1986-01-24

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's decision to resume deporting Sikh refugee claimants to India is causing considerable concern in the Sikh community in Canada. In announcing this decision the Government cited a number of hopeful signs, such as the democratic election of a moderate Government in the Punjab last September. Naturally, we welcome such signs, and we hope that there will be communication and dialogue to bring order, stability, and peaceful solutions to the social upheaval in that part of the world.
At the same time we want to be very sure that the Government's decision is based on the most reliable and up-to-date information available. The ban on deportation was temporary; but a decision to return to normal procedure should be taken only on the basis of carefully gathered and evaluated information which indicates that actual conditions no longer warrant the existence of a moratorium.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
[DOT] * [DOT]


TRIBUTE TO PIERRE MONDOU
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: As a poet once wrote, Mr. Speaker, "Aux ames bien nees la valeur n'attend pas le nombre des annees".
A good many residents of my riding have decided to hold a gathering this evening in the fair city of Sorel to tell the young people of Canada what Pierre Mondou has done to show them the way to success. More than ever before Canadian youths need examples of determination, courage, and community spirit. Few of our sports heroes have lived up to such expectations, most of them choosing to bask in their own glory rather than to remain simple and pleasant company. Exceptions are few, but some of them did understand the leading role they were expected to play in our society.
This young man has just put an end to a long and promising career in our national sport, but he has never turned down requests for assistance from sports and social organizations in the beautiful Province of Quebec. He has never failed to promote the aspirations of young people and make them benefit from his advice and experience.
Today I echo the sentiments of the Pierre Mondou celebration organization committee and say to him: Sports-minded people throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada will miss you, but they will always have fond memories of you, your outstanding talent, and your engaging personality.
January 24, 1986


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, again I am pleased to speak on behalf of the small- and medium-sized businesses of Quebec City. Since November 1985 they can avail themselves of the services of "Carrefour PME", an operation which we think is unique.
The purpose of this operation is to encourage small- and medium-sized businesses to use the services and programs of both levels of Government in all matters related to staff recruiting as well as the preservation and promotion of employment. Mr. Speaker, those Quebec City businesses should be thankful to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, the Quebec Minister of Manpower and Income Security, the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of Greater Quebec City for taking this initiative.
Congratulations on this common agreement! Mr. Speaker, accomplishments inevitably stem from dialogue. Close to 2,000 companies will benefit from grants to small- and medium-sized businesses. This operation reflects the Canadian Government policy under which small businesses are allowed a free rein to expand. Let us leave our small-and medium-sized businesses operate in the sectors to which they are suited so that we will be able to create more jobs and give a boost to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, we believe in private enterprise and in its freedom of action.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has recently ordered an investigation in suspected cases of phoney refugees. It is a move that speaks to the need of locating illegitimate cases so as to better facilitate an expeditious and proper processing of the numerous legitimate files. However, the Minister has failed to exercise balance. Yesterday, for instance, Toronto's Portuguese community drew attention to the reality that many of its citizens are lured to Canada and subsequently misinformed and misled by unscrupulous immigration lawyers and consultants. Not only is it an issue of misleading advice but the fees which are being imposed on would-be citizens are grossly exhorbitant.
This latest charge is not a new phenomenon. The practice has been allowed to continue for some time. In fact I have met constituents who illustrated clearly how they have been hoodwinked and cheated of their moneys by so called consultants. Therefore, if the Minister wishes to rid the system of phoney refugees as she should, she should also be prepared to track down the phoney immigration consultants and lawyers
who live off the immoral proceeds derived from innocent and trusting individuals.
I call upon the Minister to investigate this crooked practice immediately and introduce regulations which will put an end to this illegal and insensitive gouging practice.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that good news generally does not retain the attention of national media, although it has not been lacking since the Conservative team came to power. For instance, after having advised us of the hundreds of thousands of new jobs created by our Government since September 1984, Statistics Canada published this week its most recent data on inflation. For the year that has just ended, the rate of inflation was 4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, we would have to go as far back as 1971 to find such a good performance. The data published by Statistics Canada are a far cry from the skyrocketing rates to which Canadian consumers had been used under the former Liberal administration. The stability of inflation rates over the past few months has created a climate of confidence favourable to economic recovery.
Mr. Speaker, the economic policies of the Conservative Government make it possible for the Canadian people to forget now about the dark years of the Liberal administration. Although they are not widely publicized, those data certainly please Canadian consumers.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to take a hard look at the way his Government is allowing itself to be used by Tories who would put their own financial gain before the welfare of the country. The Cape Breton clam scam is the latest example of the Government's lack of integrity. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) overruled his officials to grant two valuable licences to Mother Snow's Fine Foods Ltd. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) lobbied the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of the principals of that company. At the same time the Department of National Revenue was trying to execute thousands of dollars in outstanding judgments against those principals.
January 24, 1986

It is my opinion that the Minister has commited a serious breach of his responsibility and the Prime Minister should immediately demand his resignation. There are serious questions about the financial viability of the company and its principals. They appear to be relying on other companies to supply vessels and on the Government of Canada to supply grants to fund the entire endeavour. Three principals of Mother Snow's are being sued by Kristan Seafoods International for double-crossing it and appropriating company secrets without permission. Statements of claim against those principals and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have been issued.
It is my understanding that this company has applied for a DRIE grant of close to $1 million to build interim processing plant facilities. The facts of this case seem to be that a group of individuals whose only assets, intangible as they are, were Rick Logan, the member-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member his time
has expired.


SELECTION OF MINISTER AS &quot;OILMAN OF THE YEAR&quot;
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in the years between 1979 and 1985 the editors of Oilweek magazine were unable to reach consensus on the selection of the "Oilman of the Year" award. This traditional feature was then suspended. Undoubtedly, one of the obvious reasons for the lack of an award was the lamemtable state of the oil industry brought on by the previous Liberal Government's National Energy Program. This year Oilweek magazine did choose an "Oilman of the Year". With the rebirth of the Canadian petroleum industry, the choice was unanimous- The Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Kenneth Gormley: The Minister was recognized as the "Architect of Restoration". To illustrate this, one need only look at the Western Accord which will phase out the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax and the Petroleum Incentive Program. These measures are commitments made and honoured by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Government. The latest Figures indicate that oil well completions are up 21 per cent over last year. Even more important, this year's figures are almost twice as high as the 1983 level.
Considering what this outstanding oil person, the Prime Minister, and Government have done for energy policy in Canada, the selection of "Oilman of the Year" should not be a problem in coming years.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in this world there are winners and losers. For example, this week Canadians learned of two people who won huge prizes. One of them was my constituent, Mr. Jean Viau of Green Valley, Ontario, who won $10 million. The interest alone on that amount is over $2,000 per day. On the other hand, Simon Reisman also won the jackpot. He gets $1,000 per day and he did not even buy a ticket. I wonder if he will buy himself a red Corvette as well.
However, life is so unfair. Take Bill Davis, affectionately known as "Acid Rain Bill". He works part-time as well, but only gets $1 per year. It is universally recognized, of course, that he is worth at least twice that much. Meanwhile, the sad reality is that two of my constituents, Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Cameron, employees of the Department of Public Works in the post offices in Rockland and Hawkesbury, are being fired by the Tory Government because apparently they make too much money at $8 or $9 an hour. That is the reality of the Tory Government giving more to the rich and taking away from my poor constituents.


PLIGHT OF NONSMOKERS IN THE WORKPLACE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Canada's five million smokers, let me call attention to the plight of nonsmokers in the workplace. A recent grievance decision involving employees of the Department of Health and Welfare classified smoking as dangerous to the workers exposed to the smoke. The evidence is overwhelming that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. It is required that each package carry a health warning.
There is cogent evidence that exposure to passive smoke is equally dangerous to health. Why should nonsmokers face an unnecessary risk to their health pursuing their employment? The State of Maine has enacted laws requiring employers to have a smoke-free area in each workplace. The Government of Canada would be wise to consider a similar law.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In an on-going series of personal musings Simon Reisman, our trade

January 24, 1986
Oral Questions
negotiator, today expressed the view that he has yet to receive any mandate from the Government concerning the trade initiative, even though it was announced over six months ago.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it very strange and unusual to be paying someone $1,000 a day to be our chief trade negotiator without giving him any instructions or mandate on what his job should be? Can he tell us when Mr. Reisman will receive his mandate so that he can get on with the job?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think Mr. Reisman has made what his mandate is very clear. His mandate came out of the First Ministers' Conference. It is to work with the provinces to develop a common data base and a common set of understandings of what the impact of the negotiations would be on various industries and various regions of the country. That is what he is working on right now, leading up to the possible start of serious discussions with the Americans this spring.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO NEGOTIATOR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer, but apparently Mr. Reisman does not know that because he is quoted today as saying that he is still awaiting his government mandate. When will Mr. Reisman be given his mandate? When will he be permitted or told to come before committee so that we can find out what his mandate is and so that the public will know exactly what the Government intends to do on the trade negotiations?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just told the Hon. Member what Mr. Reisman's mandate is.


Mr. Deans:: Tell Mr. Reisman.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I just told the House what the mandate was, in response to the previous question. I do not think there is anything further to add.


Ian Deans: Is he supposed to watch Question Period to find out?


GRAND CANAL PROJECT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the same interview Mr. Reisman said that he was never associated with the Grand Canal Company which is dealing with water export proposals. Yet in a speech three months ago to the Ontario Economic Council he said that he was closely associated with the company and, in fact, was its chief economic adviser.
Is it not time for Mr. Reisman to submit a conflict of interest report so that he can be held accountable for his associations? Will Mr. Reisman be asked to come before committee so that we can determine what his associations and accountabilities are?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. gentleman would raise Mr. Reisman's character in that light, particularly in view of the fact that when the Member's Party was in government the then Leader of that Government arranged to pay $1,600 a day to a very deserving civil servant to settle the COPE native claims. The kind of statement made from the backbench opposite during Statements, and the kind of aspersions that the hon. gentleman is casting upon Mr. Reisman's character, are totally unwarranted and unjustified.


PRICE OF OIL
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that the mystery of high oil prices remains. Today the newspapers tell us that industry does not know why the prices are high. At the same time Imperial Oil reports an increase of $150 million in profits in 1985. Prince Yamani tells us that oil may go below $15 a barrel. Petro-Canada will not comment. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources please tell us what steps she is taking to solve this mystery on behalf of Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that such a distinguished Member has trouble understanding what is happening with oil prices. However, I can tell him that revenues earned by the oil companies are being reinvested in new jobs in Canada.
Since the introduction of our new energy regime, the reinvestment ratio of the industry has risen to 70 per cent, which has created 60,000 person years of employment in the last year alone. That is what has been happening in the oil and gas industry and there is no mystery about that.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the mystery remains. It is quite clear that the Minister does not know at all why prices remain at their current level. Yesterday, however, the Minister of Consumer Affairs stated that he felt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a preamble to a supplementary. Just a question, please.
[ Translation]


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is therefore as follows: To what level will prices have to fall- they have now reached $18 a barrel-before Canadian consumers can benefit from lower prices?
January 24, 1986


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that gasoline prices in his home City of Montreal have already dropped marginally since we went to deregulation in June. As the decrease in oil prices moves through the system, he can anticipate further benefits to the consumer.


OIL COMPANY PROFITS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today Imperial Oil's profits were reported at $684 million for 1985, which is up 28 per cent or $151 million over 1984. Its profit in the final quarter was $250 million, which is up by approximately 50 per cent over the final quarter last year. Obviously the Minister is going to bat for the big oil companies. When will she go to bat for the ordinary Canadian motorist who is continually being ripped off at the pumps?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the reason the Hon. Member must raise this question in the House is that the turn-out at his press conference was so dismal. Let me point out to the Hon. Member again that it is the moneys being earned by the oil and gas industry which are being reinvested in new jobs right across Canada. I pointed out that 60,000 new jobs were created in the last year alone. Industry investment rose 20 per cent to $10 billion in 1985. Canadians all across the country have benefited from those new jobs.
The Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake pointed out that drilling has reached an all-time record. Those benefits are being spread across the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister sounds like a broken record from the Canadian Petroleum Association.


PRICING PRACTICES OF OIL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister not deal with the facts? Is she aware that the Government's own Director of Combines has said that the big oil companies stamp out competition by shutting down independents, and refusing to sell gas to them and using unfair and anti-competitive contracts? In short, prices always go up. What will the Minister do to break up these anti-competitive practices so that Canadian motorists can take advantage of the dramatic decline in world oil prices?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has any evidence of collusion or activities of that nature, why does he not present it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not know where the Minister has been for the last 15 years. The Department is constantly saying that.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO PETRO-CANADA
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, getting back to the consumers and motorists, the Minister has an opportunity to show some leadership in this case. Is she prepared to move, under Section 7(2) of the Petro-Canada Act, by making Petro-Canada a price setter? Is she prepared to break up some of these anti-competitive practices so that the Canadian consumer will not get ripped off at the gasoline pumps?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not prepared to do that and I will tell you why.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You just want to be with the oil companies.


Pat Carney: If he wants to listen to me, this afternoon I will be meeting with the Minister responsible for the offshore, Mr. Bill Marshall, of Newfoundland. We will be working toward the development of Hibernia in which a major partner is Petro-Canada. That is where Petro-Canada's revenues will go, right into jobs in the offshore, in the oil patch in the West, in British Columbia and in the High Arctic.


PRICE OF GASOLINE-CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Newfoundlanders now need 64 cents a litre to pay for their gasoline. They need those jobs now and they need a lower price.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. I want to read him a telegram from the Canadian Automobile Association. Two million members say "I've had enough":
I agree with the Canadian Automobile Association that gasoline taxes are too high-I want to know what you plan to do to relieve motorists of this inequitable tax burden.
What is the Minister's answer to those two million Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy has commented on the way lower international oil prices flow through the system, through the refining and marketing parts of the system, until they reach the consumer. It takes about two months. During that period of time, as the Hon. Minister has just said, consumers can expect to see the lower prices reflected at the pump.
In 1980, in St. John's, the price of gasoline was 32.4 cents a litre. In 1984, after four and a half years of Liberal Government, the price was 54.8 cents a litre.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That was an increase of about 60 per cent in the price of gasoline. Surely the Hon. Member should be asking himself when he looks in the mirror in the morning: "Why didn't I speak out?" Why didn't the

January 24, 1986
Oral Questions
Hon. Member speak out against the Minister of Energy of his own Government?


REQUEST FOR TAX REDUCTION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it was that Member who asked for a reduction in taxes. Why did he increase taxes 58 per cent last year?
If high gasoline prices were a crime, he would be charged as an accomplice.
Will the Minister move to reduce taxes and give us a fair and equitable gasoline price?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member likes to use these big percentage figures. It was 2 cents a litre-2.1 cents to be quite precise, that we increased gasoline taxes.


Bill Rompkey: There is another tax.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, there is another tax that is coming on in due course.
I ask the Hon. Member to think why that is so. The reason is that we were left with a $35 billion deficit which was rising-


An Hon. Member:: You have other options.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would just listen to the answer to his question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If we can get this deficit down-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If we can get this deficit down, all consumers will benefit because we will have lower interest rates. That is the direction in which the Government is going. If the previous Government had not left us with that huge deficit, we would not have to be doing these things to get the deficit down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy. She will know when in opposition on a number of occasions she and her colleagues, through motions and speeches in the House and
policy statements, made a pledge to the people of Canada to reduce taxes on gasoline to promote tourism. Now that the Member is in government, why has she changed her mind? In opposition she said taxes on gasoline must be reduced to assist tourism. Now in government she increases taxes. Why did she change her policy? Why did the Government change its policy?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, this Government has done more for consumers in deregulating the oil and gas industry so consumers can experience price decreases. Under the National Energy Program, remember, prices went up 80 per cent.
The Minister of Finance has already answered the question about the requirement to keep taxes on, namely, it was to deal with the horrendous deficit for which we all have to pay.


EXPO 86
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the Government knew what the deficit was before it took power.
Considering Expo 86 is about to open, and knowing that American tourists once they fill up in Canada are not going to travel throughout Canada, will the Minister explain once again why the position on gas taxes is different when the Tories are in government than what they had pledged to the people of Canada when in opposition?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been answered adequately by the Minister of Finance.


Ian Deans: You are the only one who does.


Pat Carney: When he is so concerned about Expo, may 1 point out that prices of gasoline, net of taxes, are actually down in Vancouver.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is absolute nonsense.

[ Translation]


SPACE WEAPONRY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence.
In view of the new statement made by the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev, is the Government planning to make another proposal and to put pressure on the American Government so that the main obstacle to achieving rapid progress in nuclear disarmement, namely the Star Wars
January 24, 1986

Project, be put on the table to help find a quick solution to this major problem?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, who I believe was absent yesterday, has not checked yesterday's Hansard where the Secretary of State for External Affairs covered that.


An Hon. Member:: He was here yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, he was here.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He was not in Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: He could not have been listening-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was listening.


Erik Nielsen: -because it was covered fully by the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday.


Mr. Gauthier:: No, it wasn't; that is the reason for the question.


NEW PROPOSAL BY U.S.S.R.-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Deputy Prime Minister that I was here in the House and said that this was the weak point in the situation.
Is the Government planning to change its policy in view of the Gorbachev proposal as it did last spring, when, after beginning by supporting the Star Wars project, it then decided not to support this project following pressures by the Canadian public? Does the Government plan to show some sense like last year and put pressure on the Americans to eliminate the major obstacle to negotiations which would bring lasting peace?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as to the Strategic Defence Initiative of the United States, the Government position on that has been made clear repeatedly over the months. There is no Government-to-Government participation with that initiative. As to the general nature of the remainder of the hon. gentleman's question, that was covered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who very clearly set out Government policy on the matter yesterday.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS COSTS OF MEDICARE AND EDUCATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. According to figures produced by Statistics Canada, the federal Government's contributions to medicare and post-secondary education costs have been rising more slowly than the actual costs of those
Oral Questions
programs. With this in mind, will the Minister of Finance indicate whether he would be willing to let the present Established Programs Financing legislation run its full course to the end of March, 1987? Will he let it go its full course before he makes those cuts?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is dealing with apples and oranges here. There are many elements in provincial health care costs which the federal Government has never had any responsibility to finance or to participate in their financing. He is including those figures in the calculation which he just used in his preamble. As far as the substantive question is concerned, we have made our position quite clear on it. We will be introducing legislation shortly to deal with this matter, and its effect will take place on April 1, 1986.


CASH PAYMENTS TO PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to have a problem understanding that costs are increasing in medicare and post-secondary education, but especially in medicare because people are getting older and our technology is more advanced. Will the Minister admit that, as a result of the course of action to which he is committed, the Province of Quebec will actually be receiving less money in cash from the federal Government at the end of this decade than it will be receiving from the federal Government next year? As a result of the program which he is introducing it will actually receive less cash from the federal Government.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member understands why that is. There is a formula under which provinces are recompensed in cash plus tax point transfers. Some years back the Province of Quebec opted to take more by way of tax point transfers. Therefore, when changes to the program occur, this only affects the cash element. That is the reason for the change.


HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last May 27 in the House, speaking about the Solicitor General of the day, the Prime Minister agreed with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain when that Member said that it was not apppropriate for a Solicitor General to comment on a matter which was before a tribunal for investigation. The Prime Minister said that he would discuss it with all members of his Government and "ask them to bear in mind the injunction of which his hon. friend speaks so well". Will the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister apply this fundamental principle to

January 24, 1986
Oral Questions
the current Solicitor General, in view of what that Solicitor General said in the House yesterday about matters before the Human Rights Commission for investigation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any validity in the allegations contained in that preamble. I do not share the view, but if he really believes that he is correct he should be speaking to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, and perhaps to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, rather than directing criticisms here.


COMMENTS BY MINISTERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the conduct of Ministers for which the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister are responsible. I ask him why the Government will not continue to apply the fundamental principle that Ministers should not comment on matters before courts or tribunals, including matters before the Canadian Human Rights tribunal, for investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 allowed the first question because I understood his dilemma, but my dilemma with the second question, I think the Hon. Member will know, is that since he asked me to rule on the matter as a point of order, and I have reserved on that, I think I should really make a decision and come back on that question prior to these questions being put, with respect.


FISHERIES
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It relates to the Cape Breton clam scam. Would the Minister confirm that he lobbied the Minister of Fisheries to obtain valuable clam fishing test licences for Mother Snow's Fine Foods, while at the same time the Department of National Revenue was attempting to collect thousands of dollars in unsatisfied judgments against a principal of the company?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question relates to the procedure in which experimental licence applications have been invited from a number of different contenders who seek to develop an important economic opportunity off the coast of Nova Scotia. That procedure has been carried out by Atlantic regional officials in accordance with specific criteria, established to be fair and equitable to all applicants. Any representations made to myself as Minister of Fisheries were made by Members of Parliament from Nova Scotia in accordance with their duties as Members representing their respective constituencies.


ROLE OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Revenue confirm for the House that he admitted in a public forum that he lobbied on behalf of Mother Snow's Fine Foods and its principals when it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Hon. Member knows that questions can only be placed to Ministers with regard to their administrative responsibilities.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns some disturbing statistics issued to me by the Department of National Health and Welfare respecting the eligibility of widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. Apparently only 30 per cent of 40 per cent of eligible widows and widowers have bothered to apply for the extended spousal allowance. Does the Minister blame his dismal record on the poor advertising campaign to inform the public, or did the Government seriously overestimate the number of persons eligible for that program?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was correct in that that is a question which is more appropriately put to my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He knows that we have gone to a good of trouble, both in direct advertising as well as in advertising through Government cheques, to try to advise all Canadians who could be eligible for this. We believe that the statistics originally set out are accurate statistics. We are still trying to advise people who could be eligible that the program is there. I thank the Hon. Member for his question, because it helps bring that to the attention of Canadians.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF MARITAL STATUS CRITERION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Will the Minister, with the resulting $200 million in savings, now extend that program as we advocated during the time of debate on the Bill to all people between the ages of 60 and 64 regardless of marital status?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this Government is always looking at various options to consider regarding eligibility of people for programs. I will take his comments as a further representation.
January 24, 1986


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport knows that the taxpayers have spent millions of dollars upgrading Gander as an international airport, spending over $6 million last year. Gander is open far more often than St. John's, which is as fogged in as the Minister of Justice. He should also know that if Air Canada does move, St. John's would require additional millions spent to accommodate that airline, and that other international flights could then very well follow Air Canada out of Gander. Is the Minister going to let Air Canada undermine the importance of Gander as an international airport?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would expect me to respond to Air Canada's request to transfer its international flights from Gander to St. John's. It has made that representation to me and I am considering all the facts related to the decision that could be made. I will consider everything the Hon. Member has referred to, in the course of coming up with that decision.


DEREGULATION POLICY INQUIRY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, is it the Minister's policy under his proposals for deregulation to allow airlines to abandon expensive taxpayer supplied infrastructure whenever they want at airports, at great additional expense to taxpayers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada is a Crown corporation and it requested a transfer of flights based strictly on a commercial decision. We will have to respond to that and certainly take all those things into consideration. The Hon. Member talks about deregulation. We are not in the process of deregulation; it is regulatory reform that is going to be the package that will be developed. It will be a policy unique to Canadian needs, which will serve the best interests of all Canadians.


REASON FOR TRANSFER REQUEST
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Can the Minister confirm that the reason Air Canada is requesting to move its transatlantic flights from Gander to St. John's is that 80 per cent of the transatlantic traffic emanates from St. John's? There is no connecting flight to Gander. The infrastructure to handle that one flight a week is already in place.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, indeed that is the contention of Air Canada. There are others who dispute those figures. That is part of the ongoing assessment in dealing with this very important issue. Those things will be taken into consideration before a final decision is made.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


EAST COAST-1986 GROUNDFISH ALLOCATIONS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In light of the fact that the 1986 Groundfish Management Plan for the Scotia Shelf cuts the inshore fishermen by 21,901 metric tonnes and increases the allocation for the offshore vessels by 35,978 metric tonnes of fish more than what they caught last year, will the Minister meet with the inshore fishermen of Yarmouth and Digby to reconsider those allocations for a fair and equitable sharing of that resource?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Hon. Member for raising this very important question. Indeed, the allocations for the 1986 groundfish season on the Scotian Shelf are slightly reduced from the actual catches of last year. In some cases there have been offsetting increases granted, but the division in cod allocation for 1986 is based on the same formula as the division for 1985. At the present time I am exploring the possibility with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries for Nova Scotia, of adjusting that division. 1 will be meeting with him on Sunday to discuss this question further.


INCREASE IN RED FISH QUOTA
George Roland Henderson: Also in 4RST, the red fish quota has been increased by 5,000 metric tonnes for the vessels located outside the Gulf. Fishermen who are traditionally fishing the Gulf fishery claim that those stocks are declining. Will the Minister reconsider that extra 5,000 metric tonne allocation that was given to the offshore outside Gulf vessels?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The decision to add an additional 5,000 metric tonnes to the 4T red fish quota was based on a long-term plan adopted by the previous Government, of which he was a supporter. On the basis of biological advice it appeared there were sufficient increases in red fish stocks to absorb such an increase. That is the basis on which this decision has been made. At the same time we are looking for alternative stocks which might be fished by the fleet in the southern Gulf based in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, in order to give them additional advantage as well.


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Canadian dollar has dropped to 70.72 cents U.S. this morning, the lowest level in the history of Canada. How does the Minister account for this continued devaluation of Canadian currency?


An Hon. Member:: Blame it on the Liberals.

January 24, 1986
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have made it a practice not to comment on specific levels of the Canadian dollar. The Hon. Member has read a number of stories in the media and they give a range of reasons for the performance of the Canadian dollar. I encourage him to read them.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR
Ian Deans: I must say that 1 find that a cop-out. The Minister of Finance is responsible for financial conditions in this country and should be answering questions about the Canadian dollar. Will he direct the Governor of the Bank of Canada today to present alternative ways of protecting the Canadian dollar other than raising interest rates which will detrimentally affect the positions of millions of Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make two comments on that suggestion. First of all, I have said, and will say again to the Hon. Member, that it is not possible for the Governor of the Bank of Canada, or for the Minister of Finance, to wave a magic wand and hold the level of the Canadian dollar or the level of interest rates. Those levels are set by the market-place. The Bank of Canada will moderate movements upwards and downwards in both of those key markets. It is not possible to set the rate.
What I have said, and I will say it again, is that the important thing is that we establish the right fundamental economic environment in this country, and that is what we are working on. This will lead to a degree of stability, and, in time, some increase in the level of the Canadian dollar. We have to get to the fundamentals, and one of those fundamentals is getting the size of the federal government deficit down, and the Hon. Member continually retards our ability by the comments that he makes. That is what we have to be working on, and I look forward to his support on that.


AIR CANADA
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns Air Canada. Last week our state carrier announced a seat sale which excluded Saskatoon and Regina. Once again it appears my Province of Saskatchewan, a province in which Air Canada enjoys a virtual monopoly, has been excluded. Can the Minister take steps to encourage Air Canada to examine its policy in this regard?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have raised this question with the President of Air Canada and he has reminded me that the sale proposed by CP was a ten-day sale, a very limited time, for flights between February 1 and March 6, with discounts of up to 80 per cent.
He reminded me that Air Canada provides year-round discounts of up to 70 per cent, with other bonuses such as vouchers and certain sun sale fares added on top of that. Indeed, the residents of Saskatchewan are well served by Air Canada, and at competitive prices.
I think it would be fitting for me to say to the Hon. Member that this year Air Canada was named the winner of the 1985 Passenger Service Award by Air Transport World which recognizes the high level of service that the airline provides.


THE ECONOMY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the Canadian dollar tumbled to 70.72 cents U.S. today-an alltime trading low against the American currency-does the Minister agree that this reflects a judgment by the international community on his Government's handling of the Canadian economy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no, I would disagree fundamentally with the Hon. Member's statement. What has been going on for the past ten years- since the fall of 1976-is that the Canadian dollar has been in a downward slide. It takes time to turn that around.
In response to the specific question posed by the Hon. Member, I ask her to read the OECD report, which was issued just before Christmas, in which there were no policy recommendations. Normally, reports from the OECD contain policy recommendations. The OECD said that the reason for that was because it agreed very much with the basic policies which this Government has brought in since September, 1984. It has no advice to give to the Government of Canada because everything we are doing is right.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You never listen anyway. You weren't even in power then.


Lloyd Axworthy: We give it free every day but you won't listen.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I know that you would not allow me in my preamble to get into a disagreement with respect to the OECD report. Thus, my supplementary question is simply-


Mr. Speaker:: Well done.


Aideen Nicholson: Is the Minister therefore saying that he intends to take no action whatever to prevent the dollar going through the 70-cent barrier?
January 24, 1986


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I do not comment on specific levels of the Canadian dollar. She knows the intervention policy-


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's the lowest it's been in history.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -of the Bank of Canada, as I have indicated to her and other Members of the House as recently as two answers ago. If she wishes to disagree with the report of the OECD, I think she will find that there are many more people who would disagree with her than she has indicated.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration to whom I gave notice by telephone this morning. As the Minister knows, since the Supreme Court declared ten months ago that the Charter forbids the Canadian Government to deny refugee status to anyone without an oral hearing, the number of refugee claimants in Canada has mushroomed from 14,000 to over 20,000.
When will the Minister take action on the recommendations of the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which was tabled last December, and which recommended just, speedy, and compassionate administrative measures for clearing up the backlog of refugees and reducing the delay, thereby taking away the motivation for the racket of phoney refugee claims?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I want to assure him that the sixth report which was tabled in the House on December 19 is being studied by myself and by my colleagues. We are looking at the whole matter of the backlog and at a new refugee determination system on an urgent basis.
I wish to commend the members of the committee for their very thorough analysis of this troubling issue and to assure them that their recommendations wills be very useful especially at this time, as we bring proposals before the House.


VISA REQUIREMENT FOR PORTUGUESE VISITORS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister, then, assure the House that he will not consider imposing a visa requirement on visitors from Portugual, at least until he has taken these just measures to reduce the backlog of refugee claimants and so cut the motivation out from under this phoney racket of refugee claims?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises the issue of a number of people who at this moment claim to be refugees and who are
Oral Questions
asking for those claims to be tested. I wish to assure the Hon. Member that I have been in close contact with the Portuguese community and that the action of the Government at this time is on those who are encouraging fraudulent claims. I appreciate very much the support of the Portuguese community, and also the support of all communities involved in identifying these abuses. I am now gathering information in that regard and where appropriate prosecutions may be undertaken.


HOUSING
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister reponsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing. It centres around a recent statement published by the Toronto Home Builders' Association that there was a 71.5 per cent increase in the sale of new homes in the Toronto area in 1985. Can the Minister explain to Canadians how this amazing increase took place? Does he feel that it might just be a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member brings an increase in sales to the attention of the House. I would also like to say to the Hon. Member that home starts in the last year were up 21 per cent over the previous year. That is as a result of the economic and financial handling of the economy by the Minister of Finance and this Government.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: What about the dollar?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member should know that barely into the second year of the mandate of this Government it has created 44,000 more jobs than the Liberal Government created in four and a half years-44,000 more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for those sales happens to be because interest rates are 2.5 percentage points lower than they were on election day in 1984. Another reason is because the unemployment rate has gone down since 1984-


Don Boudria: Thank you!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the

January 24, 1986
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance said that the solvency of insurance companies is a federal responsibility. Can he explain to the House why 15 insurance companies cannot pass the test of solvency in accordance with the TRAC report of 1985 published by Colander Publications Inc.? Are we headed for another bank fiasco such as we saw last year?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, is not in the House today.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: She'll deal with this matter as she did with the CCB matter.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I suggest that the Hon. Member ask the question of the Minister when she is here on Monday.


Alfonso Gagliano: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In the context of just-to-take-notice, it is a little difficult.


CORPORATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, as we feared and predicted, Mitel's future has been thrown into doubt by the interference of British regulatory agencies. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the Minister contacted British authorities to find out what the British monopolies report to the Minister of Industry-which has now been delivered-has actually said, so that some policy responses can be developed here quickly in order to respond to the potential difficulty which Mitel could face?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will take that very clear and very precise question as notice. I will bring it to the attention of the appropriate Minister who, in turn, will be in touch with the hon. gentleman.


THE ECONOMY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. During the election campaign of 1984 Conservative candidates across Canada were distributing what they called "Liberal dwindle dollars" worth 75 cents U.S. Will the Minister not now admit that the Liberal dwindle dollar worth 75 cents was a lot better than what his Government has been able to accomplish? Would he specifically tell the House today what he will do to
stop interest rates from rising in view of the Tory dwindle dollar worth 70 cents? And how am I going to be able to tell my constituents that their interest rates will not increase as a result of the lack of confidence in the Government?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest his constituents should do is to encourage him to come to the Minister of Finance and say: "Keep up the good work. You're doing a great job".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The economic policies of this Government are sound now because the OECD simply says they are right. Everyone who is watching what we are doing says we are going in the right direction because we have created 450,000 jobs. We have interest rates down by 2.5 percentage points.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have investment up 11 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of 11, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, January 23, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie) by filing with the Clerk of the House also do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of Pine Hill Divinity Hall, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a question of order from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
January 24, 1986



POINTS OF ORDER


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order for the purpose of seeking some clarification of a ruling you made during Question Period with reference to the supplementary question I asked. Of course, I recognize the point of your comment but I really want to ask about the extent to which one can ask a Minister about the general policy of the Government even though the matter may have been seemingly raised in a point of order earlier.
My question was intended to be about the policy of the Government on Ministers commenting on matters before tribunals and it did not relate to the application of the sub judice convention with respect to your work in the House, Mr. Speaker, or comments by other Members.
I just want to add this final point, Sir. The policy of the Government about comments of Ministers regarding matters under investigation is something which applies to what Ministers say, whether or not they are speaking in the House. In fact, the comments by the Solicitor General of the day, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), which were the subject of the exchange between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in the House last May 27, were comments made outside of the House to a group of journalists.
So I respectfully submit, by way of conclusion, that my questions were intended to relate to the policy of the Government that Ministers should not comment on matters under investigation by tribunals whether or not the comments were made in the House itself.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) makes a fair point and I think he knows that my difficulty at the time was in having to make the decision on the spot as to whether the question related to the matter which is under reservation or to the general policy question. Given what I thought I heard asked, I felt I had no choice but to make the statement I did.
I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West indicates in his comments that he appreciated the difficulty I was under. I also appreciate his submissions on the question and I will be back to the House, 1 hope, at the earliest possible moment, probably Monday, on the issue itself.



CLARIFICATION SOUGHT OF MR. SPEAKER'S RULING ON SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible for the Chair to review the proceedings today in which the supplementary question I asked of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) dealt with what would appear to be a ministerial requirement to be aware of actions in his Department in which they are attempting to collect moneys owed. Therefore, the question was seeking an answer to the Minister's awareness of his
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
responsibilities, as Minister of National Revenue, concerning moneys owed by individuals upon which he was undertaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member is asking me to review the question he asked and determine whether in fact, on the spot, I made a correct judgment. I will be happy to do that. 1 thought I heard a different question than the one the Hon. Member has just described. However, 1 am prepared to review the "blues".



PRACTICE OF HOUSE RESPECTING MOTIONS UNDER S O. 31

["I can see where the Hon. Member is going. The Hon. Member knows the rules require that a petition be submitted in its original form. The question I was asked by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was whether an Hon. Member could go to the Clerk of Petitions to obtain a photocopy of a petition which had been accepted. 1 think the Hon. Member may have misconstrued that. He does know that the requirements are that the only petition the Clerks can verify as to whether it is in order is the original petition. A good try, though.", 'January 24, 1986\nOrder Paper Questions']
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister's answers to the questions about the falling dollar,
I would have wished to move a motion for an emergency debate. Am I right in thinking that the requirements for notice make this impossible today and that it will have to wait until Monday?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is indeed correct, so the House will know, simply because of the requirement to submit a notice in writing in advance, as stipulated under Standing Order 31.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me deal with what 1 think is now going to be attempted procedurally and indicate that if one wanted to try something procedurally along the lines of unanimous consent, it would have to be done at the point at which a Standing Order 31 notice would normally be dealt, and that would come later on.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 thought the Speaker was deaf unless he was being directly addressed.


Mr. Speaker:: That was neither a point of order, nor true.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with petitions. I tabled some petitions yesterday and I take it today that you have ruled they were not acceptable or did not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. They were photocopies of originals which I tabled yesterday thinking that your ruling to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme)-


Mr. Speaker:: I can see where the Hon. Member is going. The Hon. Member knows the rules require that a petition be submitted in its original form. The question I was asked by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was whether an Hon. Member could go to the Clerk of Petitions to obtain a photocopy of a petition which had been accepted. 1 think the Hon. Member may have misconstrued that. He does know that the requirements are that the only petition the Clerks can verify as to whether it is in order is the original petition. A good try, though.

January 24, 1986
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present to the House another petition from residents of Moncton. Once again, these people refer to the concern there now exists in the Moncton area and ask the Government to take action to protect the jobs at the CN shops in Moncton.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the eighteenth report of the Striking Committee presented to the House on Wednesday, January 22, 1986 be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 384 will be answered today.


Mr. Young: Did the Prime Minister make a representation to the Prime Minister of Great Britain that the Governments of Canada and Great Britain enter into a reciprocal social security agreement and, if so, did the Prime Minister of Great Britain respond to that representation and what was the nature of that response?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The question of a reciprocal social security agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom was raised once again during the Prime Minister's visit to London, April 28 to May 1, 1985, at the Senior officials level. Canada reiterated its position that the conclusion of such an agreement remains a high priority and that it would be prepared to start
negotiations at any time. To date, the British Government has not expressed any interest in undertaking such negotiations.
[ Translation]


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That Bill S-6 (from the Senate), An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
The three tax conventions under review are similar to those which Parliament has approved in the past. As you know, Mr. Speaker, 36 tax conventions are now in force in Canada. Once ratified, the three conventions under review will be the first agreements of this kind between Canada and these countries.
The various income elements in these conventions will receive a tax treatment similar to that provided for under the other conventions already signed by Canada. Actually, the dividends paid to non-residents by Canadian corporations are generally subject to a maximum 25 per cent rate in Canada. As usual, under the agreement signed between Canada and India, the withholding rate is reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. However, the recipient must be a corporation holding at least 10 per cent of the shares of the corporation that pays the dividends, and where they are paid on earnings resulting


INCOME TAX AGREEMENTS, 1985
[Stage Direction]
January 24, 1986
[Stage Direction]
from a new capital injection made after the date this agreeemnt was signed, that being October 30, 1985.
In general, interests paid by a resident of one country to a resident of the other country are subject to a 15 per cent tax rate. There are however exceptions, where interests are paid by or to a Government. In the case of Guyana, interest paid to a resident of Canada are subject to a 25 per cent withholding rate.
As far as royalties are concerned, the agreements provide for a general tax rate of 10 per cent in the source country. However, under the agreement with India, a 30 per cent rate will apply to technology transferred under arrangements made or contracts signed after the date the agreement was signed. In Canada, the statutory rate of 25 per cent will apply to royalties paid to residents of India.
The agreements also deal with other items, Mr. Speaker, especially the taxing of capital gains, income derived in respect of professional services or other dependent activities and pensions. In all those cases, Canada has maintained the right to tax those items pursuant to the policy previously in force.
The tax agreements further provide for a relief from double taxation on foreign income of Canadian residents, subject to the limits provided for them by Canadian law. Furthermore, they provide for dividends received by Canadian corporations on the tax exempt surplus of their foreign affiliates residing in the country with whom Canada has reached a tax agreement to be tax exempt in Canada from now on.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the agreements signed with Guayana and India include provisions about the credit for fictitious income tax. Under such provisions, fiscal incentives granted under a specific statute of those countries will be recognized for the purpose of computing the foreign tax credit in Canada. This means that Canadian investors will benefit directly from those incentives without any possibility of the Canadian tax eliminating them.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of each of these agreements present fair solutions to various problems of double taxation between Canada and those various countries. Each of the countries involved hopes to be able to implement within the shortest possible time frame a valid bilateral tax agreement.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that this House give speedy attention to this Bill.
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as I said the last time we had one of these tax treaty Bills before us, commenting on a Bill of this nature is always somewhat anticlimactic in that the treaty has already been signed by the Governments concerned, usually after protracted negotiations, and parliamentary approval by both countries is the last step. It is rare for amendments to be made to this kind of Bill,
Double Taxation
although in 1980 the then Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs amended a Bill containing 11 tax treaties. They removed approval for one. That treaty was signed in 1976 but not finalized and has never since been renegotiated.
The Bill before us today concerns taxation between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
These measures should make for additional convenience for residents of Canada who have either family businesses or other business interests in those countries. It should make for certain additional smoothness in managing their tax affairs. On balance, the terms of the respective double taxation conventions provide an equitable solution to problems of double taxation and should be acceptable to most Canadian residents.
The convention also contains tax sparing provisions in the case of Guyana and India. Under these provisions the tax incentives granted by the domestic legislation of those countries will be recognized in computing Canadian tax. Therefore, Canadian residents will be allowed to deduct the amount of tax which would have been payable in the absence of special incentive legislation in the other country.
In Canada, double taxation of foreign source income of Canadian residents is alleviated by way of a foreign tax credit. In addition, dividends received by a company resident in Canada from the exempt surplus of its foreign-affiliate resident in a treaty country will be exempt from tax in Canada. The right of Canada to tax pensions and annuities paid to non-residents is protected.
Some of the other matters also dealt within these tax treaties include capital gains and non-discrimination. Under the conventions, discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited. This will ensure that nationals of a country receive equal treatment to that received by nationals of the other country in the same tax circumstances. However, this does not prevent a country from providing fiscal incentives, for example small business deductions, on the basis of the residence of the taxpayer.
In conclusion, this appears to be a relatively straightforward piece of legislation. We on this side have no particular reason to debate it at length and we would like to see it move into committee.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise to say a few words regarding Bill S-6. Not to prolong the discussions around this Bill let me just say that the previous two speakers have indicated its nature. As the Hon. Member indicated, everything is signed, sealed and delivered and we are going through a formality because it must be done. One can hardly get excited or enthused about something that is really an afterthought. However, it is important that Canada take the initiative to complete these agreements between Canada and, in this case, India, Guyana and the U.S.S.R.

January 24, 1986
Double Taxation
More and more now Canadians are going abroad and involving themselves in entrepreneurial initiatives and doing business in other countries. Of course, until these tax treaties are arranged, it means that people are often taxed twice, once in the country in which they are doing business, and again in the country of their citizenship. In a sense, Bill S-6 ensures that income earned will only be taxed once. I suppose that as far as the Government is concerned that is not a major item, but it is a signal that the Government now sends out to Canadian investors and business people that doing business in India, the USSR, and Guyana will now be made easier. The matter of taxation of one's personal affairs will not be jeopardized by being involved in business or work of one kind or another in these three countries.
Having had the opportunity in the last number of months to travel to both India and the Soviet Union on Government matters, it seems to me that this is a very timely and important Bill. The opportunities for enhanced trade, to do business, and to make deals in the U.S.S.R. and India particularly, are quite limitless. The country of India is booming industrially. It needs a great deal. It can use much of the technology that has been developed to a high level in Canada, whether in telecommunications, transportation, or the construction of hydro electric works. There is an opportunity, not only for Canadians to involve themselves in doing business in these countries, but also for Canada to play a role, particularly in countries like Guyana and India, in terms of assisting their development toward self-reliance and self-determination in economic terms.
I am very impressed with the advances that the poor country of India has made in terms of developing its industrial and communication infrastructure. I was quite amazed that one can actually send a letter from Bombay to Calcutta in one day. This is a country of nearly 800 million people and 800,000 villages. Yet, its mail system is very sophisticated relative to ours. The development of transportation and hydro electric systems is escalating, to a large extent, because of Canadian technology and assistance from both the private and the public sectors.
In the Soviet Union there are many areas in which Canadian entrepreneurs, investors, developers, and exporters and importers could do business. The technology that has been developed primarily in western Canada is directly transferable to the development of a great deal of their petro-chemical industry. Canadians often have a mind-set which prohibits them from doing business in the Soviet Union. I think it would be fair to say that Canadians also have a problem doing business in countries such as India with such a different cultural milieu. It requires a sophisticated and knowledgeable approach. I am pleased to see that many Canadian firms are developing that ability.
Bill S-6 will go a long way toward removing the discrimination which presently exists and accomplishing a system of economic justice for Canadians who choose, for one reason or another, to accept employment in another country. This discrimination is not intentional, Mr. Speaker, but rather the product of lack of co-ordination between the tax systems of various countries or a failure of those systems to accommodate adequately the special circumstances of particular income earners. Under these agreements all income earners, whether employed in Canada or in one of the countries named in the Bill, will now be placed on a much more equal footing. It is our intention, as New Democrats, to facilitate the passage of this Bill to allow Canadians to get on with doing business in these three countries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), seconded by Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth), moves that Bill S-6, an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, an Act respecting Customs.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an understanding that this Bill will go to Committee of the Whole. Is that not right?
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It does not often happen that the House deals with amendments coming from the Senate and this is in my case a first experience. Consequently, I would need some explanations. I take it for granted that the five Senate amendments will be considered as a whole, meaning that we will be speaking on five amendments and afterwards if we deem it advisable we will pass or reject them and advise the Senate accordingly. Is it the procedure to be followed?
January 24, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Indeed, it is. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has described exactly the procedure to be followed.

The matter is put to the House as if it were second reading to give Members an opportunity to debate it. Members may agree to the amendments or may further amend the amendments. I will then put the question, after which the Bill will be sent back to the Senate.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague opposite, I would like to ask the concurrence of the House in some minor technical amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, the Customs Act Bill. As the House knows, this Bill was given third and final reading here in early November after consideration by the House and by the House committee designed to review it. It was subsequently sent to the Senate, where it was also passed before the end of last year.
During study of the Bill in the Senate it was discovered that some minor corrections were required. There are four technical changes which have been made to Bill C-59 in Sections 64, 142 and 160. Two of these are minor corrections made to the French text so that both language versions of the Bill are identical in meaning. The third is a correction in a cross-reference to a subsection of one of the Bill's clauses. The fourth is the reinstatement of a line which was inadvertently dropped from the printed version of the text. None of these changes have any bearing on the substance of the Bill or alter any provisions in any way. As was stated when this Bill was presented in the House by spokesmen from all Parties, it is a much-needed and long-awaited overhaul of an important federal statute.
We are anxious, as are those who are affected by the provisions of this Bill, to have a new Customs Act in force as early as possible. As a result, with the co-operation of all Members we are working toward a target for proclamation of this new Act as well as the regulations in early June of this year, if possible. Therefore, to help expedite passage of this important legislation, I hope that Members will agree to the minor amendments that I have described in order that we may obtain Royal assent to the measure as soon as possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the matter under consideration, namely the amendments proposed by the Senate. I agree with the Minister that we must act without delay and refer the amendments back to the Senate, if they are in order.
Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that the Senate can be useful. To many of us who used to have doubts about it, this confirms that the Senate really acts as an Upper House of sober second thought on proposed legislation. As the Minister himself admitted, one sentence was missing from the Bill and the Senate reinstated it. Amendments of technical and terminological nature have been introduced.
Customs Act
I think it is a good thing. The Senate should take full credit; it reviewed a rather complex and extremely long Bill, it was able to study it and propose amendments, which proves that the Senate is a worthy institution, an important Upper House.
I agree with the Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to take too much time. All Parties in the House and all Members agree that a revision of Bill C-59 respecting customs was long overdue. It has to be made easier to read and understand, it needs to be amended to simplify the existing statute, bring the terminology up to date and, for example, eliminate the requirement that importers prove their innocence in a court action; all these are good points.
I have no intention of going into the details of the Bill, but I would simply say that my party supports the amendments. We commend the Senate for its initiative, and we will support these amendments at the appropriate time.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we also have no strong arguments to raise with respect to this Bill. The Bill reflects changes upon which both this and the previous administration agreed. On behalf of our spokesperson who usually deals with this subject, I can indicate our Party's support for the general thrust of the Bill.
However, a number of important points that were raised in committee are worth repeating. Union representatives who spoke in the committee raised some questions with respect to the honour system as an impractical vehicle for collecting funds that are owed. They have made some suggestions that might surpass the present approach to sending out several notices with the hope of a return. They believe such an approach could possibly mean that importers will wait until the second notice before paying.
Our greatest concern about this Bill is that it seems likely that it is part of a process to reduce the number of Customs employees who are administering the system. For instance, it is suggested that reductions of perhaps 875 person years could be involved. While some of this will be within the administration cadre itself, there will also be a reduction of operational personnel which will discontinue certain functions and cost 164 positions. There will be a reduction of support staff that will cost another 360 positions.
While we recognize the service at the point of contact with the public, there is a concern that we are cutting back on the level of service which is important to make the Customs service operate effectively and efficiently. Questions have been raised within the legislative committee about the logic of some of those cuts and we are not entirely satisfied with the answers that have been provided.
It is difficult to consider this Bill which will involve such cuts in person years without taking into account the fact that there seems to be a move to cut back positions and reduce person years within the Public Service generally. If this Bill were to be seen as an isolated effort to rationalize and improve

January 24, 1986
Customs Act
a particular part of Government, rather than being what seems to be part of a broader, almost ideological effort to cut back the Public Service personnel at a time of continued high unemployment, we would have much less trouble approving the Bill. However, given that fact, we cannot help but protest the level of cut-backs which seem to be suggested.
A total cut-back of 875 person years is certainly being questioned by Customs officials within my City of Windsor. It is their opinion that a reduction in this manner cannot be made without ultimately costing the service of the Customs branch itself. We hope that this provision does not detract from other elements of the Bill with which we generally agree.
There is certainly a need to update and streamline the Customs service which our spokesperson has recognized throughout his involvement in this Bill. Therefore, we do not intend to emphasize our opposition to the Bill.
However, we are concerned about some of the pilot projects which are under way in an attempt to achieve this streamlining. The unions which have been asked to implement these streamlining efforts have raised questions about some of these projects. The two projects in particular to which I want to refer are the minimum documentation project in the Toronto region and the postal improvement project taking place in the Montreal region. The object of both these pilot projects is to provide the Department with data on the administration of these elements in the Bill and problems that could be encountered.
We have been made aware of an internal memo of a meeting of senior departmental officials that was held at the end of July, 1985, that contains some rather disturbing notes, particularly with respect to the postal improvement project. According to the estimates discussed at this meeting, the move to allow individuals to receive non-duty paid goods through the mail and then to trust them to pay the duty afterwards will result in lost revenue in the Montreal region. It is expected that the loss could be as much as $100,000 per month. If one extrapolates this throughout the system as a whole, we could be talking about estimated losses in revenue of $6 million annually.
The memo referred to also gives a clear indication that the Department has set agenda on this item as becoming a national program, regardless of the revenue losses. If difficulties are encountered, as the Assistant Deputy Minister informed the committee, the objective will be to solve the collection problem rather than to scrap the system. I personally think that makes sense. If you try to deal with the problem and attempt at the same time to streamline the system itself, one has to ask the question, can this kind of streamlining be done with less cost of personnal and is it not possible to avoid job loss through pesonnel and is it not possible to avoid job loss through transfer of personnel to other duties?
We have heard from union representatives that the early release programs, particularly in the area of mail, could increase the work-load by some 15 per cent. Officials who are
charged with inspection of the mail will at the same time experience a reduction in person years of 25 per cent. As a result, there is a work-load increase at the same time as a decrease in personnel.
The Auditor General himself has recognized some of these problems in his recent report in which he states:
-the Department has fewer resources than it had in earlier years, it is coping with a larger workload and has limited information on the public's compliance and on its own success of detecting non compliance.
I continue to quote from the Auditor General:
As a result of our review, we have a concern that the deterrent and enforcement aspects of Customs in some other areas may have diminished.
In short, while Bill C-59 may be a step forward, that progress will falter if the Government proceeds with its intention of reducing the ability of the customs branch to monitor the goods being imported into Canada. Customs officials have to be more than servants of the importers. They carry a very important responsibility to the public as a whole. They deserve our respect. They deserve our support. We would have hoped that person year reduction would not damage the Customs branch itself. As I say, at a time of continuing high unemployment there is certainly concern about this in the Windsor office of the Customs branch. A demonstration took place this week. Customs officials marched with other public servants.
We would urge the Minister himself and the Government to look again at these 875 cuts, which we are told will occur over the next five years. We urge him to examine the arguments we have made and the arguments which Customs workers and representatives have made to try to reflect and honour the service to this country of the Customs officials and to avoid those 875 cuts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this chance to speak on the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had some consultations with the opposition Parties respecting Bill S-6. We have a proposition to put to the House which I think you will find accepted by unanimous consent.
Notwithstanding the fact that the second reading motion has been passed, we would like to have that motion rescinded and the motion amended to have the reference not to a legislative committee but to committee of the whole. We would then be in agreement to proceed to committee of the whole immediately. Once that is completed, there will be a disposition to proceed to third reading stage, rather than having the Bill sit over in the normal course to another day's sitting.
January 24, 1986

In essence, I think there is disposition to dispose of this item in all stages today. If my suggestion is acceptable, perhaps you could put the rescision proposition and then put the motion as I proposed to amend it to read to committee of the whole.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in essence the agreements have been reflected in the words of the Government House Leader except, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give him a guarantee that the Bill will be adopted today. We accept referral to committee of the whole third reading, and passage of the Bill hopefully sometime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposal of the President of the Privy Council. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.


INCOME TAX AGREEMENTS, 1985 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill S-6, an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Corporative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax-Mr. Wilson-Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Marcel Danis: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-6, an Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a convention between Canada and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and an agreement between Canada and India for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax. Part I, Canada-U.S.S.R. Income Tax Agreement.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Citation of Part I


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I have only two brief questions on this Bill. Perhaps the Minister might be willing to deal with them under Clause 1. Schedule IV of the Bill lists certain exceptions for India. For instance, there is a difference in the treatment of India with regard to the rates on royalties and fees. In the case of India, a rate of 30 per cent on royalties and fees for technical services applies, but only in respect of technology transferred under agreements made after the date of signature of the agreement, and in Canada the statutory rate of 25 per cent will apply. I believe that for the two other countries covered in the agreement, the rate is 10 per cent. Could the Minister explain both the reason for the difference and the probable amounts involved? Actually, I do not know which Minister will be answering my questions. Perhaps, since
Double Taxation
the Minister of National Revenue was not here at the beginning of my remarks, he would like me to repeat my questions.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to my colleague. I was across the House speaking to another colleague, and I am not too certain what were her questions. Do they concern Bill C-59?


Aideen Nicholson: We are on Bill S-6.


An Hon. Member:: The Parliamentary Secretary will answer.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, since I have two general questions; rather than ask them when we touch upon each clause, it might save time if I just asked them and they were answered on Clause 1. Then I would not have any further questions to ask.
The main issue was the difference in the treatment of India- what were the reasons and what are the financial implications? There is a difference in the treatment of royalties and fees for technical services.
Also, in the case of the Canada-India Double Taxation Agreement, the rate of withholding tax on dividends is reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent only if the recipient is a company which owns at least 10 per cent of the shares of the company paying the dividends, and if the dividends are paid out of profits from investments made after the date of signature of the agreement. Could I have an explanation of the different treatment of India and of the possible financial implications of both these measures?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Chairman, as I said in my speech at the second reading stage, there are indeed differences in the rates for India, the USSR and Guyana, and this is quite normal. These agreements are negotiated between Canada and various countries and they have to respect the tax laws in those countries.
However, I believe that these differences are minimal. In monetary terms, I am unfortunately unable to provide accurate figures to the Hon. Member because it is only when the agreement is applied that people will be able to benefit and that we shall find out its full financial implications.
However, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that this comes from the fact that Canada has to negotiate with these various countries and that they each have their own tax laws.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules I to III inclusive agreed to.
On Schedule IV-
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to come back to the question asked by my colleague for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) because Schedule IV deals with this issue, namely,

January 24, 1986
Toronto Island Airport
the application of rates lower than 30 per cent to India, Guyana and the USSR. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance could assure us that the Government can provide a written answer to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Trinity, which answer would be more detailed than that provided by the Parliamentary Secretary and would perhaps include the financial data which interest us, namely how much this is expected to cost the taxpayers.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wants us to make projections in advance about future investors in India or in Canada. This is rather complex. I can assure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that he will receive a written answer about the 30 per cent rate. As for other figures, we shall be happy to communicate them to the Hon. Member as we obtain them.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule IV carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule IV agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some pleasure to introduce third reading debate on Bill C-76, an Act to amend the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Acts of 1911 and 1939. Toronto Island Airport serves a large general aviation community and a limited number of commercial air services, one of which uses, Toronto-built DASH-7 and DASH-8 aircraft. They use this airport in the operating of convenient services for the people of Toronto. The airport acts as well as an alternative or reliever airport for Pearson International Airport. It is located strategically on land owned by the City of Toronto, the Toronto harbour and the federal Government. Until June of 1983 the airport was operated by the Toronto harbour commissioners on behalf of the City of Toronto. The lease between these two parties expired at that time, and in the absence of a new operating agreement the possibility existed that the airport might have to be shut down.
With this in mind, and in recognition of the vital role the airport plays in the Toronto area, the federal Government of the day agreed to bring before the House of Commons certain amendments that would correct that situation. The previous Government entered into a 50-year lease agreement in June of 1983 with the City of Toronto and the Toronto harbour commissioners to ensure that the airport, as I have indicated, would continue.
Negotiations leading up to the signing of the long-term lease were protracted, due in part to the environmental concerns raised by representatives of the City of Toronto with respect to the type of air operations that would be allowed at the airport.
As to the good faith of all parties, once again I remind the House that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) was a member of the Government at that time, and I mention that because I find it strange that now almost three years later when we are dealing with it he finds areas of concern that did not really give him much heartburn at the time. Bill C-76 should be viewed within the context and the terms and conditions of the lease agreement that was signed by the three parties in June of 1983. The Bill is designed primarily to enable the Toronto Harbour Commission to implement its obligations in the operation of the airport contained in the lease agreement. Specifically, the City of Toronto insisted that certain conditions be included in the lease to prohibit all jet aircraft and aircraft generating excessive noise. Those noise levels are set out quite specifically in the lease agreement, from operating at the airport as a prerequisite to the city entering into a long-term agreement. The former Minister of Transport, on behalf of the federal Government, agreed to make recommendations to Parliament with respect to amendments to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act. Such amendments are designed to give effect to the very specific and
January 24, 1986

clearly set out conditions in the agreement. Such amendments do, among other things, provide the statutory authority to allow the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to make by-laws to prohibit jet powered aircraft and aircraft generating excessive noise from operating at the airport, and will provide a maximum fine of $25,000 upon summary conviction for owners of prohibited aircraft who use such aircraft at that airport. That is not to say that in the event of emergency the airport cannot be used by aircraft generating noises above these specific limits set out in the agreement or jet powered aircraft. The federal Government has invested capital over the last few years and plans further expenditures to upgrade the airport for general aviation purposes. These expenditures were recognized as necessary by all parties to the lease agreement.
The purpose of the upgrading is easiest and shortest to explain, rather than to get into detail, by indicating that the airport at the time was in a state of deterioration leading to conditions that might prove unsafe.
Among the work that is planned and contemplated, already under way are such items as utilities and drainage, sewage treatment, runways, taxiways and aprons, security fencing, field lighting and upgrading or replacing the existing terminal building, and a new control tower.
The start-up for construction that has been noted recently in the press relates to construction that is specifically designed to upgrade the safety of operations at that airport.
The Government will be spending a further $3 million on a new control tower for the airport. That control tower and that construction work is scheduled for completion in 1987. The tower will enable the airport to handle the forecast growth in air traffic in a safe and more efficient manner. The provision of this facility is in accordance with Schedule E, Section 6 of the lease, which gives responsibility for all necessary air navigation systems and air traffic and meteorological services at the Toronto Island Airport to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). I would like to stress that these expenditures have been, and will continue to be, carried out within the terms of the lease agreement and in full consultation with the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners. All federal expenditures at the site are designed to make the Toronto Island Airport a more modern, safe and efficient facility.
Bill C-76 also includes an additional amendment, at the request of the City of Toronto, concerning the method of appointment of commissioners by the city to the Toronto Harbour Commission. The amendment will allow for members to be appointed by the majority of the Toronto City Council without nomination by the executive committee. This will bring the city's commissioner appointment process into line with city appointments for other agencies and commissions under its jurisdiction.
I wish to advise the House that six minor amendments have been made to Bill C-76 on the recommendation of the legislative committee struck to review the proposed legislation. I might add that the committee heard from several local resi-
Toronto Island Airport
dents and expert witnesses on environmental issues in the Toronto Island area during its deliberations of the Bill. Amendments related to such areas as expansion of facilities, power of commissioners, prohibition of offending aircraft and fines for offences. These suggestions, where possible, have all been incorporated into the amended Bill which is before us.
In conclusion, in recommending Bill C-76 for third reading, the federal Government is fulfilling its obligation under the lease agreement for the Toronto Toronto Island Airport. The amendments are fundamental to the proper execution of specific terms and conditions of the lease and have the full support of the City of Toronto and the Toronto habour commissioners. They provide the basic framework for the operation of the airport for many years to come for the benefit of users of air services to and from the City of Toronto. At the same time, the lease agreement and Bill C-76 ensure that environmental concerns raised by the city and local residents to preserve the integrity of the neighbouring park land and the harbour area will remain prime considerations governing operations at the Toronto Island Airport.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this afternoon in the third reading debate on Bill C-76. It is a Bill which proposes to transfer the operating and financial responsibility of the Toronto Toronto Island Airport from the City of Toronto to the Toronto Harbour Commission. Despite the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the reassurances offered by the Government, my Party has serious reservations about the spirit of the Bill. More important, we are concerned with the holes in it and the sneaky way in which it was drafted.
In 1983, as the Parliamentary Secretary outlined, the City of Toronto negotiated with the Liberal Government of the day a new lease which was to run for a period of 50 years. The City of Toronto, in responding to the concerns of the citizens, particularly the residents of the Island, environmental groups, naturalists' organizations and other interested bodies negotiated a specific lease with specific conditions. It was drafted in 1983 in order to protect the constituencies of the individuals I have just mentioned.
What was contained in the lease? If we look at the agreement between the City of Toronto, the islanders and other interested bodies, we will see that the first issue raised is that there is to be no extension of the existing runways, or construction of new runways. Second, a bridge or a tunnel for vehicles connecting the city and the island will not be built. Third, it was agreed that the lands upon which the airport are located will not be expanded. Fourth, it was decided that no jet-powered aircraft will be permitted to operate from the Toronto Island Airport, except in the case of emergencies. Fifth, aircraft generating excessive noise levels will not be permitted within the Toronto Island Airport vicinity, except in the case of emergencies.
The intention of the agreement to which I have referred was designed to safeguard the infrastructure of the Island, and the

January 24, 1986
Toronto Island Airport
City of Toronto which surround the Toronto Island Airport. One of our major objections with respect to Bill C-76-one which we have had from the outset-is that it is not clear whether this particular lease arrangement is still in force. In fact, in committee we made amendments in this regard and each and every one was defeated. One of the first amendments we proposed was that in respect of the interpretation of this piece of legislation, it should be specified clearly, in black and white, and in simple English, that the terms of the agreement, and the conditions embodied therein, should be in force in the guiding principles of Bill C-76. The amendment was rejected.
Clause 7 of the Bill states:
-the Commissioners shall, in accordance with the terms of any agreement entered into by them, and where there is no such agreement, may ... make by-laws for the regulation and control of the Airport and all persons engaged in the operation of aircraft at the Airport, including by-laws prohibiting the landing or taking off of
(a)	jet-powered aircraft, and
(b)	aircraft of any kind on the grounds that aircraft of that kind generate an
excessive level of noise on landing or taking off.
This piece of legislation enables the commissioners to draft by-laws, including by-laws which would prohibit jet planes and other planes which make excessive noise. Conversely, it is clear that they could also make by-laws allowing those jet planes which were not permitted in the previous agreement to operate from the Toronto Island Airport.
When one considers that the conditions of the lease arrangement are not specified in any part of the Bill, and when one couples that with the powers which the commissioners will be granted to draft by-laws, one realises that that is why I say the Bill is faulty and, perhaps, sneaky. The confusion in the Bill provides a window which will allow the commissioners, at some time in the future, the ability to draft by-laws which would permit these types of planes to operate. I am not saying that this would happen this year or next, but it is something that could happen in five years' time.


Fernand Robichaud: They won't be here in five years.


Sergio Marchi: My hon. friend says not in five years because they will not be in government. That is a very true statement.
What I have pointed out is a serious part of the legislation. While we are proposing to transfer responsibility from the City of Toronto to the federal Government to operate the airport, we are losing some conditions which, in 1983, the citizens fought very hard to include in the lease arrangement in order that their communities and interests would be protected. The Bill is very wishy-washy on those terms and on those conditions.
There is another issue to which we in the Liberal Party took exception, that is to say, that the Government did not permit the right of occasional access for individuals living on the Island. Witnesses who appeared before the committee said that during certain times in winter the ferry they take to get to the Island is not permitted to dock at the regular place and it therefore docks at the Toronto Island Airport. These residents would get off the ferry at that point, cross some airport land
and go into their communities and homes. What the witnesses basically said is that they would like some kind of agreement that when they disembark at the Toronto Island Airport, they are permitted to cross those lands to get to their homes. We put that suggestion into the form of an amendment. That amenedment was turned down. We still do not know why. What would be so wrong if we were to allow the right of way, if you will, of these individuals during a particular part of the year to travel a few feet across that land in order to get to their homes? By refusing this, what we have done is to have left this very important tradition, if you will, to the good will of the commissioners, which then becomes simply a discretionary favour. We in this Party cannot explain why the Government did not extend that courtesy to individuals who have already made this their practice over the last number of years.
There is also the question of expropriation. Here again is an indication of the fuzzines and confusion of this particular piece of legislation. In Clause 5(1) there are provisions for the commissioners to extend expropriationary powers, and in Clause 5(2) those powers are removed. Therefore, witnesses came forward to the committee saying that if Clause 5(2) says we do not have these powers, then why bother having Clause 5(1)? The other important question is, why introduce those new powers? It goes back to the terms of the lease. One of the conditions was that the Toronto Island Airport was not permitted to expand beyond its present capacity. Therefore, we would not need the powers of expropriation. For what purpose would you need expropriationary powers if in fact the airport, by the terms and conditions of the lease, was not permitted to expand? Therefore, when individuals living on the Island and interest groups look at Clause 5(1), they are alarmed, and for good reason. They feel that the condition that the airport was not permitted to expand will be undermined. Once again, we made suggestions in committee and the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) during second reading drew to the attention of the House and the Minister-I believe it was the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) who introduced second reading for the Government-the suggestion that he should take a close look at the whole question of expropriation. He enforced that by saying that there was no mention in the Bill of an appeal process for those citizens. The whole question of expropriation is one which gives a very alarming signal to Torontonians, particularly those individuals who live on the Island.
Another aspect of the issue with which this Party cannot agree is with respect to the consulting process which the Government undertook. It was a struggle to get witnesses to come before the committee because Conservative members of the legislative committee who looked at Bill C-76 did not want to hear witnesses.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Sergio Marchi: They agreed reluctantly to hear only a number of witnesses in a very hurried-up process.
January 24, 1986

Bill C-76 is not an omnibus Bill. It is a particular and specific piece of legislation which has the greatest impact on the airport, people living on the Island, environmental groups, naturalist organizations and Torontonians in general. Therefore, this Party, through the Hon. Member for Davenport, suggested that it would be logical, sensitive and productive to conduct a public meeting, preferably on the Island, to look at Bill C-76 in order to provide the greatest opportunity for individuals in Toronto to come before that committee and explain their fears and aspirations with respect to Bill C-76. Again, that recommendation was turned down by members of the Government and, again, this Party asks why, as do other Canadians. Why do they turn down an opportunity to allow for greater input into what is basically a very localized issue? It would have only meant an extra meeting or two but it would have assured us that before proceeding in this House we would have the concurrence of individuals who would be directly affected by this Bill. But it seems that the Government just likes to talk about consultation. It tells us it likes to talk to Canadians in order to reach a broad consensus. But when it comes down to the point of whether the Government will do it or not, it does not. It is like the de Havilland situation. The Government said how great the deal was. It told us: "Here is a corporation whose shareholders are Canadians living from coast to coast". Yet it was a struggle to get information from the Government and it was a struggle to get a committee to investigate the de Havilland situation. This particular piece of legislation can be looked at from the same perspective. The opportunity for discussion and input from residents of the City of Toronto, who are involved directly in this situation, was turned down by the Government.
S)
Another matter is the approach the Government takes in looking at Bill C-76. We had an indication of this by the Parliamentary Secretary who quoted statistics about the landings and take-offs, and perhaps more so by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) in his speech at the beginning of second reading in which he told us how many planes land, how many planes take off, and the fact that we are going to expand the airport, that we are going to get a new control tower and so on. But the Government looked at this from a very narrow perspective. It looked upon this issue as purely a landing and taking-off type of operation. It failed to look at the whole infrastructure of the Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: Hon. Members opposite laugh.


J. Michael Forrestall: What do you do with an airport except take off and land?


Sergio Marchi: Perhaps they laugh because they do not understand the seriousness and complexity of the infrastructure surrounding this particular airport. The Island should not only be looked at as a take-off and landing strip for Dash-7's and Dash-8's. That is only one part of what the Island is used for. It is a beautiful set of islands. Perhaps Hon. Members opposite
Toronto Island Airport
who are laughning do not understand that on Ward Island there is a beautiful community of individuals and families. They also probably do not understand that there are parks and trails on these islands and that this is a green oasis for some 250 bird species. Millions of birds are counted annually on that island. There are countless environmental groups, naturalist organizations, and visiting children who go to the Island each and every single day.
The islands are used as a recreational and environmental centre for Torontonians. In the hub of one of the largest cosmopolitan cities in the world, these islands represent an escape valve, an environmental treasure. So it is fine to look at the question from the aerospace perspective, but that should be complemented by the other issues I have outlined. We cannot separate the two because the entire infrastructure is there on the Island. Therefore, to look at the islands as just a take-off and landing pad is a mistake. We in this Parliament are also responsible to the individuals who live on the islands and their recreational and environmental aspects.
That brings us back to the initial terms and conditions arrived at in 1983. It did not happen by chance or by accident that those terms and conditions were drafted as they were. They resulted from public hearings and input from environmental groups and residents of the City of Toronto. It was only then that the federal Government negotiated the agreement which secured the viability of the islands for the various individuals and groups. This Bill could have offered the protection those individuals and groups were looking for if the Government had at the very outset, in the interpretation clause, specified very clearly once and for all that the terms and conditions of the lease agreement are still in force. Had that been done, we would not have needed to talk about expropriation. We would not have needed to give additional powers to the commissioners to write by-laws. The conditions would set the course and determine how the airport was managed.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Hon. Member for Davenport all of a sudden has concerns that he did not have some years ago. Of course he has come concerns now because in 1983 there was no cause for concern. The concerns were addressed in the lease arrangement. He is concerned now, as am I and my Party, because those terms and conditions are very fuzzy and iffy because they are not referred to in this legislation. Therefore, even though we are at third reading, I had hoped the committee and the Government would have accepted the amendment we put forward to indicate very clearly that the terms and conditions fought for and on behalf of the City of Toronto residents, Island residents and environmental groups and organizations, would still be respected. That is not the case and that is why we fear this legislation is not as strong as it should be.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 am partly in agreement with the Hon. Member who has just spoken. This Bill is not what it should have been. However, I think on one

January 24, 1986
Toronto Island Airport
major point the work of the committee may have been useful, although the Parliamentary Secretary gave me some reason to be uncertain about that. The main concern expressed is that this should not become a jet port or an airport which will accommodate noisy planes or such a large volume of planes as to disrupt the surface traffic patterns downtown. The main reason for a large volume would be the landing of jets, quite apart from the question of their noise. This was the central part of a debate in Toronto City Council for several years which resulted in that lease arrangement referred to. That allowed a STOL port but not a jet port. The main concern of our Party was to focus on that and make sure this Bill was written in a clear enough way so that the conditions of the lease regarding the use of jets could be protected.
Our concern was in part whether the lease would be superseded by the legislation. Various opinions were given. However, there was an amendment agreed to by the Government as follows. Where it says that the commissioners shall, in accordance with the terms of any agreement entered into, and so on, make by-laws for the regulation and control of the airport, et cetera, it refers to jet-powered aircraft. In other words, they shall do this in accordance with the terms of any agreement they have entered into. That, I take it, includes the lease. It also says that they may, in a like manner and subject to like conditions, as in the case of by-laws, make by-laws and so on, but where there is no such agreement they may or may not. But where there is an agreement, they shall do it in accordance with the agreement. I am hopeful that that amendment will protect the effect of the lease signed three years ago. I was made a little less certain of that when the Parliamentary Secretary said that jets are now permitted to land there in an emergency.


J. Michael Forrestall: Of course they are.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: He adds: "Of course they are".


J. Michael Forrestall: If you lost your wings and there was a runway under you, where would you go?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: However, he has opened the prospect, through enlarging the runways and bringing in more sophisticated control equipment, of encouraging a great many more emergencies.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You would rather see the passengers perish?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: We know the Government of Canada has traditionally had a very flexible idea of what is an emergency. That is to say, there are emergency powers under the War Measures Act, which the Government has liked to use in other times than wartime or even when there was not an emergency. An example would be during the four years following World War II. I hope it is not the intention to redefine "emergency" to allow frequent or even regular landing of jets on the Toronto Island Airport. There are some other concerns as well, but that is the central concern and I am very happy that the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), with the support of the
Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), was able to persuade the committee to introduce at least that amendment. Perhaps had there been more foresight we would have asked for a better definition of the word "emergency". I understand the Minister agrees with his Parliamentary Secretary because he was shouting that we do not want them to have to use parachutes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I did not say that. I said I don't want the pilots and passengers to perish. That is what I said. Perish. Die.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thought you said parachutes. No one is asking that they should perish. What I am concerned about is that future regulations of Government do not stretch that word "emergency" beyond what is absolutely necessary for life. It should not be used as a regular alternative landing field instead of Pearson Airport.
Some of the other concerns dealt with the matter of the tunnel. Nothing in the amendments prevents the building of the tunnel except the terms of the lease. The terms of the lease can be changed with the agreement of City Council, as can the terms reflecting the use of jet planes. However, there can be pressures put, through extension of the runways and facilities, such as to make it almost impossible to refuse the use of a tunnel. In other words, there will be a creeping extension of the airport which will perhaps some day include a tunnel. This is something that the people of the City of Toronto and Toronto City Council will need to watch very carefully.
A tunnel at the Toronto Island Airport could have two very destructive results. It could eventually bring an unlimited number of private automobiles onto the Toronto Island. At present there are some vehicles there which are strictly under the control of the Metro Parks Department. The Island is a wonderfully quiet and restful place for that reason. In the area in which there are several hundred houses people can walk and children can play without dodging cars. There is no traffic noise there and it is a very restful place. The whole park area is, likewise, restful. There are a few maintenance vehicles such as the fire engine and the police vehicles, but they are driven by public servants who operate with that sense of obligation. The park is a very valuable resource for 200,000 to 300,000 people who live in the downtown area of Toronto. Many other people go there as well, but it is particularly used by people from the downtown area where there are very few parks and there is a great deal of hot concrete in the summertime.
It is predicted that by the end of this decade the number of passenger movements will be increased by one-third from 150,000 to 250,000 per year. Presumably they will be further increased after the end of this decade. There is a concern that the tunnel would provide a means of bringing cars onto the Island as well as bringing passengers to the airport.
A further problem exists with that tunnel at its other end. The harbour front is becoming a residential and recreational area for the people of Toronto. Residential buildings to house
January 24, 1986

2,000 or 3,000 people will be built immediately adjacent to the parking lot for the present ferry terminal in two or three years. There are already residential buildings approximately one-half mile to the east, but these will be directly adjacent to the terminal near the foot of Bathurst.
To have the airport eventually linked up to a renewed Spadina Expressway, to the terminus of a Scarborough expressway, and to the terminus of the 400 extension from the northwest, all pointing to downtown Toronto and carrying an immense amount of traffic to the Toronto Island Airport, would considerably disrupt the present fairly stable life of downtown Toronto. The commercial areas as well as the residential areas there are at present in a reasonable equilibrium, but are full to completion. A motivation for bringing new expressways downtown would endanger considerably the present balance of life in downtown Toronto.
The fears of many people were confirmed by the news stories published as soon as this Bill passed committee hearings. The news stories indicate that the purpose of this legislation is more than meets the eye. It is more than simply to take the financial burden off of City Council, the reason given for its introduction. The news stories reflected the Minister's speech given at the beginning of this debate. They say that there could be a $20 million expansion of the airport including refurbishing of the terminal building, more modern control towers, state of the art computerized landing equipment, increased parking facilities, and so on. Another headline in the same Liberal paper, The Toronto Star, says that the door is now open to an island tunnel. A similar headline in The Globe and Mail says that the tunnel to the Toronto Island Airport is likely.
That could be a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. The suggested purpose for this expenditure of public funds is to enable the airport to be privatized. In other words, the suggestion is that the Government will be following the pattern of pouring public money into a losing public project until it is almost at the point of viability, as it did with de Havilland, and then, having made it profitable with more public money, it will sell it off to a private entrepreneur. In that case controls on the use of the Toronto Island Airport will be far more difficult to maintain. We will find that by-laws and leases will be treated very lightly after it has been made a valuable plum for sale by the Government and sold to a private entrepreneur.
The Bill will go through, and the principal and immediate problem felt by a great many people in the City of Toronto appears to have been placed under some control by the amendment regarding the lease. However, there is still a considerable danger that those who have had the effective control of this, such as the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), will be using public funds for the up-grading of the Toronto Island Airport so that it can be sold to private entrepreneurs who, of course, are the friends of the Government. The Government refuses to use those funds to upgrade effectively bus transport or rail transport, such as that in the Windsor to Quebec City and Toronto to Ottawa corridors. We are still
Toronto Island Airport
running old rattletrap trains there, when they are not broken down or running late.
The Minister is presumably going to refuse to put more money into a mode of transport that can carry everyone at an economic price, and will, rather, be pouring those dollars into the airport. The people of Toronto will be watching to see what the Government does in the next year or so with the airport that Toronto produced but that other people now wish to take over.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it might be useful to Members if I begin by reiterating briefly the comments I made in my opening remarks with respect to any capital structural changes. All investments at the Toronto Island Airport will be carried out only after full consultation with the City of Toronto and the harbour commissioners, and within the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The Hon. Member has raised a very legitimate question. The lease very specifically prohibits the construction of a bridge or vehicular tunnel from the mainland to the Island. While the lease would in fact permit the construction of a pedestrian tunnel only, it is the position of the Government, which was also the position of the previous Government, that, unless the City of Toronto agrees to and supports the construction of a pedestrian tunnel, the Department, as a signatory to the lease itself, would not support any plans for any form of an access tunnel including a pedestrian one. I thought I would make those two points, which may set the hon. gentleman's mind at rest.
The previous speaker had some concerns about embracing the right of access in the Bill. The difficulty with that is that no one has ever had a right of access. In order to maintain safety and control of the ninth busiest airport in Canada, people cannot be allowed to cross a very active runway on their own volition. It must be in the control of the operators of the airport.
Historically, access across airport land has been a matter of negotiation between the people on the Island and the operators of the airport, and it has seemed to work very well. So far there has not been any difficulty and, quite frankly, we do not foresee any difficulty in the future.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene briefly in this debate on Bill C-76. My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), were active in the committee as well as at second reading stage of the Bill. Of course, the Bill is of more direct concern to them and other Members from the Metropolitan Toronto area.
However, there are developments in this case which are very similar to developments in other airports that will occur particularly in the months and years ahead. I believe this should be brought to the attention of the Ministry.
With the expansion of air traffic, the number of aircraft, the landings and take-offs, the number of passenger airlines, the infrastructure for airports and the personnel required to oper-
10156

January 24, 1986
Toronto Island Airport
ate them and protect the public interest must also increase. 1 believe that this infrastructure must increase before, not after the fact.
The Canadian Aviation Safety Board recently announced that it would hold a public inquiry into the risk of collisions involving aircraft on the ground, in response to a dramatic increase in near misses since 1983. There were 73 reported incidents in 1983, 124 in 1984, and over 200 in 1985. I agree that this increase justifies such an inquiry, especially when one considers the economic changes contemplated by the Minister's office in the form of deregulation, reregulation or a new regulatory regime. One must also consider the fact that the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board have a hypnotized attitude about the deficit and have applied pressure to cut costs and the size of the Public Service.
Of course, there are appropriate areas in which cuts or delayed expenditures can be made. However, some areas should not be cut, including some for which there is no complaint from the taxpayers about how much of their money is spent. These areas include proper, safe and secure facilities whether it is airports, railroads or other facilities. I have yet to hear a taxpayer of any political stripe complain about such expenditures. In fact, they would support increased expenditures in that area.
The situation will not improve if the same number of people or fewer must monitor the movement of increased traffic, whether it is at Toronto Island Airport or anywhere else.
Another statistic which needs the attention of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the Minister and the Government is the equally dramatic increase in what are called internally operating irregularities while in the air. In 1984, 92 incidents were reported where public safety may have been jeopardized and the minimum separation between aircraft was violated. The number of such incidents in 1985 was 164. This is of particular concern at a place like Toronto Island Airport with its high and ever-increasing volume of general aviation traffic. According to my information, Toronto Island Airport currently has the required number of traffic controllers to do the job. However, that is not the case for all airports. I urge the Minister and the Government to re-evaluate their policies of reducing the number of air traffic control staff by some 142 as a result of the A-base review.
Not only is an inquiry on ground near misses and air near misses necessary, a complete study of ground control and air control needs for the future must be conducted, including a clear assessment of our flight service station needs and airline dispatcher requirements. If the Government intends to move in the direction of more local control of airports, the structure of monitoring those aspects of air safety must be strengthened. There must be as many inspectors in the field as necessary, even a few more than necessary, to ensure that the job is done and to keep tight control while we undergo these changes in both regulation and jurisdiction.
As I mentioned to the Minister in Question Period today, once the taxpayer has committed and spent millions of dollars to build and maintain a large airport infrastructure, and
deregulation or a new regulatory regime allows an airline to pull out of an airport simply to suit its convenience or meet its "sound business practice", it would seem to leave the taxpayers in the lurch, with an airport on which they spent tens of millions of dollars. There must be some reasonable provision so that expenditures for such an infrastructure are not left idle, underused or wasted.
Last year, the people of Canada spent over $6 million at Gander airport to improve it as an international airport. We do not know how many more millions of dollars were spent in the years prior to that. If Air Canada can decide, in the interest of "sound business practice", to pull out of Gander and go to St. John's, what will other international airlines do? If we enlarge the international operations out of St. John's, the taxpayers who have already spent a great deal in upgrading and improving the Gander airport will then be called upon to upgrade, improve and enlarge the facilities in St. John's. Other airlines operating internationally will say: "Well, this has all been done by Air Canada. Now that the Government has improved and enlarged the facilities in St. John's, we want to pull out of Gander too and go to St. John's."
There are two questions. What about the people and the employees at Gander, and what about the investment we have in Gander? It seems to me that some kind of long term planning needs to be done, although I know my good friends across the way are not noted for what is called long term, and in their books, there is paranoia about state planning, but in this area and in this instance it is more than justified. Then you allow your transportation industry, in this instance the airlines, to operate relatively freely within the context of that long term planning.
What I said earlier about Toronto Island Airport is now applied to Gander, so let us go back to Toronto Island Airport. That airport will need more improvements, not only a control tower but other items as well. It will need more personnel because traffic is bound to increase. It will need all of that and so will a lot of other airports in the country. You can do none of it if you continue in an atmosphere of paranoia and hypnosis about cut-backs, restraint, reducing the budget in an area that has to do not just with public convenience and the convenience of airlines or general aviation operators, but with safety and security. Those surely are not the kinds of areas you cut back on.
The cut-back of 142 controllers as a result of the A-base review, whatever the dickens that is, is the opposite direction. My colleague and good friend, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher), the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and I along with other colleagues were in Washington the last three days. If there was any one thing that was urged upon us from people both for, against and in the middle of deregulation, it was not to make the same mistakes they did. The main one and the one urged upon us by people from both sides of the argument was to put in place, before opening the entries and exists, a sufficient
January 24, 1986

number of trained inspectors to allow for a 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent increase in aircraft. This would require a proportionate increase in inspections and enforcement of regulations having to do with safety and security.
They told us that after the 1978 legislation in Washington which brought in deregulation in transportation, because of the drive to reduce the deficit, to cut-back and show restraint the Americans chopped 200 inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration. They have had to frantically try to replace them.
As I recall, and my colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, they have replaced 166 of them and are now rushing to get trained, hired and put in place something in the order of 150 to 200 more inspectors this year and 250 or 300 next year in an effort to catch up with the growth and increase in airline and general aviation traffic. That kind of preparation in advance is particularly applicable to the high volume airports. I believe I heard someone say today that Toronto Island is fourth or fifth highest in the country in movements-


An Hon. Member:: It is ninth.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That makes it a pretty high volume airport. You do not wait until after you have that increased movement to put in place people who have to be there to provide more than sufficient air traffic control, inspection and enforcement of regulations. That situation applies to every airport in Canada.
Therefore, if you are going to be ready for increased activity at Toronto Island, if you are going to be ready under whatever kind of regime the Minister wants to bring in, you better start now. Budget increases had better be reflected in some very quick Supplementary Estimates which would have the support on all sides of this House. If the Minister has a problem with the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), he will have the support of Members from all sides to get the increases required to train, hire and place more inspectors, more air traffic controllers, better enforcement capabilities and a better investigative capability.
We all know, and we were told in Washington earlier this week, that the increase in violation, whether loss of separation in the air, near misses or even the odd accident on the ground, is just not tolerable. The increase in Canada in the same kinds of incidences is not tolerable. We do not have the capacity to deal with it. I do not blame our lack of capacity on the present Government.
I remember a reduction of something like 19 inspectors as per the Estimates back about 1976 or 1977 when we needed more inspectors, not less. This was at the time of the six and five program of cut-backs, restraing and whatnot. The Government cut back in the wrong places which increased risk and increased the possibility of problems. Let us quit waiting until there is some kind of a tragedy, when we all rush to close the barn door after the fact.
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
We need to be more prepared to handle certain situations with our present volume of air traffic. We must be prepared ahead of time for an increased volume. I am making a wild guess, but I suspect the Minister needs at least $100 million or $200 million in his budget for the training and placement of inspectors, for investigations capacity, air traffic control and the facilities and structure they need to carry on a proper job.
What is being done here today with the Toronto Island Airport requires more than just looking at what a new contractual agreement will be with the City of Toronto and the Toronto Harbour Commission and the federal authority. It is what is done before, during and after the entering of such agreements. If we are going to be slack and lacking as we have been and as we are now, we are just asking for that much more trouble, and we increase the odds that we will get a lot more trouble.
I hope the Minister will be hearing from his colleagues who were in Washington as well. We should learn from their mistakes. We cannot copy everything they have done, because our situation is very much different. However, we can and should learn from their errors, about which they were quite candid in telling us. If we do not learn from them, we place in jeopardy the people in Canada who have to travel.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX ACT INCOME TAX ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-82 is an important piece of legislation. In fact, it can be considered a cornerstone of the Western Accord which was announced by my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), on March 28, 1985. This event marked the end of more than a decade of dispute between the federal Government and western provincial Governments concerning energy pricing and taxation.
As my colleagues on this side of the House have emphasized in the preceding debates on the Bill, the Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act contains the necessary

January 24, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
changes to speed the oil and gas industry along the road to recovery.
To refresh the memories of Hon. Members, the Bill contains four significant policy changes to the PGRT. It will completely phase out the PGRT by reducing the existing tax rates applied to both conventional oil and gas production and synthetic production in a gradual fashion over the next three years, ending up with a zero per cent rate in 1989.
A second change is designed to stimulate new activity immediately. The Bill allows a full tax exemption for revenues from new wells drilled after March 31, 1985. In addition, enhanced oil recovery projects including waterfloods are provided with options that will result in a more favourable treatment during the remaining years of the PGRT. Major new projects will also be exempt.
A third change was introduced which will assist companies that are able to realize income tax savings from new exploration and development expenditures under the regular income tax. A new mechanism was included in the Bill which will allow 30 per cent of the value of new unused exploration and development expenditures to be applied against the PGRT.
The final new measure included in the Bill is a $10,000 annual deduction for individuals starting with the 1986 tax year. This measure will remove the burden of the tax for several thousand Canadians who have very small amounts of royalty income from producing oil and gas wells. I commend the Bill to all Hon. Members for their approval.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate on Bill C-82. Our critic, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), had to be absent from the House this afternoon. He has asked me too make a few comments on it.
I have gone over the speech of the Minister at second reading and have looked at the debates in committee. I tried to imagine how a person from Ottawa-Vanier, a consumer like me, would look at the proposed legislation to phase out the PGRT over a period of three years, in terms of what it does for consumers and for multinational oil companies, in terms of what it does for those who have received so much from the Government and for those who are still expecting so much from the Government.
By removing the PGRT, which was worth about $2 billion per year in revenue to the Government, the Government gave in to the wish of the industry. During the election campaign, the PGRT issue was indeed a hot one. The Leader of my Party, The Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), made a commitment to review this measure which was considered harsh by many and which was taxing revenues but not taxing income. In my view, and in the view of many people who think in similar terms, it was a fair object of review.
With the removal of the National Energy Program, the Government gave away a lot of revenue to the oil industry, to the oil companies operating in Canada; so much so that predictions indicate that their incomes will increase by about
160 per cent by the end of the decade. The elimination of the PGRT by itself will increase profits to the companies in the order of 75 per cent in the same decade. At the wave of the magic wand, the Government gave up revenue or income for the Canadian public and gave it to the oil companies.
I return to my original thought concerning what a consumer like me will get from all this. We want lower prices, and I think consumers can expect them. I will get to the debate on lower prices for oil because market prices for oil are going down these days. It is apropos that we will be talking to that subject in a few minutes. However, before dealing with that subject matter, I want to review some of the comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and to look at the promises made by her Party during the last election campaign. When the Energy Minister was speaking to the Cities and Energy Conference in March, 1985, in Vancouver, she described deregulation as "much better" for consumers. She said:
This is especially true in today's world of falling international oil prices.
That is very interesting, since deregulation of the industry on June 1 the consumer has seen prices rise mainly because of the increased taxes with which the Government has burdened the consumer. The Government removed the PGRT so that oil companies would not have to pay the tax and told consumers that they would have to foot the bill. Today we see that prices at the pump are going up.
World prices started to waver, to quiver and to show some decline when the OPEC countries started to have difficulty getting along and world prices were dropping in January. The price paid at the pumps in January this year took another jump. Remember, the Government added another 1 per cent sales tax, from 10 per cent to 11 per cent in January. That was reflected immediately in the cost of gasoline at the pump. Yet the Energy Minister said things would be much better for consumers. It possibly is much better for the consumer, and being a chiropractor I think it is good that people should walk more. If you are earning a living, and if you are a salesman, a farmer, or if you are travelling for any type of income then you have to pay higher prices at the pump because the oil companies are getting a nice generous gift from the Government.
I just want to come back-


Don Boudria: If the oil companies don't get you, the Tories will.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to refer to a table that was leaked after the last Budget. It is entitled "Direct Impacts of Budget Measures by National Accounts Component". This document, interesting as it was, reveals that the indirect taxes and the increase in the energy excise taxes will bring into the Government about $395 million additional in 1985-86, $930 million in 1986-87 and $915 million by 1990-91.
The removal and the phasing out of the PGRT, interestingly enough, was going to cause-
January 24, 1986



-what is called in French a "manque a gagner", I am not sure what it is in English. So we are talking about a $125 million less revenue in 1985-86. The Government will lose $125 million in revenue in 1985-86, $920 million in 1986-87, and $2,449 billion in 1990-91. It means that the Government will have to get the money from Canadian consumers. It means that it will be forced to raise taxes, as it has done already. The sales tax increase from 10 to 11 per cent will generate just about enough money in 1986-87 to compensate for the $920 million gift the Conservative Government gave to the companies through the PGRT. Consumers will pay $930 million more in taxes, so it works out to the same thing. They take the money from someone's pocket and put it in someone else's pocket. All we have to know is from which pocket the Government likes to take the money.


An Hon. Member:: From both pockets!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, it seems obvious enough. From both pockets! Hopefully the new Budget will do justice to corporate taxes. We hope, we do not know, but we will see. Maybe there will be some justice in the system one of these days, but right now the consumer is the one who picks up the tab and gives the money to the Government which hands it out to the oil multinationals. You will all have time to speak. Do not worry, we have plenty of time. You will have an opportunity to rise one after another and repeat your partisan spiels.


Mrs. Mailly:: Be objective!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Objectivity is my strong point.

In the same conference in Vancouver in March of 1985, which I referred to a few moments ago, the Minister told us, and I quote her again, "We can't be complacent that lower prices will continue over the long term". Therefore we have to do two things. The first is to build protection for consumers if international oil prices surge. The second is to get on with the job of conservation. International oil prices are not surging. They are falling drastically. The consumer in Canada does not benefit, and the question is why not? I could read a whole series of articles published January 22, 23, and 24. "Oil prices continue to fall but not at gas pumps". "We could wait months before gasoline prices drop", Carney, Toronto Star. "Oil prices continue to fall but not at gas pumps", Gazette. "Mul-roney confuses PetroCan's role", Toronto Star, and it goes on.
"Carney predicts lower prices at gas pumps". "Rip-offs at the pumps", Calgary Sun. "Excessive gas prices cost us $8.5 million a day: Broadbent". "Wilson won't lower PetroCan's gas prices", the Gazette. I can go on, Mr. Speaker. In the Toronto Sar today "It is true, it has the right colour, it is true", on the headline. I am happy to see all my friends around here on a Friday afternoon. They are all welcome because we love to have these Friday afternoon debates. I was wondering if Petro-Canada would come across, as we thought it should, as it was intended it would. And for Canadians the window on the industry-
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act


Sergio Marchi: Now it's the broken window.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was to bring stability, it was supposed to assure adequate supply at fair prices. Remember, those were the things, a window on the industry, adequate supply and fair prices.
We see the oil prices tumbling and it is not easy to explain. I do not understand that. I am not an oil specialist. We look at the Toronto Star today and try and find out. Some of us have to rely on thenewspapers to get information sometimes. I see where the oil prices on the world spot market have plunged below $20 U.S. a barrel today, and that is $28.13 Canadian at yesterday's exchange rate. While Canadian oil is now supposedly deregulated and reacts to world prices, Canadian light crude oil is priced between $30.20 and $30.80 Canadian. That is $2.07 to $3.67 Canadian above world spot prices.
We are not at this time reflecting what I thought was a mandate of Petro-Canada to be the window and to keep prices at a fair level. No, we are telling the Canadians the spot price, the heck with it.
The next question is how do Canadian oil companies set their price on the barrel? A journalist, Mr. John Spears of the Toronto Star asked the question how Petro-Canada sets its price for a barrel of oil. The answer of Petro-Canada was no response, "we are not talking". Great help, that is a great window. As one of my Members said, somebody broke that window some time ago. No one at the Calgary head office of Petro-Canada, conceived as a window on the oil industry, could answer how, or explain for that matter how the price of a barrel of crude oil is Fixed in Canada. He went to another company, Imperial Oil. In his own words, Imperial Oil Limited was more forthcoming. It has posted its price for crude lower than Petro-Canada at $30.20 Canadian or about $21.50 U.S. Again, a dollar and some cents above the spot market, the world price.
We wonder how these Conservatives, supposedly well informed Members of Parliament on the Government side can continue to support such a policy as transferring wealth from the consumers of Canada, the Canadian public in general, to those oil compagnies which will not have the decency to even give us an answer. I can see that you are indicating I have but five minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have unlimited time on third reading. I would appreciate if Your Honour would advise me as to how much time I do have since I have some notes I would like to go through.
The Minister told us that market prices were at work. She said that we have to rely on the market because the market sets the price. She told us that her Government believes in deregulation and in market prices. Some of us would like to know what the market is doing. We would like to be able to explain to our constituents why it is that when they get to the gas pump they have to pay a 58 per cent increase in taxes on

January 24, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act gasoline. This is the amount they had to pay last year. I will repeat the figure for the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly)-58 per cent.


Claudy Mailly: Yours was 80 per cent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Right now this is costing Canadians about $1 billion. In 1990 it will cost Canadians about $2.5 billion in lost revenue, which the oil companies will receive. How can the Hon. Member stand up in her riding and tell the tourists that come to Gatineau, whom she wants to draw there-


Claudy Mailly: Gas costs less in Gatineau now than when you were in power.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How can the Hon. Member justify that to people in her riding?


Claudy Mailly: By creating jobs. People once working in Alberta have now come home to work.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to talk about creating jobs. In Nova Scotia, for example, oil and gas searches were carried out by the private sector under PIP grants. Do Hon. Members remember the Petroleum Incentives Program?


An Hon. Member:: We remember it!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It created jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It created jobs in the Beaufort Sea and in the Atlantic.


Claudy Mailly: It created jobs in Belgium!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: All the urban Tories who are in the House are laughing. All the urban Tories who are laughing should talk to some of those people in the eastern provinces just to find out how many rigs are working right now in Nova Scotia. There was but one rig working last year. When PIP was in effect there were many rigs working, sometimes up to a dozen, and at other times even more than that.


Claudy Mailly: They were in the States.


Mr. Dick:: They could buy them. You gave the money away to the rich people.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You will get your chance to speak on this later.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You gave them $2 billion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that I do have unlimited time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, you do not.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If I do not have unlimited time, then I would like to get on and deal with what the Government is doing in terms of oil conservation. I take it that the Tory Members in
the House believe in energy conservation. I take it they believe in insulation as well. What has the Government done in this respect? It took away the insulation program. The Government even imposed a tax on wood stoves, which is a way to heat homes. I hope that over the weekend I will be doing some wood stove heating because it is agreeable and it saves energy. We did not tax wood stoves before.


Don Boudria: The Tories did that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Tories did that.


Don Boudria: Unbelievable!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They should tell that to the farmers in their constituencies. That was a great progressive move.


Claudy Mailly: They don't have to pay capital gains on the sale of their farms.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What does the Conservative Government do with the taxes? It gives them away to the oil companies.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I have but two minutes left.


Some Hon. Members:: Too bad!


Paul Wyatt Dick: You are usually more rational.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would just like to put some statistics on the record, which is something I am sure the Hon. Member for Gatineau would love me to do. Let us consider how much taxes have risen in the 12-month period from October 1984 to October 1985. As I have said before, the Government raised taxes by 58.1 per cent. That is incredible. In the United States motorists have been benefiting from the falling oil prices. The Americans have kept up with the times, they have not had any tax increases. In fact, their level of taxes has remained steady.
In Halifax, in October of 1984, the price of a litre of regular gasoline was 52.6 cents. In October 1985, the price of a litre of gasoline in Halifax had risen to 57.7 cents. This is as a result of a policy put into place by a Government which states that when gas and oil prices decline it will impose more taxes just in case the consumers should have an advantage over the big friends of Government. I am speaking of the big oil companies. The Government makes it difficult for the consumer, and especially hard for farmers. I am looking at my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner).


Mr. Horner:: There is not one farmer in my riding.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He does not have one farmer in his riding. He should have. It would make him more sensitive to their needs. Farmers have to buy gas and oil. If greater taxes are imposed on farmers, their profits are reduced and they have a difficult time with the administration of their farms. As an urban man the Hon. Member should understand that.
The Minister says that it will take a few months before lower priced oil works itself into the system. That is a very interesting point. When oil prices were going up, the oil
January 24, 1986

companies were saying: "We have to ratchet the price of oil right now because it is going up". However, when the price is going down the Minister says that the product has to work itself through the system and that market forces are at work. That is excellent logic. The oil companies ratchet the price-


An Hon. Member:: What does ratchet mean?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It means to ratchet up. That is what the Government has been doing with these taxes. That is how it gains income. It is affecting the consumers in the country to the extent that today they are paying through the nose for things they should be getting at a fair price, which was the idea at the inception of the National Energy Program. We assured Canadians that they would have a constant supply of oil at a fair price. Now, Hon. Members on the Government side should get their act together and tell the Minister to keep oil prices down. They should be telling their Minister to keep the price of gasoline down at the pumps as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon).


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment with respect to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). First, he should be congratulated on his remarks. 1 have never heard a speech with so many half-truths and so much misinformation. He has certainly shown that this is a subject about which he knows very little.
I would like to deal with some specifics. The PRGT is a unique tax on one certain extractive industry, that is to say the oil and gas industry located in western Canada. Can the Hon. Member point out to me a comparable tax which is levied on other extractive industries, such as the nickel industry in Sudbury, or the copper ore industry, or the iron ore industry which is found in Labrador and Quebec, or on the asbestos or gold industry? Is there a gold revenue tax? The Hon. Member must remember that this measure was simply a grab for a great deal of money-in fact, $2 billion a year.
The second point the Hon. Member fails to mention is that the consumer receives the money. If he were to look at the facts he would see that part of the National Energy Program gave $1.7 billion a year in dividends to the oil companies. Another $500 million a year went through the system under the Petroleum Compensation Charges. Who received that money? Again, it was the oil industry. And the Hon. Member says that the consumer pays! The oil companies are the ones who have benefited the most, the Essos, the Gulfs, the Mobils, the Shells and the Domes-the big, big companies. All that and the Hon. Member has the nerve to say that the consumer pays. 1 suggest the hon. gentleman get his facts straight.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the PGRT helped to pay for the PIP grants. I accept that, and I think it is a fact. The PIP was to encourage companies, especially Canadian ones, to explore and find new supplies of oil in areas which were not being explored through conventional measures by the oil companies
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
at the time. I am thinking about the Canada lands and the offshore and the Arctic lands. Evidently, to encourage these large companies to explore lands in the north-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Drilling for money, not for reasons.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -we had to encourage them through the Petroleum Incentives Program.


Paul Wyatt Dick: All they did was drill for money. They drilled to get the money.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member says they were drilling for money. Does anyone else drill for anything else? They were drilling for oil and they found some-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Very little.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -which we now have-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Where are they putting it?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and unfortunately with this Government it will be difficult to bring it down here because its policies are making them go bankrupt and getting out of there.


Paul Wyatt Dick: They love it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the difficulty with this Government. It does not understand-


Paul Wyatt Dick: You don't know anything about the oil industry. Why don't you admit it?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -that basically at the time the program set in place was to make the PIP program available to industries so that-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Don't believe it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -they did better and could better explore in Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You don't know what you are talking about.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I think that assured Canadians of a constant and sure supply of Canadian oil and that was basically why the PGRT was put in place.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) talking about a subject about which he knows nothing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will admit I am not the expert you are.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I do not intend to get into it because I do not think I know as much as some of the people who live in the area where the oil is found. I will not try to embarrass myself by trying to talk about something I know nothing about.
Would the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier not agree that when the oil prices were going up in the mid-1970s that his

January 24, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act
Government introduced a policy that it could not pass on the new higher rates to the consumer for three months because it took that long for the oil to work through the industry and get to the pump? Will the Hon. Member agree to that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Program, as I understand it, and as I understood it-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Not the national energy policy. It was in the mid-1970s.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the Hon. Member want to continue his question or does he want me to answer the question?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Then why don't you answer it?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am trying to answer the question, if the Hon. Member would give me a chance to start. The National Energy Program indeed tried to equalize prices for Canadians. It indeed subsidized the east. Wherever acted increases were put in place-and there were some increases. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that in 1972 when I came here, a barrel of oil was about $2.50 a barrel and a bushel of wheat was about $3.50 to $4. The bushel of wheat is still $3.50 to $4, yet a barrel of oil right now is about $20 U.S. although it was about $38 a barrel.
Yes, indeed, there was a crisis at the time. Yes, indeed, the OPEC countries were establishing their right to their natural resources, and I do not disagree with that. I do not think I would argue very long with the Hon. Member about the need to increase the oil prices and the exchange rate on oil versus grain. I don't think any argument can be made there. I do not think anyone here would disagree with the fact that oil, which is no-renewable, had to command a higher price than $2.50 a barrel. None of us would argue with that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yet, it would have been economically difficult for Canadians at that time to be the object of the "seven sisters", of the big oil companies which had control of the industry, world-wide, at the expense of those companies in Canada. Therefore we tried to put in a system which would be a buffer and which would give the oil a chance to work its way through. Yes, there was a three-month delay in trying to get the increases, but at the pump.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Okay. I agree.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was done pretty well immediately on the barrel of oil, I admit that. I have researched today and I will do more research on it tomorrow but every time the oil prices went up, every time there was even a rumour of oil prices going up, the gas prices went up at the pump.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Three months later.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That was the official policy of the gas companies and the Governments, and I do not believe that the gas
and petroleum distributors, the persons selling gas at the pumps-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Your Government ruled they couldn't do it for three months.


An Hon. Member:: Let him answer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am talking about at the pumps. They usually increased the price and they are still free to do so. By the admission of all of the companies today their distributors are free to set the price they want. Is that not true?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, it is. Look at the papers, look at the Government's policies, phone the companies; I did. I may not be the oil expert of the Hon. Members opposite but I know what to do and that is to do a bit of research and to make a few phone calls. When I found I was going to speak this afternoon, I made a few phone calls and I do not think I am wrong in stating the fact that the oil companies have told us that at the pump the distributor is free to set the price. It was the market force at that time. If the market force operates in that way all of the time, then there are some difficulties, but the Canadian energy program we put in place-


Paul Wyatt Dick: You insisted on a 90-day lag.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -was set on the oil prices as a whole which represented about 30 per cent of the input to the gas pump.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I want to compliment your Government for putting in the three-month lag.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the Hon. Member wants to debate, why does he not get up? They cannot hear him on television and they would love to hear him.
We are making an argument in debate and we should be able to understand each other. I am telling the Hon. Member that, yes, there were some workings in those days of allowing for the increases but it was buffeted by the National Energy Program.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I agree.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you for the agreement.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier finally did agree that there was a three-month lag for which I want to compliment his Government and he should recognize that there is also a three-month lag when the prices come down for the same reason.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on third reading of this Bill. I must say to people who are perhaps watching this debate on television that it is a beautiful afternoon in Ottawa. The skating rink is full. I was enjoying skating on the canal about 12 minutes ago-


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is something you know a lot about.
January 24, 1986


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and they managed to find me and get me into this debate, and I do not object at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is an important debate and I do not mind being here to speak on the Bill, if my friends will listen.


An Hon. Member:: You are on thin ice.


An Hon. Member:: You had better start skating.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hear the heckles that it's thin ice and I had better get skating. I hear all the comments and I opened myself up to them. However, let me say a few things-


Don Boudria: That's all you need, an executive manner.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -about this particular Bill because it is an important moment to again bring the Bill before the House since all week we have been debating in Question Period the rising energy prices. I do not accept for a minute that it is going to take three months or so for oil prices to come down at the pumps. It should not. That is what I was trying to point out in Question Period today. If we had a competitive system instead of this system, which is really not very competitive where four large companies basically run the whole show, we would in fact get prices coming down for Canadian consumers.
I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), who has been the rising star of this Government, and who has received all that good publicity, has finally had the chickens come home to roost because there is a motorists' revolt going on. They are tired of paying these high prices for gasoline at the pumps when they see world oil prices dramatically declining. Even without world oil prices dramatically declining, in the last six months they have come down from S29 a barrel to $26 a barrel U.S. but they did not come down at the pump. Forget about the $20 a barrel which is what it came down to today, the price did not come down at the pumps. We should be asking ourselves why the Canadian motorist did not get a break. I will not go into the Donato cartoon which says it takes some time to get through the system.


Don Boudria: I saw the oil can in your hand.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to talk about this Bill and I want to tie it in with the gasoline prices. Before I speak of the PGRT, I would like to remind Hon. Members that the Minister said in this House today, in response to a question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis)-I don't have the Hansard so I will paraphrase what she said-if we look at British Columbia, we see the prices there have gone up only because of the tax increases which they had to impose because of the deficit.
I have two things to say about that. One, the Tories did not have to increase taxes because of the deficit. It was because the Government is giving $5.5 billion to the oil companies in
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act this Bill we are debating. That is the reason for the tax increases which motorists have to pay. Second, the Minister is wrong. She is not really telling the facts as they are. I looked into this. In British Columbia the price of regular unleaded in September, 1984, was 50 cents a litre. In January, 1986, the price was 56.2 cents a litre. Where did that increase come from? This is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is missing. He said it came from tax increases. That is not accurate either. Tax increases were only 2.8 cents a litre. Where did the other 3.4 cents come from? It was the oil companies increasing prices.
We had oil prices declining from U.S. $29 a barrel to U.S. $26 and prices at the pump went up. The reason for that is that the Government is increasing its taxes and the oil companies are piggybacking increases at the same time. All this in a declining market. Why? Because we do not have a competitive system. We had 1,000 letters about this over the last few days delivered to the eight NDP Members of Parliament from British Columbia. These letters are from motorists who are mad. They have had enough and the Government had better watch it.
This Bill repeals the PGRT. What is the PGRT, asks the very knowledgeable Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon). The PGRT is what James Laxer once called Ottawa's most effective tax instrument for taxing petroleum companies which have been masters of tax loopholes. It was directed to revenue from well-head production of gas and oil. The Conservative lament is that the tax is not profit sensitive. That is, it is difficult to wriggle out of paying it. This tax really hit the oil companies. For once they actually had to pay the tax. My friend says it is a unique tax. Well, it is sort of a unique industry.
The price of oil went from $3 a barrel in 1973 up to something like $38 a barrel. That was a tremendous windfall and the companies were making tremendous profits. It was just revealed today that last year Imperial Oil made $650 million, this in spite of the National Energy Program and so on. The figures have been constantly going up except for one brief period during the recession. Imperial Oil made $250 million in the last quarter of 1985 while motorists were paying more and more at the pump, yet this Government proposes to give the companies more money. Then the Minister wonders why I say she sounds like a broken record from the Canadian Petroleum Association.
As a result of this Bill, the federal treasury, over the next four years, will hand over to the oil companies the proceeds it would normally have collected from the PGRT. That is $2.4 billion a year. You do not have to believe me. I am just a little socialist, five foot six, not five foot three, from British Columbia. Let me quote Peters and Company in Calgary, a respected energy analyst. They have projected that in 1986 the loss to the federal treasury will be $430 million. That is a result of this Bill we are debating right now. In 1987 it will be $680 million. In 1988 it will be $1.36 billion. The following year it is $2.79 billion. By 1990 it will total $5.26 billion. This Bill means we are giving up in taxes some $5.26 billion. What

January 24, 1986
Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act is the Government's excuse for doing this? This is a rich industry. It received windfall profits when we went to world oil prices. They had a lot of old oil in the ground which was priced at about Canadian $28 and then went to Canadian $38. That was a nice windfall and who benefited? Texaco, Imperial, Shell; the big boys.
Then this tax is removed. Why? The Government is not stupid. It is not doing it just because it is totally in the pockets of the oil companies. The Government's argument is that this will get more money to the oil industry and it will create jobs. Government Members wave around the figure of 300,000 jobs. No doubt by giving all that money to the oil industry some jobs will be created. That is good. It is also good that the economy of Alberta picks up. However, they have swallowed the line of the Canadian Petroleum Association hook, line and sinker.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Hon. Member honest enough, does he have enough integrity, to admit that the PGRT killed the economy of the Province of Alberta?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is called smuggling a question in on a point of order. I do not think the PGRT killed the economy of western Canada. There was a recession. It affected the United States, too. The PGRT hurt some companies.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Killed them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Government then moved to alleviate the problem. It made exceptions up to $500,000. As a matter of fact, when the Conservative Government came in the Liberals had all but abandoned the NEP if you want to know the truth. The oil industry was making good profits. Do you know what the profits were for the majors in 1983? From 1982 to 1983 Gulf went from $201 million to $218 million. Imperial went from $289 million to $332 million. Shell went down from $133 million to $102 million. In 1984 it went up to $158 million. Texaco went from $275 million to $344 million. Does that look like the oil industry was killed? Look at the revenue sharing. You can get this information from the Government's own Petroleum Monitoring Agency as I did. Look at how much money the industry made and how much there was to share. In 1980 the industry had as its share $6.3 billion. In 1981 it was $6.7 billion. In 1982 it was $9.4 billion; in 1983, $10.6 billion and 1984, $11.6 billion.
There is no doubt there was a recession in Alberta. There is no doubt that the tax, when it was originally put in place, had an effect on the industry. It hit some smaller outfits. However, that was changed. The fact is that this was a tough, effective tax which actually took money out of the pockets of the oil companies for a change and put it in the federal treasury. It was a tremendous fight between Trudeau and Lougheed. Lougheed accepted it in the end. Trudeau and Lougheed toasted the deal they had made. The Conservatives need not complain; Lougheed made the deal. Alberta put in place a
form of PIP grants and so on. Let us not talk myth, let us talk reality.
I do not know how much longer I have, Mr. Speaker? One minute?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Too long.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Too long. All right. I was making the argument before I was interrupted that the Conservatives were not stupid. They argued that they needed to give the oil companies more money so more jobs could be created. 1 was saying that the figure of 300,000 jobs was taken right out of a brief we got in committee from the Canadian Petroleum Association in 1984. It was exactly their brief. The Conservative energy program was exactly the proposals in that brief. So they bought it, hook, line and sinker. Big oil has its own agenda as it has always had. They want more tax breaks so that they can invest money and-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, you said I had five minutes left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: You have six minutes left to be used the next time the matter is debated in the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, Mr. Speaker, could I conclude today?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think I was mislead. 1 thought 1 had six minutes today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: You cannot use the remaining six minutes unless you have unanimous consent.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I just want to conclude in one minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are six minutes left in the time allotted, but he may conclude now in a few seconds.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will just conclude by saying that the Government is going to have tremendous problems because of this Bill. The Government gave up tax revenues of $5.3 billion until 1990. The Government has a deficit problem. Where is it going to get that money? Although I hate to say it, because the price of oil is falling dramatically I do not think it will be raised through the oil companies reinvesting and creating 300,000 jobs. They will just not create all those jobs and the Government will not get that additional revenue. The Government has a real problem with its energy policy and deficit. This Bill is a tremendous mistake and the Government will live to regret it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to comment further on your ruling to the effect that the time of the Hon. Member in response to the motion is
January 24, 1986

limited to 20 minutes, but I think it would be necessary to set the record straight for the future.
1 would simply remind you that pursuant to Standing Order 36.(1) the length of speeches and comments in response... I will read the Standing Order:
36. (1) Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, shall speak for more than twenty minutes-
Today, Mr. Speaker, you gave the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) who spoke on behalf of the Minister, or so I thought. When you recognized the Member of the Opposition who replied or responded to whomever I thought was the Minister-his Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, it is the same to us-you told me that the limit was 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, in the future would it be possible to know if, in a case like this-perhaps I should have risen after the Minister's motion and asked you to give me the floor before giving it to the Parliamentary Secretary, but according to our tradition we do not do that, we let the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary make his remarks-Mr. Speaker, could we have this matter cleared up next week, namely how should we interpret the Standing Order in the future?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am quite aware of the fact that Standing Order 36.(1) can be interpreted in two different ways, and that is why I will ensure that you are given a final ruling on this matter next week.

It being four 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   INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND GOODWILL DAY ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) moved: that Bill C-258, an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present to this House for consideration and second reading debate an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day. The purpose of this legislation is to change the name associated with December 26 from Boxing Day to International Peace and
International Peace and Goodwill Day Act
Goodwill Day in honour of Canada's commitment to world peace. This Bill is a direct result of my great concern about the world's present situation and what kind of future we are building for ourselves. I strongly believe that we are masters of our own fate. We, as Members of Parliament representing peace-loving Canadians, have an opportunity to further stress the importance of international peace and goodwill by supporting this initiative.
Never before in the history of the world has there been a more crucial time to demonstrate the need for peace and goodwill. We are living in a world constantly threatened by nuclear war. We are collectively held hostage in fear as each new act of terrorism is committed. Acts of terrorism and the build-up of nuclear arms must be stopped.
Nuclear war became a very real threat to the world once the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan. This event was recently brought to our minds yet again when His Excellency the Prime Minister of Japan spoke to this House. No other country has experienced the horrible reality and aftermath of nuclear war. We have a duty to ourselves and the rest of the world to ensure that this does not happen again.
Somehow we have been sidetracked in our peaceful goal. Instead of trying to stop the growth in numbers of nuclear weapons, we became obsessed with equalling our powers, not limiting them. We have lived in a world where the major global powers have been consumed with preparing for a nuclear war, not preventing one. There are presently enough nuclear weapons to kill, several times over, each human being on earth.
In that past year we have seen some very real and positive steps taken toward limiting the arms race. It was most heartening to see the two superpowers, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, come together for the first time in a summit meeting on disarmament. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) reminded us yesterday that decades ago Canada chose not to acquire nuclear weapons. This was a practical contribution to the control of nuclear arms. We are continuing to encourage and facilitate any meetings or discussions to further the goal of world peace.
The whole world seems to be growing in its awareness of the terror and futility of nuclear war. The United Nations has designated 1986 as International Peace Year. This comes at a time when all citizens of the world are becoming more and more aware of the need and urgency to seek lasting peace. Mr. Speaker, we are responsible for the future of this planet, and we have not been doing a very good job. It is time we took stock of what our actions have brought about. We must take a close look at the obvious consequences we will face if we allow this world situation to worsen. We must redirect our thinking and rid ourselves of any arrogance toward earth and each other and replace those negative attitudes with respect and love for this planet. It is our home and we are responsible for the shape of things to come. Our citizens are crying out for world peace. We have a duty to seek that which our citizens want.

January 24, 1986
International Peace and Goodwill Day Act
We are a fortunate country and have long enjoyed the benefits of a peaceful and prosperous nation living in a free and democratic society. Our history shows how often Canada has been in the forefront by helping other countries through troubled times. We have consistently demonstrated our compassion and goodwill toward others. This is another opportunity for Canadians to take the lead.
Designating December 26 as International Peace and Goodwill Day will demonstrate to the rest of the world that Canada and Canadians are committed to the goal of world peace. Such a change in name will not detract from any of our traditions. No one is more aware of customs than I am. My strong belief in our traditions are on record as a descendant of the United Empire Loyalists who carved a great society out of this harsh Canadian climate. I believe that such a name change will in fact enhance our historical view of Boxing Day. The traditional concept of this day, being one to honour and celebrate goodwill toward mankind, will be expanded and enriched as we include the whole world in our goal of world peace. Unless we recognize the imminent danger we face, not just as Canadians, but as human beings, we run the risk of losing everything.
Our goal today should not only be to respect our traditions, but to learn from our mistakes and make a positive legacy for future generations so that they will have an opportunity to enjoy and appreciate what we so often take for granted. We must work toward world peace if we are to have a world in which to carry on our traditions. There are many concerns, challenges and battles which face all of us on a daily basis, but without lasting peace this may be our last challenge. It is only fitting that we mark a day of peace directly following the day we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. This can be a concrete reminder to us all where our hope should be placed.
In conclusion, may I again stress that the creation of International Peace and Goodwill Day will demonstrate to the world Canada's commitment to continue seeking world peace while maintaining the principles of our tradition. I urge all Members of the House to support this legislative proposal. I realize that as a Private Member's Bill it may take a long time for this idea to become reality. Therefore, I would not be against withdrawing this bill as long as the subject is referred to the relevant standing committee of the House.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion brought before the House by the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet). Certainly no Member takes exception to the spirit of the matter we are debating today and I believe there is unanimity in the House when we talk about peace and goodwill. Therefore, I believe the proposal to designate an International Peace and Goodwill Day certainly has much merit. I hope the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will take note of this proposal made by one of their Members.
I have one concern. If we consider this motion in greater detail, perhaps we should determine whether this day should
replace the other tradition of Boxing Day. Rather than replacing one tradition with another, perhaps we should be adding another tradition in this country. For instance, there has been much discussion about allocating a day in the second or third week of February as a day of celebration for our heritage. Perhaps International Peace and Goodwill Day could be considered in the same scope.
Recently I received a letter from one of my constituents who read an article about the Hon. Member's proposal. While she is not against peace, obviously, she feels that Boxing Day is also part of her heritage and part of a tradition. Therefore, I think it would be valuable for a parliamentary committee which is reviewing this motion to study it from the perspective of how we deal with the tradition Canadians have come to know as Boxing Day as opposed to the International Peace and Goodwill Day proposed by the Hon. Member.
A day that is devoted entirely to thinking about peace is significant in itself. The Hon. Member noted very well that the designation of such a day will certainly not solve the ills of the world or reduce the number of nuclear warheads but it might force Canadians to focus some of their thoughts and attention on the whole issue of world peace.
We discuss a wide variety of issues in the House of Commons which may make the news in The Globe and Mail or concern our constituents. These issues develop a political momentum which gives us the food for debate in this Chamber. These debates sell newspapers and allow constituents to determine the views of the Government and Members about certain issues of the day. However, as a new Member of Parliament, I have found that this House sometimes loses sight of the more significant issues of the day and what are the international and national forces at play in every corner of the world. Parliament should be addressing those issues and this motion reminds us and all Canadians of the real and important issues.
While the other issues with which we deal in Parliament are important, there is nothing more important in our priorities and nothing more crucial or urgent than the question of peace and goodwill. We were reminded of that in the United States recently when they celebrated for the first time the day devoted to Martin Luther King Jr. That celebration revived a sense of what America is about and brought to mind where America still must go in achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, for which he fought so valiantly. Perhaps we can parallel that sense in this country so that our young people especially can take the time during such a day to value the peace we enjoy in this country and consider what we can do as a nation to ensure that the peace we enjoy is spread across the globe.
In that spirit, I will conclude my remarks so that other Members may contribute to the debate. As far as 1 am concerned, the Hon. Member's idea has merit and deserves the attention of the Government. Hopefully we can work out a structure in committee whereby the tradition that Canadians have come to enjoy on Boxing Day can be complemented by a special day for peace and goodwill. I congratulate the Hon. Member and hope that the parliamentary committee will
January 24, 1986

begin discussion to ensure that the Hon. Member's idea will become reality and Canadians can be proud that we enjoy peace and are attempting to ensure it spreads throughout all countries.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the proposed Bill respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day which, in effect, would substitute that day for our current Boxing Day holiday.
At the outset, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankough-net) for bringing this important matter to our attention. Let me also throw a bouquet to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for his very thoughtful remarks which I share, as an individual Member of Parliament.
This is a very important matter that we Canadians keep before us, those ideals and aims dear to our heart and that may, as in this case, have great portent for our freedom and our very existence. Next to the food and shelter that help keep us alive, I suggest that the peaceful enjoyment of life is of supreme importance. Whatever we may think of the effectiveness of naming a holiday to promote an ideal, I am sure that no one in the Chamber doubts the importance of peace in the world. International peace has long been a major interest of Canada and we are by no means alone in our concern for peace. Indeed, the United Nations has chosen this year, 1986, as International Peace Year.
The extreme seriousness of widespread belligerence is pointed out in a recent United Nations study which found that more than 20 million people have been killed in approximately 150 armed conflicts since 1945, when the 51 founding member states signed the United Nations Charter. For every 100,000 people on earth there are 600 soldiers but only 85 doctors. The average world military expenditure for each soldier is over 50 times that of average public spending on education for every school-aged child. Global military spending has reached approximately $1 trillion a year, with developing countries spending 20 times more for military purposes than for economic development. In view of these alarming facts, it is clear that the U.N. Charter's main objective: "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind", remains a goal and not an achievement. While a global war may have been averted since the founding of the U.N., peace remains elusive in some regions of the world.
There are two opposing philosophies on the means of maintaining international peace. One of these calls on the major powers to build up such a terrifying potential for massive mutual destruction that no sane person would risk ending the world as we know it. The other is to outlaw the weapons of war altogether. Certainly in a world still experiencing quite shocking starvation in some regions; a world in which the more fortunate nations are responding with great generosity to human need, the enormous expenditure of energy and human
International Peace and Goodwill Day Act ingenuity in developing the means to destroy life is incongruous, to say the least.
The Government of Canada recognizes the need to have a defence capacity, but has a firm commitment to promote peace and encourage the superpowers to draw back from the current dangerous level of nuclear weaponry. Our Ambassador for Disarmament, Douglas Roche, tells us that many individuals and groups throughout Canada are working to inform the wider public of the critical issues of peace and security facing the world today. He says there are tens of thousands of teachers, religious leaders, lawyers, scientists, students and parents committed to devoting their energies to a wide range of activities, both political and educational in nature.
The long term educational activities of this widening body of Canadians are having a profound effect. The numerous public seminars, conferences and debates held throughout the country, as well as the hundreds of publications produced, are of fundamental importance in making the terrible complexities of the arms race comprehensible to the public.
Non-governmental organizations are uniquely and strategically placed to help develop an informed public opinion. It is this public opinion that will contribute to the political process and thereby the construction, development and support of policies which will advance the cause of peace, with freedom and justice. The Canadian Government maintains a disarmament fund to help promote public discussion and education on this vital subject.
During the 1984-85 fiscal year, allotments to this project totalled $575,000 while research and publication contracts totalled another $178,000. There were 53 recipients, including the McGill Centre of Research on Air and Space Law and a coalition of 26 women's groups which organized a conference entitled "Women's Alternatives for Negotiating Peace", at Mount St. Vincent University in Halifax in June 1985.
Other recipients included the Canadian Institute for International Affairs, Science for Peace, the Canadian Coalition Conference Planning Committee and the Canadian Disarmament Information Service. Disarmament Fund contributions, mainly for the organization of conferences, were also provided to a number of post-secondary institutions including the University of Moncton, Laval University, Carleton University, Simon Fraser University, the University of Manitoba, St. Mary's University, Trent University, York University and the University of Toronto.
May I say that the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member is a really important first step. It is particularly appropriate in this International Year of Peace as decreed by the United Nations. I would agree with the Hon. Member who moved this motion, and I think I would gain the sympathies of all Hon. Members in this House to move the following: I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-258, an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day, be not
now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn
and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on
Miscellaneous Estimates.

January 24, 1986
International Peace and Goodwill Day Act


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak since we are debating the motion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) as opposed to the Bill originally proposed by the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet), although I am pleased to speak to either one of the two issues. Both will do precisely the same thing.
I want to congratulate the Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington for moving this motion and presenting this idea to the House of Commons. I hope the House adopts this motion as a matter of policy. It is not partisan in nature. Most of all my hope is that the matter does not die on the Order Paper.
We do many things as a House of Commons in Private Members' Hour. Very many valuable issues are raised by this process on occasion. Sometimes the issues that are raised in Private Members' Hour are more partisan than others. Either the Government or the Opposition uses the occassion to talk the Bill out, a procedure we use to put a Bill at the bottom of the list. This effectively kills the Bill because it has been talked out of the House. We do not want to do that with this issue. Generally, 1 hope, we would not do that with any issue. Be that as it may, the Bill we are discussing now is fundamental to all of us in terms of asserting the authority and supremacy of Parliament and enhancing the role of the private Member in this non-partisan issue. Most fundamental of all, we are discussing world peace.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who said so eloquently in his remarks that many times we miss the point when we are discussing issues which are somewhat trivial when you compare them to the issue we are discussing today. The symbolic gesture that we are attempting to pose as Canadians to the rest of the world is the special place in our hearts for peace and disarmament.
We know we have that place in our hearts and we have had it all along. The role we have played as peacemakers during the 1950s, during the Suez crisis and the other United Nations peacekeeping forces in which we have participated is testimony to the fact that we are very much interested in those kinds of issues. The initiative of Mr. Trudeau in the last year or so prior to his departure from office in his world-wide attempts to promote peace is noted by all of us, and other Prime Ministers and leaders of this country have done these things throughout the ages.
We remember Canada's participation in both World War I and World War II where we distinguished ourselves. We have worked hard at various international forums to ensure those kinds of atrocities would never happen again.
As sad as those incidents were then, a war today would be far more catastrophic than what occurred during those wars. Not long ago we celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. The time we take today to remember this event is indeed time well spent and reminds us of how important it is to have peace. Over 200,000 lives
were destroyed in August of 1945. Needless to say, the bomb exploded that day would be miniscule when compared with the fire power of the world today. It has been estimated that the nuclear powers now have enough capacity to destroy our planet 40 times over. If it were desirable-and of course it is not-to have enough to destroy it even once, one really wonders what is the purpose of having 40 times that capacity to start with. This is happening at a time when many children on the face of the earth are dying of starvation. We are spending almost $2 million every minute of every hour of every day on armaments generally. When we know that only a small percentage of the interest on that money could totally alleviate world starvation, we have to speak more about the kinds of issues which the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington brought to our attention.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, known as the father of the bomb, recalled thinking of words from a Hindu book and said:
I am become death, the shatterer of worlds.
It is important for us to remember that today and to take every action we can as legislators to indicate our commitment toward peace.
Perhaps for some of my constituents Boxing Day is symbolic, but many of them do not even know what that day signifies. The only thing they know is that it is the day after Christmas. Be that as it may, it has an historical significance for some people. Of course in Britain, the day after Christmas represented the day, so I am told, that rich children gave the boxes from their toys to the poor children to play with. Perhaps the day could be symbolically important in terms of our assistance to people who are experiencing poverty. However, most people have long forgotten what Boxing Day stands for or stood for. Everyone knows how catastrophic a war would be. Everyone knows how important it is to play our small part as a nation domestically and to indicate internationally that we recognize at least one day as having that symbolic importance.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Hon. Member. I am happy to have had the opportunity to participate. With the measure which we are adopting today, we will at least go a small way in beating our swords into ploughshares.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been moved by Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth), seconded by Mr. Cadieux:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-258, an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day, be
not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill
withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee
on Miscellaneous Estimates."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Scott, Hamilton-Wentworth) agreed to.
January 24, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
International Peace and Goodwill Day Act
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Definitely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, January 27, 1986