place. Grants, yes, to those who qualify, are academically motivated and can benefit from them; but why should we have these horrendous loans forced upon students at a time when the economy is in a downturn and jobs are virtually impossible to find? The jobs students find in the summer these days are low-paying ones.
February 2, 1984

In conclusion, Bill C-12 impacts very negatively both upon the institution itself, that is the college and the university, because of the $100 million cutback per year and the new financing arrangement, and upon students, whether they are at the community college or university level. I ask the Government to come to its senses and realize that investing in education is the best investment it can make, far better than handouts to industries that are going under. That is what this Government has been doing for the last three years. I ask the Minister responsible for this Bill to read it again and to make substantive changes to it. I fully appreciate the difficulties that exist between the federal and provincial governments, but if we can do it with health care, we can do it with education. We can force the provinces to account for the moneys they spend on post-secondary education.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments today with respect to Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. The major purpose of the Bill is to cap federal contributions to post-secondary education at 6 per cent and 5 per cent. As other Members have noted, this capping is being done on a retroactive basis with the Bill taking effect on April 1, 1983.
In effect, what the Government has done through this capping process is unilaterally to break its contract with the provinces on the matter of funding. As Hon. Members are aware, the original formula for funding would have resulted in an increase in 1983-84 of over 11 per cent. Because of the federal Government's unilateral action in this Bill, what we see is effectively a loss to the provincial post-secondary education system of well over $100 million.
There is no question that there are serious problems in the transfer and allocation of funds between the federal and provincial levels. In the Province of British Columbia, for example, despite a slight increase in federal funding for postsecondary education, the provincial Social Credit Government has savagely attacked post-secondary education and has cut in real terms the amount of money going to that sector.
At the same time as the provincial government is cutting in real terms its allocation of funds to post-secondary education, as my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) has very clearly pointed out in this House on a number of occasions, we see clear evidence of a crisis in post-secondary education in Canada. Unquestionably the only appropriate response to this crisis is the establishment of a national task force that can look at the whole area of the bitter jurisdictional squabbles that often take place. That task force should include representatives of post-secondary education institutions as well as the students and staff involved. It is only with the development of such a task force that we can come to grips with this crisis in post-secondary education.
This crisis is having a particularly damaging impact on young people and on women. In my constituency of Burnaby, Simon Fraser University has recently been forced to increase
Established Programs Financing tuition fees by 25 per cent. At the same time that tuition fees and the cost of living have gone up, the university has been forced to establish ceilings on enrolment. Finally, and in some ways most devastatingly for students who are poorer than others, there has been a definite shift in the student aid program. In many cases this means that students end their years of post-secondary education with debts of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or more.
The net impact of these changes in post-secondary education is, unfortunately, to return to the days in which post-secondary education was a preserve of the elite. Only those young people wealthy enough to study were able to continue their education. This is at a time when perhaps more than ever we should be encouraging young people to continue post-secondary education. It is a time of rapid technological change, a time when the Canadian corporate sector has failed miserably to fund research and development. If we are to meet our targets and objectives for employment in the eighties and nineties, instead of cutting back on funding for post-secondary education as the federal Government is doing through this legislation, we should be expanding that funding.
As well, there are serious problems at the provincial level. Tuition fees will be increasing at Simon Fraser University by 25 per cent and at the University of British Columbia by 33 per cent next year. There are serious problems as well in this area of funding at the B.C. Institute of Technology and the Pacific Vocational Institute.
To add to the difficulties of a shortfall in funding, student aid and the increased cost of living as well as rising tuition fees, the unemployment difficulties for students in post-secondary education are devastating. For example, last summer over one-quarter of those post-secondary education students desperately trying to find work were unable to do so. With the failure of the economic system to allow young people to work and help fund their own education, it is the poorer students who are being denied access. The doors to further education are being slammed shut.
Canada already has the lowest participation rate in postsecondary education institutions of all nations in the OECD. My own Province of British Columbia, depending on how one uses the figures, is either eighth or ninth in the country. Regionally speaking, we are at the bottom of the heap when it comes to participation. There is no question that there are serious problems with respect to the manner in which federal funding is being transferred to provincial governments and then not being used at the provincial level. As I indicated, despite a slight increase in federal funding in British Columbia, the Social Credit Government has seen fit to slash its funding. We in this Party would be most sympathetic to improving mechanisms for accountability and oversight to ensure that federal Government funds which are designated for post-secondary education are in fact spent in the postsecondary education system.
At the B.C. Institute of Technology, to give another practical example of the implications of these cuts in funding, there has been a significant decrease in the number of lab hours

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing available, class sizes have increased dramatically and in a number of instances the availability of classes has been shelved. Certainly the quality of education is being cut to the bone as a result of the combination of this capping by the Government on the one hand and attacks by the provincial government on the other.
Our critic in this area, the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam, has pointed out very clearly that unless the federal Government is prepared to take some leadership and initiative in the area of post-secondary education, we will return very quickly to the days in which universities and post-secondary institutions were the enclaves of the elite. The appropriate response at this time is to establish, as I said earlier, a national task force of governments, post-secondary institution students and faculties which would allow for far more meaningful discussions on effective levels of funding in post-secondary education.
At the same time, we have to come to grips with the devastating reality of unemployment, particularly among young people. There is a double-whammy, if you will. On the one hand, students are being denied access to post-secondary education; on the other hand, they cannot work. In many cases they are being thrown on to the scrap heap of the welfare rolls or on unemployment insurance.
My time is coming to an end. I want to emphasize the serious nature of this crisis in our post-secondary education system. I call upon the federal Government to come to grips with this problem, to withdraw this regressive piece of legislation and to do everything in its power to ensure that the fundamental principle of universal accessibility to post-secondary education is a reality in Canada today.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-12. As a former academic and as one who is strongly committed to having a vital university and college system, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some remarks about the dreadful piece of legislation before us.
This Bill will introduce the six and five capping principle that the Liberal Government has already brought in so many other areas into post-secondary education. Of course, this process has already begun since this is retroactive legislation. In effect, the capping began on April 1, 1983.
Our critic on post-secondary education, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), has stated that we are in a state of crisis in post-secondary education. I suggest that this is not an exaggeration by any means.
Let me give some background to how this crisis arose. The system of financing for post-secondary education was changed in 1977. At that time the Government introduced block funding which meant that funds were no longer tied to the ostensible purposes to which they were to be devoted. Post-secondary education money could be spent elsewhere and in fact it was. The previous system had been, in effect, a fifty-fifty granting system. It was slightly more complicated than that
but worked out to a matching grant system overall. As a result of this change, the provinces diverted that money and began to spend less on post-secondary education. In the case of Ontario, the funding went down to only 30 per cent from 50 per cent. We know now that Ontario is planning draconian measures to cut back universities even more with the possible elimination of some universities. Only Nova Scotia kept to the 50 per cent level.
The federal Government is proposing its own cutbacks in this field which means that the universities have been hurt both by federal and provincial contributions. If the formula that had been established in 1977 was followed now, the increases for post-secondary education in 1983-84 would have been in the order of 11 per cent, over $100 million. That is what is being lost with the passage of this Bill.
There are estimates from the Canadian Association of University Teachers that the entire system is underfunded by approximately $250 million to $400 million in essential services alone. The response of the universities to this crisis has been to increase their fees, reduce enrolment to make it harder to get into universities and increase the requirement of university admission. There is an enormous increase in fees, such as a 33 per cent increase in British Columbia.
Ontario previously had a principle of access by all qualified students to a university or college somewhere. Ontario is beginning to abandon that principle which means that some students will simply be left out. Both the provincial and federal governments are to blame for this deterioration and loss of expectation for our young people.
It has been estimated that 100,000 students have been turned away from Ontario post-secondary institutions in the last two years because of lack of space or lack of financial aid. Yet this comes at a time of crisis in employment for young people. The level of unemployment for young people is even greater than the high level of unemployment for all people in Canadian society at this time. Thus, at a time when job prospects are even worse for young people, they are finding that they cannot get into university or must pay absolutely crippling debts if they do. Since we are also seeing cutbacks in grant programs, young people must apply for loans. They must repay these loans but their job prospects after graduation are very bleak.
The irony is that we are still importing skilled people. We still lack skilled people who are trained in Canada for the job market.
Let me note that it is women who are being especially hurt by the cutbacks. In the last ten years, 95 per cent of the growth in full-time employment was from women. This is a group of people who had previously been very poorly represented in Canadian universities and colleges. Now that we are seeing women beginning to catch up and get out of the traditional job ghettos to receive the training for the kind of jobs they want in the labour market, they are being hit by these reductions in support for universities. Women will be left in these job ghettos just when we have begun to see women have equal opportunities. This is one of the extremely unfortu-
February 2, 1984

nate aspects of the legislation before us. These fee increases which must be paid back on the basis of a loan make it even more difficult for women since they still earn less in their jobs, once they get them.
Let me note a problem in a related area, funding for research. Strictly speaking, the provisions in the Bill before us concern operating grants. But it is the professors in the same universities who are affected by cutbacks and freezes in research funding either in the natural sciences or social sciences and the humanities. Both of these areas have been affected. Professors, researchers and graduate students who work with them have been hurt. At the same time, funding that universities have received to support their operating grants by being able to have adequate research grants which they could count on is being cut back.
What should we do about this? First, we must recognize that there is a crisis and that the measures needed to address it must be serious and vigorous. The Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam has proposed a task force on post-secondary education with representatives from the institutions of postsecondary education and both levels of government. We must first admit that there is a crisis and then go back to the drawing board to work out a new system that will ensure that the universities are adequately funded.
Further, the Hon. Member has proposed a joint emergency fund with the provinces to deal with the immediate crisis. We could start with the $100 million within this legislation. Rather than saving it or diverting it to other sources, it could be put back into this fund. The $75 million promised to the Department of National Defence for young people, effectively for training, is money that could be more effectively spent by giving it to the institutions of post-secondary education.
As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, there is, of course, the sources of funding going to industry for all kinds of cushy grants that allow jobs to go out of the country and allow companies to take over firms elsewhere instead of building employment opportunities and the labour force here in Canada. This money could be far better spent dealing with the crisis of post-secondary education here.
This is not the time for cutbacks in post-secondary education. This is the time to be thinking of the future and addressing the economic problems we face. The economy will never be better than the people who work in it.
We are facing increasingly tough international competition. Our competitors are paying attention to scientific and university education while we are not. We have the challenge of technological change in the 1980s and 1990s which is not being dealt with.
Before closing, I suggest that special measures are needed for a rather small but significant group. There are people who are finally graduating from universities with their Ph.Ds but finding there are no jobs. Even with expanding numbers there are freezes in faculty hiring. These are highly trained and dedicated young people who cannot get academic jobs. We must provide them with a way to remain in touch with their
Established Programs Financing
academic colleagues. Perhaps this could be done through part-time appointments or fellowships so that their skills will not be lost, and then when there is an expansion, as we hope will happen, their talents will not have been lost and we will not have to retool from scratch.
This is the time for a vigorous and imaginative approach. We must look to the future and support our young people who are in institutions of post-secondary education. We must admit that there is a crisis and deal with it seriously. Our young people, our universities and colleges are too important to be neglected, as this Bill would do. The Government must treat this as a crisis and provide the money. It is a good investment. If not, it is promising despair and frustration to a whole generation of young people.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak on Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977.
While I was in my riding last week, I heard on the radio about some of the things that are happening in British Columbia. I heard the Minister responsible for science and technology of the province say that UBC would be increasing its tuition fees by as much as 33 per cent and that if students could not afford the fees, possibly they could go to other universities. We are setting up a class system of universities in this country today, Mr. Speaker, where only the rich will be able to receive the benefits of post-secondary education.
I represent a British Columbia riding which lies on the border of Alberta. Students from that area have to go 400 or 500 miles to Vancouver in order to attend university. The cost of accommodation alone is often beyond their reach.
The Government brought in the six and five restraint program and applied it to the Public Service sector to begin with, then to the indexing of pensions and family allowances and now it is being applied to school costs and maintenance. This Bill will limit the increase in funds for the provinces to 6 per cent in 1983 and to 5 per cent in 1984. This is at a time when the greatest number of unemployed are the youth of the country, when technology is entering the workplace, and when university education is essential for our young people. Many of them are finding that unless they have university education they do not meet the requirements of the workplace.
In this House we talk about fairness and equality in the workplace but we find that our youth, especially young girls coming out of high school, will have no opportunity to get a university education and, as a consequence, will find it tougher and tougher to enter the workplace.
The Province of British Columbia has just announced the closing of the David Thompson College in Nelson. This means that people from the interior of British Columbia will be denied access to college programs. It is not only the federal Government that is reducing the amount of money to be put into these programs, but the province is not recognizing its responsibilities either. It is a Conservative province that has

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
decided it is going to cut back on programs and areas which this Party feels is wrong. The federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that all Canadians, whether in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba or anywhere else in the country, have equal opportunity to get a university education. They must not be told that they must have the money to pay the tuition fees, that if they do not, they cannot attend university. What we are really doing is setting up a class system in Canada and that must not and should not happen.
My colleagues and I have stated quite clearly that the effect of Bill C-12 will be to create a post-secondary education system for the rich, not because of any restriction on the amount of money the federal Government provides to the provinces, but because of the way those moneys are allocated. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that moneys transferred to the provinces are earmarked for post-secondary education so that a miner's daughter in Kootenay East-Revelstoke will have relatively the same opportunity to attend university as an equally talented scholar who happens to be the son of a Vancouver lawyer. Under the provisions of Bill C-12, this will not be the case.
As my colleague the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) noted, the proposed increase in tuition fees at UBC of 33 per cent, along with the substantially higher costs incurred by out of city students, will effectively prevent many young people in my riding from getting a university education.
This Bill will not ensure the continuation of the smaller college campuses that presently serve remote areas of the country. If the provincial Government carries out its plan to close down the David Thompson College in Nelson, British Columbia, a heavy burden will be placed on Kootenay College which is located about 150 miles away. Many of the students who would have gone to David Thompson College will now go to Cranbrook.
We are entering an era when education should be our top priority, but instead we find that the Government intends to cut back funding. In British Columbia especially, the provincial Government is prepared to cut back without showing any compassion or desire for a better system.
In all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, I say that the federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that when moneys are made available for educational programs, there is enough to meet the needs of the provinces. The federal Government should meet with the provinces immediately and obtain their assurance that they will use the moneys allocated to them to provide the best possible education for our young people.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: a year or so and who find themselves on unemployment insurance and wish to go to a community college, a technical school, or even university. They Find when they apply that they are not, in most cases at least, allowed to use their unemployment insurance benefits to provide their source of revenue while they go to school. I believe this has to be looked at. Whatever the source of funding, if a person can get into an educational institution, there should be no strict requirements as to how that person is funded.
I was somewhat amazed, Mr. Speaker, by the remarks of the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), who said that the reason for this change to the Act was that the provinces were not forcing the educational institutions to keep pace with the six and five program, and that this Bill is retroactive. I want the people who are listening today and those who read these debates in Hansard to understand that the Bill with the six and five program is retroactive. But how can some of those post-secondary institutions keep to the six and five program, and how can the provinces force them to keep to the six and five program, when enrolments are increasing so much? You cannot use the same number of dollars to fund x plus 50 per cent more students. It is just unrealistic.
The total enrolment at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan is up by 13 per cent over last year. How can that university stay within six and five and still fund its educational requirements in order to give our young people their higher education? The number of grade 12 students entering the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon last fall was up by 29 per cent over the previous fall. What is really amazing is that the number of students over age 25 entering university increased last fall by 30 per cent over the previous fall.
I feel this speaks to the problems in the job market right now. These people are all thinking along the same lines; if you improve your education, you improve your chances of getting a job. In the age group 15 to 30, unemployment is very high. These people are turning to post-secondary education and in many cases are being turned away. In the Province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, there were some 8,000 applications for student assistance at the beginning of the year and they were expected to increase to 9,000 by the deadline. This is a significant increase over previous years.
The federal Government is asking the Canadian people to accept a capping of six and Five on post-secondary education. At the same time it is very unfair about how it administers that six and five program. The PFRA people within the riding I represent, and I suppose right across this country, have increased their lease fees this year over last year by 250 per cent. So it is not a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander, apparently.
The unfairness of the federal Government's six and five program shocks me. It shocks me that our young people are turned away from post-secondary education institutions when they are qualiFied and want to improve their lot in life. They cannot Find jobs. In some cases where they do Find jobs there is no security. There is no security for people who have held jobs
Established Programs Financing for 20 years and 25 years, let alone our young people who have only held jobs for a year or two.
I believe our country is in a real dilemma, Mr. Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party opposed block funding, which came in, I believe, in 1977. We do not know exactly if we want to go back to the dollar-for-dollar matching, but it is a much preferable situation in that there is some accountability of the way the provinces spend the money given to them by the federal Government. We propose that there be a study-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, may I have a few moments to wrap up my remarks? I will be very brief.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry, there is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, although I do regret the contents of the Bill itself. Last night when I was preparing for my speech today, I read over the Minister's explanation of the Bill. I must admit, from a technical point of view, he probably gave a very good explanation. It is something like an electrical engineer explaining that when a switch is pulled, an electrical impulse will travel from point "A" to point "B". That is all very true and factual, but he does not really describe what actually happens in some situations. When the switch is pulled, the electrical impulse travels through the body of a human being and electrocutes him.
The effect of this Bill is radically different from the mild, technical explanation that the Minister gave yesterday. In affect, it reduces the opportunity of higher education for signiFicant numbers of Canadian young people. As my colleague from Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) said, it is class legislation. Some of my colleagues have gone into a fair amount of detail about the crisis in higher education across Canada, and I hope to deal with that later in my speech.
In discussing the underlying principle of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to look at it in a historical context. In the middle of the last Great Depression, when there was mass unemployment, drought on the Prairies and widespread poverty and misery, a lot of people began to share a dream. It was not a fantastic dream, rather a dream based on the reality of Canada which recognized that on the one hand we had people with intelligence, skills and goodwill, and on the other hand we had a country of great resources. Somehow, if the people with the intelligence, the skills and the goodwill could be brought together with the resources, a new kind of society could be built. If people controlled their own resources and

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
were able to plan their own economy, then the misery, poverty, unemployment and hopelessness of the Depression would not be necessary any longer. They sketched out that dream of full employment, decent medical care and housing, income support for those who could not work, and a decent education for all Canadians, including access to university.
That dream began to make sense to an awful lot of people. They took political action to make that dream come true. Lo and behold, even the Liberal Government, during World War II, began to see the writing on the wall and took some action. The Liberals brought in some welfare state legislation which improved on the primitive unemployment insurance and pension plans introduced some years before. They introduced family allowances. Over the years they brought in a system of medicare. They brought in per capita grants for higher education, later changed to grants to the provinces. But they ignored the economic foundation of the dream. They thought we could have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They thought the dream could be financed through a branch plant economy, where our manufacturing sector was owned by foreign multinationals. We had a fairly rapid exploitation of our natural resources and sold them off at fire sale rates. For a while it appeared to work. It looked as though the Liberals were indeed able to have it both ways. There could be decent conditions for ordinary Canadians, and at the same time they could continue with a system of capitalism which guaranteed the continued existence of a wealthy elite.
There is an old song, Mr. Speaker, that says the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. A variation of that says that the rich get richer and the poor get Crosbie. I do not wish that for Canadians.


Mr. Keeper:: That is a sour note.


James Douglas Manly: A sour note, indeed. But the Liberals thought that song was not really necessary. They thought the rich could get richer while the poor got medicare and decent access to higher education, social housing and so on. But that Liberal fraud has now been exposed, Mr. Speaker. We have come to the crunch in our economy. Our branch plant, resource extraction economy has collapsed and the Liberals have had to choose in the last few years between their programs for medicare, higher education and decent housing, and whether or not they were going to continue servicing the rich. It is very obvious that they have chosen the rich.
When we look at the system of tax grants and tax benefits the Liberals have created, some people call it the trickle down theory. I prefer to call it the horse and sparrow theory on the basis that if you give the horse enough oats there is bound to be some oats left in the manure for sparrows that come around later. It does not really work, Mr. Speaker. We have seen the Government cap medicare, cap established program funding, and now, retroactively, they are trying to cap higher education funding.
Our young people face a dual crisis. Right across Canada there is a crisis in higher education. Speaking specifically about British Columbia, I wonder where the Tories from
British Columbia have been. There is such a desperate situation in our province, yet not one Tory from British Columbia has spoken on this Bill. Where are they? In the University of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, the computer sciences program is going to be cut by 50 per cent next year. Computers will be one of the leading edges of the future yet we are cutting funding. The Socreds want to close the departments or faculties of law and human and social development at the University of Victoria. They want to axe the departments of music and theatre. There is going to be no music with the Social Credit Government in British Columbia. There is no music with this present Government of Canada either.
Cutting these funds will only exacerbate the situation, Mr. Speaker. The University of British Columbia has been forced to put a lid on enrolment. All universities right across Canada are suffering from overloaded classes, from crowded laboratories, libraries that do not have adequate facilities to study and which are falling behind in new acquisitions. With larger classes professors do not have time to assign the same number of essays and so the students get less effective teaching. The people who will suffer most from this are young people from working class homes in rural areas. In addition to higher tuition costs, which in British Columbia are going up between 19 per cent and 30 per cent, young people face very high costs for room and board. They cannot even find summer jobs. As one commentator said, young people in British Columbia are going to end up as vassals in their own province.
What are our national goals in higher education, Mr. Speaker? What is the Government doing about them besides cutting off higher education at its very roots? I see you are signalling that my time is up. Can we perhaps call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Is the House prepared to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being one o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
February 2, 1984


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it has been just over one year since I first informed the House that the Adams and Sherman mines in my riding had announced temporary three month lay-offs of 800 workers. When I inquired of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) whether he was going to offer various tax incentives to help the Canadian mining industry he said:
I have heard the representations of the Hon. Member. Obviously I will put them together with other representations I have received, and examine them seriously.
Two months ago the mines announced that again this year they will shut down for three months, putting the same 800 people out of work. The impact that this shutdown will have on the local economies of surrounding towns will be devastating.
I urge the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) to implement long-term effective programs to help the communities which are plagued by shutdowns in the mining sector. I urge the Minister to put employment programs in place which will not only get regular miners back to work but will help students, who normally rely on the mines for summer jobs, to find alternate employment.
* *
*



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, during the high mortgage interest rate crisis which was created by the Liberal Government in 1980, Canadian home owners received precious little in the way of help from the Canadian banks. Banks and mortgage companies dumped thousands of Canadian homes on a depressed real estate market. During the Liberal recession we saw very little in the way of innovative thinking from the Canadian banks. As the interest rate pressure eased, Canadians found themselves stuck with mortages at very high interest rates.
There is a need for flexibility that will help the Canadian home owner. The Bank of Montreal has been allowing extra payments up of to 10 per cent against the value of a loan once a year, without penalty. It has now moved to allow home owners with a mortgage to increase their monthly payments and thus reduce interest rates. I compliment the Bank of Montreal on its innovative thinking which will help Canadian home owners. I encourage the other banks to come up with similar plans.
To the rival banker who was quoted as saying he "couldn't get terribly excited" about the plan, I would suggest that this Parliament has not been terribly excited about the actions of the Canadian banks during the Liberal recession. We welcome this action.
* *
*



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Government that workers at Davie Shipbuilding are anxiously awaiting an agreement between the federal Government and their employer relating to the conversion of four destroyers for the Department of National Defence.
On June 29 last year, it was announced that the shipbuilding part of this $650 million project would go to the shipyards in Lauzon, in the riding of Levis, for whom this contract alone is worth nearly $170 million. I trust that negotiations started between the parties will have positive results within the next few months, so that the level of employment at Davie can be brought to normal levels in the medium term.
We have been informed that the Trump Program team in Ottawa has already been in touch with Davie, and that negotiations may be finalized early this summer. I therefore urge the owner to propose a reasonable price and the Cabinet to take this opportunity to give the Quebec City region a major injection of capital by awarding this contract.



IMMIGRATION


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's Charter of Rights states that every individual has the right to equal protection under the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, or colour. This should protect ethnic minorities from future discrimination. However, it will not remove intolerable past injustices and acts of discrimination which were perpetuated by the Canadian Government, particularly against people of Asian origin.
Last summer I met an elderly Canadian who asked, in view of the new Charter, that the Government compensate for the $500 head tax which he was forced to pay in 1919 to come to Canada because he was Chinese. I forwarded his request and receipt to the Prime Minister, who has not seen fit to reply.
Soon afterward a lonely, sick, old man aged 81 told me a similar story. At age 15 he paid $500 to work in Canada so his family in China could survive. His wife was later refused admission under the Discriminatory Exclusion Act.
On the occasion of the Chinese New Year, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Canadian Government, as a symbolic gesture, to undo these past wrongs and compensate Chinese immigrants who

February 2, 1984
were forced to pay a head tax because they were Chinese. We cannot change past laws, but we can recognize-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time has expired.



CALL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PORT OF HALIFAX CORPORATION

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, in August of 1982 Parliament enacted a new law governing national ports. The Canada Ports Corporation Act was intended to decentralize the national authority over ocean port activity, and establish a measure of local autonomy in each national port which was judged self-sufficient or had the capacity to achieve self-sufficiency. To date only two national ports, Montreal and Vancouver, have been granted this special status. My concern is for the plight of our East Coast national ports, particularly the Port of Halifax, which desire and require local control. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to establish a local corporation for the Port of Halifax.
At present port development is stymied by the lack of clear authority and direction. The new Fairview Cove Container Pier cannot service all the large container ships effectively, and ship owners might seek alternative port services. Action on expansion is overdue. The establishment of a local port corporation for the Port of Halifax should provide the impetus necessary to accomplish the expansion of Fairview Cove and other port developments.
At the same time a local corporation could diminish or even destroy the viability of the port. If the membership of the local board becomes a haven for defeated Liberal candidates and other Grit partisans, how can the interest of the port be advanced? The Port of Halifax demands a membership based on merit. Traditional port interests must be represented on the board, especially the marine labour force. The successful operation of national ports is essential to Canada. Let us make sure this viable Canadian industry develops and expands on both coasts.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, considerable confusion exists as to the precise meaning of the term "opting out" in reference to medicare as it now exists in the various provinces. Generally the term "opting out' is applied to direct billing by the physician of a patient, rather than the billing by a doctor of the medicare program for the services rendered. This is the
underlying theme, but each province has its own variation of that theme.
In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland, to bill extra a physician must opt out of the plan and bill the patient directly. However, the patients are then reimbursed up to that portion of the fees allowed by medicare. In Alberta and New Brunswick physicians are not required to opt out of the provincial plan to extra bill, but the patient must be informed of the intention to extra bill. Similarly, in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia no opting out is necessary for physicians to extra bill provided that the patient is notified and an agreement in writing is reached by the physician with the provincial commission. The physicians, in these six provinces can therefore collect their fees in part from the insurance system and in part from the patient.
In Quebec an opted out physician may either charge the patient directly within the provincial allotted fee, in which case the patient can then apply to be reimbursed from the medical system, or non participating physicians may bill the patient for any amount they choose over and above the provincial fee. The patient is not then eligible for reimbursement from the provincial plan.
These differences in provincial plans regarding the meaning of "opting out" must be understood to appreciate the complexity of portability of medicare as it now exists.



FINANCE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is preparing for a Budget he intends to table February 15. In an attempt to be helpful I would suggest that he make the following changes: capital gains tax should either be abolished or adjusted to discontinue inflation as gain.
The present system is unfair and amounts to double taxation. Its impact is to destroy the retirement potential of small business persons and greatly hinder their capacity to sell their businesses without first inflating the sale price.
Further, the tax on fuels used in business or production should be dropped or reduced. Two-thirds of the price of gasoline or diesel fuel is tax. Moreover, I would suggest that the Government ensure that there is no tax on natural gas fuels when such fuels are used for the manufacture of fertilizers.
Finally, I would appeal to the Government to allow for a full write-off of farm expenses for part-time farmers for the purpose of taxation, when it can be demonstrated that such persons intend to become full-time farmers.
These measures, if adopted, would significantly ease the burden on small businesses and farm producers and at the
February 2, 1984

same time lead to a much higher rate of productivity. I commend them to the Minister of Finance.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether he thought the United States would use nuclear weapons to defend Europe from a Soviet conventional attack. He answered by saying that this was a "when did you last beat your wife question", whatever he meant by that. Does he mean to say that we should not ask these questions, that we should not talk about all aspects of our nuclear policy?
Disraeli said that ignorance settles nothing. Canadians do not want to be kept in the dark. People are concerned. Many feel helpless. They want our leaders to ask the right questions, even the difficult ones. By keeping quiet, by hushing things up, we do not serve the cause of peace.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, is Canada's future ability to feed itself threatened by a lack of research talent? Funding of agricultural research should be doubled over the next five years to prevent its decline and to stave off a shortage of trained scientists. Universities are graduating only about 70 students a year with PhDs in agriculture. But that is less than half as many as are needed to fill jobs left vacant by attrition alone. At this rate Canada will be short about 400 scientists by 1990. Governments are just not offering incentives to recruit graduates for further education. Canada should be encouraging Canadian graduates to pursue PhD studies through offering a variety of incentives, such as larger individual research grants.
Funding from our Department of Agriculture is not keeping pace with the rate of inflation. The increase in operating expenses is almost double that of research budget increases. Some buildings and equipment are becoming outdated.
The Government must increase research funding if it is to remain an independent technological entity. Last year Canada spent only .04 per cent of its Gross National Product on agricultural research, compared with .08 per cent in Australia, and .05 per cent in the United States, the latter being a very large amount of money. We must start to pay more serious attention to our agricultural research capabilities and capacities, otherwise Canada will become increasingly dependent on other countries' merging technologies.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology still has several crucial questions to answer to the Public Service Alliance of Canada and this House of Commons regarding the reorganization of his Ministry. Why has the Minister failed to assure those employees declared surplus against lay-offs and downgrading? Twenty four employees remain surplus in this small Department, while 40 positions go unfilled. Those 40 unfilled positions all relate to work already being performed by these surplus employees. With work needing to be done, with qualified employees on hand, common sense and humanity dictate a policy of no lay-offs and no downgrading.
Why does the Minister not end the insecurity which these Canadians and their families suffer? Or is he wedded to a de facto policy of administrative patronage? Is the Minister simply a captive of his senior bureaucrats, leaving them free to choose whomever they wish to favour with jobs in his Ministry, rather than choosing among existing qualified experienced employees already in his Department? Fairness calls upon the Minister to provide available jobs to existing and qualified employees in his Ministry, and to reject a practice which has come to be known as administrative patronage.



PETRO-CANADA CANADIAN HISTORY QUIZ COMMENDED

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks Petro-Canada has been distributing a game called "Les hauts faits Canadiens-First Canada Quiz," through its stations across Canada. The complementary game is similar to Trivial Pursuit, and its objective is to acquaint Canadians better with various events and personalities in Canadian history; with Canadian achievements in sports and politics; and with geographical and general facts about Canada. The questions included with the game were developed by John Robert Colombo, a renowned specialist in Canadian studies, and a prominent Canadian author.
The board of directors of Petro-Canada are to be commended for introducing this game and for encouraging Canadians to learn more about Canada. Their initiative underscores the positive benefits of encouraging and maintaining Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry. I pay a warm tribute to Petro-Canada for its determination to foster a strengthened Canadian identity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 2, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my first question to the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian Government authorized the establishment of a disarmament group composed of Canadians who, in turn, will meet with such East German officials as appear to be appropriate, as reported in press accounts coming from Europe with respect to the Prime Minister's European trip?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any specific group has been established to meet with our counterparts in Eastern Europe. I did glance at that press report myself this morning, but I did not infer from it even as much as the Hon. Member, namely, that there has been a group established which intended to meet. Certainly that decision has not been taken.


DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my next question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House, if the group has not been established, have there been discussions within the Canadian Government with respect to the setting up of such a group? In turn, have NATO allies been asked what their reaction would be if such a group were established?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I presume that a dialogue has already been firmly agreed to. For example, at the recent meeting of NATO foreign ministers, Ministers, having succeeded in their policy during 1983 of carrying out deployment successfully, had sent a message to the Warsaw Pact countries that they were prepared for an open and comprehensive dialogue. Certainly any talks that now take place between the Societ Union and the United States and members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries would be thoroughly consistent with policy established at the December meeting of NATO. Therefore, I do not think the Hon. Member should be apprehensive about a development along those lines, if it did occur. It would be quite consistent with NATO policy.


INQUIRY WHETHER NATO ALLIES CONSULTED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have another question, again for the Acting Prime Minister, who seems to resist answering my very simple question. Is such a group contemplated? Have there been discussions within the Canadian Government with respect to setting up such a
group? Have the NATO allies, in fact, been asked whether it is acceptable to them, and is it acceptable to them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to an expression "such a group". Such a group remains rather vague in his definition. Using that vague framework in which he puts the questions, the answer to every one of them is no.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. He will know that earlier this week his Department issued a press release designed to publicize the prosecutions of people who have been convicted of tax evasion and other similar offences. Why did the Minister's Department decide to drag through the mud the names of innocent people, who were acquitted, by including their names on this list?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question refers to a practice that has been in existence for a long time within the Department, and he is asking why we add the names of people who have been acquitted. This has also been common practice, and the reason is that if the individual in question has suffered from the publicity around the fact that a charge . . . was laid, it should also be publicized that his innocence was recognized through his acquittal by the court. However, I would like to add for the benefit of the Hon. Member and the Members of this House that there is a special Task Force within the Department's Information Division, part of whose mandate will be to review our information practices, and the practice of publicizing convictions and acquittals by the courts will also be examined.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Minister talks about publicizing the fact that these people were found innocent. The heading on his news release was "107 Tax Evaders prosecuted by Revenue Canada, Taxation", not "Innocent People are Freed" or "Department Makes a Mistake". These people are entitled to an apology from the Minister, not this sort of treatment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TENDER APOLOGY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, will these innocent people who have been put through
February 2, 1984

the wringer by the Minister's Department, and who have been acquitted by the courts, get an apology from the Minister in writing? Will he stop this practice of giving it one more shot at their good name to try to damage their reputation in the community?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should make a basic distinction between the fact of putting an entire group of individuals under one heading, and the basic issue: Does recognizing the fact and saying publicly that an individual has been acquitted also help to remove any negative effects there may have been as a result of that individual being charged? 1 think that ought to be clear.
That the heading of the press release may have confused and misled the reader, Mr. Speaker, if that was the result, I apologize on behalf of the Department for this confusion.


INCOME TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, recently a great deal was said about the unfairness of the tax collecting system. Surely an area of equal concern is the unfairness of the tax system itself. Therefore my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
Considering that Canadians in the $18,000 to $20,000 bracket pay at the rate of 20 per cent on their tax scale, recognizing that many Canadians in the $50,000 range pay no tax at all, and that institutions such as the Canadian banks, with hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, paid at an average rate last year of 8.1 per cent, and two of the major banks paid not a single penny in income tax, could the Minister of State for Finance explain how this system of taxation is fair?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the tax system enables taxpayers in certain circumstances to benefit from "loss-carry-forwards" and "loss-carrybacks", tax credits from situations which occurred at earlier times. The Hon. Member opposite will know that there are deductions provided in the tax system which enable taxpayers in temporary situations not to pay tax in any one year. Almost invariably those situations are transient. They are not of a permanent character. For the Hon. Member opposite to give the impression that there are those who can indefinitely avoid paying taxes would indeed be misleading.
With regard to the profitability of banks, I am sure the Hon. Member opposite will be aware, although he did not mention the fact, that the accounting system for major banks, as required by the Bank Act, is of a different nature than that used in business generally. Therefore it is misleading, again, to
Oral Questions
suggest that the banks are enjoying massive profits which are detrimental to our economy in some way that the Hon. Member seems to have in mind.


Pauline Jewett: There was not much enthusiasm in that answer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Despite what the Minister has indicated, the return on equity, as he well knows, for banks has been consistently in the 16 per cent to 18 per cent range for the last two decades. 1 do not think there is a single other sector which could make that particular claim.


BAIL-OUT OF CORPORATIONS-USE MADE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with the Minister something which the Chairman of Victoria and Gray Trust raised the other day, something which we have been saying for a long time, that government bail-outs of corporations are really nothing more than subsidies given to Canada's banking system.
Considering the subsidies which the Government has been giving corporations and thus through the back door subsidizing banks, and considering the tax breaks and other benefits given to banks, how do Canadians benefit from a system whereby banks, such as the Bank of Montreal, which paid no income tax at all last year, took its money and purchased the Harris Bankcorp in the United States for $673 million? Would he explain how that helps Canada, how those subsidies and breaks help Canadians, and how that kind of corporate behaviour helps Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not in the nature of a supplementary question. However, if the Minister chooses to reply, he can do so.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which of the eight questions the Hon. Member wants me to reply. I suppose that I could best take the first one. He alleged that the bail-out of companies by governments, whether provincial or federal, is somehow detrimental to the total public benefit. The Hon. Member opposite should be aware that in a number of cases such assistance has been of fundamental importance in keeping jobs and in keeping prosperity in place within industry, and that the temporary assistance the Government has provided has been of real benefit in terms both of employment and of the genera! prosperity of our country. If the Hon. Member opposite wishes to ascertain that, he might well address himself to the UAW in the case of Chrysler.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could make a supplementary question. The nature of the question is such that the Minister is invited to make a very long, lengthy reply, which is hardly fair to other Hon. Members. Can there be a supplementary that is short and to the point, please?

February 2, 1984
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: This question will not require the same amount of bafflegab.


TAX LOOPHOLES AND INCENTIVES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is precisely this: considering the 200 loopholes presently in place in the tax system, what mechanisms does the federal Government have in place to ensure that those benefits accrue to Canada and to Canadians?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite speaks of loopholes. Presumably what he has in mind are what other people call tax incentives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roy MacLaren: The Hon. Member opposite has spoken earlier-


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Minister, this is hardly the proper subject for an exchange in Question Period, and with all due respect to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Cambridge.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Revenue. We witnessed a few moments ago, quite rightly, his apology for the publication of innocent names every six months. We witnessed yesterday the withdrawal of a film which was shown and produced at a cost of $190,000, the characteristic of which was to intimidate. We have seen over past months the acknowledgement of the existence of quotas which have caused untold anguish for Canadians. We have also seen tremendous intrusions into our civil rights. There is one thing that is crystal clear, that is, that the Minister has a mind untrammelled by any knowledge of his Department, and regrettably he has not put a bridle on tactics which Canadians will not accept.
I wonder whether the Minister will answer this question. Will he be the first Minister of this Government on a question of principle to resign, because he has not done the job he was charged with doing?


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


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have already had occasion to answer the Hon. Member's partisan and vicious insinuations. Both the Hon. Member and his colleague are clever at distorting the facts. I have already indicated to the Hon. Member that it is my responsibility as Minister of National Revenue to ensure that
the Department of National Revenue enforces the Income Tax Act in a manner that is fair to all Canadian taxpayers, and the Hon. Member will agree that the vast majority-over 90 per cent-of Canadian taxpayers pay their taxes without even seeing the colour of that money, and that the Department must ensure that other taxpayers who do not have their income tax deducted at source are audited in order to ensure that the system is fair. Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly understand these responsibilities, I assume them to the best of my ability, and I do not intend to resign.


EFFECT OF OFFICIALS' ACTIONS ON TAXPAYERS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister thinks that we on this side are vicious in asking the questions, he should see how his departmental officials are attacking the Canadian people. Under the Minister's stewardship, what was a watchdog has now become a bloodhound.
Does the Minister acknowledge that thousands of people have been detrimentally affected by the actions of Revenue Canada officials with respect to the imposition of quotas, and with respect to acts of intimidation and harassment, which have been raised not only from this side of the House but from the other side of the House? Does the Minister acknowledge that there is something wrong with his Department?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Hon. Member is grossly exagerating the facts. Second, the Hon. Member is ignorant of the measures I have taken. For instance, I announced publicly that a Task Force directed by Mr. Farlinger would be examining certain management practices within the Department, and his priority would be to examine the manner in which we, as a Department, deal with Canadian taxpayers. Bearing in mind the rights of the taxpayer and the requirements of acceptable behaviour as a human being in dealing with taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, this shows the Government is particularly concerned to ensure that this Department, which has a very special and extremely difficult function that is clearly defined in our legislation, that this Department is assuming its extremely heavy burden of responsibility while respecting the rights of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, instead of trying grossly to alter the facts and to spread panic, the Hon. Member should consider the positive measures that have been taken by this Government.


FREEDOM OF TAXPAYERS TO CONSULT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, the Minister assured the

House that he had instructed his Department to look at the particular circumstances of taxpayers. Then he said that an attempt should be made to reach a settlement that is acceptable to both parties. At the same time that the Minister was giving these assurances in the House, one of my constituents, David Quast, of Wilmot Township, was being reproached by a superviser in the Kitchener tax office for having approached his Member of Parliament. He had been in touch with my office because he did not feel that he was being treated justly by the Department.
Will the Minister give an assurance that in the future no taxpayer in Canada will be intimidated for exercising his or her democratic right of being in touch with a Member of Parliament about the operations of Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers certainly have every right to meet their Members of Parliament and submit their concerns, and it is a policy of this Government that these rights are to be respected by all Departments. Now, I do not think the Hon. Member should judge on the basis of an isolated incident. This is a common practice that is widespread. I think the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that he, just as well as other Canadian taxpayers, is free to refer to Members of Parliament and to the Ministers who act to correct specific situations, provided they exist!


APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE TASK FORCE
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggested that my colleague from Cambridge was exaggerating, and is now suggesting to me that this is an isolated case. Let me tell the Minister that I visited the Kitchener tax office at his request on Monday, and 1 informed the director of six cases. This was one of the cases.
Will the Minister given an assurance, since Canadians are anxious to know that this is not an exaggerated case-no parliamentary committee has been set up, and he refuses to give a mandate to a committee-that with regard to the task force of the Progressive Conservative Party which will begin travelling across the country, no one who appears before it will be intimidated in any way and face reprisals because they speak to Members of Parliament?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the answer is so obvious that I do not even have to state it. 1 point out to the Hon. Member and the Leader of his Party that I have already set up a committee, chaired by a very competent group of professionals, instead of a group of amateurs who probably want to play political games instead of looking at the well-being of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, Canadian taxpayers who have concerns can write to the Minister to make those concerns known, and whoever makes representations to a Member of Parliament, who in turn passes them on to the Minister or to other committees, is certainly not going to suffer any kind of discrimination whatsoever.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, during amateur hour I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The recently concluded land claims agreement with COPE in the Northwest Territories ignored a vital overlap with the Dene-Metis claims near Aklavik. Dene-Metis in this area will be shut out from resource management and participation in their homeland. The Minister promised that any overlap would be resolved in a fair manner. Can he explain to the House why he initialled an agreement which ignored Dene-Metis claims, and will he act now to prevent this injustice from becoming permanent?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the unavoidable
implication of the Hon. Member's question was that not only was the Government of Canada being unjust, but the Inuit, and COPE, who also signed it, are unjust. They signed the agreement as well. If the Hon. Member thinks that the Inuit and COPE would intentionally perpetrate an unjust act on the Dene-Metis, that is a conclusion he can live with when next he meets the Inuit as opposed to the Dene-Metis in his office.
Let me tell him that we did not ignore the overlap question at all. We have a mechanism in place which I was requested by the Dene-Metis to put in place, a fact-finder. We are getting the fact-finder's report to the Dene-Metis and to COPE. We intend to address that problem fully. When the Dene-Metis were in my office they asked if I would address the problem after they had a chance to study the fact-finder's report, and I said I would. Frankly, I think the Hon. Member has been lured into taking this confrontational approach based on I do not know what, perhaps newspaper reports. Certainly the Dene-Metis felt that they had an amicable solution to the matter after they left my office. I do not know what they said to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Far from taking a confrontational approach, 1 want to see a settlement that will introduce an era of racial harmony

February 2, 1984
Oral Questions
rather than initiate a system of racial prejudice up there where it does not exist at present in Aklavik.
In view of recommendations from the Indian self government committee report, will he reconsider clauses in the COPE and Yukon settlement agreements which would lead to the extinguishment of aboriginal claims rather than their recognition?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is strange to hear the Hon. Member being critical now when we are just on the advent, much to the consternation of those who oppose any land claim settlements with natives at all, of moving ahead in what I think is a very historical moment in the North with a final settlement on COPE, which the Hon. Member and his Party have always wanted, and when we just signed an agreement in principle with the Council of Yukon Indians on another major comprehensive claim in the Yukon. All this Member can do is stand up and start to criticize both claims, I take it, I do not know. If he is, let him realize that he is also insulting and criticizing the native interests both of the CYI and in COPE.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I want to continue with what was introduced by my colleague from Waterloo with respect to this task force that is being brought forward by the Progressive Conservatives, because we are interested in going to the people, unlike the Liberal Party.
I want to get a clear cut and unequivocal assurance from the Minister that there will be immunity for people who come forward and give information with respect to the treatment they received from the Department of National Revenue, and that that information will not be used for prosecution or intimidation of those people with respect to their tax returns. I want a simple answer; yes or no.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the paranoia of the Members of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of Government they would like to form, but our Government, in any case, recognizes and has always recognized and promoted the democratic values of Canadians. This Government adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights, which recognizes the rights of all citizens. I believe that for Canadian citizens, this Government provides the best guarantee that the basic rights of the individual will be respected in this country.


TRAINING FILM FOR TAX AUDITORS-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SCREENING
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the kind of government we on this side of the House want to provide is one which will give the average citizen, the taxpayers of Canada, a taxpayer's Bill of Rights. That is the kind of government that we want to produce.
The Minister will know that the value of showing the NFB film "Excuse me, but there is a computer asking for you", which was produced for Revenue Canada and shown on the CBC program The Journal was demonstrated by the insight it gave with respect to the attitude of the Department toward the Canadian people. But I understand that the training film for the auditors of the Government in this Department would make the other film pale by comparison. Why will the Minister not have a public showing for Members of Parliament who are interested, together with members of the Press at least, tomorrow, so that we can see what kind of attitude is being instilled in his auditors?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear to the Hon. Member that I was prepared to organize a meeting with senior officials of my Department and also to arrange for a screening of the film in question.
I can also inform the Hon. Member that in addition to my concern about the educational aspects of the film to which he is referring, I am also concerned about the educational value of the various instruments we use to train staff within the Department, and that is why I have a group of people who are going to review the various training instruments we use, both for the public and for training our employees, and ensure that these instruments meet the intended educational objectives and the broader objectives of the Government's policy and also respond to the concerns of Canadian taxpayers.
I can therefore assure the Hon. Member and the House that a thorough study will be made, and that the people who will be conducting this study will bear these principles in mind to ensure that these instruments of education are commensurate with the objectives they are intended to achieve.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead.


PUBLIC SERVANTS APPEARING BEFORE FARL1NGER INQUIRY-IMMUNITY FROM RECRIMINATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue
February 2, 1984

concerns the secret Farlinger Inquiry. Will the Minister give us a guarantee that public servants who present information or evidence to the secret Farlinger Inquiry will be immune from recrimination that might flow from the nature of their testimony?
Since I only have one supplementary, will he also, in the interest of fairness, give us an unequivocal guarantee that Canadian citizens presenting evidence to the task force established today by this Party will be free from recrimination absolutely that might flow as a consequence of their testimony?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the nature of the question asked by the Hon. Member. First of all, he is again questioning the professional expertise of Mr. Farlinger and the people who will be working with him. I have no doubts as to the integrity and the professional capabilities of Mr. Farlinger and the people who will be working with him, and as for suggesting that public servants or people from the general public would risk suffering recrimination, I think it is hardly proper to make such suggestions when there is no good reason to expect this to occur. I sincerely doubt the good faith of the Hon. Member in asking the question, and I say that in doing so he is questioning the good faith of Mr. Farlinger and the people who will be working with him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has no desire to inhibit Hon. Members at this point but there must be a reasonable sharing with the Parties. A supplementary question to the Hon. Member for Yukon, but will Hon. Members bear in mind that the Chair is trying to be fair?


REQUEST FOR IMMUNITY GUARANTEES
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Minister of National Revenue. We have reason for the apprehensions that we are expressing because of the conduct of the Minister of Finance in the last week. The simple question is: will he give the guarantees we seek of immunity and no harassment for those who appear before our task force which will travel the country? That is all.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed surprised at the Hon. Member's insistence on this point. The Members opposite really seem to be suffering from a form of persecution mania. I said before that this Government gave Canadians a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom which guarantees in the Constitution our democratic rights, free speech and other freedoms, and as for the Progressive Conservative Members who seem to be paranoid to the point of doubting that the Charter applies to them, they ought to know that it applies to them as well.
Oral Questions


PENSIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When making a judgment on a disability pension application, and after having taken six months to make that judgment, how could the Pension Board have made that judgment without the benefit of medical advice from the doctors, surgeons or specialists who have been taking care of the citizen who is making the application for pension?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member could have had the opportunity to give me the specifics. I just cannot answer a very hypothetical case which he describes. Disability pensions take a long time and often create frustration, to say the least. We have done everything we can to speed up the system, and all the easier cases in particular. If the Hon. Member has the case of a particular constituent in mind, we will do everything we can to help.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not have in mind a case; I have in mind a number of cases.


PENSION BOARD PROCEDURES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, of late there have been a lot more cases where individuals have been informed after a six-month delay that their pension applications have been turned down. In every single case there was never an examination by the medical practitioner of the citizen making the claim, nor was there any attempt to contact his doctor or any physician who took care of him.
How can the pension board, after waiting six months, inform any citizen who has applied for a pension based on disability that he has been rejected, when it has not even had the decency to go to the doctors involved and ask for an update on that individual's medical condition?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am even more surprised that the Hon. Member suggests there are many cases. He should bring them to my attention as soon as possible. There are well established procedures, including appeal procedures, on cases of disability under the Canada Pension Plan. If he can give us any specifics, we will look into the matter right away.

February 2, 1984
Oral Questions SEARCH AND RESCUE


EAST COAST FAC ILITIES-R EPORT OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the heavier commercial ocean going traffic on the East Coast, fishing activity, and offshore drilling, could the Minister give some justification to the House why he is reported to have said in an interview yesterday that any further funding for search and rescue facilities would be carried on in northern British Columbia?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have that question because it provides me with an opportunity of clarifying the point. The hon. gentleman will know full well that I recognize there is a greater incidence of traffic on the East Coast. Of course, there is also a greater number of dedicated SAR resources and secondary SAR resources on the East Coast. Coming from Nova Scotia, the hon. gentleman is well aware that Shearwater has military facilities as well as our own helicopters and our own fixed aircraft resources, which are available for search and rescue. He knows that since December we now have, in the Auroras at Greenwood, search and rescue equipment available for the offshore. The Auroras and the tracker aircraft provide a secondary SAR role.
On the West Coast we have had a high level of search and rescue incidents that we have had to respond to with fewer dedicated resources and secondary resources. The Hon. Member knows that there are not as many military bases on the West Coast. He also knows that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have as much equipment on the West Coast as it has on the East Coast.
When the analyses were done under the Cross report and other reports of the distribution of resources, we ascertained that while deployment on the East Coast was at its optimum point, on the West Coast there were still some improvements to be effected.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into the problem of knowing where ships are and where provinces are, or where Shearwater and Greenwood are. Greenwood happens to be right in the heart of my riding and it does a great job in Maritime Command.


CO-ORDINATION OF PROGRAMS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively short supplementary, and I hope to get a short answer. I am sure the Minister will agree that the incidents in British Columbia involved more pleasure craft. If fatalities in the sea are taken as a measure, certainly the East Coast, with its unfortunate recent tragic history, warrants further funding for SAR. It is not in an optimum position.
I should like to ask the Minister very directly-or perhaps the Acting Prime Minister knows what the Government is going to do-when the Government is going to implement the
recommendations of the inter-governmental evaluation of search and rescue tabled on September 8, 1982, including the proposal that "A Minister other than the Minister of National Defence be named responsible for co-ordinating search and rescue programs".


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, we have implemented the recommendation relating to making the Minister of National Defence the lead minister. We have established the co-ordination function, because the Hon. Member is quite right, that in a country the size of Canada, with inclement weather for six or seven months of the year, there are search and rescue demands on an on-going and a national basis. As a result of that we have to ensure that we concentrate all efforts of all government departments, including provincial Governments, on ensuring that the equipment is available to respond to any search and rescue emergency.
The hon. gentleman knows that we have had good success with our search and rescue efforts. We are continuing to improve those resources. We hope that we will be able to count on the hon. gentleman and on the Hon. Member for Skeena, and on hon. gentlemen and ladies on all sides of the House, when trying to improve the search and rescue effort in Canada.
I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me the opportunity of explaining some of our aims and policies in this regard.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. He will know that for the last few months Canadians have been bombarded with information on how the service of Canada Post is improving. Recent press articles have indicated that the tests used to demonstrate this improvement have been falsified. Can the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that the Canadian people are not misled about the efficiency of Canada Post?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for explanations and I shall be happy to let the Hon. Member know of the reply provided by the Canada Post Corporation.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S COMMENT
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Since 1981 the Auditor General has said that these tests were at best inaccurate. Why are we just getting action now? What is the delay, and how much more delay can we expect?
February 2, 1984


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the Hon. Member's assertions because I strongly believe that the postal service has improved considerably in many places throughout Canada.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
Privilege-Mr. Huntington

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


RETROACTIVITY OF TAX DEMANDS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. It seems to me that one of the things that really bothers people about the way the tax department is carrying on, and why there is so much attention being paid to it, is the whole question of retroactivity. I have a constituent who, for the years on which he is now being judged, was actually given back more money by the tax department than he claimed in his application for a refund. Now the department is asking him for more money, going back to 1978. It is the injustice of being asked to pay all the way back to 1978 that really gets to people.
Could the Minister tell the House whether he is at least willing to consider the whole matter of retroactivity and the way his Department is jumping on small farmers and others who, through no fault of their own, over the years have had their tax refunds validated by Revenue Canada and now are being asked to pay back money that they did not know they owed?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which specify that the Department is responsible for making sure that tax returns agree with the facts and with the taxpayers' incomes, and once again, this is to guarantee the fairness of the audit system.
The Hon. Member spoke of retroactive audits. It is obvious that the Department cannot in any given year check the accounts of all Canadian taxpayers. Only a small minority are checked, and if it is discovered that, over a number of previous years, certain taxpayers have filed incomplete statements of their income, since the Act provides that taxpayers must declare their entire income, the Department is responsible for assessing taxes over the number of years involved, as provided under the Act.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has served notice to the Chair of a question of privilege he wishes to raise at this point.


MR. HUNTINGTON-STATEMENT OF MISS BEGIN ALLEGED MISLEADING
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns the answer of the Minister of national Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) which was reported in Hansard of January 26. The answer given, Sir, in at least three areas is totally misleading and makes allegations with respect to myself and my Party which are misleading.
In The Toronto Sun of January 27, 1984, the headline reads: "PCs blamed for tax grab". This is as a result of the reply the Minister gave to the Hon. Member for Welland in which she referred to the fact that I had asked a question on January 24 to which she replied that she would take it as notice and would have to understand the implications of the question. I was not in the House on January 26 when the Hon. Member for Welland asked the question. The Minister alleged that while the Conservative Government was in office in 1979 it gave Revenue Canada the power through Section 224.1 of the Income Tax Act. to collect taxes owed from pensions and seniors, including the Canada Pension Plan.
My question of privilege is this. That reply and that inference is misleading and inaccurate and I would like the Minister of National Health and Welfare to stand in the House and apologize for the inaccuracy of that statement. If she had gone back and done her homework as she had alleged, she would have found that the Budget of the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), during the time of the Clark Government, was a Budget which was carrying forth legislation given to the country in the Chretien Budget of November, 1978.
With respect to the claim by the Minister that the PCs gave Revenue Canada the power in Section 224.1 of the Income Tax Act to garnishee pensions, I would like to remind you, Sir, and the Minister that Section 224 of the Income Tax Act was placed into legislation by the Liberal Government back in 1970-71 and that the Chretien Budget of November 16, 1978

February 2, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
carried the amendments to this section of the Income Tax Act, giving it broader powers.
Because of the election in May, 1979, the new Minister of Finance was obliged to provide legal authority for measures which had occurred in the 1979 tax year. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Hansard of October 29, 1979, Page 706, where the then Minister of Finance presented the items within the Chretien Budget. I quote:
Essentially the bill contains the income tax measures of the last budget of our predecessor administration.
On October 29, 1979, in Hansard on page 708, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), the then Finance critic for the Official Opposition, said:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill obviously is to pass into formal law the proposals in the budget of November, 1978 presented by the last Liberal government.
So the Liberal Party acknowledges that the amendment was in the Chretien Budget of 1978 and that all we were doing was making legal, as was our obligation as a Government, measures that were to be brought into law as a result of the Budget Speech.
In addition to that inaccuracy and allegation, Sir, the Minister said in reply to a question by the Hon. Member for Welland that the Member for Capilano had asked her that same question. If you refer to Hansard, and the question asked, Sir, you will Find that I did not ask the question the Hon. Member for Welland asked because what I was seeking an answer to was about pensions garnisheed by Revenue Canada in amounts over $600, which, by the way, was an amendment to the Chretien Budget made by the Clark Government when it presented that legislation. The original power asked for was authority to garnishee absolutely; that was softened because of the implications we see in the land today.
Now, had the original Budget and the Ways and Means Bill of November 16, 1978 passed, the Minister would have been authorized to "require". In the Crosbie amendment to that authority, it was limited to amounts over $600. Therefore, when the Minister alleges that the Progressive Conservative Party is guilty of this "tax grab", she has done so quite improperly, Sir, and I believe she should rise and apologize for that imputed allegation.


An Hon. Member:: What is the question?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The question of privilege is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has misled the House and has made improper allegations with respect to the Official Opposition and should correct the record.
Another point of my question of privilege concerning where the Minister has misled, Mr. Speaker, is that when pensioners have been garnisheed by the Minister of National Revenue, the only way they can protest that garnishment is to apply to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or her Department for a guaranteed income supplement to lessen the hardship which has been imposed by the Minister of National Revenue.
In her reply to the Hon. Member for Welland on January 26, she said she was in negotiation with the Minister of National Revenue, which she does not have the power to do. The only power she has, Sir, is when there is hardship created by a garnishment of pension; she can then grant a guaranteed income supplement to offset the hardship, which is a signal to the Minister of National Revenue that he must back off the garnishment order.
In three areas, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has misled the House and has been totally inaccurate in her allegation that the Progressive Conservative Party is responsible for the legislation which now applies in terms of Revenue Canada and its attack on pensioners. She has admitted that there are several hundred cases where hardship is being caused; and I feel she should do the right thing. Sir, and stand in her place and apologize for the inaccuracy of her allegation.
In addition, Sir, may I remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Government that in two Bills in the Thirty-second Parliament, that aspect of Section 224 of the Income Tax Act has been further toughened by amendments in Bill C-54 and Bill C-139. The power of the Minister of National Revenue has been further strengthened in the matter of garnisheeing payments due to provinces and or other Departments of the Government. The Minister should do the right thing, Sir, correct the record and remove the implied inference of "tax grab" with respect to both myself and my Party.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Monique Bégin: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is up to you to decide whether this is indeed a question of privilege. After listening to the Hon. Member, I think it is simply that he is not satisfied with the facts I gave. Therefore, I have no intention to withdraw anything or to offer my apologies. I am not too sure about what so upset him, except perhaps the truth, in the sense that I did say-unfortunately, I have just received Hansard-I did say that when the Conservatives were in office they were the ones who let this Bill come into effect through Royal Assent.
I did not go into all the details mentioned by the Hon. Member, but one thing is certain, and if the Hon. Member does not even understand what I have just said, I will repeat, they did nothing to stop the proceedings, meaning that when they want to act as do-gooders and accuse others of resorting to well established practices, they should first do their homework and ascertain the facts before they make them public. That is all I was talking about.

February 2, 1984
As to the appeal procedure he referred to, I fail to see what it is all about. That is not what I talked about. I explained that our officials-and I repeat this for those who are interested- when they are dealing with amounts under $600, and I recall very well saying that in the House, our officials have agreements to the effect that no action is taken against people, and so on.
If the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the facts I gave, which are all true, that is his problem, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize but not to him, I mean he is not satisfied with the facts, 1 do not see where there is a question of privilege and I make no apology in that respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened to the exchange between Hon. Members and I would like to make just two observations. First, a question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity, and I cite Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Section 82. Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled on September 27, 1971 that this has to be taken quite literally. A delay of a few days denies the essential element of priority in the discussion and any finding that has to be made.
The Chair is tempted to remark at this point that there appear to be differences as to fact. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has set his case clearly on the record and the Minister has made her observations. This is Parliament, and at this point the Chair has to find there is no prima facie case of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we know that tomorrow is an allotted day. May I ask the Government House Leader what the business of the House will be for next week, as far as he can take us?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is an allotted day. Monday will be the seventh day of debate on the Speech from the Throne. Tuesday and Wednesday will be, assuming Bill C-12 is not disposed of today, Bills C-12, C-14, C-7, C-8, C-15, C-16 and C-9. Thursday will be the eighth day of debate on the Speech from the Throne, and I would like to indicate that the Prime Minister will want to speak early next Thursday, mainly to, among other things, report on his peace initiative. If any Members on the other side would like to speak on the same subject, they know in advance that the Prime Minister will speak in the House next Thursday on this issue.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Government House Leader for that outline. He said "early" next Thursday. Can
Point of Order-Mr. Epp
he indicate now whether the Prime Minister will be rising first at eleven o'clock on that day?


Yvon Pinard: It is certainly the intent to have the Prime Minister speak at the very beginning of the parliamentary day, but it is difficult to know in advance who will have had the floor previously. That can be arranged among ourselves. I am willing to discuss this with the House Leaders to make sure that if we plan a day to debate peace issues, the Prime Minister could speak at eleven o'clock followed by whoever wants to speak on this issue from the other side. I am open-minded on that. Failing any firm agreement, I think the Prime Minister will seize the first opportunity next Thursday to report on his peace initiative.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: At this point the Chair is prepared to rule on matters raised on Monday, January 30, involving the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and others, as well as the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Is it the wish of the Opposition House Leader that the Chair rule now or await the presence of the Hon. Member for Provencher in the House?


Erik Nielsen: The House Leader of the Opposition would like to hear the ruling now.


Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, January 30, 1984, the Hon. Member for Provencher raised a point of order relating to the procedure of tabling of documents by a Minister, and more specifically the tabling of certain correspondence by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on Friday, January 27, 1984.
I have reviewed the contributions of Hon. Members to the procedural debate that ensued. Their comments have been most useful in assisting the Chair in reaching a decision on this question.
I would first like to address the major points made by the Hon. Member for provencher, He raised four basic and important issues relating to the rules and practices of the House pertaining to the tabling of documents pursuant to Standing Order 46.
In the first instance, the Hon. Member stated that the Minister required unanimous consent to table the documents in question. In support of his argument, he quoted Speaker Jerome from Hansard at page 5955 on June 1, 1978. A close look at the proceedings of that day reveals that my predecessor was in fact responding to a request from a member of the Opposition to print, as an appendix to Hansard, by unanimous consent, a certain document that had been referred to during a debate on an alleged question of privilege. The said document was indeed tabled and printed by unanimous consent. That was a proceeding and a decision of the House to proceed by

February 2, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Epp
unanimous consent but it was not a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome that such tabling could only be done by unanimous consent.
In the opinion of the Chair, the Minister of Finance did not require unanimous consent to table the documents pursuant to Standing Order 46(2).
This leads me to the second point that the Flon. Member for Provencher made, which relates to the interpretation of Standing Order 46(2). The Flon. Member stated that the correspondence that the Minister of Finance tabled last Friday was of a private nature and, therefore, should not have been tabled since it was not a matter "coming within the administrative responsibilities of the Government", as required by the Standing Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in speaking to that point quoted Citation 327, paragraph 7 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which states:
When a letter, even though it may have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of a record of a department, it becomes a public document, and if quoted by a Minister in debate, must be tabled on request.
The authority for this citation is found in a ruling made by Speaker Lamoureux on February 22, 1972, and he was very precise when he said:
This has always been the difficulty in the past-to determine what is a public document and what is a private document. My thought is that if a letter, even though it might have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of the record of a department it becomes at that point a public document and a state paper. It seems to me that the documents to which the Minister has referred are part of the official penitentiary papers or are documents within the possession of the penitentiary officials of the department, and I would ... think that any document of this kind which is cited ... by the Minister ought to be tabled in the House.
Thirdly, the Hon. Member referred to the practice that correspondence between a Private Member and a Minister should not be tabled. He quoted Citation 379, paragraph 1, and a reference to Hansard of January 8, 1974, where the then Speaker disallowed the tabling of such correspondence. I agree with the Hon. Member. It has been a practice of this House not to allow the tabling of correspondence between a Minister and a Member. However, I must point out that the correspondence that was tabled in this case was correspondence exchanged with the Minister of Finance before the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) was a Member of this House. The Chair is very hesitant to extend the usual exemption to correspondence or documents that pre-date the election of a Member to the House of Commons. That would be a major departure from the spirit of that rule and the special status afforded to all Hon. Members.
Fourthly, the Hon. Member for Provencher also stated that the Minister could only table a document when he was required to do so, either pursuant to Standing Order 46, or in conformity with the long established practice whereby a Minister, having quoted a document, would be compelled to produce it. In answer to that argument, I must tell him that Citation 379, paragraph 2 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition makes it quite clear that papers can be laid before the House voluntarily by a Minister under the provisions of Standing Order 46, and that this is a frequent occurrence. To interpret the rule differently would not be in the best interest of both
sides of the House. Furthermore, the record indicates that the Minister was challenged to do so by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.
The Hon. Members for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) and St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) have asked me to look at the provisions of the Privacy Act, more particularly Sections 4 and 40 of that Statute. The only obligation or duty conferred on the Speaker that I found in the Privacy Act is that of tabling in the House the reports made by the Privacy Commissioner pursuant to Sections 38 and 39 of the said Act. The office of the Speaker is mentioned nowhere else in that Act.
My respectful submission on this point, and it has been the submission of all my predecessors, is that the Speaker rules only on points of procedure. Standing Order 15(1) empowers the Chair to decide questions of order. Questions of law are decided by the courts. The Speaker has no role or responsibility in the specific interpretation of the Privacy Act.
The Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), in his intervention, pointed out discrepancies between the English and French texts of the document tabled by the Minister of Finance. The Chair recognizes that the Hon. Member may have a point, but his point relates clearly to the interpretation he has given to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance and not to the irregularity in the procedure for the tabling of documents. The Chair, I hasten to add, does not pronounce on the value, the exactness or the quality of the translation of the content of documents laid upon the Table by Ministers of the Crown. The Chair must address only the process and practice of the tabling of such documents.
The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), in his remarks, invoked Standing Order 39 and referred to Citations 145 and 150 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition and my own recent ruling on January 24, 1984. I have reviewed carefully all the references he advanced and must tell him I found little that I could relate to this point of order. The thrust of his intervention dealt with a procedure completely different from that of the tabling of documents; namely that of making a formal charge. Whatever allegations may have been made in the context of this unfortunate incident, no substantive accusation of criminal or improper conduct as envisaged by Standing Order 39 has been made against the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Finally, Hon. Members have asked the Chair to rule on the propriety of the Minister's actions in releasing what he considers a private representation by the then President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada on behalf of his employees. It is well known that the occupants of the Chair do not rule on matters of propriety and thankfully so. The role of the Speaker is to rule on matters of procedure. Whether or not a Minister acts properly or whether or not he has committed a breach of trust by releasing private correspondence is not a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Speaker. The Minister has
February 2, 1984

already admitted his mistake in the House and has apologized to the House and to the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The apology is on the record. I point out that the letters were tabled with the agreement of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Having carefully reviewed all of the procedural aspects of the question that has been raised, I have concluded that this is not a point of order. The issues are clearly related to propriety, etiquette and parliamentary ethics. May I remind the House that the Chair cannot rule on those issues, which are entirely the responsiblity of each Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) also raised a point of order. 1 will rule on it also.
Following the procedural debate on the point of order that I have just ruled on, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands raised a distinct point of order relating to discrepancies between the electronic record and the printed record of the debate. The Hon. Member referred quite rightly to Citations 155(1) and 155(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which govern our practice on matters such as the one she has raised.
Let me first emphasize that I have reviewed the "blues" and the editorial changes and can confirm that none of the alterations originated from the Minister of Finance. The editorial changes in question were done by the Hansard editor. Hon. Members will remember a recent ruling by my immediate predecessor involving editorial alterations to Hansard on an exchange between the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). Madam Speaker Sauve then said:
1 may remind Hon. Members that Hansard is not a verbatim transcript of the Debates. It is a transcript in extenso of the Debates and obviously, in the case of repetition or for a number of other reasons such as more specific identification, it is acceptable to make changes so that anyone reading Hansard will get the meaning of what was said.
The rule is that when Hon. Members correct their blues, they are not to change the substance or meaning of what they said but only try to improve comprehension of the text. That is the rule and the same rule applies to those who edit Hansard. They must not go beyond their obligation to make a sentence more readable, since there is, after all, some difference between the spoken and the written word.
On comparing the tapes and the blues in the present case, there appears to me one change of substance; that is the deletion of the words "in my back". Presumably that expression came from the French expression "dans mon dos" which would be more appropriately rendered in English as "behind my back". The Chair thinks that the editorial licence granted to Hansard may have been slightly exceeded, although in good faith, if that was what the Minister meant to say. If that was not what he meant, then the editor was right in his action since in English the expression "in my back" has no particular meaning. The Chair certainly does not want to rule on what Hon. Members mean when they use certain words or phrases in the course of debate. All Hon. Members will agree with me that the Chair has no editing function.
However, the point the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands raised is one of great consequence to this institution. Our British colleagues have dealt with this problem since the
Order Paper Questions
introduction of radio broadcasting in their own House. They have decided that Hansard is the authoritative version of their debates. Our House, unfortunately, has not yet formally addressed this issue. It may be time for Hansard to become more and more a verbatim report with only exceptional editorial intervention. Alternatively, the House may wish to preserve the supremacy of Hansard over the electronic tapes since the latter are often inaudible and the House must rely on the judgment of the Hansard reporter on the floor of the House.
I respectfully suggest that that decision is not one for your Speaker and ought to be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization since it now has a new mandate under our provisional rules.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of 288 of my constituents, most of whom are distillery workers or families and friends of those distillery workers. They are concerned about the unfair taxation of their product and the resulting loss of jobs at the plant at Gimli, Manitoba, and call upon Parliament to replace the system of automatically indexing excise taxes with a system which will permit a knowledgeable and realistic application of these duties.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 48, 82, 109, 120, 174 and 254.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are the administrative offices of the Department of Agriculture, which are currently located in Saskatoon (that is the prairie regional headquarters of the research branch, the finance directorate of the finance and administration branch, the administration directorate and personnel) to be relocated within the year, in Regina, Saskatchewan and, if so (a) to what address or addresses (b) for what reason?
2.	Was a tendering procedure followed in the selection of the building or buildings and, if so, what was it?

February 2, 1984
Order Paper Questions


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Public Works as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) Not yet known, (b) To improve the co-ordination and delivery of agricultural programs at the regional level; to improve communications between provincial and federal agriculture offices; and to economize in internal operations and support services.
2.	Tendering procedure has not been initiated for the Agriculture Canada relocation described in part 1.
EM&R-EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PUBLIC RELATIONS


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


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: Forty-three.


Mr. Stewart: In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 to date, what was the total amount paid to residents of the constituency of Simcoe South under the (i) Canada Oil Substitution Program (ii) Canada Home Insulation Program?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
The requested information for the constituency of Simcoe South is not readily available. To provide such information would require a lengthy and costly review of thousands of files to determine precisely where, within a province, a payment was directed. Therefore, total payments to residents of the Province of Ontario under the Canada Oil Substitution Program (effective May 1, 1981) are being shown.
(i) (a) 1980-nil
(b)	1981-$27,575,500
(c)	1982-$60,948,400
(d)	January 1, 1983-November 30, 1983-$31,523,900
Data under the Canadian Home Insulation Program is not available by riding. Statistics under this program are available on a provincial basis only. Therefore, total payments to residents of the Province of Ontario under the Canada Home Insulation Program are being shown.
(ii) (a) 1980-$110,906,691
(b)	1981-$ 49,996,143
(c)	1982-$ 67,719,881
(d)	1983 (10 November 30, 1983)-$26,841,247


Mr. Stewart: For the fiscal year 1983-84, what is the estimated budget of the Purchase and Use of Solar Heating (PUSH) Program?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: The
estimated budget for fiscal year 1983-84 for the Purchase and Use of Solar Heating (PUSH) Program is established at $2,889,000.


Mr. Mazankowski: On October 1, 1983, did the Farm Credit Corporation have any loans outstanding which yielded annually (a) less than 8 per cent (b) 8-10 per cent (c) 10-12 percent (d) 12-14 per cent (e) 14-16 per cent (f) 16-18 per cent (g) over 18 per cent and, if so, in each case (i) how many (ii) what was the average amount of each (iii) what was the total amount outstanding and for each month from January to October, 1983 inclusive, how much interest did the Corporation earn from such loans?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows:
(0	(ii)	(Hi)(a)	35,378	$ 20,660	$ 730,916,512(b)	22,226	67,854	1,508,139,038(c)	5,851	109,587	641,192,131(d)	9,940	123,420	1,226,800,949(c)	3,367	98,308	331,004,182(0	3,299	105,051	346,563,057(g)	-	-	-
The above categories are based on nominal interest rate yields. Interest earned by month is as follows:
1983	Amount
January	$35,134,642
February	31,903,292
March	35,605,845
April	35,077,201
May	37,718,720
June	37,846,945
July	40,175,897
August	40,989,568
September	40,059,063
October	(data not available)


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): During 1983 were any farms seized by the Farm Credit Corporation in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton and, if so, what (a) real estate firms were used to dispose of them (b) amount of commission was paid to the firms?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.
February 2, 1984


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments today on Bill C-12, which is an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 and, with a new title, separates to some extent the health portion and the post-secondary education portion of this Act. 1 have been patiently waiting for the last two days for some of my Progressive Conservative colleagues from Saskatchewan to protest this Act. So far, none of those Members has indicated any concern about this particular Act.
The Act, Mr. Speaker, is retroactive in that it goes back to April 1, 1983. Consequently it takes away money which some of the post-secondary education institutions have already budgeted and, in many cases, spent. Therefore, it is going to have a very detrimental effect on many of those institutions. Clause 5 does make this division between health and postsecondary education. I must say that is not all bad. In the past it has been quite common for the provinces and the federal Government to hide behind block funding. Provinces say that they have not received the funds or the federal Government says it has given more than the provinces have received or say they have received. Consequently, this may have the effect of making it possible to check the exact amount of money which the federal Government gives, an amount which is going to be considerably less in the next few years. Not only is the federal Government attempting to reduce the amount from last year and for next year but it is reducing the base from which those calculations are made.
Established Programs Financing
Clause 7 in the Bill indicates that the name of the Bill is really a cutback for post-secondary education. The Bill limits the escalation in growth of the per capita entitlement to 6 per cent in 1983-1984 and to 5 per cent in 1984-1985.
In Canada we have a long tradition of public education. We have made the attempt municipally, provincially and federally to provide education which is universal and of which everybody can take advantage. Education is accessible to everyone whether or not a person is able to pay a high price. We have also made it comprehensive. We have tried to cover all the fields of education. In the process, we have spent a good deal of time and effort making the Canadian educational system one of the best in the world. We used to accept universal education as elementary education up to grade eight. It is now extended and takes in high school as well. In the last decade or two we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to have in place an educational system which provides the necessary training, post-secondary in most cases, for people to take their place in life and to accept jobs. In the past, the federal Government has assisted to a considerable degree in the development of post-secondary programs by providing funds for the building of facilities, and in some cases funds to operate those facilities. The provinces and the school boards which operate these programs have appreciated that assistance, although in the fairly typical approach of this Government, it has often given money, provided the program, got them started and then withdrawn from them, leaving the provinces or the school boards holding the bag. That is exactly what the Government is doing again. The Government is reducing the amount of money that will be available for the operation of the programs to such an extent that many of the programs will be detrimentally affected in the next few years. In the process of effectively reducing the funds for postsecondary education, this Government is attacking the quality of education, the universality, the accessibility and probably the comprehensiveness of it.
We have developed an educational system which has made itself available to everyone, as far as possible, to everyone in all corners of Canada. The Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of the Yukon have in place popular and very strong programs which have allowed students to go to universities or training institutions even if those institutions are not in their own area. Accessibility is also attacked by cutbacks because accessibility can be affected by a program costing too much for an individual. It is only accessible to a person if that person can afford it. The moment that accessibility is changed, we eliminate the lower strata of the income group. We eliminate those students who might want to go to a university or get other training and thus we eliminate the ability and the right to get that kind of training. We eliminate those students who are unable to afford the cost. By cutting back on the amount of funds available to the provinces to carry on their programs, we do affect the accessibility of programs. Students can be affected by this cutback, not only because of

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
the distance from an institution but because of the cost of getting into those institutions.
We have attempted to establish training in all areas of education. We have done a good job of it across Canada. We have institutions which will give to students almost any kind of training that is needed by any occupation. There are very few students who have to go overseas or across the border to get the kind of training they want. Most training is available in Canada. The moment we start cutting back on the funds available to those institutions, programs that are not well attended will be dropped. We will cease to have the kind of comprehensive education of which we are so proud.


James Douglas Manly: That is already happening.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Yes, as my colleague is saying, it is already happening.
The quality of the education is also bound to be affected by cutbacks right now in some institutes in Saskatchewan. I think particularly of the Kelsey Institute in Saskatoon which has 140 students enrolled in some courses instead of the 35 or 40 enrolled a couple of years ago. The reason for this situation is that there are not enough funds to pay for three instructors instead of one. People say it does not affect the quality of education particularly, but I am sure everyone in the House who has gone through a higher learning institution will know that when you have several hundred students in one class you do not get the kind of attention necessary to give you the best quality education. Consequently, this cutback is affecting universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness and the quality of education in the post-secondary field.
People have reasonable expectations. We have accepted those expectations as part of the educational system of Canada. We should continue to do so. We should not at this time cut back on them. In these days when many young people and older people are unable to find work, it seems that we as a Parliament of Canada as well as the Governments across Canada should provide them with alternatives, some alternatives to unemployment insurance or welfare. That is possibly the greatest effect of this cubtack. Many people will have to go on welfare or unemployment insurance when they could go into training. That training will not be available for them unless we are willing to pay for it.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak today on a topic which is of great importance to the future of our country. I am referring to Bill C-12, which seeks to limit transfer payments to the provinces, especially in the area of post-secondary education. The Bill itself is a depressing document, and it bears depressing news about the future of our universities and our youth.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) pointed out the completely incomprehensible language of the Bill. Anyone who doubts my affirmation that the Bill is 100 per cent bafflegab should refer to Hansard of Friday, January 27, in which the Hon. Member read portions
of it for the record. I will not repeat the actual words of the document, mainly because it is illegible and is not written in either of Canada's official languages. Rather, it can be understood only by bureaucrats specializing in the language of confusion.
However, the consequences of the Bill are simple-the universities of the country which are already suffering will be suffering more. I suppose Hon. Members have read yesterday's edition of The Citizen. In it the plight of Carleton University was outlined. The problem is that only a very small portion of the university's budget has been set aside for the maintenance of buildings. The obvious result of this is the deterioration of buildings on campus. We know the old saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Perhaps the expensive deterioration of the buildings can be stopped if more money is infused into the budget for maintenance. How can they set aside more money if less money is being allocated by the federal Government for university expenditures?
It was noted by a high level official at Carleton University only a few days ago that he would like to see improved accessibility to universities. How will this be possible if Bill C-12 is allowed to pass in the House? Perhaps my colleagues across the floor can answer that question better than I can.
I am told that of course the question is really one of restraint. This is an old theme, rather like the one we hear on street corners from organ-grinders with monkeys. Not that I wish to harp on this musical theme, but if the Liberals are to trumpet the issue of restraint, they will look rather foolish when the time comes to pay the piper. The taxpayers of the country are not fools; they can tell the difference between an overture and a swan song. That is what Bill C-12 is. It is the last sound of a dying government as it seeks to show the country that it is capable of restraint. That is all fine and dandy, but why can it not show restraint in spending in other areas?
Let me give a few examples of the wasteful spending perpetrated by the Government. Then, Mr. Speaker, you can judge for yourself if the intent of Bill C-12 is sincere or if it is just a smoke-screen, an attempt to cover up previous fiscal blunders with a move which is designed to sort of smell of restraint but gives off the more evil odour of hypocrisy. Hon. Members will recall, as has already been pointed out, that this is the year of the rat. How well that applies to this particular Bill!
Look at de Havilland. Look at Maislin. Look at the shameless exceptions to the six and five program. There are dozens of examples of "do as I say, not as I do". Look at Mirabel. It is a prime example. How about that one?
What is a few million bucks? Perhaps it does not matter that much. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was able to come up with $200 million almost overnight to hide the gaffe of his notorious leak last April. There seems to be plenty of money to bail out Crown corporations. There are many other examples of incredible waste. For example, despite the fact that the Department of External Affairs advised the Minister not to proceed with the multimillion dollar sewage system in
February 2, 1984

Belize, he did so anyway. It is estimated that shortly after completion the entire system will fall into the ocean due to natural erosion factors.
Such blatant disrespect for the well-being of taxpayers of this society is indicative of the manner in which federal Government officials deal with their provincial counterparts. It seems apparent from my few years of experience here that the Liberal Government deals with an approach known as "mailed fist". The only recourse the Government chooses is one of autocracy and authoritarianism. The prime example of this attitude is the negotiations toward the implementation of the emergency planning order, that draconian and undemocratic measure curbing the freedoms of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the Hon. Member to relate his comments to the Bill now under discussion which deals with transfer payments to the provinces. The Hon. Member is now engaging in comments going in another direction. I may have missed the link between the Bill under discussion and his remarks, but I invite him to be relevant.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I appreciate your interjection, Mr. Speaker. I was just getting to the part where I was to tie it together. When you hear me, you will understand the relationship.


Arnold John Malone: Not only will he understand, he will applaud.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: That is right. I thank the Hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).
In a confidential memo made public last year by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), a high level official in emergency planning advised the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that if the province was not prepared to negotiate an emergency planning agreement, all federal funding under the joint emergency planning program would be cut off. That is my tie-in. It is this type of arrogance which has created more discord between the provinces and the federal Government than any other. Irresponsible behaviour begets irresponsible behaviour.
If we are to build a nation and retain the dictums "true North strong and free", we must remember and be obligated to follow the division of powers established by our founding fathers more than a century ago. It calls for a recognition of the rights of provinces as equal partners in Confederation.
I urge the Government and Cabinet to attempt, in their dwindling days, to return to Canada the unity we once knew and which has been so badly shaken by attitudes which undermine the very spirit of this nation.
As I mentioned previously, the future of the country lies with our youth. It is they who are suffering through lack of employment opportunities and an educational program which can no longer meet their needs. Their aspirations cannot be fulfilled by a system which has deliberately curtailed funding in the name of sewage projects, Canadair, Petro-Canada, budget bloopers, ministerial jets, entertainment funds to ensure the continued support of Liberal hacks, and a host of other equally deplorable tactics to expend public funds.
Established Programs Financing
Why must we isolate, antagonize and ostracize those very groups to which we should be accountable? In unity we can forge a strong nation; in isolation we forge discontent. That very discontent is what is being created by Bill C-12.
Let us look at the figures. Since fiscal year 1979-80, the federal share of the funding for health and post-secondary education decreased from a high of 50 per cent of total provincial expenditures to 42.4 per cent in 1982-83. The federal contribution to the provinces increased during that time from $9.3 billion to $12.1 billion. During the same time the capital and operating expenditures of the provinces have risen from $18 billion to $28.6 billion. In other words, the feds have given an extra $3 billion, roughly, while the provinces needed over $10 billion just to keep programs operating at the level they were in 1979.
Something has to give somewhere. Money does not grow on trees. No wonder tuition fees have increased so astronomically in the last few years. No wonder hospitals are considering user fees and extra billing. Yet, despite the fact that transfer payments have only increased marginally, the deficit has grown by leaps and bounds.
My point is that the problem with the deficit does not lie with the transfer payments. The fault lies elsewhere. It lies with the wasteful programs which I have already mentioned. It lies with the attitude of the Government toward the provinces, an attitude which, if continued, could lead us to the end of Confederation as we know it today.
In conclusion, it is high time the Government took off its rose-coloured glasses and viewed the world as it really is and cut back on unessential programs. It does no one any good to short-change the youth of the country in a half-hearted effort to cut expenditures.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak against this very unjust Bill, Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. Briefly, this Bill tries to legalize the unlawful action of the Government in cutting back over $100 million from the money promised by law to Canada's universities in 1983-84 by retroactively capping the natural increase to 6 per cent. It does worse for 1984-85 by capping the natural increase to 5 per cent. This has taken about $42 million from Ontario's universities and colleges in 1983-84 and will likely take $97 million in 1984-85.
How did we get into this mess? Those of us who came out of the Armed Forces in 1945 felt that the country started well. Tens of thousands of veterans, men and women, were supported through university by the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Laniel:: And that was with a Liberal Government.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: This was a great boost to the growth of Canada. From 1945 to 1975, through immigration the population of Canada nearly doubled and university enrolment rose with it. In 1975 the federal and provincial governments began to cut expenditures on necessary services to the people of Canada, including universities and colleges. In 1982 the federal Gov-

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
eminent enacted a further cut of $400 million per year for five years. We have a further cut in this legislation.
The result is severe damage to the educational service given by the universities and colleges. Class size is up, equipment and books are growing scarce and out of date and buildings go unrepaired. Student fees have shot up. This keeps many out of universities, students who have the ability to do well there. Grants to students are being replaced by loans, and loans are being collected by professional collectors whether or not the student has been able to find a job after graduation. Our educational system is demoralized and in danger.
In the ten minutes I have, I wish to illustrate some of the dramatic examples from one university, the University of Toronto in Spadina. The students' administrative council has begun a survey of the damage caused by underfunding. Some of the highlights found so far are as follows.
The First item deals with the physical plant. Many of the buildings are very old, but over $24 million worth of maintenance had to be deferred. Maintenance staff was cut in eight years by 28 per cent so that most renovations are carried out by contractors at higher costs. Windows go unrepaired. The mining building needs massive internal renovation. Fire and safety standards are often not met. In certain dangerous labs, security is lacking because of staff cuts.
As regards libraries, staff and books have been chopped. The staff was reduced by 25 per cent since 1979. As a result, three faculty libraries cut their service by ten hours per week. Reference and photocopying are cut by 20 hours per week and are closed on Sundays. The Sidney Smith Library, with thousands of xeroxed papers used by 90 professors and their students, was closed last spring and is still closed. The huge Robarts Library has 50,000 books not yet catalogued or properly shelved, with the uncatalogued volumes growing by
12,000	per year.
Next we come to humanities. History has a faculty of 63 members who must share two secretaries. Tutorial sizes are increasing and the library has almost stopped buying books, let alone shelving them. Classics is to lose one-third of its professors by 1990, although first-year enrolment is rising.
The next item deals with the Spanish and Portuguese department. With a population of over 150,000 in Toronto and enrolment of up 25 per cent Spanish and 10 per cent Portuguese students, the department has cut back until only 24 professors serve 1,225 undergraduates and 28 graduates. Books are scarcely being bought or shelved. Next is the Italian department. With half a million Italians in the Toronto region, the University of Toronto provides Italian teachers for seven other Ontario universities and 121 high schools. Enrolment has doubled in ten years, with no increase in staff. Slavic studies teaches Polish, Ukrainian, Czech, Russian and Hungarian languages. A successful Russian summer immersion course has been scrapped for lack of staff. Work on language journals and a Ukrainian encyclopaedia is threatened. The staff will be reduced by one-third by 1988.
Then we come to the philosophy department. In four years enrolment has increased, but staff was cut 10 per cent. Almost no current books and audio-visual aids are being bought and shelved. The music department saved $100,000 by not replacing two retiring professors, but have no more bodies to give away for the next four years. Record players, orchestral instruments and pianos are worn out, yet the faculty will be expected to absorb part of the Royal Conservatory of Music.
As regards the department of commerce, although the federal Government urges Canada to expand our trade, the commerce department has been forced to limit enrolment to 350 and hire no new chartered accountants with current experience. Physical sciences, which should be training the engineers and technicians, which the Liberal Government says we need, is in just as bad a shape as the rest.
The computer science department, with a doubling of enrolment from 1976 to 1983, had the staff chopped from 21 to 16. In the basic instructional computer system, because of a shortage of equipment, the students must often log off after one hour, and wait an hour and a half to finish a program. With regard to applied science, in five years while enrolment rose by 7.5 per cent, the budget was cut by 10.3 per cent. Staff has been cut by 5 per cent while graduate enrolment rose by 25 per cent. The recognized ratio is one staff member to 12 students, but the University of Toronto has a ratio of one to 20. Computers are one to 20 instead of the one to 10 needed. There are two computer-aided design stations instead of the 20 needed. In the department of mathematics, two tutorial hours per week are cut to one in four weeks with 50 per cent more students in each tutorial. In architecture, enrolment will be slashed by one-third, yet the student-staff ratio is 50 per cent worse than required by the National Architecture Accreditation Board.
What is happening at the University of Toronto, and no doubt right across the country, is that we are losing a generation of scholars. We are told that China lost ten years of scholars in the cultural revolution, but Canada is throwing away Ph.Ds between 25 and 35 years of age because there is no place for them in the university. When the time comes to expand again or to replace those who retire, Canada will be forced to import more brains.
These funding cuts hurt hundreds of thousands of Canadians, especially women and youth. New Canadians are clamouring to enter the university to be educated and trained for the high-tech society this Government preaches. These cuts in the funding of post-secondary education are unnecessary. The Government has legislated over $10 billion in the years 198286 in tax gifts to oil companies, banks, and other large corporations. It says these giveaways were to create jobs and restore Canada to full employment, but this did not and will not occur, as the Government has admitted. If some of that money were given to educating Canadians, our country would be much stronger. Therefore this Government must answer to the people of Canada for damaging the education of our people, our chief resource. They are condemning Canadians to
February 2, 1984

become hewers of wood that is disappearing, and drawers of water that is polluted. Flunkies in our own home.
1 urge the Government to withdraw Bill C-12, or the Members on both sides to vote it down.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about Bill C-12. This is the Bill which will cap the expenditures by the federal Government to postsecondary education by 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
Since this is an important Bill I must say at the outset that I am amazed, as a Saskatchewan Member, to see not a single Member in the Conservative Party participating in this debate when half of the ridings in my province are represented by the Conservative Party and half by our Party.
It strikes me as very strange that they represent half of that province yet say nothing in such a crucial debate. It could be that they are very embarrassed because we have a Premier in that province, Grant Devine, who is now slashing, cutting and hammering away at many social programs in our province.
I know that as a New Brunswicker, Mr. Speaker, you would feel very sorry for us that we are saddled with this kind of a government in our province. Indeed, I am sure that is why the federal Members from that province are not saying a word in the House. Their colleague in Regina is doing exactly the same as the Government proposes when he slashes all the social programs and post-secondary educational programs. He is tightening the budget of the University of Saskatchewan at Saskatoon and the University of Regina. We have not even talked about the community colleges and technical institutes in our province. I think it shows where the Conservative Party stands when it comes to dealing with real people's issues and concerns.


Arnold John Malone: Real people.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is right, real people. 1 would be very interested if the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) could help persuade some of his colleagues to participate in the debate today.
In the few minutes that I have I want to point out specifically that I think it is very unfair when the six and five program is applied to ordinary people as it is being applied in the Bill today. By and large, the ordinary people we are talking about are the young people of this nation who will be the leaders of the future and who will determine how the country develops in the next few years.
Historically, we have tended to measure the wealth of the nation by all kinds of labour theories, theories of capital and so on. I suggest that the society of tomorrow will be judged on the basis of its knowledge and the ability to think and reason. That is where we are headed in the age of the computer and of advanced technology. Therefore, it is imperative that we train as many young people as possible and that we ensure that the barriers to education are not there but that we have universal accessibility to education across the land. This Bill moves us in
Established Programs Financing the opposite direction, in a fight that we thought we were winning in Canada back in the 1960s.
When this six and five program is generally applied, it tends to be very unfair to young people and students and to women and pensioners. But it is not unfair to the rich. Recently I looked at some of the very high salaries in this country. I came across a chart which indicated salaries of two years ago. I noticed the salaries of the heads of Crown corporations. For instance, Ian Sinclair, who was chairman of Canadian Pacific Railway, was making a salary of $556,000 in 1981.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is getting only about $60,000 now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Now, as a reward for helping the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sell his six and five program and because of the work he did on the special task force on six and five in which he recommended keeping the clamps on ordinary citizens, he has been appointed to the Senate and gets another $60,000 or $70,000.1 suggest that that is not fair.
A 5 per cent increase on $100,000 is $5,000. However, for a young person trying to go to university, receiving a 5 per cent increase does not represent very much money. It also results in an increase in tuition fees and an increase in the expenditures of the ordinary families of this land. If this trend continues, it will eventually mean that university will be accessible only to the more privileged and wealthy in this country. We will have a system in which the right to go to university is not based on one's ambitions or desire for knowledge or betterment but on whether or not one's parents are able to afford financing one's way through university.
Others, such as the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), have already related many of the statistics on what is happening in the university community. Let us consider tuition fees. There is a great fear in my province that tuition fees will rise rapidly this year because our provincial Government has gone into deficit financing for the first time since the 1930s. It is something that never happened under the NDP premiers of Douglas, Lyon and Blakeney. However, there is a massive deficit of over $500 million in our province for the first time. In the budget that is likely to be presented in March, there will be another massive deficit, which will be passed on to the ordinary citizens through increases in such things as utility rates, sales taxes and tuition fees for young people. The same is true for other provinces. The University of British Columbia has increased tuition fees, as have other universities across the land.
A great many people have been turned away from universities who wanted to go to school and study.

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec in the City of Montreal, 30,000 students are now enrolled, while 56,000 had applied to postsecondary institutions in that city. Only 30,000 were admitted, out of the 56,000 who applied.
The same situation prevails in the Province of Ontario. At York University, 1,400 students who had applied were denied
1022

February 2, 1984
Adjournment Motion
admission. The same happened at Humber College. Today,
5,000	students out of the 24,000 who applied for admission to this College in Ontario are now enrolled.
It is the same thing again in Manitoba. In 1983, the number of students enrolled in university increased by 8.3 per cent. In Alberta, at the technical institutions in Calgary and Edmonton, about 10,000 or 11,000 students are now enrolled. Twice that number, about 20,000 students, had applied for admission to institutions for technical education.

When one reviews the enrolment figures in this country over the last few years, it is clear that the greatest hardship will probably be faced by women. The greatest increase in enrolment in the decade of the 1970s was that of women. Some 95 per cent of the increased enrolment in Canadian universities was among women. It is an extremely positive trend which must continue if we are to have equality of accessibility to education in this country. But the cutbacks will primarily affect those who were last to enrol. In this case it is women, particularly from poorer families, native families and others who will not be able to afford to go to university.
These are some of the consequences of a program that is designed to limit expenditures to 6 per cent and 5 per cent regardless of the ability to pay or the qualification. Basically, it discriminates against those who are poor and have fewer means to attend university.
In closing I want to say that the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we train our young people and give them the opportunity to go to university, technical schools and institutions of higher learning. As I said, I believe tomorrow's society will depend not so much on labour or capital but primarily on the country's knowledge. I believe that knowledge will be a very important factor in the years that lie ahead.
Let me close by appealing to the Government to withdraw this Bill and remove this cap. Without the six and five cap, the percentage increase in funding that would have gone to the post-secondary education institutions would have been approximately 11 per cent. Instead, it will be 6 per cent and 5 per cent. Since you come from New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that perhaps you realize the tremendous unfairness this will cause for ordinary citizens in your province, my province and indeed right across the country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Shipbuilding-Unemployment in industry, (b) Introduction of Legislation; the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn)-National Revenue-Film on department's use of computer-Appearance of Deputy Minister on television program. (b) Department's treatment of taxpayers; the Hon. Member for Calgary-West (Mr. Hawkes)-Olympic Games- Funding of Calgary Winter Olympics, (b) Terms of December proposal-Government's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the University of British Columbia is in my riding. This is something of an accident as actually it was founded in 1916 in the riding of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). It started out with 200 students. Today, in its present location at Point Grey, it has 25,000 students, 7,000 staff members and is a major force in the life of my riding; in Vancouver Centre, in Vancouver South, in Capilano and in all 11 lower mainland ridings which send thousands of students to it every day. My friends to the left have tried to indicate that we do not care about real people, but we know that there are
25.000	real people who are students at the university and
7.000	real people on staff.
Bill C-12 will have harmful effects on that institution, on the community and on the 32,000 real people in the student body and the staff. This university is the second largest in Canada and is a very important feature in the City of Vancouver.
I have never felt it would be unreasonable to ask students to pay fees to cover a larger portion of university costs than they presently do, which is about 12 per cent or 15 per cent, depending on the institution and upon the year. At the present time provincial Governments are cutting back on funding to universities-and British Columbia is no different from others in this matter-so it is a sensitive time for the federal Government to propose cutbacks. Even those students who can afford to pay will suffer because the university has been forced to limit the enrolment of qualified students at the first year level.
February 2, 1984

New students in First year degree programs will be restricted to the top 3,250 applicants, regardless of how many more apply and meet the entrance requirements. In other words, the University of British Columbia has been forced to throw out its well established entrance requirements because of Bill C-12. The effect will be a reduction in post-secondary education entitlements for British Columbia in the current year of $13.4 million and in 1984-85 of $29.6 million. That is a $43 million reduction in the two Fiscal years. Such an attack on post-secondary education is bad at any time but it is particularly intolerable at the present time.
I am not sure that we want to prolong the debate unnecessarily but I think it is essential that the views from all parts of the country and all university communities be put on record. That is my purpose in making these few remarks today, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 is an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. Just from that title alone, one would need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend what the Government is trying to achieve by the Bill, except that a student or a person considering post-secondary education would understand it very well.
As the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) pointed out, if the provincial and federal Governments continue to chop away at post-secondary education funding as they have been doing for the last six years, the only people who will have access to senior levels of education will be those at the upper end of the income scale. Those at the low end will be denied access.
I should like to spend a few minutes dealing with something that has not been touched upon in the debate so far. There are literally thousands of young people across the country who have been denied access to any level of education because of a disability or handicap. The situation is even worse when we deal with post-secondary education. For example, there is no facility in Canada designed to accommodate deaf or hard of hearing students who want a post-secondary education. If a student wants an education, is capable of and can afford such a thing but happens to be deaf or has a hearing impairment, the only way he can get it is by going to the United States which has a facility designed to provide an adequate education for the deaf or the hearing impaired child.
I was a member of the committee which met to consider the problems of the disabled and the handicapped. The committee heard from nearly every organization that represents the hearing impaired or deaf in Canada. I have here an article about a young man which expresses the problem much better than I could and I should like to ask the House to listen to it. It was reproduced in the Obstacles report of the special committee and tells about a young man called Craig Ostopovich. It reads in part as follows:
There are no advantages to being deaf. You are denied so much, especially in education. Did you know that deaf children are not taken on field trips to the forest, or to the ballet, where there are so many amazing and beautiful things to see. Ballet, especially, is so full of motion and visual excitement. We have taken
Established Programs Financing
Craig every year since he was seven to see the Nutcracker Suite, and he loves it. All the movement, and glitter and sparkle. If we have done anything, it's to teach him to appreciate beautiful things, to get as much value as possible out of what he can see.
But it makes me incredibly sad to think about how much he misses because our society is not open to deaf people. 1 get angry because we do so much with him at home, but he gets so little from his schooling. He sits and vegetates in school. It's such a waste of time, and it doesn't have to be that way. The Americans really know how to teach deaf children, but up here they don't.
I can tell you right now what I would not be working with deaf organizations if it were not for Craig. I want him to grow up into a world that has many more opportunities than the one his parents knew. I have been offered a job at Gallaudet College in Washington, D.C., which is the finest school for deaf persons in North America.
That is the kind of school which we would like to see here in Canada. At a time when there is such a crying need for it, education should not be just something which provinces should provide based on the financial resources which they may have, so there is a standard of education for a child in Nova Scotia which is quite different from that in British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or elsewhere. Every Canadian in this country, regardless of where he lives, whether he or she is disabled or handicapped, should have equal access to the education system. This particular Bill will make their present difficulties even worse. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, under the six and five program, is cutting back expenditures in the area of some $100 million. This is at a time when our country is entering into a period when education will play probably a more important role in our life as Canadians than at any other time.
This cutback is not only shortsighted, it is stupid. I do not know any other way to describe it. Canadians again are being caught up in a squabble and fight between what the provinces think they should be getting and what the federal Government thinks should be given to them. The average child in this country is caught in the middle and has absolutely no say about what is happening, that he will be denied access to education to a far greater degree than he has been in the past. It is stupid.
I would like to quote from a note which was given to me by the Canadian Council on Deafness. This is what it recommends in so far as deaf people are concerned, and I quote:
The problem is not being properly addressed in Canada as each province deals with its own few really bright deaf kids in whatever way they can. Because of numbers being light in each province we feel it should be dealt with nationally. We need: (a) to develop full preparatory standardized program for deaf and hard of hearing students to bridge the gap between highschool and university, (b) improve support services in all existing universities and community colleges (note-takers, interpreters, etc.) where they have shown interest in providing programs for deaf and hard of hearing. We need to develop a national technical institute for the deaf to enable them to take advantage of rapidly developing computerization and other technical advances.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to Hon. Members of the Government as well as Hon. Members of the Official Opposition, that people in this country have enough difficulty if they happen to be disabled or handicapped. The last thing they need is another obstacle placed in front of them which prevents them from participating in the mainstream of Canadian life. 1

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing
suggest that this particular measure which the Government now has before the Elouse will do exactly that. It will have a serious effect on able-bodied kids, and it is having a serious effect as well on universities, as my colleague, the Elon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), mentioned this afternoon. It will have an even greater impact on those individuals who are already deprived and disadvantaged in our society.
I urge the Government to consider seriously what it is doing here and I ask government Members who, in good conscience, cannot support this Bill, to stand up and help the Opposition to defeat it.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I would like to follow what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), said. I am a parent of a hearing impaired child and it is interesting to remark on the horrendous difficulties which these kids, and my daughter in particular, have faced over the years through the education system by the tremendous difficulties which are put in their way. Every single year in the school system there have been difficulties. My daughter has had tremendous difficulties in breaking into a system which is geared to serve only a certain group of individuals. My daughter happens to be a bright, above average kid, well co-ordinated and very determined. She has had a great deal of difficulty, but over the years has managed to overcome those difficulties and do reasonably well in school to the point where she is likely to be able to go to university. She has also developed at this stage an interest in flying, since I am involved in flying and have instructed people over the years. She is very well co-ordinated and has more guts than Dick Tracy. In fact, she would be a good pilot if she were eligible for her licence. Unfortunately, she found out to her bitter disappointment that she does not qualify for her licence because of her hearing disability.
My daughter wished to become a nurse, having certain role models in the form of individuals whom she admires greatly. She is very interested in that particular field of endeavour, but is now coming to grips with the fact that down the road she, in all probability, will not be able to do that. It is interesting to note that she has achieved almost every level of capability in swimming. She is a tremendous swimmer and has the capability of being a lifeguard or instructor, but has suddenly realized she can no longer look at that field as a possibility for employment because of her hearing impairment.
Universities will present an enormous task to overcome for this kid, but she is intellectually capable of handling it and she has the determination to do so. Unfortunately, what we have today before us is a piece of legislation which will harm my daughter's opportunities to graduate from university and enter a field of endeavour which she is capable of handling.
I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Beaches for putting on the record the kinds of positions which this Party, and 1 believe other thinking and feeling people in this country, should be addressing. This legislation does not do that.
I am, Mr. Speaker, to say the least, appalled by this legislation. There are a number of areas of discrimination
which go beyond that of the physically handicapped. I would like to deal with some of the areas of my riding. The proposal to cut spending, not to carry a fair share in the spending on post-secondary education, is really a tragic, stupid and unfair thing to do. In the riding I represent at the present time, whether Port Hardy, Powell River, or any point on northern Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia, not only does one have to pay rising general university costs, but one is faced with extremely large costs for room and board and other subsidiary costs in obtaining an education. For a great many students there is no employment in that area, no opportunity for young people to acquire the kinds of funds which not only would allow them to face the rising costs which are being imposed at the university level, but to allow them to pay room and board and transportation and the other requirements. This Bill greatly discriminates against people from those communities. There are a large number of students in the lower mainland of Vancouver, for example, who now live at home, who are funded by their parents and who only address the question of the direct costs of university books, upkeep and clothing, which are expensive enough. However, the minute you move beyond commuting distance, there are an enormous number of young people who just have no hope of being able to afford university. Nor do they have the opportunity to go to vocational or technical school, or any of the other institutions, and it is getting extremely difficult for them.
There is no need to repeat the horrendous unemployment figures. In areas like Powell River, Port Alberni or Campbell River there is just no opportunity for young people to gain employment, and there they sit. One of the most disappointing things that I see every day when I am in the riding I represent is the young people sitting around in shopping centres doing absolutely nothing. We have an idle generation. Their brains and physical energy are wasted, and the opportunity to make the commitment they should be making to this nation is denied them because this kind of legislation before us today will prevent them from doing it. The discrimination in this legislation, the failure to pick up a fair share of the tab for a very vital function in this country, is just appalling.
I happened to be working on a project with a professor of electrical engineering. He was trying to make a decision. He was one of the lucky individuals who has tenure and a satisfactory salary. His function in life involved a lot of consulting and the teaching of post-graduate students. He enjoyed it very much. The consulting kept him on the leading edge of his field and he was able to convey to his graduate students the kinds of new information they would use to make this country great, or at least to get Canada on the leading edge in certain fields. Essentially he said that he was now faced with the decision to leave all that because industry offered him so much more. They did not have the large class sizes he was being faced with to the point where he could no longer teach graduate students. More and more demands were being placed on his time because of larger class loads, fewer funds available for modern equipment, and in general, a total deterioration of the environ-
February 2, 1984

ment in which to teach the future engineers who would lead the effort to strengthen and build the Canadian economy. The faculty was now being treated as a recruiting ground for the "Silicon Valleys" of North America and other parts of the world. The university had done the preliminary selection of top people in the field, had not given them tenure or good salaries, and essentially had done untenable things to these people because of a complete lack of funding. Industry siphoned these people off at a tremendous rate by offering them benefits, and they were gone.
In short, Mr. Speaker, because of the short-sighted and destructive attitude reflected in this Bill, Governments, federal or provincial, gutted the very foundation on which the future of this nation is based. It is not just electrical engineers; this happened in a whole host of fields. They have been torn to pieces by this attitude. We are going to six and five ourselves out of position in the world economy. It is no wonder the Japanese are light years ahead of us. It is no wonder that the Americans are retooling their industrial base. They will eventually be light years ahead of us. Ultimately we will be left in the backwash, as my colleagues have pointed out, as hewers of wood and carriers of water, without a hope of getting anywhere near the leading edge of industrial development, all because this Bill guts our opportunities and the Government fails to carry its fair share of the burden.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to say a few words on the legislation before the House, Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act.
This legislation is intended to impose the six and five regime of which the federal Government is so proud and which has been, hopefully on their part, a basis for recovering the lost popularity the Liberals have encountered in the polls over the last couple of years. Even though this legislation was introduced in this House just a few short days ago, it has been in effect in this nation for over a year. The cutbacks in the federal contribution to post-secondary education have hurt every institution of learning beyond high school in this nation. Programs have been cut. Faculties have been pared. Enrolments have been limited. Tuition fees have been increased. There is a crisis in education at this time, and it will only grow this coming fall.
I have noticed, as I am sure you have, Mr. Speaker, that there is a growing controversy in this Province over whether we cut the quality of education or limit enrolment to select students. That is the debate going on in this Province right now, and I suspect it is going on throughout this nation. My home Province of Manitoba is having a similar debate. Even though the Government in that Province has increased funding over the last couple of years well beyond six and five to its post-secondary institutions, they are facing this fall the longterm effect of federal Government cutbacks.
Our provinces are not in a financial position to carry on the battle themselves. They need the support of the fiscal powers of this federal Government. They need this support to keep post-secondary education alive. They need the financial sup-
Established Programs Financing port of the federal Government if we are going to continue our research and development. They need this support if they are to continue programs which open up the universities to groups of people who are not there at this time.
Other Members from the Province of Manitoba have mentioned the programs at Brandon University which enable native students to become teachers. Similar programs are being developed to help native people become involved in nursing, social work and other areas of endeavour. It is no secret to the people of this House that for many years native people were virtually excluded from universities and other post-secondary institutions in this country. It has taken money as well as a commitment from the Manitoba provincial Government to initiate a program where institutions of higher learning have become accessible to native students. But programs of that nature are threatened by this legislation in front of us today. Universities are trying to maintain the bare bones of an educational system. Faculties such as the faculty of science at the University of Manitoba are starting to limit enrolment. They are doing that because of the legislation in front of us today, and for other reasons as well. Over 20 per cent of the young people of this nation cannot find employment. Many young people are looking at the universities and post-secondary institutions in terms of spending their time there picking up some more years of education and training, hoping that the job market will improve in the future.
That is not an answer to the unemployment problem, Mr. Speaker, but it is a logical thing for young people to be doing. These young people have the choice of seeking employment when it is so scarce, going to university, or suffering the experience of being unemployed in the first few years, and maybe for many years, of their working lives. These young people will not have the benefit of experiencing the work ethic in the first formative years of their adult life. They are going to find it very difficult to adjust to our society in the future. If you have not worked for the first three, four or five years of your adult life, getting and retaining a job in the future will be that much more difficult. In the meanwhile, many have entered universities and other post-secondary institutions. I think it is of benefit for each of those who do that.
However, at the very time that they are entering the universities and other post-secondary institutions, this Government is saying, "Hold on, we do not want to provide adequate financing for those institutions". A 5 per cent increase in the amount of money that comes from the federal Government for postsecondary education is really no increase at all. It is less than no increase when you realize that enrolment is increasing. It is less than no increase when you realize that the universities, like everyone else, have to face the costs of inflation.
The reason I am concerned about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that it is going to hurt those Canadians who can least afford it. I, as have many in this Chamber, have read John Porter's The Vertical Mosaic, which speaks of the fact that our universities and post-secondary institutions have been

February 2, 1984
Established Programs Financing limited in the past to those from families which can most afford to send their sons and daughters to university. That has not changed very much over the years. Certainly there have been exceptions such as I mentioned with the Brandon University program for native students. There have been others who have gone into the university program, but young women are still underrepresented at universities, especially in some faculties, and people from my constituency in northern Manitoba still do not attend university in the numbers that they should. A program of this nature, which limits moneys going to universities and other educational institutions, is going to hurt those people first. It is going to hurt the natives, young women, and people from the more remote communities who already have an extra financial burden when it comes to attending university. They have the extra costs of travel, accommodation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) still has time left. I would remind Hon. Members that the rule of the decorum requires that no Members cross between the Member who has the floor and the Chair. On repeated occasions I have drawn this to the attention of the House. This is a basic courtesy to the Member who has the floor. I appeal to Hon. Members to respect that very basic rule.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I did not think my time was up. I wish that those Conservative Members who are crossing over to the Liberal benches, for whatever reason, would get up in the House and speak about how this legislation is going to hurt the young people of Canada. I wish that they did that rather than cross over to their Liberal buddies. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing that out.
Returning to the legislation itself, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, when you rose to make your point, the people who will be hurt by this legislation are those who have traditionally been left out of the university and post-secondary world. Those people who have not entered that community have done so for traditional reasons and also for financial reasons. They are the people whom many universities have tried to attract over the years. I applaud those institutions for that action.
I believe, as I am sure many Members of the House believe, that as long as this type of legislation is in place to limit the federal Government's contributions to post-secondary education to a 5 per cent increase, which is much less than the federal Government promised in the past, it is going to hurt those programs. It is going to hurt the people from the north, the native communities, young women and those people from families which have the least money. This is a time of unemployment when people are losing their homes, when they are losing their UI benefits, when more families are going on welfare and more young people cannot find employment. It is these people from these same families who will not be able to seek higher education because of this legislation.
I hope that Members from all Parties of the House will get up and speak about how this legislation is going to hurt the
young people of this country and therefore hurt the future of this nation.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in the Conservative Party in our opposition to the measures in the Bill before us which contain a number of amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. It should be pointed out that a similar Bill, Bill C-150, was introduced in the previous session but was never called for second reading. This is the first time we have had a chance to discuss this issue.
Many of my constituents are students. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) pointed out, U.B.C., the second largest university in Canada, was originally started in my riding many years ago. This Bill hurts our students in British Columbia and elsewhere because it slashes available funding to the provinces precisely at the time when the biggest demands are being placed on our postsecondary institutions. They are being strained by demand and at the same time being squeezed for funding. Our students are facing one of the toughest times in their lives. Yet under this Bill B.C. would receive nearly $30 million less than it would if the bill were not passed. Without this Bill, post-secondary entitlements in B.C. in the fiscal year 1984-85 would be $510 million. With its passage, that entitlement will be cut to $480 million, leaving a shortfall of $30 million.
This is happening at a time when our students and children are facing a bleak economy. One out of four students in the age group of 19 to 24 cannot find work. They are being repeatedly told to get an education and upgrade their skills. Enrolments are being limited. For the first time U.B.C. is having to put limits on the number of first year students. They are limiting the entry of first year students to the top 3,250 applicants, regardless of how many more apply and meet the entrance requirements. This is in a university which has 25,000 students. Obviously the number of students who will be entering university will be much lower in the future.
This is imposing very severe strains on our young people. As an example, in my own family there are five cousins of college age. Only one is going to college. Three are on unemployment insurance because the companies which were employing them went bankrupt. Only one has a job in the work force. The one cousin who is going to college found that even though he registered on the first day of enrolment, he could not get the courses he required. He is a science student and requires certain prerequisites to continue with his science education. He could not even get a first year math course because the enrolment was closed by two o'clock in the afternoon when it was his turn to apply. This situation will continue in the next few years, and it is very discouraging to students.
Our major resource in this country is our children. The major requirement that we will face in the future is a highly mobile, highly skilled, highly trained work force. The Government places a lot of emphasis on the need for research and
February 2, 1984

development, switching to high-tech and upgrading our industries, but at the same time the Government is slashing the R and D base at the university, the college and the institutional level to achieve that goal. It is inconsistent to expect a nation, which is limiting enrolment and cutting funds to education, to meet the high-tech, high productivity demands that we face in the future.
The inevitable prospect we face in B.C., as the students, the teachers and a hard pressed university have told us, is that the quality of education will diminish and access to educational institutions will reduce.
My father, who was a B.C. pioneer from a B.C. pioneering family, was able to go to school by working in the stables of a local doctor. At least he was able to get the money for a higher education and he graduated as a veterinarian. Our students today do not have that option. Those are the discouraging aspects of this Bill. This Bill will put an enormous strain on the educational system at a time when the economy and this Government in particular give our students no other option.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have a full seven minutes to speak in this debate regarding Bill C-12. I am rather surprised about it. While it was surprising enough to see a Tory rise to speak, I did expect the Flon. Member to continue for the full allocated time of ten minutes, which she did not do.
Bill C-12 is the Government's application of the six and five program to post-secondary education which my friend here in the Tory Party voted for. Basically, the six and five program is a political program rather than economic or social. This program is being applied to the educational system, but it has nothing to do with education in Canada. It has nothing to do with the needs of education, nothing to do with the needs of young people, or the needs of our economy. I say that this program is political because as we entered this recession the Government set up the six and five program in such a way as to claim credit for the fall in inflation, which was a natural result of a very deep recession unprecedented since the Great Depression. This program will allow the Government to take credit for bringing down inflation and to put the attention on inflation rather than on where it should be, which is on economic growth and employment.
It would be far better if the Government were to pay attention to the needs of education as it brings in a piece of legislation that affects so directly universities across the country. This legislation takes $100 million out of the purse available for post-secondary education. One of the negative aspects of applying the six and five program to post-secondary education is simply that 6 per cent is an arbitrary number, an across-the-board number and it has nothing to do with need. The Government has failed to be selective in its application of fiscal restraint. If the Government had chosen and if the Government had wanted to be careful with the way it spent public tax dollars, it could have selected priority areas such as post-secondary education. The Government could have decided to give money to the universities and chosen not to give the money to other programs. For example, why continue with the
Established Programs Financing
PIP grants and the hand-outs to multinational oil companies at a time when the Government is limiting the amount of money for post-secondary education? While the Government takes $100 million away from the universities and the future of our young people, it continues to give billions of dollars to the multinational oil companies. That demonstrates quite clearly the injustice of applying an arbitrary number such as 6 per cent to the expenditure level of a government.
The application of the six and five program and the taking away of the $100 million from university funding is a severe blow to the concept of universal accessibility to post-secondary education. It results in the pushing up of tuition fees making it more difficult, not only for the poor to get into university, but also for the middle class. I make that point because if there is one thing that has characterized the present economic circumstances in Canada, the deep recession we are in today, is the fact that people who have not normally suffered are suffering today from the policies of the Government and the prevailing economic climate. The Government is refusing to do anything substantial or really do anything about it.
This is a blow to universal accessibility, not only in the sense that tuition fees are going up but also in the sense that as you limit the amount of money that goes from the federal Government to provincial Governments for post-secondary education, you make it much more difficult for provincial Governments to carry on with affirmative action programs for disadvantaged people, whether they be handicapped, women or native people.
In my Province of Manitoba there are some good and very successful special educational programs at the university level which have allowed for a significant increase in the university student body made up of native people. There are now significant numbers of native people attending the University of Manitoba. This has been made possible by the special educational programs. Cutting the amount of money which the federal Government gives to the provinces for post-secondary education places these programs under threat. Therefore, it is a blow to social justice and it is a blow to the sense of fair play in our society. People who have done without for decades, for hundreds of years, should not be threatened by the arbitrary expenditure policies of an insensitive Government. Not only is it more difficult today for people to go to university by reason of their income, but even those who get into university find that the quality of education is falling. The quality is being lowered by the cutbacks put in place by the Government here in this Bill. This Government should be withdrawing this Bill and putting more money into the purse for post-secondary education in order to keep up the quality of education.


Arnold John Malone: The Government should be withdrawn.


Cyril Keeper: Absolutely. My colleague from the Conservative Party indicates that not only should this legislation be withdrawn but the Government should be withdrawn. That is a positive suggestion even though it comes from a partisan quarter.
The quality of education at universities is being threatened, Mr. Speaker.

February 2, 1984
Nuclear- Weapon-Free Zone Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but it being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Hear, hear!']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items listed under Private Members' Business preceding Order No. 7 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: that Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


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


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it agreed or not? I am in the hands of the House.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: No.


Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet: I have already said, "No".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Do we have a debate on this Bill?


An Hon. Member:: Put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is that Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear-weapon-free zone, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Those against, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion is defeated, I declare the motion lost.


An Hon. Member:: Thank you.
And five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: No, there are enough Members now.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: No way.


An Hon. Member:: He wasn't here.


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member was here all the time.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You guys were not all here when it was read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and have a submission to make to you. This is one of those rare occasions in the House of Commons when we are confronted with an unnecessary division. As I understand it, and I believe when the "blues" are published they will bear me out-I cannot quote from the official "blues" but I have the "whites" before me-the Acting Speaker who was in the Chair, Mr. Guilbault, when the question was put on the motion that was before the House, asked for the yeas and nays:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Those against please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion is defeated; I declare the motion lost.
It was at that point that the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) entered the House and he and the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a fairly highly respected Member of this House, who was in the House at the time, was tapped on the shoulder and rose, and five Members were then recognized with the Acting Speaker then saying, "No, there are enough Members now".
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it did not lie within the province of the Chair to put a question that had already been lost, and
February 2, 1984

then after having declared the motion lost from the Chair, to reput the question. I submit to you, Sir, that I have never seen it happen in my time here. It does give rise to that very rare occasion where we are confronted with an unnecessary division. In the circumstances, Sir, I submit that the Chair should not put the question.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting but obviously irrelevant argument being put by the House Leader for the Official Opposition. The fact of the matter is that the Acting Speaker sitting in the Chair decided, upon viewing the House of Commons, that there was a sufficient number of Members present who rose in order to justify that the division should take place. The Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is now challenging that Speaker's decision. He is challenging the decision of the Chair, which is quite out of order. 1 would like to suggest, Sir, that in order to do what he is doing, as you have frequently pointed out, if someone is dissatisfied with the way the Chair has conducted himself or herself, the Member for Yukon knows the proper procedures to take. This certainly is not one of the proper procedures.


Mr. De Bane:: Mr. Speaker, I was present when those events happened. The recitation of the facts as alleged by the House Leader of the Official Opposition are absolutely right. The Speaker asked for the yeas and nays and he rendered his decision that the nays have it. At that point the New Democratic Party had only four Members in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Three.


Robert (Bob) Lane: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was not, as I am sure he would confirm, in his seat. After the Speaker said that the motion was lost, they later reached the number of five and a second decision was rendered after it had been stated that the motion was lost before the calling of the bells. The recitation of the House Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Is this similar to hiding behind the curtains? [Translation)


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, since he was present when the events took place, I preferred to let one of our colleagues speak as he just did to corroborate the facts presented by the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Therefore, if these are the facts, and we have no reason to doubt that-I think it is implicit in what was said by the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-the Speaker did declare the motion lost.
In that case, we may well ask what we are voting on now. If a decision was made, and the record shows that the motion was declared lost, then we have been called in to vote on a matter that has already been settled.
Adjournment Debate
So if anyone is unwilling to abide by the Chair's decision, it is not the Member from Yukon nor the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, who refuses to acknowledge that the Speaker declared the motion for second reading lost, and we abide by the Chair's decision.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I was coming into the House when the motion was being put. I heard the motion and I heard the Hon. Members who expressed their yeas and nays. By the time the Speaker had declared the motion was lost, I was in my seat, as has been indicated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: I was in my seat by that time. I knew what the question was and I was in my seat. When I was in my seat and when it was time to call for a recorded vote, there were five of us here. It is as simple as that.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a situation unprecedented in the experience of the present incumbent of the Chair. It is quite clear. 1 have a preliminary transcript of Hansard. The facts as recited by the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are substantially correct. The Acting Speaker is quoted as saying that the motion is defeated, "I declare the motion lost". In the circumstances, the motion is lost. This House is now adjourned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on January 26, just past, I asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) if he would be agreeable to looking into the difficulties and the plight of the shipbuilding industry in this country. It has been cited by the industry that over-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Will Members who want to carry on further discussion please leave the House?
Order, please. Will the Members who want to carry on discussions please leave the House so that the Member who is speaking can be heard.
The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett).

February 2, 1984
Adjournment Debate


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I trust the time just taken will be added to the end of my comments.
I expressed some concern on January 26 over the difficulties that shipyard workers, particularly in the new ship construction sector, are experiencing in the country. I asked the Minister responsible for industry, trade and commerce if perhaps there might be something which could be done about the serious plight that this country's jobless shipyard workers are currently facing. Quite obviously from his response I took it, as did the many thousands of unemployed shipyard workers in the country, that there was a definite lack of expressed interest on his part and that indeed they were not going to be looked upon favourably in the immediate future.
This runs extremely contrary to the suggestions which have been put forth in the past by the Hon. Minister responsible for shipbuilding policy in the country. He has been indicating to me for a good number of months that indeed the Government was extremely concerned about the plight of shipyards in the country and the fact that they have been plagued with a substantial amount of unemployment.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, a program was announced called the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program. Some $630 million was allocated to this program, but unfortunately the Government has not seen fit to put, in real terms, any amount of those dollars which is being translated in a meaningful way into jobs for these shipyard workers in the new ship construction sector.
For instance, let me relate to the House some of the programs which have been implemented, none of which, I am surprised to hear, have funnelled into the Saint John shipyard, which the Government heralded with a great amount of fanfare would be a major recipient of the frigate program. We hope that will come onstream next fall, by the end of next October, although no definite word has yet come down from Ottawa. As I understand it, this is still the intention.
Because this yard in Saint John is now all but virtually shut down as a result of the lack of work there are hundreds of shipyard workers unemployed in that region who would normally be expected to be employed in the frigate program when it comes onstream. Their concern is that if something does not takes place between now and next fall when the program is due to come onstream a great many of these skilled workers will have left the work force and gone to either other construction sectors in Canada, or perhaps left the country altogether. What we will have as a result is an influx of foreign workers who will be taking jobs from those who would normally be slated to do the work this frigate program was intending to cover.
Let me say that of the $630 million originally allocated to Transport Canada for new ship construction, there has only been $376 million allocated to date. That has mainly gone to Quebec. A small amount has gone to Halifax, a substantial amount has gone to B.C., a smaller amount to Ontario-a
small project was allocated to Pictou-and some was allocated for the construction of barges, apparently in Thunder Bay.
There is still a substantial amount of that money which has not been allocated, but has been earmarked for projects such as the type 1200 heavy icebreaker, the type 800 small navaid tenders, two icebreaker refits, as well as an unspecified number of other small shore-based craft.
I recommend to the Government that it seriously consider allocating some of this money, and I am not asking that all of it, by any stretch, be to Saint John. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary does not stand in his place today and tell us what marvellous treatment the Saint John yard has been given by virtue of the frigate award announced here some time last year by the Minister, because in actual fact the majority or the lion's share of the work under that program is going to Quebec yards.
Although I know that the workers of Saint John, and certainly myself, applaud the Government for accepting the best tender and awarding that contract to certainly one of the most competent shipbuilding shipyards in the world, recognizing the expertise of the workers affiliated with that yard, nonetheless the fact is that the majority of the work that is going to be generated by that program will be going to yards in Quebec. I would ask him to take that under consideration.
My final point is this. I would ask the Government to address the very serious loophole that exists in the program which results in ships that would have otherwise been built in Canadian yards, providing employment for thousands of Canadians, now being built offshore. This Government is undertaking the subsidization of ships being constructed in foreign yards. It is effectively putting thousands of our shipyard workers out of work. That is very disconcerting. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take into direct consideration those two concerns that are being expressed by the workers of this country.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for representing his riding here so enthusiastically. I can assure the House that the Government is deeply concerned about the employment situation in the shipbuilding industry, particularly on the East Coast. It is unfortunate, however, that the Hon. Member does not seem to have been paying attention to the numerous initiatives taken by the Government in the last couple of years to alleviate the plight of shipyard workers. Indeed, if it were not for the Government's positive reaction to the world-wide recession in shipbuilding, there would likely not be anything built in this country's shipyards over the next few years. Just to refresh the Hon. Member's memory, I will go briefly over some of these initiatives.
In April, the Government introduced the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program under which it announced its intention to proceed with a $700 million Coast Guard vessel
February 2, 1984

acquisition and refurbishment program over the 1983-84 to 1987-88 period. That is a commendable initiative.
As the Hon. Member may recall, contracts for six 1100 series light icebreakers worth over $300 million were awarded in August; one in Nova Scotia, two in Quebec, one in Ontario and two in British Columbia. It is estimated that by 1987-88, the program will have generated employment of some 20,000 person-years in shipwards across the country. In June the Canadian Patrol Frigate $2.4 billion contract was awarded to Saint John Shipbuilding in New Brunswick. Work on the six frigates will be performed in both Saint John and in Montreal. It is estimated that this program will generate some 30,000 person-years of employment over the next eight years. The Hon. Member will also recall the award by CN Marine in February, 1983 of a $122 million contract to Davie Shipbuilding for the construction of a ferry.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are giving me a signal to hurry. I could not possibly continue through all the pages of specific programs that have been undertaken.
I conclude by saying that the Hon. Member is right in his concern and wrong in his facts. We have recognized the difficulty. We have been ready to stimulate the private sector through Government assistance. Tory calls to attack the deficit and to cut Government spending would attack programs just like these.


NATIONAL REVENUE-FILM ON DEPARTMENT'S USE OF COMPUTER-APPEARANCE OF DEPUTY MINISTER ON TELEVISION PROGRAM. (B) DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF TAXPAYERS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on Monday evening last, January 30, a film was shown on the CBC which was produced at the expense of Revenue Canada by the National Film Board. One wonders why the National Film Board, which presumably is there to improve the culture of Canada, should be producing documentary films for the Revenue Department. Nevertheless, the program "Excuse me, there is a computer asking for you" was produced at a cost of $190,000 to show Canadians the attitude of the Government toward them.
Indeed, the film depicts the ordinary Canadian as a sheepish victim of a supercilious, smug, all powerfull machine that never sleeps. Perhaps that is what we have become. The viewer instantly identifies with the little people; with Harry the wage earner, with Jenny the housewife, with Bob the handyman and the nameless antique shop proprietor, who are all just little fish trying to get along, like you and I.
The computer, by contrast, was depicted as having supernatural skills; all meaning, all seeing, capable, almost Godlike, of finding you and talking to you and keeping track of you. It is big brother visited upon us. Indeed, the computer is so competent that it can say that it not only knows about your tax affairs, it knows that your truck needs a brake job.
Adjournment Debate
An even worst test of taste is when the computer says, "Better drive carefully, I would not want to lose you now, I Finally found you." What a threat! Picture a fellow with a zootsuit and the mod look saying, "I would not want to lose you now, I found you. You better drive carefully, better pay your taxes, better do what I ask you do to and you better do what I tell you to do." It is frightening.
I asked the Minister if Bruce MacDonald, his deputy minister, had his permission to go on the CBC program, and the Minister indicated that he had. Indeed, he indicated that Bruce MacDonald was speaking for the Department, answering the Department's concerns. That deputy minister, speaking for the Government, says that the Government viewed the film properly and that was the Government's attitude. That was his indication. That disturbed me.
In my supplementary question I asked the Minister if he felt that the only way the Government could collect taxes would be to push Canadians, treat Canadians if they were crooks, no goods and defaulters and that they would only pay if they were harassed. The Minister said that he did not quite feel that way but he felt that the film was doing something good.
To be fair to the Minister, he has now seen some of the errors of his ways and has attempted to withdraw the film. 1 say that the Minister should not be entitled to withdraw the film. We have paid $190,000 to have this film produced. I say that the people of Canada ought to be able to see this film; they should be able to see what the Government thinks of them; that the Government feels they must be spied on and treated as if they are no goods and cheats. The Government will keep track of them and determine whether their cars need fixing. It must determine whether someone should come into an office and pay penalties.
I was privileged to get a copy of the transcript of film and I should like to read two or three parts of it into the record. It states that "people like Harry are not amusing, are they? They think they are dealing with a pocket calculator. Really, what they don't know I guess is that by forgetting to report income they can wind up in a lot of trouble". Then it refers to Jenny and says, "It is tax time again and I wondered if you remembered that you rented your home." The computer says, "He thinks there is no record, silly. There are public records everywhere."
The attitude that people be spied upon, that people be harassed, that people be threatened are not attitudes that governments should take toward ordinary Canadians, but those are the attitudes expressed in the film by the Minister and by the Government. For that reason, the Government must go.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has already indicated to the House that the film in question was aimed at a small minority of taxpayers, while fully realizing that the majority of Canadians do pay their full share of taxes

February 2, 1984
Adjournment Debate
as provided under the law. However, the Minister did acknowledge that the film could, inadvertently, give the impression that most Canadians cheat or try to cheat the system. This was certainly not the intention of the film, nor is it a view espoused by the Department or the Government. The objective of the film was to promote voluntary compliance with the laws and to inform people of their obligations. If the impression was otherwise, it was not the intention of the Department. The Minister was concerned that the objective of the film was not met and therefore withdrew it.
Hon. Members should now be aware that the Minister has announced that the National Film Board has been asked to suspend distribution of this film since he was concerned with the educational value in its presentation. The Minister has asked that a group of specialists in the communications field within the public service review the over-all communication strategy of Revenue Canada taxation with the public. The Hon. Member can rest assured that this film will be part of that review.


OLYMPIC GAMES-FUNDING OF CALGARY WINTER OLYMPICS. (B) TERMS OF DECEMBER PROPOSAL-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I asked to be put on the adjournment debate in order to attempt to straighten out the public record. As reported at page 771 of Hansard for January 26, I put questions to the Minister about funding for the Calgary Olympics. The Minister said that the position of the Canadian Government has always been the same. Later in my remarks 1 will show that that is not true.
The Minister went on to say "Never before did a Canadian Government invest that much in a sporting event in Canada- ". The amount in question is $200 million, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is from the Montreal area and knows that the Canadian Government gave the Montreal Olympics $613 million in the mid-70s. That amount, three times as large as this $200 million, indicates clearly that there is some misinformation around. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will clarify that.
I also want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the new Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier) may have been misled by his officials. 1 have in my hand a press release dated January 19, 1984. In the first paragraph the Minister is quoted as saying that the Government of Canada has decided to strengthen the offer to the Calgary Olympics. In a few minutes I will show that the offer is quite a bit weaker.
In paragraph three, the Minister indicated that the proposal has been presented to COC-88 and the other participants in the games, and that they have reacted favourably to the Government's offer. There are two pieces of misinformation in that one sentence, Mr. Speaker.
I have in my other hand the offer, dated January 20. The press release was dated January 19. How could it be in their hands when it was not even prepared until one day later? The indication is that they had reacted favourably. Mr. Speaker, it
is well known in Canada today that the Olympic Committee in Calgary did not react favourably and refused to sign the agreement reach on January 20. There are two pieces of misinformation in that one paragraph and one in the preceding paragraph.
What is at issue in terms of the agreement begins with the offer made by the previous Minister of Sports to the Calgary Olympic Committee on December 22, 1983. It was accepted, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of the Crown negotiated, the local committee accepts and, all of a sudden, in less than a month, we have a new Minister and a new agreement.
What are the characteristics of that change in agreement between those two documents? The first change is that the Government of Canada will accept all of the responsibility for building Olympic Park except that, if there is a cost over-run, the people of Calgary will pick up the cost of the Government's mistake. Who in his right mind, Mr. Speaker, would sign an agreement which says, "You control the building and I pay the bills and have no say over the size of those bills or the over-run"? That is the first change, and it is completely unacceptable to the people of Calgary, Mr. Speaker.
The second change relates to the disposition of surplus. If in fact the local committee runs an effective games and produces a surplus, the federal Government all of a sudden steps in and says it wants a veto over surplus. That runs against the agreement with the International Olympic Committee and is totally unacceptable to the international body, let alone the people of Calgary.
Next, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government wants a veto over cash flow. What are the implications for the people of Calgary? If we must borrow money to pay current bills, the people of Calgary must pay the interest on that borrowed money, yet the federal Government controls cash flow.
The next difference, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal Government wants to designate the operating entity for Olympic Park after the games are over. Why on earth is the federal Government not running the stadium in Montreal, if that is the principle? Why should the federal Government run Olympic Park in Calgary? Why can it not be turned over to the people of Calgary when the games are over? That would be fair and just.
The Government wants to give $30 million to the Olympic Endowment Fund and it wants all the credit. Lo and behold, when the games are over, it wants to tell the Olympic Endowment Fund how to spend the money so it can get more credit. If one makes a donation to an endowment fund, Mr. Speaker, you usually let the people who run the endowment fund decide how to spend the money. One cannot get credit for making an endowment and still retain control.
There are some other points which are also serious. The federal Government steps in between those two dates and says it wants exclusive jurisdiction over the logo and all the symbols of the Calgary Olympic Committee. That was not done, Mr. February 2, 1984

Speaker, with the Montreal Olympics and it should not be done in terms of the Calgary Olympics.
I believe I have demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, that the agreements are different, that there is a lot of falsification of the public record, and a lot of false statements made in that press release. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will stand up and tell us it is the fault of the bureaucrats, and not the Minister. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will set the record straight, take us out of the bureaucrats' hands and put us back in the hands of the Minister.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the organizing committee for the Oplympics in Calgary is responsible for the planning and staging of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. 1 am personally confident that it will be a successful and enjoyable event.
I would like to take a moment now to extend my personal best wishes to everyone who is involved in the games. I am sure that Canadians everywhere are looking forward to this as another hallmark of national pride. I know that if Calgary lives up to its famous reputation for western hospitality people all over the world will enjoy these Games immensely.
In exercising its responsibility, the organizing committee has been consulting for several months with all of its Games partners, which includes the Government of Canada, on the financial and other arrangements for the Games. In this spirit of consultation, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier) met representatives of the organizing committee, and other Games partners, on December 22 to discuss the principles which might later be embodied in a government financing proposal. These consultations have produced an offer by the Canadian Government to provide $200
Adjournment Debate
million in direct financial assistance to the games. I stress the word "direct". Indeed, never before has any Canadian Government invested that much money in a sporting event.
The Hon. Member used Montreal as a parallel. I hope he will have the courtesy to research how all of that money was earned, and then draw parallels with other involvements. I stress to him that this is a direct financial investment, not indirect.
Our proposal, however, is not a blank cheque. It includes the appropriate terms and conditions to ensure that we know how our money will be spent. Comparisons with Montreal should include the fact that conditions and terms were applied there as well. The Games have now also received $386 million from the sale of U.S. television rights. That is a record figure, some 250 per cent above the amount paid for the current games in Sarajevo.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that discussions are continuing on this issue. I personally expect that an agreement will be reached soon between the organizing committee and the Canadian Government, and that all Games' partners will be pleased by our generous mutual investment in the enduring benefits to high performance sport in Canada. Let me again wish everyone all the best. All of us are looking forward to a great time in Calgary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn the House being deemed to have been adopted, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.36 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 3, 1984