1988-03-29

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies in both official languages of the Government's response to recommendations 16, 18 and 29 of the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


BRETTON WOODS AND RELATED AGREEMENTS ACT
Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies in both official languages of the report on operations under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, 1987.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION (SHARE ISSUANCE AND SALE AUTHORIZATION) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-125, an Act to enable the Northern Canada Power Commission to issue shares, to authorize the sale of those shares to the Government of the Northwest Territories, to repeal the Northern Canada Power Commission Act and to provide for related matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, duly certified, which deals with the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act. The Cree-Naskapi Act was a piece of legislation which flowed from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Part XII of the Act created a commission and this commission is required to report to the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight) every two years on the implementation of the Act.
The first such report was tabled before Parliament March 12, 1986. The report contained a number of serious condemnations of the administration by the Department of Indian Affairs of the Cree community operations and maintenance subsidies.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to have the said report referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts so that the committee may inquire into the situation and recommend ways to resolve it.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners are very concerned that the trade deal agreed to between Canada and the United States would have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence.
They believe the agreement means a loss of jobs in many sectors of the economy and many regions of Canada. Therefore, they ask that Parliament dissolve in order to have a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada, and that the debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.

March 29, 1988
Excise Tax Act


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this Bill today because I think it contains the Government's hidden agenda. We have heard a lot about tax reform from the Government in the last couple of years. This Bill contains a number of what are generally known as regressive tax measures. These tax increases apply to commodities which are important to the growth and development of this country. The Bill contains taxes on items which Canadian families use to redecorate their homes, things such as paint and wallpaper products; there is a 50 per cent increase in the tax from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. These materials are used by Canadians all across the country in various ways.
We also have a tax on telecommunication services, which makes it difficult for Canadians to communicate with one another. It is a particularly regressive tax in a country like Canada with its vast distances and isolation of communities. Canadians, we are told, are among the heaviest users of longdistance telephone services in the world.
In my riding, which I suppose is the smallest of federal ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are communities such as Bell Island which cannot communicate with St. John's, 15 miles away, without paying long-distance charges. The community is isolated because it is an island and because it is served by an inefficient ferry service. The necessity of doing business in St. John's is difficult for the people of that island because they have to pay long-distance charges. Now the Government goes further and taxes that service by 10 per cent.
The Government has also increased the excise tax on gasoline and aviation fuels by one cent a litre. This is only one in a series of increases since 1984. We have seen a 23 cent per gallon increase in the cost of gasoline since the Government came into office, a massive increase by any measure. The
increase is in the taxes that ordinary Canadians are paying regardless of income. The Government has seen fit to collect almost 20 per cent of its federal sales tax revenue through this tax on automotive fuels. It is a regressive tax which does not consider the ability of the individual to pay. This most recent increase alone means that the average Canadian family will pay an extra $50 in taxes a year.
To go back to the 10 per cent tax on telecommunications, that tax is contrary to a recent ruling by the CRTC which told Bell Canada that Canadians were paying too much for telephone service. It was ordered to reduce its rates. The Government does not have the same sympathy for users of telephones and has added a 10 per cent tax to the cost of service.
The Government, since 1984, has attempted to reduce services and deindex pensions. We have seen a partial deindexation of the marginal tax brackets and partial deindexation of family allowances. There has been controversy over the capital gains tax exemption for wealthy Canadians. We have had a series of measures, including a reduction in over-all tax rates for high-income earners, which I see as being a part of the Government's agenda directed towards emphasizing hidden and regressive commodity taxes as a part of its method of reducing the deficit. However, the effect is to further shift the share of the tax burden from those who could afford to pay to those who need to keep a larger part of their income for their own use and the use of their families.
This is one of the hallmarks of the Government's activity. It does not act on behalf of the average Canadians who pay by far the largest share of income taxes. It shifts the burden of taxes increasingly to them from the high profit corporate sector, the banking industry, and other industries which are well protected by the Government.
This regime has increased the tax burden on the ordinary Canadian family since 1984 by over $1,000 a year. We started off with tax increases and, although there have been some decreases in the over-all taxation rate for the average family through tax reform, the end result is a tax burden on the average Canadian family in excess of $1,000 more than they were paying in 1984.
This Bill is a part of the Government's over-all plan to increase the tax burden on ordinary families who need to buy these goods and services and need to use telephone services in order to communicate with their families, relatives, and friends for the purposes of business or, in many cases in my riding, to find out about employment opportunities.
There is a great groundswell against the taxation policy which the Government has followed. People in my riding are very concerned that the taxation level, including that on long distance charges, unfairly affects those who have to rely on long distance telephone communications in order to maintain effective communication with communities around them. It is
March 29, 1988

an unfair tax. The only thing it does not affect is the residential monthly rate. This is a hidden tax which we do not support.
As a result of the changes in the manufacturers' sales tax we now have a very complex system of taxes, creating a very burdensome administrative responsibility for business people. We have special exemptions, notional values, rulings which must be made from time to time, and licensing requirements and documentation which businesses find extremely complex. This is not an appropriate way to raise revenue.
We have in short a series of measures which, although they will increase revenues, will result in a further shift of the burden of taxation to ordinary Canadians on consumer goods and services-who use their disposable income for these expenses and are already carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. As a result of pursuing this approach the Government is leaving behind those Canadians who are unfairly burdened with tax and an increasing number of Canadians who are already living below the poverty line as set by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Council on Social Development. These people are affected just as much by these taxes as is everyone else in the country. It is an unfair burden. These measures are inappropriate and we do not support them.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, with a great deal of regret. I regret that we are here again in the House of Commons talking about tax increases, particularly hidden tax increases. That is a term with which Canadians have become all too familiar since the Conservative Government came to power three and one-half years ago. The Conservatives have imposed the longest continuous string of tax increases to be imposed on Canadians in recent memory. I do not know how many times we have talked about this Conservative tax record, or hidden tax record, which increases the burden on middle-income Canadians, families, and individuals.
There has been much anxiety experienced by seniors who are trying to ensure that they will be able to continue the quality of life for which they had planned. However, with the increases in the cost of living and the Government's plan for investment tax their anxiety is growing.
Those who are involved in the cultural industry and small business people are very concerned about being hit through reductions on office expenses in their homes and the use of their cars which is so important in the earning of their livelihood.
Today I am going to talk about hidden taxes and will then refer to the more overt taxes in the Income Tax Act. This Bill contains the necessary legislative amendments to implement the federal sales and excise tax and excise duty changes announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budgets of February 18, 1987 and February 10, 1988; his June
Excise Tax Act
18, 1987 White Paper on tax reform; and his December 16, 1987 tax reform paper.
The Bill before us looks very big and ominous. In reading it one must use a dictionary, various other books and Bills to try to figure out who the Government is taxing, why it is taxing, and where it is taxing. It takes a fair amount of study to find out how the Government has hidden the excise tax. Let us attempt to determine what this enabling legislation covers as it gouges revenues and addresses technical issues in the law.
The measures to address some of the inequities in the sales tax and to prevent erosion of the sales tax base as announced in the February, 1988 Budget are contained in separate legislation. Generally, this Bill deals with a 10 per cent tax on telecommunication services such as telephone and telex services, but not including charges for local residential telephone lines. That is a result of the June, 1987, White Paper.
It also proposes an increase in the telecommunications programming service tax on cable and pay television services from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. That was also in the June, 1987 White Paper. Later I will discuss the amounts that these taxes will raise as the Government spreads out its huge tax net.
The Bill also deals with an increase in the sales tax rate on paint and wallpaper products from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. There is an acceleration in the federal excise tax remittance, which was also referred to in the June, 1987 White Paper.
There is an increase in the federal sales tax rate on beer, spirits, wine and tobacco products from 15 per cent to 18 per cent. That proposal appeared in the December, 1987, tax reform.
There is an increase in the specific excise tax and excise duty rates for tobacco products by 4 per cent.
There is an increase in the air transportation tax levy by $4 a ticket to recover a greater proportion of air transport program costs. That is a very interesting increase at a time when we are using more aircraft and travelling more often.
There is an increase in the excise tax on gasoline and aviation gasoline of one cent per litre, a most disgusting tax. The Bill also introduces several technical-


Mr. McDermid:: You should have been here for the National Energy Program.


Sheila Finestone: That was a different time in history. You do not care to remember history. I suggest that you read the world history and you will see where you fit into the world history picture.
The Bill also introduces several technical amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. These include a shift in the taxes on motive fuels to the manufacturing level to address

March 29, 1988
Excise Tax Act
administration and compliance problems. That appeared in the February, 1987 Budget.
There is a shift of the sales tax to the wholesale level-how mean can one get-for snack foods, pet food, pet litter, candy and confectionery goods and certain electronic equipment. That appeared in the February, 1987 Budget.


An Hon. Member:: We are just trying to pay off your debts.


Sheila Finestone: Which we acquired for a good cause. You overspent for no cause.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: The tax on most of these products will be shifted back to the manufacturing level when the marketing and distribution cost measure, announced in the February, 1988 Budget, comes into effect on November 1, 1988.
There is a clarification of the refund provisions applicable to certified public institutions. That appeared in the June, 1987 Ways and Means motion.
There is an amendment to the fair price provisions to apply tax on fair market value when other than arm's length sales are made, or where it is difficult to determine the sale price. That appeared in the December, 1987 tax reform.
There is a revision to certain compliance provisions in the Excise Act to reflect reduced on site surveillance by Excise officers in relation to the production of alcohol and tobacco products. That was in the February, 1987 Budget.
There are three relieving measures in this Bill. Incredibly, there will not be as much work for lawyers and accountants in three areas. In these relieving measures of the Bill there is an increased in the existing fuel tax rebate available to primary producers for the excise tax on gasoline by one per cent per litre to compensate for the increase announced in the February, 1988 Budget. The Government is giving on the one hand and taking back with the other, for which we are expected to be thankful.
There is an increase in the tax threshold for periodic and seasonal filers in order to reduce the paper burden for small business.
Finally, there is an exemption for original prints from the application of federal sales tax. This appears in the February, 1988 Budget. This gives me a rare chance to congratulate the Minister of Minister. Finally the Government listened to one of our standing committee's recommendations in the report on taxation and the arts. It was the only area to which the Government cared to pay any attention.
Let me turn specifically to the telecommunications tax. It is one of the most pervasive tax increases in this legislation. It will mean a 10 per cent charge on long distance calls for every telephone subscriber in Canada. This means that elderly
people on fixed incomes, who rely on long distance to communicate with their families, will suffer yet another tax bite by the Conservative tax watchdogs.
The voice of many Canadians is obviously not being heard as the Government continues its search for ways to introduce subtle, hard to see, hidden taxes that affect an incredibly wide number of Canadians.
What is worse is that the new tax cancels out the real savings millions of Canadians would have and should have realized as result of the lower long distance telephone charges in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia that were ordered by the CRTC just a few weeks ago. The CRTC studied the matter and decided that the arm's length Bell Canada and B.C. Telephone are earning enough money and the consumer should have some saving in long distance calls. In the meantime, the Minister of Finance swoops up all those savings in an attempt to recover that 10 per cent reduction. I do not think that is very fair, or proper fiscal management.
For many rural Canadians there is no real difference between a local and a long distance call. It is true that the Government has chosen to tax calls by Canadians living in rural areas which, because of the arbitrary lines of division through area codes, include long distance calls to their doctors, dentists and their children. Such an unconscionable measure by the Government is unacceptable.
We know all too well at this point in the life of the Conservative Government how regressive so many of its new taxes have been. The tax on long distance calls is no different. It hits low and middle income Canadians with the exact same rate of 10 per cent as the $200,000 earner or the company president. There is no fairness in this tax.
The lesson that many Canadians have come to learn is that the Government will tax anything. At one time we thought there would be a tax on food, but at least it seems the perishables will not be taxed. However, now we are talking about a tax on talking.
Canada is an enormous and wonderful country. Most of us live along the southern border, but tens of thousands of Canadians live throughout its geographic expanse and, in some instances, live in isolation. We are among the world's most frequent users of telephones and, just as millions of Canadians are making more use of long distance calls because of the lower rates, the Government is using this as a new opportunity to grab more tax revenue so that it can supposedly lower the deficit.
If one looks at the over-all deficit, the Government has increased the deficit by 60 per cent in three and one-half years, from $7,000 to $12,000 per capita. Not only does the Government tax talking and walking, I suspect it will even tax the air we breath.
While Canadians were getting used to the idea of "reaching out and touching someone", little did they know that the Government was working on its own variation of that jingle:
March 29, 1988

"Reach out and tax someone". This new tax on talking will reap the Government close to another $1 billion a year. It is time for us to think about how we can support another $1 billion being taken out of the pockets of Canadians.
I am sure the Government will try to apply this money to the deficit. It will then say it has done an incredible job of good government management. Yet what it has really done is taken the easy way out. It has taxed Canadians in order to pursue the deficit battle.
Where is the creativity in the way the Government went about this? I would suggest it has not been creative, nor has it been a good manager. Perhaps it should have started in its own house and cut out some of those incredible salaries in Ministers' offices and in the PMO. That way the Government might well have given Canadians a better lesson.
What about the increase in the tax on cable and pay TV services? There are tax increases of 8 per cent and 10 per cent. That will bring in an additional $93 million in general government revenue. But these funds will not be put into a program fund to produce good Canadian quality films, which was the concept behind the original tax on cable. That was the argument we used when we told the cable people to pay part of the cost of Canadian services which we have the right to expect to receive on our television sets in our homes. The concept was good. We need that Canadian content in our films. There was the intent to have this as a dedicated tax and 1 would suggest the Government could have directed the funds in this way.
It is nice to find something about which I can congratulate the Government. That is the granting of an exemption on original prints from federal sales tax. I daresay artists are quite delighted with that. I would also suggest that we need a better definition of artistic works so we could broaden the base of those who should be exempted from this tax.
I looked at those areas of particular interest to me as the critic, but I would suggest that the general draining of money from the people will become the Conservative epitaph. The facts speak for themselves. Today individual Canadians pay a greater share of the total tax bill in this country than they did when the Conservatives came into office, while corporations pay an even smaller share of the bill. It is just that simple. One can certainly see where the sympathies of this Government lie. I would suggest that the Government should perhaps review and revise its thinking and direction.
I wish to address some of the issues of concern which exist in the real world, the challenges facing many Canadians. The Minister of Finance saw no need to address these challenges in his supposedly "stand pat-stay still" budget. I would suggest the Minister missed the boat and I am really sad to say that. I think he treated with cavalier indifference the real needs of the country.
Excise Tax Act
Poverty is at the heart of most of our social problems in Canada such as ill health, crime, poor housing conditions and family violence, which affects the women and children of this land for the most part. I would say that the Government cannot continue to tell us the poverty gap will be closed as economic conditions improve. It was fortunate enough to be elected at a time when throughout the world the economy improved. Jobs were created around this world, not just by this Government. If it wants to measure its job creation record, let it go back and look at the time when the rest of the world was at the same point in economic development and growth.
I would suggest that the trickle-down theory of economic growth simply does not work in the country in which we live. We are geographically so widely spread and regionally so diverse that we must have economic growth on two levels. This Government has forgotten what Canadians expect from its Government as leaders and directors of our society. When there is the kind of differential between the rich and the poor that we have in this country, I suggest that the Government has an obligation to address the issues. When we speak of the poor, we are referring to the tens of thousands of children and of the tens of thousands of single parents, mostly women.
I think we also have to take into consideration the working poor because they form a part of that category. It remains a fact that well over half of Canada's poorer families do earn an income. Therefore, these taxes will hit them. That will make it even more difficult for them to move out into a more stable economic environment. One well knows that in an economic enriched environment, one can afford to buy those things that will enrich the home from which the children of the future are going to come. That means music, books, records and recreational time that is constructive. None of that happens in families of the working poor. Not much of that happens because there is exhaustion and the constant grind of trying to make ends meet.
In participating here today in this tax debate, I cannot help but wonder what Canadians are thinking about this Government, a Government that was swept into office in 1984 promising not to raise taxes. Yet it has overseen one of the largest tax grabs Canadians have ever known. I hope Canadians will remember what the present Minister of Finance said on behalf of his Party while sitting on this side of the House: "We will cut spending. We will not raise taxes. Tax levels in Canada are already too high". The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) repeated this promise soon after the 1984 election.
In closing, I am sure Canadians are wondering where all this goodwill has gone. What has happened to these promises? Those promises are going to come back to haunt the Conservatives. Canadians will not soon forget that this is a Government that has failed to meet its commitment. It has not kept its word. I would suggest that there is unease and frustration about the Conservative Government's record, a record that will establish this Conservative Government in history for its failure to show strong credible leadership in the many challenges facing us as a nation.

Excise Tax Act
This failure was never clearer to me than when the Minister of Finance stood in his place on February 10 and said in his budget speech that his Government's policies were working just fine, and that all he and his colleague had to do was stay the course. It is appalling that a modern Canadian Government, after three and one half years in office, after taxing Canadians more than they have ever been taxed before, fighting the deficit on the back of middle-income Canadians, can still come forward with this kind of non-action as it sees the growing gap between the rich and the poor. I would hope that during this vibrant and prosperous economy in which we live, it is not too late for the Government to start to review, revise and address the ongoing problems of the poor, the working poor and ordinary Canadians in our society.


Thomas Hockin: I have one brief question to direct to the Member. She is intelligent and I am sure she knows that
850,000	Canadians have been taken off the income tax rolls. I am sure she also knows that $200 billion of debt was inherited by this present Government and that very shortly this Government will be balancing the budget except for covering the debt, which we inherited. I know she is well aware of that.
Something that she may not be aware of, and it did not come through in her rather one-sided speech, is that federal sales taxes are very high, as high as 12 per cent. Is she aware that this tax was brought in by a previous Liberal Government and that the increasingly generous tax credit brought in by this Government was a Conservative measure in order to ensure that that tax does not bear as aggressively on low-income workers as it did under the previous Liberal Government?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I respect the comments made by my colleague. I am pleased to see that he is paying some attention to the rates of the banks and to the concerns that Canadians are expressing with respect to them. I am pleased that my colleague the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has raised the issue often enough to force the Minister to answer those questions.
With respect to the tax to which the Hon. Member was referring, I suggest to him that if he considered that the tax which we had levied was too high then he had a mandate, a massive mandate when his Government was elected, and he had a choice. He was supposed to govern-

to the best of his ability and in keeping with his Government's commitments.

He said that he was not going to increase taxes. Did the Minister listen to what he said? No, he blocked his ears. He was like the monkeys-hear, see, and speak not. He should not come back to say that we imposed because you imposed. The fact is that the Government has been in place for three and a half years now. It has had every opportunity to meet its
March 29, 1988
commitments. If the Minister wanted to block his ears and to increase the taxes which he says we put on in the first place then that is his problem, not mine.
With respect to the number of taxpayers who have been taken off the tax rolls, may I suggest that many of them got put on by the Government's spread-out net. It trapped many more people at the lower-income level. The Minister must realize that his Government has taxed us out of our minds, to the tune of $22 billion, and the Government is giving us back $5 billion. Fewer people are now being taxed. Am I supposed to say thank you for being outrageously wrong in the first place? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, no thank you to that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). It seems to me that she was very concerned about a whole set of tax increases that the Government has now foisted on the backs of Canadians as a result of the last Budget. This is getting to be a repeat performance. It seems to be that every three or four months we have another debate on the whole set of new taxes levied on the innocent taxpayers. I think we have almost reached a breaking limit. I do not think Canadians will sit much longer and accept continual tax increases, not only by the federal Government but also by provincial Governments and local Governments.
My question for the Hon. Member is this. In her explanation of the concerns that she had for each and every of these tax increases that are now coming on stream, does she not feel that the Government should decide to impose a minimum tax on the 60,000 profitable corporations which are not paying any taxes at all? Those corporations include some of the major trust companies and banks, as well as Argus Corporation and Cadillac Fairview. They make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, and they do not pay a single penny in income tax.
Does the Hon. Member not feel that perhaps a more appropriate approach, a fair approach, would be for the Government to expect these profitable corporations, which now number in excess of 60,000, to pay their fair share? If they pay their fair share would not all these other nickel and dime tax increases be unnecessary? In other words, this would build not only more fairness into the system but it would stop the tax on telephone costs and watching television, and the continued increases in the taxes on beer, cigarettes and so on. Would she not agree that that might be a more appropriate approach?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think that fairness is not this Government's long suit especially when looking at taxation on all sides. I suggest to the Hon. Member that it is very important that business have a fair tax. Business is a good part of the motor of the economy of the country. It is important that businesses enable the country to grow and develop. However, I am sure that businesses as well as everyone else want to carry their fair share. If the Government does not see it in that light, who will stand up to volunteer to take money out of their pockets unless it is part of government philosophy?
March 29, 1988

I was intrigued by the fact that on the flow-through mining shares the Minister decided to change his mind and do a bit of a restudy and a readaptation. I would be very pleased if the Minister would do the same thing with respect to cultural industries. Is he also backing off because of his fear of American reprisals?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Don't laugh. Believe me, Jack Valenti got into his ear very nicely.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that there are many areas in which there is not fair taxation. I think it would be in the interests of the Government to look at where it is taxing corporations and how it is taxing them.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech.


Sheila Finestone: You did not, you commented throughout.


John Horton McDermid: At one point she said that it was about time the Government rethought its taxation policies. I believe that is what tax reform is all about. We are talking about corporations and their taxation. A great many of the write-offs which have allowed them to avoid taxes are now disappearing with tax reform. A large number of profitable corporations which before did not pay taxes will now pay taxes.
The Hon. Member talked about sales taxes. Sales taxes under the new tax system will be greatly reduced. The manufacturing end has been paying a very unfair burden of tax. This has made our exports in many instances not competitive. That is what tax reform is all about.
After listening to the Hon. Member's speech this morning I am now convinced that she has not taken the time to sit down to look at the proposals in tax reform. Nor has she made any constructive comments on them.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Hon. Member is too busy talking when I am speaking that he cannot hear what I have to say. I suggest that he read Hansard to find out what was my answer. If that is not clear enough for him then he should read the minutes of the finance committee where I have participated a number of times. He will see quite clearly where my Party and I stand.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a brief question of my colleague. I wish to congratulate her, not only for her excellent speech, the kind of excellent speech she always provides for the benefit of the Members of this House, but particularly for her most appropriate remarks to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). They were certainly very appropriate.
I want to ask the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who is an expert in the area of communications, as we all know, and in culture, what she thinks of this proposition of the Government to tax long distance telephone calls. What
Excise Tax Act
effect does she think this will have on rural Canadians who must pay long distance phone bills to do such basic things as telephone the doctor, the hospital and the local store to get necessary goods and so on? Would she not agree with me that this tax is unfair for any Canadian, but that it is particularly unfair for all the people of rural Canada who are now paying this increase in taxes in order to subsidize the free trade deal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I said at the very outset that I thought this was an iniquitous Bill imposing regressive tax. I have not changed my mind. Certainly, the qualities of Scrooge, which the Minister of Finance would like to have attributed to him, which would indicate that he is managing well, have not shown themselves. What has shown itself is mean-spiritedness on the part of the Government which was prepared to tax anybody, anywhere. In particular a tax on talking for isolated Canadians is totally unacceptable. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the issue.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to participate in today's debate. It is important that the truth be put on the record. In listening to some of the government speakers as to what is going on in the country it seems to me that at least some of them-and I do not want to cast them all in the same mold-have lost their grip on what is going on in our country.
I recall many occasions when Members of Parliament, particularly from British Columbia, have asked what the Government plans to do in terms of taking some special initiatives to assist the economic situation in British Columbia, only to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) laugh and jeer and state that it has never been better in this country, things are wonderful, unemployment is down, the economy of western Canada is booming, and what are we complaining about. I do not that think we can say it too often. I hope that Members from British Columbia, from all political Parties, will stand in their places during the rest of this debate and attempt to explain to the Government how serious is the situation.
I speak for parts of the central interior of British Columbia where, sometime back, Statistics Canada, through Labour Canada interviews, indicated that it felt the unemployment rate was as high as 28 per cent. This resulted in quite a reaction from a number of leaders in various communities who stated that that was obviously not the case, there had been an error in terms of the statistical analysis, that that could not be the case. Yet some of us thought that finally there is some consistency in describing how serious is the situation, and indeed 28 per cent unemployment is a reality.
Those of us who spend a lot of time on the streets of the communities realize that it is not uncommon for the person in every fourth house who usually brings in the money to keep the family is unemployed, or more often they are underemployed.

March 29, 1988
Excise Tax Act
Someone might be working for 20 hours a week at one of the local shops earning the minimum wage and bringing in an income that could only be described as totally inadequate, inappropriate, and unacceptable.
When the unemployment figures came out at 28 per cent there was some shock in the communities. Some informal, some casual, and some very sophisticated surveys were conducted which confirmed the results, that indeed the unemployment levels in regions of the Province of British Columbia are in fact 27 per cent unemployed, and that says nothing about all those people who are underemployed.
Under the Statistics Canada review if a person receives a phone call to work for one day in a previous month, that person is considered in that month to be fully employed. Even when one says that the unemployment level is 27 per cent, that says nothing of the underemployed people who ought to be working full time, but who are working for a few hours a week at a very low wage. The situation is indeed extremely serious.
As we see it in western Canada, one of the problems is that we do not get our fair share of support from the federal Government. In spite of a number of government Members, both in Cabinet and in the Government, when one looks at regional development programs, and I have the results in front of me for 1986 and 1987, looking at all of the support from the federal Government through business initiatives, British Columbia received less than 9 per cent of the total. It has much more than that in terms of population. If there is a case to be made for a special economic affirmative action program, it could probably be made without hesitation for a province like British Columbia. It probably ought to get more than its traditional fair share. When it comes to the over-all support for enterprises in British Columbia, we fall short. It receives less than 9 per cent of the total for all of Canada.
In looking at government procurement programs where the federal Government purchases goods and supplies from companies across Canada, the amount that comes from British Columbia is abysmally low. It represents a few percentage points of the total. The federal Government should be taking much more aggressive action in buying more goods and more of its services from suppliers, not only in western Canada but specifically from British Columbia.
When one looks at CIDA contracts for services or goods, again British Columbia is almost at the bottom of the pile in terms of getting its fair share. When one looks at supplies and service contracts that the agency takes out, untendered and tendered, British Columbia is abysmally low. It is almost not even in the picture when it comes to supply and services.
I have a long list here. Challenge '88, the program that supports young people attempting to raise money for their education, has not had an increase in funding for two years. Taking into account a factor for inflation, that means there has been approximately a 10 per cent decrease in funding for summer student programs.
This is felt most heartily and harshly in places like British Columbia where the private sector cannot be expected to provide summer jobs, such as can be expected in cities like Toronto where the economy is much more prosperous, where the economy is relatively booming and as a result the opportunity for young people to find summer employment is that much greater.
We are pleased about that situation in Ontario, or parts of Ontario, but with the sluggish economy in British Columbia, it is extremely difficult to find a summer job. If a student does find a summer job, it is inevitably at a modest wage which makes it very difficult for young people in British Columbia to access post-secondary education-because of this difficulty in raising funds through summer employment.
Does the Government provide additional assistance to help young people provide for their post-secondary education financing? No. The Government makes it more difficult. Last year it made it more difficult than the year before, and this year it will make it more difficult than ever.
Another major area where we have seen significant and very tragic cuts is in job training at colleges in British Columbia. The number of seats traditionally purchased by the federal Government to assist young people in upgrading their skills and in becoming prepared for the knowledge based economy of the future, are not being added to, they are not being maintained, they are being cut time and time again.
One has to wonder at the logic of this approach. In what other western industrialized nation would one find the federal Government cutting support to encourage young people? Not only young people, Mr. Speaker, but people generally need to be upgraded and retrained in terms of preparing themselves for the realities of a very competitive market. Although I have a long list, I will not go through the entire list. I wish to make the point that British Columbia is not getting its fair share.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia has over the last number of years, come out with all sorts of pronouncements, some peculiar, some perhaps not so peculiar. I have only agreed with one, and that is his statement the other day that B.C. is not getting its fair share of federal government programming. British Columbia is one province that is getting the short end of the stick. I have to agree with him. The evidence certainly supports that.
One would have to look long and hard to find a single government program, and I have not found one yet, that indicates that British Columbia is even getting its fair share. We are not asking for more, although I think we could even make the case for more than our fair share, we are simply asking for our fair share along with the other provinces.
We are concerned when looking at various federal Government programs that almost inevitably the overwhelming lion's share goes to central Canada. That is fine in terms of supporting central Canada. But when more than a fair allotment goes to that same area, time and time again, those of us from the
March 29, 1988

regions, the East, the West, and the North, become extremely frustrated. There has been support given to the oil companies, and support to the grain farmers. That is fine. But those of us from the far west, the Pacific west, often are simply lumped into western Canada. That area in B.C. on the other side of Rocky Mountain Range is another part of the country that tends to be forgotten. That is one of the points I wish to make today.
This is a plea to my friends on the government benches, and a plea to the Minister in the Cabinet who is here, to give us consideration. Again, we are not asking for more than what is justly ours, but only that we get a fair break when it comes to support from the federal Government. I know that Members will say that we have the Western Development Fund. That is not broken out on a provincial basis-it is simply "The West" again. I wish to make the point that there are two wests: there is the traditional plains west, and then there is the other that is called the Pacific west. We could probably link up British Columbia and the Yukon in that particular band, and I simply wish to make a case for consideration in those areas.
Today we are debating a Bill by which the Government plans to impose a whole regime of new taxes on Canadians. Canadians have had the biscuit when it comes to increased taxes. For the last four years, as one of the many spokespersons for the New Democratic Party I have stood in my place on regular occasions and have outlined why we oppose these continuous increases in taxes.
Personal taxes keep going up and new hidden taxes are continuously imposed upon new products. We see that products such as dog food, cat food, kitty litter, snack foods, and so on are to be taxed. I suppose that one cannot make a case for not taxing kitty litter if products such as bird seed and so on are to be taxed. However, is it necessary for the Government to tax canary seed, cat food, dog food, kitty litter, snack food, pop, and so on?


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear some Hon. Members yelling, "Why not?" I will tell them why not. It is because I think we are nickel and diming people to death. We are now saying to the kids who eat snack foods and have pets that we will tax their special food and their pet food when there is no need to do so.
The reason I say that there is no need is that the Government has conveniently overlooked a whole range of revenue opportunities. Once again I ask the question, and beg for someone on the government benches to stand up and explain, why the Government feels that it is a necessary and a good thing to allow 60,000 profitable corporations not to pay even a penny in income tax. Some 60,000 profitable corporations do not even pay a penny in income tax. They are not the Mom and Pop shops, the hair salons, or the welding shops. They are Cadillac Fairview, the Bank in Montreal in some years, Shell Canada, and General Motors, the giants with hundreds of
Excise Tax Act
millions of dollars in profit that do not pay even a single penny in income tax. This does not say anything about the number of companies which pay $20 or $200 in income tax. There are tens of thousands of companies in that category, and other profitable companies which pay $50 per year.
It is tragic that the Government of Canada in some years says that a young man or women who is a teller in the Royal Bank of Canada will pay more income tax than the entire Royal Bank of Canada. Is that fair? It is also tragic when it says that a young man who pumps gas for Shell Canada will pay more income tax in some years than the entire Shell Canada. Is that fair? People are asking whether it is fair.
Why does the Government allow it to happen? Even Ronald Reagan in the United States said that it was unfair. He said that it was not right to have large, powerful multinational corporations paying no income tax when they make all kinds of profits. He said that they should pay a fair, basic tax and brought in a minimum corporate tax. He said to the corporations that if they used up all the loopholes and ended up paying no tax at all it was unfair and that they had to pay at least 20 per cent.
If we had the same system in Canada-and it is not an uncommon event; most countries have a minimum corporate tax-we would be collecting billions of dollars of taxes that we do not even begin to collect now. I remind the House of the situation back in the 1950s.
When we looked at the revenue obtained by the federal Government from the people of Canada in personal taxes and special taxes like those on gasoline and so on-the hidden sales taxes-and when we looked at the taxes collected from corporations, we found that it was about 50-50. About 50 per cent of the taxes came from corporations and 50 per cent came from the people. Over the years of successive Conservative and Liberal Governments, the breakdown has been shifted so that 82 per cent of the taxes collected by the federal Government comes from people and only 18 per cent comes from corporations.
What is bad about it is that so much of it is hidden. People do not even know they are paying the taxes. I refer to something as simple as filling up a car with gasoline. Now that some companies show the tax breakdown, we realize how much of the cost is simply a reflection of the hidden taxes put on by federal and provincial Governments.
Let us look at the revenues collected by Canada from hidden sales taxes. They account for about 35 per cent of all revenues. Most western industrialized nations average out to about 29 per cent. In other words, Canada is at the top of the list in terms of gouging citizens through hidden national sales taxes.
What is the Government's plan? Is it to cut back on taxes and to introduce a fairer and more just corporate tax system? No. It will levy a national sales tax on every Canadian, presumably after the next election campaign. For the first time in Canada it would impose a national sales tax on goods and

March 29, 1988
Excise Tax Act
services. When we go to the movies we will pay sales tax. When we pick up our laundry we will pay more sales tax. When we go bowling we will pay sales tax. When we buy some foods we will pay tax. Although the Government says that some foods may be exempt, of course many foods will not be exempt. It is not clear. We will be paying a national sales tax for writing up a will.
Where will it end? It is not unfair that taxes go up. I think most people accept that as a reality. What is unfair is that other areas are not being taxed whatsoever.
Let us look at the list of taxes today. There will be a 10 per cent tax on telecommunication services such as telephone and telex. The Government is to put a 10 per cent tax on these services. This means that all parents who are telephoning their kids across Canada will be charged an extra 10 per cent on that particular service.
It is discriminatory in certain regions of the country. Those of us from western Canada are particularly sensitive to these kinds of charges because of the nature of our expansive territory and the fact that people live some distances from one another and most often have to telephone long distance. When I phone from some parts of my constituency to my office it requires long distance charges. Now those of us in western Canada will have to pay an extra 10 per cent, in addition to the long distance charges, whereas in central Canada with its denser population a lesser charge will be imposed on individuals. It is probably an unintentional tax against those of us living in the regions of the country.
There will also be an increase in the telecommunications programming services tax on cable television from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. Virtually every Canadian household now has cable television, with a few exceptions, and there will be an increased tax on that viewing.
There will also be an increase in the sales tax on such things as paint and wallpaper, from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. People who want to work hard, to upgrade their homes or to make them nicer places in which to live will have to pay increased taxes. That will be more costly as a result of nickel and dime taxation.
Also there will be an increase in the federal sales tax on beer, spirits, wine, tobacco, and so on. This seems to be a fair target area for provincial and federal Governments; they just keep adding taxes to these products.
There will also be an increase in air transportation tax of 4 per cent per ticket. I think it is inadvertent, but again it is discrimination against those of us living in the regions who, by definition, spend much more time flying from one small community to another. To get around parts of my constituency I must take an aircraft, whereas Members of Parliament from Toronto and Montreal can probably drive around their constituencies quite easily. Those of us who must fly will pay an additional tax of $4 per ticket on our travel charges.
I do not think it is a plot against western Canada. I do not see a bogyman around every corner. However, inadvertently, those of us living in the regions will be paying more than ever.
Oh, shucks, I do not want to go on, Mr. Speaker; it is too depressing. I have page after page of increased taxes here. However, I think it must be said that there are many places in the country-and Kamloops is no exception-which are typical communities outside central Canada where the situation is difficult economically and unemployment rates are high. I am sure you are aware of such communities, Mr. Speaker. We are struggling to do the best we can, but one of our handicaps is that not enough business or economic activity is being generated in our communities. That is the case for a whole set of reasons, one being that the federal Government keeps grabbing money out of our pockets and taking it to Ottawa. We are getting really fed up with that.
Adding up all the tax increases the federal Government has imposed since this Government took office back in September of 1984, a typical family in a place like Kamloops is paying nearly $1,400 more per year. Today we will impose another few dollars of tax on these people. The one tax increase that I did not mention earlier, the increase in gasoline taxes, will cost the average family an extra $50 per year. The provincial Government has now imposed another set of taxes on gasoline and on a whole number of other things.
Let us just round the figure off and say that as a result of this federal Government, the average family in Kamloops pays an extra $1,500 per year in federal taxes of one kind or another. That is $1,500 per family that is not circulating in a city like Kamloops between the various businesses, providing employment and activities, enabling people to buy goods and services.
When every family has to reach into its pocket, pull out $1,500 and send it down to Ottawa, that is $1,500 that will not be used to buy a particular service or purchase particular goods in a city like Kamloops. That handicaps the business community. It makes it difficult to do business. It is difficult for the manufacturers, the wholesalers, the retailers and the shopkeepers. Therefore, it is one of the reasons unemployment levels are so high.
One of the things the federal Government could do to assist British Columbia would be to give us a fair deal in program expenditures. Whether these expenditures provide help to business, large or small, or help to local manufacturers, let us give them their fair share.
Second, why not stop raising taxes for once and start imposing a fair tax system on the large, profitable corporations which pay nothing year after year? This is not a condemnation of the corporations. I want to make that clear. I am not saying that General Motors, the banks, the trust companies or the insurance companies are doing something wrong. It is just that successive Liberal and Conservative Governments have
March 29, 1988

provided all of these tax loopholes that the companies naturally take advantage of legally. For example, the insurance companies, banks and trust companies together pay an average tax rate of less than 2 per cent. An average working Canadian pays much more than that.
In closing, I want to say that the best thing we could do would be to ask government Members to vote against this Bill and give the consumers of Canada a break from the nickel and dime tax increases that have occurred year after year.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend a question. I will not ask him about the 850,000 Canadians who have been removed from the tax rolls as a result of tax reform because he is aware of that. He is also aware that those who earn $30,000 per year or less will pay a smaller portion of federal Government revenues than those who make more than $30,000 per year as compared with before tax reform. He is also aware that tax reform will lower the federal sales tax, broaden the base and then give back a generous credit, all of which he did not mention. All of these actions make the system fairer.
I did want to ask the Hon. Member if he was aware that the NDP Government of Manitoba increased sales taxes from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. Is he aware that the NDP Government of Manitoba brought in a payroll tax which is applied across the board? What concerns me particularly as a Minister involved in the finances of Canada is whether or not the Hon. Member is aware that if the NDP Government of Manitoba had just kept its spending to the annual growth of inflation, it would have today a $250-million surplus instead of the huge haemorrhaging of a deficit it has.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has asked a number of questions and 1 will try to respond to all of them. First, I am aware that a number of the people who were drawn into the tax net two years ago, people who were then paying taxes for the first time in their lives, one of them being my father who is in his eighties and now has to pay taxes on his income and was not very happy about that, will now go off the rolls. In other words, many of those people who will be brought in through excessive taxes will be taken off the rolls because of tax reform. I do appreciate that fact, but those people who will be taken off were only there because they were drawn in previously-
Second, I think I did say at the outset, with all generosity, that part of the problem with hidden taxes as well as taxes generally is that provincial and federal Governments are equally to blame. I do not make the distinction that certain Governments are better than others or more concerned. Generally when it comes to taxing beer or wine or increasing gasoline taxes, a great deal of the blame has to be placed at both the provincial and federal levels.
I accept the point the Hon. Minister is making in this respect. That does not justify it or even explain anything. One of the differences, of course, with the Province of Manitoba is
Excise Tax Act
that there is a much fairer system there. Many of the profitable corporations that had not been paying taxes in the past are now paying taxes as a result of tax changes made back in 1984. There has been some attempt at imposing fairness in the system, but the point the Minister makes is valid.
I would like to use this occasion to tell the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) about two concerns that have been raised, both concerns which affect my constituents in British Columbia. First, tens of thousands of people affected by the Principal Group collapse have been asked to pay taxes on imputed income from their investments in the Principal Group. The Minister knows that these people do not have any investments now. Their investments are gone or frozen and no one knows what will happen. Yet the Government has imposed taxes on what it perceives to be money coming in.


Thomas Hockin: This is going to be looked after.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister has said that this will be looked after, and I assume it will be. It is obviously so grossly unjust and unfair. We will be awaiting that announcement, and I am pleased that it has been Members of my Party who have raised this matter with the Minister in the House of Commons on a number of occasions.
The major corporations in Canada have over half a billion dollars in outstanding taxes, not deferred taxes. The matter of deferred taxes is a whole different question. There is $30 billion in deferred corporate taxes, and that is open for discussion. However, I am talking about the 121 profitable corporations that owe the federal Government over $500 million. These are taxes that the corporations agree they should pay, we agree that they should pay but they just do not pay.
A farmer, a rancher or a small business man who does not pay his taxes will have the tax man on his back. The tax man will squeeze that money out of him one way or the other. Fet us take the same approach to all businesses, small and large, so that these 121 major corporations with $500 million in unpaid federal taxes will pay up what they agree they ought to pay. This then would enable us to move away from the nickel-and-dime approach, this continuous imposition of taxes on an innocent public that has really had it right up to here with the taxes they are required to pay.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I live on a farm in central Saskatchewan and I want to ask the Hon. Member a question about the effect of these taxes, and I will only mention a few, on people who live in rural areas.
In my community, if a parent wants to call his child at school, he has to call long distance. If he wants to call the hospital, he has to call long distance. If he wants to get welding rods for repair work, he has to call long distance. If he wants to order fuel, he has to call long distance. This appears to be very discriminatory. Then when he does go to pick up the welding rods or his child, he has to drive an extra 20 or 30 miles. I must add, however, that the tax on gasoline is

March 29, 1988
Excise Tax Act
refunded when he drives to town to deliver grain. If he goes to town he uses gasoline and that gas has increased in price by approximately seven cents or eight cents a litre since 1984. All of these things discriminate against people who live in rural areas and I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on that point raised by my colleague. I do not want to cast aspersions on my friends in other political Parties because I do not think it is an outright plot against the regions. I think it occurs because of a lack of sensitivity, both in the bureaucracy and among some cabinet Ministers from large metropolitan areas. However, a lot of these policies do discriminate against Canadians living in the regions.
I notice my friend from Western Arctic is here. He would be particularly sensitive to these kinds of taxes. We have the tax on gasoline, and everyone has to travel over large distances in the regions. There is a tax on aviation fuel and airline tickets. Then we have the tax on long-distance charges. My hon. colleague mentioned about the parent calling his children at school from home, it being a long-distance call. He has to pay an extra 10 per cent if he wants to be in touch with his children or their teachers. We say these things are not fair and a lot more thought has to be given to the tax system to ensure that certain Canadians, particularly those who live in the regions, are not discriminated against.


Mr. Dorin:: Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is a classic NDP speech arguing both sides of the issue. On the one hand they call for more to be done in virtually every single area of government programs, including things to be done by Government where it is not now involved. On the other hand, they decry the taxes collected to pay for these programs. They pretend that the money will come magically from somewhere other than the taxpayers of Canada. That is, of course, nonsense. First, what specific programs or spending would he eliminate to reduce the burden on taxpayers? Second, what specific loopholes or shelters would he eliminate in the tax system?
Perhaps he could start by talking about flow-through shares because a few days ago his Party moved a motion in this House condemning the Government for action it had taken in that area. As we all know, the Minister took that action to reduce the benefits to investors in tax shelters involving Canadian films, oil and gas exploration and mining. Those kinds of investments allow wealthy lawyers and doctors in Toronto to avoid paying taxes.
Does he agree with reducing the tax deduction available to SI for each dollar spent, or does he think we should continue to allow more than $1 to be deducted for each dollar spent and allow these wealthy, $200,000 or $300,000 a year Canadians to eliminate their tax liability?
Could he answer those specific questions? What programs would he cut and what tax shelters does he agree with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has changed, and which would he suggest we eliminate?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is useful to occasionally remind ourselves that our job as parliamentarians is very straightforward. It is to collect taxes and invest that money in an appropriate way. I think we fail on both counts. We do not collect them properly or fairly. I hope I have demonstrated that clearly.
One thing I did not mention was the issue of capital gains. I do not want to take many pages out of the U.S. book to demonstrate what we should do in Canada, but not only does Ronald Reagan's Government tax profitable corporations with a minimum tax, which we do not do, it also taxes capital gains. In other words, they say a buck is a buck. If you make a dollar you should pay a fair tax. We say if you make a buck from certain sources you do not have to pay taxes at all. Is that fair? If you make a dollar speculating on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange why should you not pay some tax on that dollar as opposed to a person working in a mine, mill, factory or office in a typical Canadian town? Why not? We are simply saying, let us do what any sensible country would do and tax a buck as a buck and leave it at that.
I am also concerned about how the Government invests its money. My hon. friend is from Edmonton. He will know that the Ghermezian brothers of Edmonton's infamous Fantasyland went to the Government and said, "Look, we know we are one of the richest families in Canada and we have one of the major industrial and economic empires in Canada but we would sure like a $5 million hand-out so we can put some more fancy rides in Fantasyland". The Government fell over itself to give them $5 million just like that.
The Alberta Government did the same thing with Peter Pocklington a few days ago. He needed a nice big loan guarantee-no problem because he has good political connections. I cannot imagine what $5 million that the Ghermezian brothers got to assist in the development of Fantasyland would have done for small businesses all across western Canada. They do not want $5 million, they want $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000.
That is why I say this Government lacks sense in determining how it invests the money. I would much rather invest $5 million to help hundreds of small businesses expand than help the Ghermezian brothers add a few rides to their entertainment park. It is absolutely silly and that is part of the problem.
To go to flow-through shares, let us make it very clear that not every tax incentive is wrong. There are a number of very good incentives where we get a good return. One of those programs was flow-through shares. It did not do much good for downtown Toronto or urban Canada, but it did a great deal of good in rural Quebec, northern Ontario, in the West and in parts of eastern Canada. Yet the Government cut it out. It said
March 29, 1988

it was going to cut back on the program because we cannot afford it. A lot of our regions depend on that program and they are very angry about this change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: The time for questions and comments is terminated. Debate.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-117. However, I would have preferred to see a legislation that had something to offer Quebecers and Canadians, because the purpose of Bill C-117, which contains seventy-six pages and sixty-four sections, is simply to tax, tax and tax again. If we want to put a label on this Bill, you could say this is Brian the taxman's Bill. Since the election in 1984, this Conservative Government has brought down three Budgets, given us two economic messages, and managed to introduce twenty-seven new taxes and raise existing ones. Most Members in this House know that today, Canadians already have more than enough taxes on their plate, with all the tax increases I will now enumerate. First of all, on October 1, immediately after the election, we had a 1 per cent increase in sales tax, from 9 to 10 per cent, which raised the Government's revenue by $1 billion. Subsequently, on January 1, 1986, we had another increase of 1 per cent, this time from 10 to 11 per cent, which put an extra billion per year into the kitty.
When we talk about $1 billion in revenue for the Government, it means $1 billion less in taxpayers' pockets.
In 1986, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decided to raise sales tax again, from 11 to 12 per cent, which meant another billion dollars less in purchasing power for the Canadian taxpayer. We must not forget that these are hidden taxes. When the consumer buys a product, the Conservative Government's tax increases are already included in the price of that product.
If we look at another area, another commodity that is essential to every Canadian, and I am referring to gasoline, this Government raised the excise tax four times, which has meant a 23-cent increase in the price per gallon. On September 3, 1985, two cents a litre and $900 billion taken out of taxpayers pockets. On January 1, 1987, another cent per litre: $450 million. On February 19, 1987, the second time in the same year, another increase of one cent per litre, which means another $450 million lost by taxpayers.
In April 1988, the price went up another cent per litre, which means that since 1984, we have had an increase of five cents per litre or 23 cents per gallon in taxes for Canadian consumers. When we consider the increase in the tax on gas, we must not forget this has an impact on all consumer goods, on food and clothing and furniture, all of which are being increasingly shipped by truck, and trucks run on gasoline. We have a situation where the poor cannot escape paying these increases because increased transportation costs are passed on
Excise Tax Act
directly to the consumer, which means that whether you are rich or poor, the extra 23 cents a gallon is passed on as an increase in the price of a pound of butter, a loaf of bread, and automatically, whatever a person's income happens to be, we cannot escape the impact of the tax increase which in the final instance reduces the purchasing power of the consumer.
The Government has also launched a ferocious attack on alcohol and tobacco, so that consumers will have to pay another $995 million. However, the Conservative Government went even further. After undermining the purchasing power and stealing the money of Canadian workers, it dug even deeper into their pockets, and I am referring to the fact that formerly, a number of products were considered essential and were therefore not taxed. This Government has decided to tax just about everything we have here in Canada. It started with candy and snacks. Then it was soft drinks, pet food and health care products. All health care products including aspirin, cough medicine, ointment, everything on the shelves used to be tax exempt, but now when you pay at the cash at your local drugstore, you are paying a "Mulroney" tax charged by the Government which you were not paying before, but the tax is hidden, so you don't notice it.
In addition we have all surgical and dental instruments. This means that when you go to the dentist with your child and you get a higher bill, you are once more hit by a Mulroney tax. Once this Government has hit something else, can you imagine that, such an important service as health for the young and the less young, it decided to tax all the instruments used. So, when you get a higher bill, you members of the public who are listening now, do not blame your dentist-remember it is a PC tax, a Conservative tax.
Something else again, insulation materials. Again they were tax exempt because they were necessary. But they also are hit by a PC tax. Wood stoves used to be tax exempt, now they are being subjected to another PC tax. Also hit are building materials that are used and made on the site. Now, when you pay for those materials a PC tax is added. People are not aware of a hidden tax, but that is a Conservative Party tax, a "Brian" tax.
And then you have videocassettes. The Government changed the taxing formula to get increased revenues. Here again, videocassettes users, you will be paying more but do not blame manufacturers. It is because of a PC tax.
Something else, the Government decided to tax wallpaper and paint products, to get more-once more, a PC tax. A tax you are not aware of-when you go and buy a gallon of paint or wallpaper at the hardware store to improve your home, suddenly you discover you have to pay much more than last year-this is quite simply because a PC tax was slapped on products that used to be tax exempt before this Conservative Government came to power.
Long distance calls were also exempt. Now the Government is imposing a 10 per cent tax on all long distance calls. All those living in rural areas, outside major centres, when you

March 29, 1988
Excise Tax Act
have to make a long distance call to get the doctor-even urgent calls-now there is a PC tax on long distance calls. Also on cable service-you have the cable, you have to pay the 10 per cent PC tax on the cable.
All this adds up, Mr. Speaker, to 27 new taxes or tax increases since 1984. The Conservative Government decreased taxpayers' purchasing power by taking some of the money not from their pay cheques but through hidden indirect taxes and decided to increase taxation of all the consumer goods that you buy, thereby decreasing your purchasing power over and above what they deduct from your pay cheque. The Government would have us believe that they have reduced taxes. It is not true! What happened is they tried to de-index old age security pensions but they had to back down when senior citizens and the Liberal team put the pressure on. And today senior citizens throughout Canada who receive every three months fully indexed old age security payments can thank not the Conservative Party Members but themselves and the Liberal team that worked with them to make the Conservative Government back down. But it is important to remember that it was their intention and that if they came back to power they would do the same thing because their avowed intention at the beginning was to de-index old age security pensions.
In addition, contrary to commitments made by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne, there was the deindexation of family allowances. This means that the poor get poorer. As the price of goods increases, the inflation rate does the same. By eliminating automatically indexation for the first 3 per cent of inflation, the Government reduced the purchasing power of Canadians. There was also the de-indexation of the personal income tax table and of the spousal exemption, with the result that the purchasing power of Canadian taxpayers has been considerably reduced compared with what it was in 1984. If the Government had maintained full indexation, Canadians would have been able to keep up with the increase in the price of consumer goods and services, and also increase their purchasing power as there would have been an increase in incomes and wages. This means that each time that a worker has been able to obtain a wage increase to improve his purchasing power, either by negotiating a collective agreement through his union or by negotiating alone with his employer, the Conservative Government has reduced this purchasing power by imposing hidden indirect taxes on all goods and services and by de-indexing the income tax tables.
The Government also eliminated another important program which was useful to young couples. If there is one thing that young couples in Canada want, it is to get their own home. This was the purpose of the Registered Home Ownership Plan. Once more, the Government eliminated this program which was of great assistance to young couples who wanted to become homeowners.
The Government imposed a permanent 3 per cent surtax on all taxpayers as well as other taxes, while eliminating exemption programs.
At the same time as it was reducing substantially the purchasing power of taxpayers by imposing indirect taxes and by eliminating tax exemptions and programs which helped low and middle income Canadians, it also implemented measures to help the very wealthy. I would like to quote a few figures about this Government. The $500,000 capital gains tax exemption cost Canadian taxpayers $800 million in 1987.
Then, there was the $1.6 billion paid in financial assistance after the failure of the Western banks. Wealthy Canadians who had deposits of at least $60,000, as all those who have deposits of less than $60,000 in a bank are protected by federal legislation, were given additional assistance. These people were not senior citizens with old age security pensions and guaranteed income supplements. They were not fathers with five children to support on $5 an hour minimum salaries. These people who had over $60 000 in bank accounts were not single mothers who were paid the $4.50 minimum wage and who had to pay daycare centres enormous fees to look after their children. They were good friends of the Progressive Conservative Party.
There is also the $200 million transaction to help the Hong Kong Bank. Then the $41 million in wasted expenditures when the Government decided to transfer the prison to Port-Cartier. Everybody remembers the scandal the Prime Minister was involved in since he had decided to build a prison in Drum-mondville. Phase II.
The whole thing was a complex which included Phases I and II. Because he wanted to show his constituents that he was able to deliver the goods, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) simply stole the project which existed in another Tory riding to transfer it to his own. So Canadian taxpayers had to pay $41 million in additional costs. That is quite a lot of money, $41 million. With that much money, we could increase the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens or do a great many other things. We could built in the province of Quebec a lot of social housing to meet the needs of some 15 000 people, including some 400 or 500 who are waiting for affordable housing in my own riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie. With these $41 million, we could have built a lot of social housing in various Quebec ridings.
The investigation of the former Regional Industrial Expansion Minister cost $2.3 million. The Gulf Olympia transaction with the Reichmann brothers which resulted in the Tory Government's decision to close the Gulf refinery in Montreal East cost $1 billion. Changing the colour of the uniforms cost $2.7 million, and the whole thing had to be scrapped because the material was unacceptable. It had a sort of "PC" odor; in other words, it stank. Again, it costs $2.7 million.
Another example of huge waste is the Fantasyland Project in Edmonton West. The Department Officials were saying no. It was out of the question to give money to this project.
March 29, 1988

Conservative though it is, the Alberta Government said no. So that was another $5 million decision by the Tory administration. Of course Western Canada is home to very powerful and very strong Ministers, for we in Quebec cannot even get $5. Our Ministers cannot even get the space agency to locate in Montreal, which would be a significant plus for the city. While Western Canada Ministers get the money they ask for, ours keep hearing no: no from the Department, no from the provincial Government, yet in Quebec it is the other way around, all Parties unanimously say that the space agency ought to be in Montreal. But the Quebec Ministers are unable to land that one. Most people say they want $130 million in new money to develop Montreal's Vieux-Port. All the other provinces got money. But no such luck in Quebec, our Tory Ministers and Members cannot get anything.
Mr. Speaker, same thing when it comes to the development of the Vieux-Port in Montreal. Montreal East shipyard workers needed an early retirement program, but there again the Conservative Ministers from the Atlantic provinces were way ahead of their Quebec Cabinet colleagues who did not even manage to secure a contract. Just before the Christmas holiday and New Year's the Prime Minister made a solemn promise-he held his hand over his heart-and said that the shipyards were going full speed. The Vickers shipyards in Montreal had to shut down and lay off 250 workers because the Conservative Ministers from Quebec are yes-men, softies. They do not stand up in Cabinet for the legitimate interests of Quebecers.
We pay our share of all the taxes I enumerated but we get nothing in return. We cannot even get crumbs. Not only the West but Ontario and also the Atlantic provinces are beating us to the punch.
Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up. I do hope that the Quebec Ministers will do more than just running "shows" in conventions at Montreal, and that the Prime Minister, instead of his somersaults, his masquerades in Montreal, will announce that Montreal will get the Space Agency and to quote the mayor of the city not as an empty shell, but with contracts, as well as $130 million for the development of the Old Port and for the pre-retirement of people of Montreal East.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: Order, please! It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Commissioner has ruffled some feathers by describing difficulties faced by Quebec Anglophones. If it is Mr. Fortier's job to defend the rights of Canada's linguistic minorities, then why is he being criticized for doing just that? Perhaps his words were too strong. It was one sentence. I say, let us not quibble over words, let us understand the message.
We must respond to the real sense of frustration felt by many English Quebecers. Is it really so far fetched to point out that all is not perfect for Quebec Anglophones when bilingual signs are not permitted, or when access to first-run films in English may be restricted? Mr. Fortier's statement offers constructive criticism. That is no reason for him to resign.
I think his message was that a viable French language in Quebec depends on promoting it in a vigorous way, which is what English-speaking Canadians support, rather than humbling the English minority. Is that not what Canada is all about, encouraging all our minorities to remain true to themselves and in so doing contribute to Canada's rich diversity?
Let us not shoot the messenger. Instead, let us heed the message to encourage and support healthy minority and majority language rights across Canada. Let all of us examine this issue with an open mind.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call upon the Anglophone and Francophone communities in Quebec to cross some bridges over their solitudes. We in the Conservative Party of Canada do not take calculated risks with respect to the lives of any community, whether French or English, or abandon any of our constituents for the sake of political gain.
We on the government side are only too well aware of what is needed to protect Anglophones and Francophones in this country. That is why our Government has introduced Bill C-72. We are proud of our record, and have nothing to hide like some big-time Liberal from Plessisville who is so proud from time immemorial to have never talked or done business, for that matter, with Anglophones.
We only want fair treatment for all, and our Language Commissioner should do what the law says, mind the shop in

March 29, 1988
Ottawa. It is a big job in itself. To the Anglophones of Quebec, I say: "Don't ever again do the mistake of electing your worst enemies, Garneau, Ouellet, Bujold, who are cajoling you and promoting your destruction to better trap you later into oblivion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Kaplan:: Come on!


B. Keith Penner: Order!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that no matter how vigorous their statements, they ought not to be a personal attack on any other Hon. Member.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker,
Salmon Arm, British Columbia, was originally selected as one of the first three Canadian communities to receive supermailboxes. Now, after a frustrating experimental period, the residents of Salmon Arm are fed up and have written to the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation indicating they are unwilling to co-operate with postal authorities any longer.
The final straw was the decision to change the existing postal code for 2,700 residents without any explanation or official notification. Some people who have lived in the same residence have had their postal code changed five times in the past four years. The changing of postal codes has been inconvenient and the cost excessive, particularly to the small business community. Some local mail is sent to Vancouver for sorting and then returned to Salmon Arm for delivery. Postal box rates have been increased 400 per cent and 500 per cent during 1987. These concerns go on and on.
The situation with respect to the postal system and supermailboxes in Salmon Arm, British Columbia, has become intolerable for its residents. The chair of the newly formed postal committee has called upon the Minister to end this marked decline in postal service and give Canadians, including the residents of Salmon Arm, the postal service they deserve and the service for which they currently pay, and pay excessively.



THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, to assist handicapped people, the Secretary of State administers the Disabled Persons Participation Program which provides technical and financial assistance to concerned groups with a view to making possible for them through their activities to foster the mainstreaming of handicapped into Canadian society.
Between September 1984 and December 1987, the Progressive Conservative Government has invested, through this Program, more than $50,000 in several organizations for disabled persons in my riding of Quebec East. These grants from the federal Government allow those organizations to operate their activities with great success.
I commend them wholeheartedly for a work so well done and I encourage them to continue promoting even more the mainstreaming of handicapped people. I can assure them of the continuing cooperation of this government given the priority we attach to that matter.
That is, Mr. Speaker, a concrete commitment on the part of the Government in favour of the handicapped, a commitment which we will continue to keep for the coming years. Our party wanted, Mr. Speaker, to create a political climate in which all Canadian men and women would feel a greater sense of security. This is important for us all, is it not, Mr. Speaker!



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages' statements are producing a big stir, are causing much ink to flow and are bringing back in Quebec the so-called linguistic debate.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am considered to be a Quebec nationalist. I would urge French-speaking Quebecers of all political stripes and our English-speaking colleagues of Quebec and of other provinces to stay calm, to be cautious and to get off the sentimentalist wagon.
Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. D'Iberville Fortier has recognized he was wrong and has said that in the future he would go in Quebec and check both sides of the question before insulting anyone. But sometimes things must be said. We, Frenchspeaking people, were very happy when any Commissioner of Official Languages was very harsh with English-speaking people of other provinces. And if bilingualism is to progress, we have to be able to strike sometimes and to take the beating some other times.
March 29, 1988

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this debate is over and that all tendencies, all political groups that must insure bilingualism across Canada-that they will mind their own business and make sure that French-speaking and English-speaking people across Canada have access to federal services in their own language. When it is perfect at the federal level, we can teach provincial governments what to do.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the affordable housing crisis in Toronto has become a serious concern for many middle and low-income Torontonians. Home ownership is fast becoming impossible for families without two incomes. Finding reasonable rental accommodation has become an endless and frustrating experience.
Single-income families, low-income earners, senior citizens, and others on fixed incomes, have been hard hit by the shortage of affordable housing. The higher rents demanded are often paid at the expense of other necessities such as food and clothing.
The situation in Toronto is fast becoming intolerable for those who cannot afford to pay the price demanded for basic accommodation.
I urge the Government of Canada to use every means at its disposal to impress upon the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Housing the need to take immediate action to provide affordable housing in Toronto.
* *
*



BEST EVER WINTER SPORTS PROGRAM-HIGH PERFORMANCE FUNDING

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) announced the Government's replacement for the Best Ever Winter Sports Program. I am relieved that the Minister has decided to continue the program. I am also happy that he is beginning to adopt the New Democrat approach of focusing on grass roots development. This has always been the mainstay of our sports policy.
However, at $32 million over five years the program has not seen a real increase in funds over the previous program. The difference simply accounts for inflation. If the Minister wants to change the focus and direct more funds toward increasing
participation in winter sports, it means that there will have to be a corresponding decline in high performance funding.
Our recent experience with the Calgary Olympics has demonstrated not only that high performance funding is effective and necessary, but that we still have a long way to go before we are consistently competitive with the world's best. It also demonstrated the value that Canadians place on sports, and the pride they feel in the success of our athletes.
Because of the increasing emphasis on sport development, especially in the wake of the Calgary Olympics, I will be asking the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare to undertake a complete review of all national sport and fitness funding programs. I would like to see the committee travel to the various regions of the country in order to allow those who are involved in the delivery of sport programs at a local level to participate in the review.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents were shocked to learn this weekend that Canadian Pacific Railway had announced its intention to abandon freight line service to western Nova Scotia.
Rather than promoting service to customers, CPR has allowed the service to deteriorate in order to justify abandoning communities which it has served since 1868. This was the oldest section of railway in the CPR system.
Transportation is the economic lifeline of Atlantic Canada. We need transportation links to keep our businesses competitive and in order to attract new businesses to establish in our communities.
I strongly oppose this abandonment. This is why I will fight to retain our services.	*
* *
*



CRIMINAL CODE


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54 is an amendment to the Criminal Code which would have the effect of making virtually any depiction of sexuality illegal under the Criminal Code. I urge the Government to withdraw the Bill. Many other Members have done so.
Recently the Government indicated that the Bill had a low priority. I would like the Government to make it clear that the Bill will not be reintroduced and will not be proceeded with.

March 29, 1988
In this request I am joined by the Metropolitan Toronto Library Association, the North York Library Association, the Canadian Museums Association, the Canadian Library Association, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, ACTRA, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Canadian Arts Federation, the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, the Association of Canadian Publishers, the League of Canadian Poets, the Toronto Arts Council, the Playwrights Union of Canada, the Canada Council-a federal agency which urges that the Bill be withdrawn-the Canadian Film and Television Association, the Canadian Book Development Association, the National Film Board of Canada- another federal agency-and the National Gallery.
With all those representations let the Government make it clear that this Bill has had it.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa based Conference Board of Canada, which is a non-partisan group, is the latest organization to endorse the Prime Minister's free trade agreement. The board found that the agreement will provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy. It found that the real gross domestic product will increase by $9.3 billion, or 1.7 per cent by 1997; inflation will be .2 per cent lower, and employment will increase by 1 per cent.
Now that organizations and individuals have had time to study the agreement, the majority are voicing strong support for this initiative. It is ironic that the once shrill voices of the opposition Parties, and that of the Premier of Ontario, are no longer to be heard. Perhaps soon we will get their endorsement.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, controversy over a phrase in the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages demonstrates again how sensitive questions relating to language are in Canada.
The first Commissioner of Official Languages, now a newspaper editor, has reminded us of the controversy that resulted 15 years ago from his repeating the phrase "West-mount Rhodesians". He reminds us of the lesson, "that, when
handling linguistic dynamite, one should not simultaneously juggle colourful phrases".

The Commissioner initiated a hue and cry because he deplored the tendency to promote French not by "positively asserting its own cultural vigour, but by humbling the competition '. However, he did deplore also that his report gave rise to that misunderstanding, most particularly the summary which does not reflect adequately his position, in terms of the controversial sentence about the attitude of the Quebec Government towards its minority.
Mr. Speaker, it is not always easy to defend minority rights without offending the majority. It is a most tedious task.

Canadians hope that the Commissioner will continue to work vigorously for official language minorities while being doubly mindful of the hazards of his task.



PENSIONS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, pensioners of the now defunct Massey Combines Corporation are being shafted, and they are as mad as hell.
The company went bankrupt and was put into receivership earlier this month. The receiver, Peat Marwick, has notified the 3,000 pensioners that their health and welfare benefits have been terminated, cut off, as of March 4, 1988. Those benefits included life insurance, dental, drug, and OHIP coverage. This is patently unfair. It is creating considerable hardship for the more than 3,000 pensioners who dedicated their lives to the company only to be put out in the cold in the middle of their retirement.
During the 1986 restructuring of Massey Ferguson Ltd. the federal Government allowed Massey Ferguson to transfer $207 million in long term debt to the combines operation. Guarantees should have been obtained in order that the pensioners' health and welfare benefits would be protected. The Government failed to do this. The overwhelming majority of the retirees never worked for Massey Combines. They were employees of Massey Ferguson. Their pensions and health care coverage should never have been transferred to Massey Combines, a corporation that was destined to fail. The Government should not have allowed the restructuring without first protecting the workers.
I call on the federal Government and the Government of Ontario to assume responsibility for this fiasco, and to ensure that the pensioners continue to receive health care benefits that they worked for and are entitled to receive.
March 29, 1988



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians rejoice after hearing the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) comments on acid rain yesterday in New York City. We can be proud that we have a Prime Minister who is willing to take a strong stance on such a vital issue.
Previous governments were unable to achieve any progress in this fight. Now there is a renewed hope that the two nations will unify to control acid rain.
The fight on acid rain is taking place on many fronts. The Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have taken this country's message to the United States on many occasions. Up until now, although acid precipitation from the United States contributed significantly to the problem, that country's administration has been unwilling to participate in an acid rain control program.
As a Member for a region that is greatly affected by acid precipitation, I look forward to the Prime Minister taking a strong message on acid rain directly to the President when they meet in Washington on April 27.
I would also like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the award he received last night from the Americas Society.



APARTHEID


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, since its independence Botswana has shown that blacks and whites can live together and prosper in harmony. It has also emerged as one of the more successful democracies in the Third World.
Instead of learning from the example of Botswana, the South African Government has grown increasingly repressive in its attempts to silence the opponents of apartheid.
The South African Government, in keeping with its tradition of crushing any form of anti-apartheid protest, has used the South African Defence Force to initiate a number of border raids into neighbouring countries and has attempted to justify these raids by claiming them to be strikes against ANC insurgents.
Yesterday we witnessed the latest of these attacks on the city of Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, in which four people were killed, at least two of whom were citizens of Botswana.
Oral Questions
I urge the Canadian Government to condemn this incursion into Botswana and to increase its pressure on the South African Government to end its menacing raids on neighbouring southern African countries which, unlike South Africa, are trying to develop along non-racist lines.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister spoke in New York. In March, 1985, the Prime Minister said, after his first summit with the President, that he had an agreement with President Reagan on research for acid rain.
In March, 1986, our Prime Minister again announced with much fanfare that he had obtained an agreement with President Reagan on research for acid raid.
In March, 1987, at the conclusion of another one of their annual summits, the Prime Minister said for the third time that he had an agreement with the President for research projects on acid rain.
Last night in New York the Prime Minister said that people who claim that the issue of acid rain needs more research are attempting, to use his own words, "to avoid action". Terrific! Finally the Prime Minister has recognized what most Canadians have already known-we do not need more research; we need some action on acid rain.
In the absence of the Prime Minister, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister really believe what he said last night and, if so, why has he wasted the last three and a half years?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, frankly I find that an incredible question coming from the Leader of a Party which had the opportunity for years to take initiatives on acid rain and did not.
The Prime Minister of Canada and all his Government take enormously seriously the threat to our environment, the threat to our way of life, the threat to our resources of acid rain.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What have you done?


Charles Joseph Clark: We are asked what we have done. What we have done is patiently, persistently, and vigorously pursued with the United States the possibility of achieving a practical step forward.
The Prime Minister took the occasion of his speech after receipt of a prominent award in New York yesterday to restate

March 29, 1988
Oral Questions
before a major public American audience the determination of the Government to have action on acid rain.


REQUEST FOR SIGNING OF TREATY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not very good at arguing his case.
The Prime Minister's handling of the acid rain issue was a complete disaster. He wasted his time helping the United States get away with a few vague promises about research.
Now he is approaching the end of his term, as is President Reagan, the Prime Minister says he will be satisfied with no less than a definite reduction in the sources of acid rain in the United States.
If the Prime Minister is serious, and this applies to the Minister as well, will he insist that before their next meeting in Washington next month, the Canadian Government draft the text of a treaty designed to put an end to acid rain, to be signed by the Prime Minister and President Reagan at their meeting next month?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition has been asleep for the last two or three years, but certainly for the last several months I have made very clear here on the floor of the House of Commons, and elsewhere before Canadian audiences and American audiences alike, the fact that the Canadian Government has put on paper the makings of a treaty which our officials at the most senior level have been negotiating with American officials, both in Washington and in Ottawa.
The very thing that the Leader of the Opposition calls for with such forced grandiloquence is that which we have already done, a far cry from what the Liberal Party of Canada did when it was in office. The predecessor of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not raise the acid rain issue in Ottawa or anywhere else in Canada, let alone in Washington.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, after three and a half years that kind of answer does not wash any longer, particularly from a sleep-walking Minister of the Environment.
* V *


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-UNITED STATES OMNIBUS TRADE BILL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not only been out-negotiated
on acid rain but he has been out-negotiated on trade. As the Prime Minister was praising his own trade deal last night in New York City, he failed to mention that a unanimous report of the House of Commons Committee on Trade, including every Conservative member of that committee, insisted that unless there were to be a specific exemption in the omnibus Trade Bill currently before the Congress of the United States in favour of Canada, the Prime Minister should scrap the deal.
At the very time the Prime Minister was speaking in New York last night, Sam Gibbons, the head of the House of Representatives' Trade Committee, said that Canada would not be given an exemption from the U.S. omnibus Trade Bill. My question then is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Government have information contrary to that demonstrated by Congressman Gibbons last night?
If Canada receives no exemption in the omnibus Trade Bill, is the Government prepared to withdraw from the trade arrangement with the United States?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Right Hon. Member would not knowingly mislead the House on this issue, but he knows that that is not what Sam Gibbons, the head of the House of Representatives' committee, said. He said that there was no need for an exemption because there was no threat to Canada in the Trade Bill.


John Napier Turner: No further questions!


CANADIAN AMBASSADOR'S LETTER TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister who just responded. If the Minister is in fact now endorsing the comment made by Congressman Gibbons that there is no threat, I would ask if she is prepared to table a response which I presume was received to a letter Ambassador Gotlieb sent to Congressman Gibbons and others outlining 33 specific measures in the omnibus Trade Bill which Canada felt was objectionable. The Minister's answer clearly indicated that they have now been satisfied on all 33 of those measures. I would like the Minister to table that and to give us the assurance that all 33 major problems raised by the Canadian Ambassador with the Congressman have now been satisfied and will not be included in the omnibus Trade Bill.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware that the Trade Bill has not yet been presented in the United States and therefore we do not know what it contains. It is perfectly true that our Ambassador has been making representations to the Americans to ensure that there are not elements in the Trade Bill that would cause problems for us. I am happy to report to the House that we know that, so far during the process, many elements have been dropped from the Trade Bill.
March 29, 1988

We will continue to make representations on those items that we feel could impact on Canada but we could not possibly address the Hon. Member's request because we do not have a Bill before us. I urge him to wait and see what is in it before he attacks it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that we do not have a final version of the U.S. omnibus Trade Bill. Therefore, why was the Minister, in answer to the first question, prepared to back down completely from the recommendation made by the committee that if the U.S. Trade Bill contains those measures we should reject the Canada-U.S. trade deal? Why is the Minister, ipso facto, refraining from living up to that commitment and endorsing the notion that any omnibus Trade Bill which does not succeed in eliminating the measures contained in the Ambassador's letter will be rejected by Canada, and therefore we will reject the trade deal? Why is the Minister backing down?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not backing down. I am pointing out in a very realistic fashion that we do not have the Bill so we do not know what is in it. We are sure it will be compatible with the free trade agreement negotiated between the two countries.
I urge the Hon. Member to hold his temper and wait until the Bill is before us and we can see whether or not his concerns are justified.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked a question about the loophole in the Election Expenses Act, discovered during the Masse inquiry, which permits campaign expenses to be exempted from election spending ceilings. At that time the Minister suggested this could be dealt with in committee when it dealt with Bill C-79. I said I thought the Minister's facts were wrong. I checked subsequently and my information is that he is indeed wrong.
On March 16 the Deputy Government House Leader, when it was proposed this matter be dealt with in committee, said in this House: "It is not within the scope of the Act." The Deputy Government House Leader has already ruled out consideration by the committee of what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday should be considered.
I want the Minister to clarify this very serious matter. If the Government is serious about closing this loophole will it now
Oral Questions
agree to immediately referring a new Bill to that committee for consideration which would close the loophole?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the discussions that were going on between the respective House Leaders was that, if there was a way in which unanimous agreement could be secured, perhaps this could be incorporated in the Bill. This is not the first time this has happened. We had Bill C-33, in which we hoped we could incorporate another measure which was beyond the scope of the Bill. However, with the consent of the other Parties my understanding is that that could have been done.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am asking the Minister to agree to now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is what I said yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: Is he now agreeing to have a special Bill referred to the committee that will deal with the problem? He is nodding. We take it there is agreement and the Government will proceed on matters agreed to by both opposition Parties.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: I have another question about political party financing. On the weekend his Party's Quebec wing passed a resolution about party financing. However, although the Quebec wing adopted this policy yesterday, the Minister has refused to commit himself here in the House. I repeat my question today. Is the Government for or against action of this kind being taken before the next election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, that is exactly what I tried to tell the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday. Perhaps I was not clear enough. However, my understanding is that we were disposed to consider that important matter, namely, the differentiation or segregation of election expenses from campaign expenses. We thought that we could use the forum of the committee established to study Bill C-79 to explore this very important issue.
With regard to the other matter, I am not aware of any discussions which have taken place between House Leaders with respect to the issue of limitations on corporate donations and fund raising activities. If that is a representation which the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is presenting to the House, it is something which we might consider.

March 29, 1988
Oral Questions
POLITICAL DONATIONS-LIMITATION QUERY	Mr. Riis: A Shirley fetish.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he might consider it. Considering that the Quebec wing of his Party has unanimously adopted a resolution in that regard, and since he has had the co-operation of this Party for over a year to proceed immediately with that, will the Government cut out the propaganda on the subject and act on it?
The New Democratic Party had more individual contributors in the last year for which there is a record than the Liberals and the Conservatives together and I want to assure the Minister that we are prepared to act now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Put up or shut up. Go ahead, let's hear it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Apologize.


John Edward Broadbent: We'll hear the answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with regard to co-operation and respecting the honour of the hon. gentleman's word, we thought that we could expect that kind of co-operation when we undertook to deal with Bill C-79. Of course, there were some differences of opinion on that, but I can understand that perhaps the Leader of the New Democratic Party was not taking a specific interest in this issue at that particular time.
The Hon. Member talks about limitations on donations to political Parties. I have the list of contributions to the New Democratic Party which indicates some rather hefty contributions as well. It indicates $26,000 by the CAW, Canadian Council, and $26,000 from the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour.


John Edward Broadbent: And $7 million from corporations for you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, he may want to constrain the amount of money that those organizations give as well.


John Edward Broadbent: Give us the bank list now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: And the trust companies.


John Edward Broadbent: Bring in the Bill for your hypocrites from Quebec. We'll campaign in Quebec on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Shields:: Settle down or Shirley won't like you.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Shirley will cut off your funding.


Mr. de Jong:: You sure have a fixation on Shirley, don't you, Jack?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Develop a new line, Jack. It's getting boring.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister, in his speech in New York yesterday, was very long in rhetoric but very short in concrete proposals for the economic development of Central America?
If the Prime Minister was serious yesterday, can the Minister tell us today what additional amount of aid the Canadian Government is ready to commit to these countries and, in particular, to Nicaragua?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the House will know, yesterday the Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister in Canadian history to receive an award from a prestigious American organization.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This was precisely because of the very active role which Canada has been taking in trying to bring a peaceful settlement and economic development to Central America, including Nicaragua.
The Hon. Member will also know that yesterday I had the opportunity, for the first time in history anywhere, to convene a meeting as one of the participants in the Economic Summit, which meeting was attended by five of the Foreign Ministers of the group of eight Latin American countries which have come together to encourage common approaches, not only in their region, but generally, to meeting the problems of peace and development in that region, including Central America.
The discussions yesterday were highly productive. The commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government is clear. We intend to do whatever we can in terms of economic development, in terms of peacekeeping, and in terms of encouraging the very important steps toward peace which have just been achieved in Nicaragua.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people wondered whether the Prime Minister was there as the Prime Minister of Canada or as the Governor of an additional State of the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the answer was not very specific.
March 29, 1988


PRESSURES EXERTED ON HAITIAN AUTHORITIES-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
André Ouellet: I would like to ask the
Minister whether he could be more specific about another statement the Prime Minister made yesterday, which was that his Government was putting pressure on the Haitian authorities to put in place truly democratic institutions. Could the Minister inform the House to what kind of secret pressure he was referring? It seems to me this statement is pretty farfetched. I am sure it was not a reference to his Parliamentary Secretary's visit to Haiti, since he showed the Manigat Government every conceivable respect.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects here. First of all, about Haiti. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well, since he was part of the group, that a group of parliamentarians, in fact a Committee of the House, as suggested if I am not mistaken by the New Democratic Party, has just held a series of meetings in Haiti. I am waiting for the report, because I believe it will help us develop specific policies we could pursue with respect to that country. The Prime Minister confirmed yesterday Canada's profound interest in what is happening in Haiti and also the issue of democratic government in the area.
As far as Central America in concerned, Canada is prepared to join groups of other countries for the purpose of supporting some kind of marshall plan. Once peace has been obtained, we hope this will encourage governments in the area to continue in their search for peace, and economic development could be the next step.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Transport. First, I would like to thank the Minister for his quick response to my letter of March 24. I would also like to express my appreciation for his commitment to investigate the allegations which are made in seven affidavits which I forwarded to him today to protect the identity of employees who have made allegations about certain airlines.
In the affidavits which I forwarded to the Minister, employees of Wardair and Air Canada made allegations about violations of security procedures. As I said before, the Minister has promised to protect their identity.


An Hon. Member:: Get on with it.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Go for it, Les.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the Minister give the assurance that the investigation he said he will carry out will be conducted under the widest possible terms of reference, and that the RCMP or any other police force necessary will be involved so that the investigation will be seen by the public to be completely pure and above board?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that the investigation based on these seven affidavits which the Hon. Member sent me at 12 o'clock today will certainly be proper and above board. I will not give any assurance that the RCMP will be involved. That will depend on whether our investigation shows that the facts are correct.
With respect to keeping the names of the persons who signed the affidavits confidential, let me point out to the House that when I replied to the Hon. Member I pointed out to him that we would certainly keep the names of those who supplied the affidavits confidential during the course of our investigation. However, if we find that we must prosecute and charge any airline companies with a violation of the security regulations, we should certainly have to use their names then because they will be required to give evidence. I can assure the House that if we find that any of the airline companies have violated our security regulations they will be prosecuted.


CHECKING OF BAGS-AIR CANADA INSTRUCTION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer since employees and the public are worried about the cosy relationship that exists between the current Ministry and the airlines.
My supplementary question for the Minister concerns a letter that was sent to him on February 4 from the airline employees representatives. In the case of an Air Canada charter flight from Toronto to Winnipeg to Honolulu, employees of Air Canada in Winnipeg were instructed from Toronto that passengers with Fairway Tours would have boarding passes in their possession-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes that the issue is a serious one and is being treated seriously by both the Hon. Member and the Minister. However, I think the Chair must insist upon the Member putting his question. We must move on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In light of the fact that the instructions said: "Just check bags, do not worry about security numbers", will the Minister explain why he has not answered the letter of February 4? Does he think that is an appropriate instruction from an airline office in Toronto to an airline office in Winnipeg? Will this result in an inquiry into this incident?

March 29, 1988
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between myself and the airlines is no cosier than the relationship between myself and the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a decent regard for the fact that he is doing a sincere and honest job for his Party, and I have a decent regard for the fact that the President of Air Canada, and the Presidents of Canadian Airlines or Wardair are doing an honest and decent job for their airlines. Our relationship is no cosier than that. The same is true with the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Easy. You were doing just fine.


John Carnell Crosbie: The relationship is no cosier than it ever was. In fact, in St. John's on Sunday they had given away my seat. That is how cosy the relationship is. Fifteen minutes before the flight left I got to the counter and they said that my seat had been given away. That is how cosy we are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: A forerunner of things to come.


John Napier Turner: You needed a whole row.


John Carnell Crosbie: My row was given away.
The question raised by the Hon. Member has been investigated. There was no security breach. This was a charter flight. I do not have the time to go into this now. My reply will go to the hon. gentleman as soon as I can get it to him, which will probably take another month.


REQUEST FOR NEW PROGRAM TO HELP OLDER WORKERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Since November 1986, the Minister has been negotiating with the provincial governments with a view to introducing a new assistance program for older workers, but so far nothing has been done. However, since 1987, hundreds of workers who would have been eligible under the old program have been penalized because the Minister decided to terminate the old program before renewing the new program. Could the Minister inform the House what the situation is with respect to the provincial governments, and when older workers in Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and Western Canada will be eligible for the assistance program for older workers?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to repeat for the benefit of the Hon. Member and other Members that the old program was not terminated or cancelled by this Government. The former program set up by the previous Government was to be terminated under the previous Government, but we extended the program for a year and it was supposed to expire in 1985.
As for current negotiations, these have been going on for some time. In fact, I have just finished a new round of discussions with all my provincial counterparts on the new POWA program, and I am pleased to be able ot inform the Hon. Member that I shall be seeing my Quebec counterpart on Thursday.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT OF FUNDS FOR OLDER WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister is unable to give a satisfactory answer to older workers and considering the slogan: Losing your job is tough but at fifty-five it is real tough ... I agree that losing one's job is tough and that it is really tough at fifty-five. Since the Minister said he extended the early retirement program for a year, doesn't he think it would be more sensible to announce immediately that he will extend the former program for older workers and that as soon as we have a new program, he will terminate the old one? In any case, it is a situation which penalizes the workers. Instead of spending money on announcing a program that doesn't exist, spend it on helping older workers!
Pierre H. Cadieux: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am greatful to my hon. friend for mentioning this advertising paid for by my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration and not the Department of Labour. In fact, if my hon. friend had had the honesty to quote the whole message, he would have recognized that workers who are 55 years of age can get assistance through our employment strategy programs to find new jobs, for this is one of the things we have been trying to do, creating new jobs for older workers. As a matter of fact, we have created over one million jobs since 1984 and we intend to continue to create new jobs for workers, especially older ones.


GEORGES BANK-PROVINCIAL OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED DRILLING FOR OIL
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that Bill C-75, the Bill with respect to an agreement on the offshore between Canada and the Nova Scotia, is now being held up in a legislative committee while the
March 29, 1988

Government decides whether it will play its part in banning the drilling for gas and oil on Georges Bank.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of New Brunswick have both taken a position opposed to drilling on Georges Bank, that the office of the Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, has taken the same position, and that the Nova Scotia Legislature has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the banning of drilling on Georges Bank?
In light of that, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared on behalf of the federal Government to amend Bill C-75 to ban drilling on George's Bank?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that discussions and consultations are still ongoing between the federal Government and the Province of Nova Scotia. I certainly take the Hon. Member's representation into consideration and will see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources receives it.


GOVERNMENT DECISION-TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia Legislature passed a unanimous resolution supported by all Parties opposing drilling in that region. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the GOMAC report, the Gulf of Maine Advisory Committee report, has recommended no drilling in the area and that the report is in the possession of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Is he aware of that information and, if so, when can the people of Nova Scotia expect a decision from the Government of Canada in light of the fact that their own Legislature is unanimous on this issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would hope very soon, Mr. Speaker, and again I will draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


FINANCE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that the small producers in the oil and gas sector are not enjoying the benefits the Minister, I am sure, would like them to have. They have requested that under the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, the Government, on October 1, instead of reducing the rate from one third to one sixth, reduce the amount on
Oral Questions
which the average is based from $10 million to $5 million, thereby ensuring that the small companies receive the benefit they received in the past.
Will the Minister of Finance, in the interests of safeguarding these companies and safeguarding jobs in the oil and gas sector, agree to the request of the small companies?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member has raised this issue because I think he will agree with me it has been quite an effective incentive for the oil and gas industry, particularly for these smaller companies, members of the Small Explorers and Producers Association. We have received the representations of the association. I am always happy to receive these representations, and will be reviewing them in due course.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: With all due respect to the Minister, the question is fairly straightforward and the timing is very important because they are now planning for the exploration and development they are going to be doing in the next few months. Why can the Minister not say now whether the Government is going to grant their request, in the interests of helping small companies in the energy sector?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my answer is any different. I appreciate the Hon. Member's concerns and I will take them under advisement.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF MEXICO
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Bernardo Sepulveda, Secretary of External Relations of Mexico.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. Western farmers are in the process of making crop decisions for 1988. They need some information in order to do that. Is the Minister prepared to make a statement now on the initial prices farmers can expect for the 1988-89 crop year?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, traditionally initial payments are

March 29, 1988
Oral Questions
announced prior to spring seeding. In the last two or three years we have announced those payments towards the middle of April and we anticipate doing the same thing this coming year, that is, making an announcement on initial payments probably within the next two or three weeks.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-EFFECT ON GRAIN PRICES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the rising Canadian dollar is having an impact on the prices of grain. Can the Minister give us any indication of how that rising Canadian dollar will affect the initial prices he will be announcing?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that any of this kind of information is market sensitive and it is not appropriate or helpful for anyone in my position to speculate on what in fact the initial prices will be. The practice in the past has been to set initial prices as high as we possibly can, based on expectations in the market.
I can say that we will be looking to make an announcement of an interim payment under the Western Grains Stabilization Act, which we anticipate will be very helpful and will be a further indication of the kind of support this Government has provided to a part of the economy, namely, the grain and oilseed sector, which has been suffering very greatly. So 1 think that will be some very good news for the Hon. Member's neighbours when we announce it.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Since complaints about service charges by banks and other financial institutions, and the perceived lack of notification about new charges, have been raised in this House since November, 1987, has the Minister in that time instructed the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to enforce Section 201 of the Bank Act which requires such notification?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to tell the Hon. Member that we have an interdepartmental committee examining that particular matter and it will be reporting shortly. We are also awaiting, of course, the report of the standing committee on a similar subject.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF INFORMATION DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, now that the Standing Committee on Finance has decided to examine
the administration of Section 201 of the Bank Act-and I still do not understand why the Minister needs an interdepartmental committee to enforce his own law-will the Minister tell the House when he proposes to introduce legislation which will require adequate disclosure from trust companies, caisses populaire, and other deposit-taking institutions?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that action will be taken quickly, whether it has to be done by legislation or regulation has yet to be decided, but we will not delay very long with respect to this particular issue.


LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 201 OF ACT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. It also concerns Section 201 of the Bank Act. Is it true that one of the Minister's officials has given a legal interpretation that the banks are not in contravention of Section 201? Has such a legal opinion been sought by the Government and has it been given?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I answered the previous question, yes, we are trying to anticipate the answer to the Hon. Member's question. If he asks me whether the report is in and whether or not I have accepted it, I can tell him that the report is not yet in and I have not seen it.


REQUEST FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 201
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is, has the Government received or obtained a legal ruling or legal interpretation of Section 201, and has the interpretation determined that the banks are not breaking the law? That is the question I am really asking. Was such a legal interpretation sought by the Government and has it been given?
My second question in terms of a supplementary is this. When is the Government prepared to enforce with legislation Section 201 of the Bank Act and ensure that bank charges are not levied on the basis on which they have been previously levied by the banks, without proper agreement between the customer and the banking institution?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt, if Section 201 is being violated, we will act and act immediately.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is it being violated is my question?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last September
March 29, 1988

Canada led 46 nations in signing a treaty to reduce chloro-fluorocarbons which destroy the ozone layer. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that an acid rain treaty must be a priority with the United States or it could cost our friendship. Could the Minister tell the House where Canada and the U.S. really stand on acid rain and how many nations have actually ratified the treaty?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that Canada provided a great deal of leadership towards the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-depletion. It is an historic document inasmuch as it is a first global treaty on the atmosphere. We hoped it might be a central part of an international Law of the Air, of which another part might well be an international accord on acid rain, towards which objective we are working hand in glove with other countries, including those of the European Community. I am advised by my senior people today that negotiations are going well.
In the meantime we think it terribly important within Canada to provide an example to the Americans, and to others, by slashing acid rain-causing emissions at source, in the case of sulphur dioxide emissions, by 50 per cent by 1994, a very substantial achievement by this Government.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. It concerns the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the present negotiations. Last week, during a visit to Washington by the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons, the Assistant Trade Representative for Agriculture, Suzanne Earley, stated to our committee that the United States administration's position was to abolish or at least to render useless Article XI of the GATT which permits border controls for supply managed agricultural commodities.
Given that this position is supported by the Cairns Group, of which Canada is a member, can the Minister inform the House why Canada is supporting a measure which could render useless or abolish supply management in Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that that is nothing more than utter and sheer nonsense. We have to respect the fact that the Americans will take certain positions at the multilateral trade negotiations, as will a number of the other 93 countries.
We have made our position very clear as a Canadian Government that we support the system of supply management. We support the right for Canadian farmers to determine
Oral Questions
what marketing system best suits their own needs. That is why we have written Section 710 into the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement, and made specific reference to Article XI in the GATT.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is clear that in this case, Canada is certainly being "harmonized" by the Americans.
My question is this: In view of the fact that this very day, the members of the Canadian Egg Marketing Board are holding in Ottawa their Fifteenth Annual Meeting, could the Minister or his colleague the Minister for International Trade explain to us how the Tory Government can support the position of the United States and that of the Cairns countries before the GATT, when they are seeking to abolish our supply management system in Canada? How could the Canadian Government justify their support of these organizations?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we will not be taken in by any nonsense any more than we will be taken in by the position of the Hon. Member. In fact I have been advised, quite appropriately by my colleague the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, who has been actively involved in the Cairns Group, that indeed the Hon. Member is misrepresenting the Cairns Group on Article XI of the GATT.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Minister will know that although the Pepino inquiry concentrated on privately operated Toronto half-way houses there are allegations of serious violations of security and supervision at the government operated Keele Street Detention Centre. The Minister will also know that, although he has ordered an audit and the removal of violent offenders from Exodus Link and Montgomery House, no similar order has been issued regarding government operated half-way houses.
Will the Minister order an independent audit of all government operated half-way houses in Toronto, and the removal of violent offenders from the Keele Street Detention Centre?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the only federal government run half-way house in Toronto is the Keele Street

March 29, 1988
Privilege
Centre, and that an audit is being conducted on Keele Street by my Inspector General as recommended by Recommendation 18 of the Pepino Report.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West rises on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognition. I rise on a matter which I raised yesterday as a point of order.
First, I wish to say that I erred by omission in my point of order yesterday, an error I now wish to draw to the attention of the Chair.
Citation 327 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition is entitled "Documents Cited". I said in my remarks on my point of order, "I admit at the outset that that is not a direct quote or citing of the document". My error was that I misquoted Beauchesne's. Beauchesne's states, "to read or quote". However, the citation is entitled "Documents Cited".
I went to some lengths this morning to look up the definition of the word "cite". The Winston Senior Dictionary states under "cite":
-indirectly, to give in substance what he has written. To cite is to mention a
passage or an author as a reference, argument or example-or illustrate
something previously stated.
The Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary (Canadian Edition) states:
To bring forward or refer to as proof or support... To mention or
enumerate.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary states, "mention as example".
I contend that the Minister cited the CNR studies regarding the Moncton shops, because in his response to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris), the Hon. Member who requested that the Minister provide the studies which supposedly show how the CNR can save money by closing down the operation, said, "CN's studies". The minute he said, "CN's studies" he mentioned, he referred and used as an example, pursuant to the definitions of "cite" to which I have referred. He said, "CN's studies show quite clearly that it will make considerable savings as a result of the decision to close these shops."
Everyone knows, including members of the Standing Committee on Transport, that that is what the CNR said. It said that it would have considerable savings, and the Government and the CNR refused to provide copies of those studies.
The fact is that the Minister cited the rationalization studies of the CNR regarding Moncton shops by the very fact that he cited the studies of the CNR. He then went on to mention, enumerate, what the CNR said in its studies. I contend that if that is not citing, I do not know what is. I respectfully suggest, Sir, that in light of the objective of the question of the Hon. Member for St. John's East, the purpose of it and the subject matter of it, and in light of the Minister's response, that he did in fact cite the CNR studies by quoting a contention of the CNR from both studies. It seems to me that it is that straightforward.
The Minister used information from the rationalization studies of Canadian National Railways to the effect that the rationalization studies of the CNR showed how much money it could save. The fact that the Minister used information that even the CNR has admitted is in its studies means purely and simply that he was citing those studies.
Therefore, Sir, I contend that the Chair should give serious and, I hope, favourable consideration to requiring the Minister to table those studies in the House. The employees are the first ones entitled to know what it is that their employers had in store for them. They cannot find out. They have tried under the Access to Information Act.
It is clear in the exchanges in the House yesterday, it is clear in the definitions contained in the four dictionaries I looked at, and it is clear in Beauchesne's Citation 327(1) which states, in part:
... This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which
prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in
evidence.
Beauchesne's further states in Citation 327:
(2) It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest...
There has been nothing put forward by the Government or CNR which would have any injury to the public interest. Only the document cited by the Minister need be tabled. I submit that he cited the CNR studies about Moncton shops. He did it by name, the CNR studies, two direct words.
Citation 327 of Beauchesne's further states:
(5) To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate ...
I wish to close my brief remarks by suggesting to you, Sir, that while this may be a departure, precedents have to be set to be followed by successive Speakers in Parliament, although I hope this Speaker is here for a lot longer than I have been.
1 wish to close, Sir, by submitting to you that under the definition of "citing" in Beauchesne's, and in four different dictionaries the variety of definitions that are included under the word "cite", the Minister has in fact cited the CNR reports/studies, about the Moncton shops.

March 29, 1988

I request with all respect, Sir, that you require the Minister to table those studies in the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the hon. gentleman was going to raise this point yesterday, so I was not here to respond yesterday. Quite obviously the submission that he is making is erroneous. If Your Honour ever found in favour of it you would certainly go down in the history books because you would have greatly changed parliamentary procedure.
I am not going to quote Beauchesne's or any other parliamentary authority. I appeal to your common sense, Mr. Speaker, and to your knowledge of the rules.
As reported in yesterday's Hansard at pages 14187 and 14188 I was asked a question by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) with regard to the CN shops at Moncton, and the decision of CN to shut the rail and shop operation at Moncton. Moncton would still be its main base of operations in Atlantic Canada, and the great majority of their employees in Atlantic Canada would be located at Moncton.
All that was stated in reply by myself was that, "CN's studies show quite clearly that it will make considerable savings ..." I did not refer to any document. I had no study of CN's before me to which I was referring, a study with a capital "S" or any report with a capital "R", nor did I refer to a letter, nor did I quote from any study, letter, or document. How can I be requested to table a document when I have not got such a document and did not refer to or quote from such a document?
I notice that our former colleague, the Hon. Stanley Knowles is present. He would be shocked and dumbfounded. If the NDP were still being advised by our former colleague, Mr. Knowles, on this matter, this point would never have been brought up. It just shows the intolerable ignorance of the rules on behalf of the hon. gentleman.
I know that there was a major study done some years ago by CN in connection with its position with reference to those types of shops. I do not know how many other studies were done in addition to that. I have no such study. I did not quote from any such study. I have no letter that I quoted from. I have nothing that I could table. If Your Honour was so to direct me to table, what can I table?
I would like you to act, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the rules and to dismiss this request.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has given me some additional argument following on his intervention yesterday, and the Hon. Minister has replied.
It is interesting to note that the Hon. Minister referred to the Hon. Stanley Knowles and his expertise in procedure. I only wish that I could refer this problem to the hon. gentleman and have him solve it, but I am afraid that I will have to take
Privilege
the matter under advisement and report back to the Chamber as soon as I can.
I thank both the Hon. Member and the Minister for their interventions.



Fernand Jourdenais: During the time reserved for Statements by Members you, Mr. Speaker, were apparently of the opinion that I made an improper use of Standing Order 21.
My only purpose was that no political Party should be allowed to promote the destruction of any community of Canada. My only purpose was to recommend to Englishspeaking Quebecers to stay away from the Parties that have those intentions.
I apologize to the House if, by mentioning the personal name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and the chief organizer of the Liberal Party of Canada, I disrupted the proceedings of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I see some Hon. Members rising, but I think that under the circumstances there is probably no need for any further comment. That is a completely unequivocal withdrawal. Members will notice, as the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) has just stated, I did interrupt the Hon. Member in his statement, and for reasons which are well known by all Members of the House.
I would hope that Hon. Members could accept the clear and direct statement that the Hon. Member has made. As far as the Speaker is concerned, I think that that ends the matter.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: I have to be very attentive to Your Honour's comments. Did Your Honour say "as far as the Speaker is concerned" the incident is closed? You know, Mr. Speaker, I am respectful of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very respectful of the Hon. Member who is an experienced Member. If he thinks that I need to hear something further on the matter, I would defer to an experienced Member such as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).
Before addressing the subject any further, I must say that my sense of things is that the Hon. Member for La Prairie has withdrawn. In any advice that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis may have for me, I would not want this to turn into an exchange between Members concerning a matter which has been withdrawn.

March 29, 1988
Privilege


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I will be very helpful to you. I have been here too long not to catch the import of Your Honour's words.
I am respectful of the rules of the House, especially when the Speaker says that an incident is closed. I abide very willingly by Your Honour's decision and will not debate any further this unfortunate incident which took place earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member, and I hope that other Hon. Members would co-operate with the Chair.
I might say to all Hon. Members that it is not the habit of the Chair to interfere often in Members' statements.
The real reason for having a rule, which has been commented upon by other Speakers, is that we do not engage in personal reflection upon the motivations, characters, or otherwise of Members. Of course when that happens it tends to lead to disorder, because other Members feel that it is unacceptable and then want to retort as well.
There is common sense to these rules. It is fundamental that we do not promote or accept in the Chamber that which creates disruption.
Again I say that I appreciate very much the comments and the grace with which the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis has supported the Chair. As I have said in front of all Hon. Members of the House, I take very seriously any intervention the Hon. Member makes.


Marcel Prud'homme: We have a very wise Speaker.



Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding an incident which happened a little earlier. I indicate to the Chair that I am prepared to move the necessary motion to refer the matter to the appropriate parliamentary committee if Your Honour deems that I have a bona fide case of privilege.
On May 5, 1986 I put question No. 565 on the Notice Paper. This question, standing in my name, asked the Department of Agriculture for a number of reports regarding sanitary conditions at packing plants in southwestern Ontario. The question was never answered. I suppose that is not unusual. It could happen that Ministers, for whatever reason, decide not to respond to an Hon. Member's question.
However, I believe that it is against acceptable practices of the House-and I believe it can be found in Beauchesne's and Erskine May-when the question of an Hon. Member is not
answered, as my question was not, and the Hon. Member finds out a year and a half later that in fact the information requested was given to a reporter, one Jim Rohman of the Kitchener- Waterloo Record, in the exact format of an answer to an Order Paper question. Indeed that should be considered an abuse of my parliamentary privileges.
I have in hand a document entitled "Inquiry of Ministry". This document is usually given in response to an Hon. Member's question on the Notice Paper. The answer to question No. 565 should have been destined to myself, yet it was not given to me but to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record last week. The document provides answers to very important questions regarding sanitary conditions at certain meat packing plants in Ontario.
Perhaps it is simply a mistake of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in providing this information to the news media but not providing it to an Hon. Member of the House when the question was on the Order Paper. In fact, a copy of a notice to me, to be tabled in the House, was given to the reporter, not to myself. If it was a mistake either by the Minister or an official of his office, I will accept that, having the highest of respect for the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that I am the associate agricultural critic for our party. I accept that that could happen.
However, the failure of the Minister to provide an adequate explanation would lead me to believe that information sought by the House through a Notice Paper question, duly inscribed on the Order Paper on May 5, 1986, when his officials prepared the answer for him, when the answer was available in his office, and when the answer was provided to someone else who was not a Member of the House, was deliberately withheld from the House of Commons. Unless there is a satisfactory explanation, I would submit that that would be an infringement of my privileges as a Member of the House.
I am prepared to table for the benefit of the Chair, if there is an appropriate way to do it, information provided to me earlier today by the Kitchener-Waterloo Record which indicates quite clearly that information destined to my office or to myself or, even more important, to be tabled in the House of Commons, was not provided to me but was instead provided to a reporter. I would hope that the Minister could provide such an explanation. In the absence of the failure of the Minister to do so, I would respectfully submit that I have a bona fide case of privilege which I should like to bring to the attention of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for his intervention which was extremely clear and helpful to the Chair. Perhaps the Hon. Minister would like to respond.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member's questions and, shall I say, his new-found interest in question
March 29, 1988

No. 565 which, as he indicated, was placed on the Order Paper in May, 1986.
The Elon. Member should recall that on July 24 the House prorogued. The Hon. Member knows the rules. He has spent a longer period of time in the provincial legislature than here in the House of Commons-


Don Boudria: Not quite. It is about even now.


John Wise: -but he knows the rules very well.
When the House prorogues, items or questions on the Order Paper cease to exist. Therefore, the Minister has no facility on behalf of the Department to make the information available to the Hon. Member.
However, we have not been prorogued since July 24. At no other time in the past has the Hon. Member had sufficient interest to raise the matter in the form of a question during Question Period, nor has he demonstrated sufficient interest to reinstate the question. Consequently, the Department has had no facility to respond.
In respect of the interest of the reporter for the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, it is quite true that he certainly has an interest in the subject and has sought identical information through the access to information legislation. In keeping with the spirit of the law, my department provided him with the information. In fact, the Hon. Member said "yesterday"; my note indicates that yesterday we released, under access to information, the same material.
I have in hand a signed copy of question No. 565 of May 5, 1986. I hope this explanation will satisfy the Hon. Member, and I will be happy to send a copy across the aisle to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell in reply.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong debate. Obviously the point is that the question was tabled in the House on May 5, 1986. The question could have been answered in plenty of time before the House prorogued. Obviously a response was prepared before the House prorogued, otherwise it would not be in the form that I now have in my hand.
Given that the reply was prepared on the proper document which is normally used to table in the House of Commons, one can only assume that the officials of the Minister's office had prepared it in order for it to be tabled in the House of Commons and in proper time. Of course, had that time expired, no one would have done the work uselessly.
Given that that is the case, I would submit that the people in the Minister's office had the intention of providing me with that answer, and I still submit that when a document is to be prepared for tabling in the House in response to rules of the House, pursuant to a question asked by an Hon. Member and
Privilege
tabled in the House, that information should be provided to the House at least at the same time as it is provided to anyone else. If it is provided to anyone else previously, I would consider that to be the same as if I were to leak the contents of a committee report to a reporter prior to it being tabled in the House. I have spoken on that particular issue on a number of occasions previously, chastising those who have leaked committee reports to others prior to their being tabled in the House.
It would seem to me that the Minister, prior to or at the same time as providing this document to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record should have made it a point to provide it to Parliament because it is not the Kitchener-Waterloo Record that sought this information, it is the House of Commons of Canada through a question I placed on the Notice Paper. That information is not only mine once it is tabled but it belongs to every single Member of the House. The answer to that is not provided to me but indeed to you, Mr. Speaker, as our chairman here in the House of Commons, for the benefit of all of us.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly to the point raised by the Hon. Member in his concluding remarks. It is clear that during the course of the first weeks of July, the department prepared the necessary response to the Hon. Member's question. Under normal circumstances, that question would clearly have been answered when we returned to the House in September. Of course, the House prorogued on July 24 and therefore there was no longer a session and there was indeed therefore no longer a question.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the department, the Minister or any other official retained this information and withheld it from the House of Commons. That is simply not the case. By the time the material was ready, the House was no longer sitting, and of course the House subsequently prorogued.
Had the Hon. Member wished to do so, all he would have had to do when we reconvened that fall was to ask the question again. By then, of course, the information would have been available, as it has been available since that time and as the Minister now prepares to offer it to the Hon. Member and the House. It seems to me that there is no question of privilege here whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the complaint of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). At first, I was puzzled at what had happened, but I think Hon. Members would agree with me when I say that the Minister's statement and the statement of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary cleared up the chronology of what in fact did happen.
I must advise the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that under the circumstances, it is not a question of privilege. However, I might add that this might have been

March 29, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
avoided if perhaps the Hon. Member and someone on the Minister's staff had gotten together in pursuit of the information. It is obvious that the Government was quite prepared to give out that information.
I think I can say in favour of the submission made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that it is unfortunate that that information got into the hands of someone else rather than his own when he in fact had requested it. However, I can understand how it happened and, as I say, I do not think it is a question of privilege. I thank all Hon. Members for their interventions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)) moved: that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to lead off today on Bill C-121, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited. As all Hon. Members are aware by now, the federal Government and the Government of Saskatchewan reached an agreement on February 22, 1988, to merge and privatize the assets of Eldorado Nuclear and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. The legislation under debate today provides the federal Government with the authority to implement the commitments it made under that agreement.
This is a relatively simple Bill, but it represents a very significant step forward for the companies involved and also for the Province of Saskatchewan and for all Canadians. It also represents another landmark in our Government's highly successful efforts to bring new opportunities for growth and good management to the public sector, and that includes, of course, both government departments and Crown corporations.

The decision to privatize a Crown corporation is never taken lightly. First, this is a complex procedure. We have to ensure that the corporation no longer serves to meet one of the public objectives which can only be reached by the Government retaining ownership. Second, we believe that privatized corporations must be given what they need to be viable after privatization, to take full advantage of the transfer from public to private ownership and to assure the existence of new opportunities for the business and its employees.
Third, we believe that the very process of privatization must respect all the interests related directly or indirectly to the Crown corporation and its activities. I am thinking of the interests of the employees, of public safety and of the right of Canadian taxpayers to have their financial interests protected.
Madam Speaker, the Bill now under consideration will make it possible for the forces involved to combine and create a synergy which will not only protect, but also enrich these interests in decades to come.

The decision as to whether or not Eldorado needed to continue as a publicly-owned corporation was a relatively easy one. Clearly in the case of Eldorado, ownership was not necessary to achieve public policy objectives, nor had it been for a number of years.
Members opposite who were part of the previous Government will concur with this decision because they made the same decision even before our Government came to power. In 1983, the Liberal Government transferred the shares of Eldorado Nuclear to the Canada Development Investment Corporation and the Minister responsible for CDIC subsequently stated in the Senate: "I don't see any reason why the Government of Canada in the 1980s needs to maintain an investment in the uranium industry". I am sure that all Hon. Members opposite in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will support wholeheartedly the principles of the legislation before us.
Prior to our Government reaching an agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan, we, together with the CDIC and its financial advisers, assessed a range of privatization strategies. The merger of Eldorado and SMDC and the subsequent privatization of the new company is a strategy that will contribute most to future growth and opportunity, the primary goal of this process.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited has been in existence for 61 years. It is the oldest uranium producer in the entire world. It is a worldclass operation and a dependable supplier, with a solid domestic and international customer base. Eldorado is also the only integrated producer in Canada, which means that it can process ore to create uranium products for use in Canadian reactors to serve Canadian energy needs as well as for export to serve the energy needs of other countries. It has new, modern and efficient plants and owns and has interests in uranium mines that produce ore at competitive costs.
The other partner, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, is one of the world's largest suppliers of uranium, producing 7 per cent of the western world's capacity in 1986. It has very good sales contracts that extend well into the next decade. The company has emphasized exploration efforts over the last few years and, as a result, it has some of the world's largest commercial reserves.
March 29, 1988

A merger between the two will produce a company that is not only viable but will also have the potential to grow and develop because of the synergy of the assets, including reserves, production facilities, research, and personnel. Merging the two companies will produce a world class uranium production facility with the motivation, reputation and assets to play a significant role in the world market-place. Again, the prospect of enhanced economic opportunities is one of the primary reasons we have chosen this route to privatization.
The Government of Saskatchewan sees the same benefits from its own perspective when it visualizes the long-term benefits not only for SMDC but also for the people of Saskatchewan. I am sure all Members of the Elouse will appreciate that what we are proposing is not the selling off of Crown assets, but rather the creation of a new company that will play a significant role in the world uranium mining and refining industry.

The ideology of some of the Members opposite will perhaps prompt them to pretend that these objectives can be met only by maintaining state control over this new company. I am convinced that, during our discussions on this Bill, we shall be hearing their detailed proposals and all the reasons they can invoke in favour of maintaining Government ownership.
However, Madam Speaker, the type of myopic thinking which hangs on to an ideology at the expense of logic is not a political approach which can succeed in convincing those on this side of the House. Thanks to our own approach, we have had one success after the other in the last three years.

To date, this Government has undertaken 3 privatization initiatives. Over 23,000 employees, formerly employed in the public sector, are now working in the same jobs but in the private sector. Many of them are in better jobs because they are now free to pursue new opportunities for growth. There is no doubt that the Canadian economy has gained significantly through that process as well. I want to give you a couple of examples of the privatization we have done to date as they relate to our achievement with Eldorado.
In 1986, de Havilland was sold to the Boeing Corporation. You may recall the doom and gloom artists on the other side of the House who told us that this merger was doomed to failure. Today at de Havilland there is more employment, more customers, a stronger future for the company, more product development, better marketing and therefore a healthier contribution to the Canadian economy and, most important of all, increased job security for the employees.
Another one is Fishery Products International, something of particular interest to my learned friend on the other side because it has done a lot for the people in his riding on Cape Breton Island. FPI is of critical importance to the Atlantic fishery, and the Atlantic economy generally. It has been sold
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
back to the public to the benefit of the constituents of my hon. critic. I know a great many Members in this House will agree that that sale was a very successful and popular public offering, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
I could go on and list the other 11, but I wanted to give you just two examples of the success of our privatization initiatives.
I will save the others for another time.
These privatizations resulted in benefits to Canadians in the Canadian economy, and demonstrate that the divestiture of Crown assets, in the right circumstances, makes good management sense as well as spurring the economy, creating jobs, and making Canada more competitive in an increasingly challenging world market-place.
Let me turn to the specifics of this legislation because this will show Canadians we are also meeting our third condition for successful privatization, maximizing the benefits to the Canadian public. First, we want control of this new and exciting company to remain in Canadian hands. It is for that reason that Article 5 of this legislation imposes constraints upon the issue, transfer and ownership of the voting securities in the new company. Article 5 ensures that, one, apart from the founding shareholders, that is the two Governments, no shareholder will be able to own more than 25 per cent of the voting shares. Two, no non-resident will be able to own more than five per cent of the voting shares. In the counting of votes, those cast by non-residents at any meeting of shareholders is to be limited to 20 per cent. In other words, 20 per cent is the maximum that foreigners can accumulate. These provisions will ensure that the new corporation will continue to remain under Canadian control and will be used to strengthen Canada's economy.
Under the terms of the agreement, the new company will initially be owned 38.5 per cent by Canada and 61.5 per cent by Saskatchewan. That split is based upon evaluations by independent financial advisers of the future contributions and profitability of the two current operations. The recommended ownership split represents the basis of an attractive business proposition that will benefit both parties as well as the current principal shareholders, that is the taxpayers of the two Governments. The recommended ownership split represents the basis of an attractive business proposition that will benefit both parties.
With a 38.5 per cent share in the new company, Canadian taxpayers will be receiving fair market value for their Eldorado assets. That is very important. Under the terms of the agreement, the new corporation will undertake a debt issue to repay promissory notes retained by the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan. Canada will receive 38.5 per cent of the proceeds of this debt issue. The balance will be realized as Canada and Saskatchewan gradually sell their shares of the new company to Canadians.
The anticipated proceeds from these two transactions, the debt issue and subsequent selling of shares, will be used to service and pay off existing debt. As well, the new company

March 29, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
will be taxable, representing increased revenue potential for the Government since SMDC currently enjoys federal tax exempt status. At the same time the agreement sets out the intention of both Governments to make particular efforts to achieve a broad distribution of shares to individual and institutional investors. In this manner, all Canadians, through individual investment decisions or vehicles such as pension funds, will have the opportunity to participate in the future financial success of this new company.

Shared ownership plans for employees have been a major factor in several privatizations. These projects are popular with the employees and represent for them an effective means to achieve ownership of their own agency.

Both Governments have agreed to reduce their share holdings by 30 per cent within two years, 60 per cent within four years, and 100 per cent within seven years. The exact timing, to be clear, will depend on the economic and financial situation at the time, because the Government wants to get the best possible return for Canadians it possibly can. However, both the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada are committed to the privatization process and wish to see an initial share offering as soon as possible, hopefully within a year of completion of the merger.
In all of this there is a key factor of Eldorado's business which will remain unchanged-and this is very important- that is, health, safety, and environment standards will continue to be strictly maintained and strictly enforced. These issues are a matter of public priority to the Government and to Canadians. They are a priority whether a company is publicly or privately owned. That does not affect the standards.
Eldorado is involved in an industry in which safety is of paramount concern for both employees and the public at large. All Canadians have concerns relating to the management of waste from the mining and the processing of radioactive materials. The requirements of the Atomic Energy Control Act and other federal and provincial laws and regulations apply equally to uranium companies in government hands and uranium companies in private hands. Under the terms of the agreement between the federal and Saskatchewan Governments the federal Government remains committed to developing and contributing to a solution to the low-level waste accumulated by Eldorado near Port Hope.
I have said on many occasions that government ownership is a very poor substitute for effective regulation in the protection of public safety. As it stands now, over 50 per cent of Canada's uranium production originates in the private sector which operates in accordance with an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework. The new company will be required to adhere to the same strict guidelines. Therefore, Canadians and, in particular, employees of Eldorado, can be assured that
environmental protection objectives or public safety needs will not be compromised because of the privatization of Eldorado.

Similarly, Madam Speaker, Canada has long supported a policy that stresses the peaceful applications of nuclear energy and technology. Exports of uranium and nuclear products and technology are controlled and carefully monitored to ensure that others observe our policies on nuclear non-proliferation.
These policies apply as much to the private sector as they do to the public sector. The privatization of Eldorado Nuclear will have absolutely no effect on the Government's nonproliferation policies or on its efforts to reduce the nonpeaceful use of nuclear energy throughout the world.

The employees of Eldorado and SMDC can look forward with justifiable optimism to the merger and the subsequent privatization process. The new company will be stronger, financially healthier, and in a better position to compete internationally than the two Crown corporations would be if they operated separately.
The Government believes strongly that job security and new employment opportunities are best provided by an aggressive, competitive private sector. To illustrate that I need only point to the state of the Canadian economy today and its job creation record over the last three and a half years-in excess of 1 million new jobs.
The new company will employ over 1,000 people. Those people represent a resource to the company as important as the uranium reserves it owns. I can assure the employees of SMDC and Eldorado that both the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan have placed a high priority on ensuring that employee concerns are adequately addressed through the negotiations leading to the final merger agreement and through the privatization process thereafter. Maintaining a committed, motivated workforce is clearly in the interests of the corporation and all Canadians.
That is why the agreement stipulates that employees be given the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the company. The details of that plan will be developed as the company moves into the privatization phase. Our record in this area, with companies like FDI and Teleglobe, is very positive and bodes well indeed for the employees of Eldorado. The company will honour all existing collective agreements. Any new union-management negotiations will be carried out in the normal course of business. Existing pension and benefit plans will be taken over by the new company to the benefit of employees.
[ Translation]
Canada and Saskatchewan insist that the concerns of employees be examined at every stage of the privatization process. The transition team has set up a task force whose mandate will be to consider employee concerns and make the necessary recommendations.
March 29, 1988

Madam Speaker, this Bill makes it possible to merge two very impressive companies and thus create an integrated, first class uranium producer and processor.
The subsequent privatization process will enable the company to pursue aggressively new opportunities and become one of the most important players in the world in an industry where the competition is international.

By establishing the head office of the new corporation in Saskatchewan we are putting senior management close to the primary mining facilities of both existing companies. Most important, we are also developing a critical mass of skills and knowledge in Saskatchewan, already noted for its expertise in uranium production technology. This will help the province continue its world leadership in this area as well as providing spin-off employment benefits for others serving this industry. The decision to locate the head office in Saskatchewan also supports the Government's commitment to the policy of western economic diversification by building on the natural strengths of the region.
Elowever, that will not take away from the new company's business commitments in the wonderful Province of Ontario which is, of course, where I come from. In fact, the long-term financial viability of the Blind River refinery and the Port Elope conversion plants will be improved because the processing operations of the new corporation will be more self-reliant and less dependent on other mineral producers than they are today.
The merger of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation will occur at a very appropriate time in the development of the Canadian economy. Under the terms of the free trade agreement the future prospects of the entire uranium industry have been heightened by lessening the uncertainty over possible U.S. import restrictions on uranium. At the same time, the modern and technologically advanced processing facilities of the new company are competitive with U.S.-based facilities.
I am very proud of the two-stage merger and privatization process which we are proposing for Eldorado Nuclear today.

This merger will help create a company that is far stronger than either party could ever have imagined before. Mining and development operations will be rationalized, economies of scale will improve efficiency, and the integration of mining and refining operations will enhance the long-term security of all employees.

The privatization stage of the process will enable the new company's employees to participate directly in the profit potential of this great company. Further, it will allow all Canadians to become more directly involved in a highly competitive, technologically advanced industry. It does so in a
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
manner that recognizes and protects the interests of both company employees and Canadians generally.
In short, Madam Speaker, the enabling legislation that we have put forward demonstrates the pragmatic approach to privatization that the Government has taken since 1984. I am sure that all Members of the House will recognize the benefits of the proposal and will join with me to expedite passage of this Bill through the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Income Tax-Funding of NDP municipal election candidates-Issuance of receipts for tax deductions; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Administration of Justice-CIA funding of brainwashing experiments-Request for ex gratia payment to victims/Request for government action; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Regional Industrial Expansion-Opportunity to establish space agency in Montreal-Query when Government will announce	decision/Aerospace-Montreal-Economic
spin-offs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I must say that while our Party has some problems with the legislation, we feel they can be dealt with in committee. We do not oppose the thrust of the legislation. We are not opposed to the sale of Eldorado Nuclear in order to form one company with Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. However, we believe there are some difficulties with the legislation.
Of course, this agreement applies to this particular corporation because we believe there can be some benefits from the

March 29, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
formation of one corporation. It does not apply to Radiochemical Company, Air Canada or Petro-Canada. Those are entirely different matters.
The fact is that this is not strictly a business proposition. This deal is obviously loaded in favour of the Province of Saskatchewan, which is receiving a multimillion dollar package, courtesy of the federal Government. Our Party is not opposed to millions of dollars going to Saskatchewan, but the arrangement should be identified for what it is. It has been very generous to Premier Devine for his position on free trade and his position on Meech Lake. The fact is that Eldorado Nuclear has been undervalued.
For the purposes of this transaction, the assets of Eldorado Nuclear are placed at $915.9 million, while the assets of Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation total $973.2 million. The Government of Canada will have a 39.5 per cent share of the new company while Saskatchewan will have a 61.5 per cent interest. We must also take into consideration the fact that the new company will issue promissory notes valued at 40 per cent of the fixed assets to cover all of the debt owed to the Saskatchewan Government and $230 million of the $570 million owed to the Government of Canada.
While the promissory notes cover all of the debt of the Province of Saskatchewan they will not nearly cover all of the debt of the Government of Canada.
Furthermore, it is significant to note that after this company is rolled over into one corporation and eventually sold to the private sector, the Province of Saskatchewan will hopefully recover all of the debt and its losses that it has in the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation. But the Government of Canada will still be out by about $100 million.
We spoke to a representative of Burns Fry Ltd., the company which is assisting the Government in this sale. Fie has said that there are some difficulties in placing a value on the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado. The two companies were evaluated from a discounted cash flow basis rather than an asset basis. Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation had a lower operating cost, partially as a result of lower royalties. Eldorado was also determined to be lower in value as a result of its less profitable refinery business. Burns Fry stressed the point that the refinery business was a detriment to the value of Eldorado Nuclear.
That is a very interesting observation because the two Governments state that one of the advantages of this merger is having uranium processed in-house. They state: "A merger with SMDC will result in a company with an improved balance between its mining and refining capacities". How can that refinery which will be brought in to the merged company through Eldorado Nuclear be a detriment to the actual value of Eldorado?
There are a number of questions about what the federal Government will be paying in this arrangement. Clause 9(1) of the Bill states:
The Minister may, pursuant to the authority of an appropriation Act and with the approval of the Minister of Finance, pay to Eldorado or to a subsidiary of Eldorado such amounts as may be necessary to enable Eldorado or the subsidiary to pay or discharge any debt or liability, whether incurred before or after the completion of the transactions referred to in subsections 4(1) and (2).
Clause 9(2) states:
The Minister of Finance may, on behalf of Her Majesty, in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, enter into agreements or other arrangements with any person in respect of obligations or liabilities of Eldorado or a subsidiary of Eldorado for which Her Majesty in right of Canada is liable and for that purpose may borrow money and issue and sell securities as defined in the Financial Administration Act.
Therefore, we do not know exactly what the Government will put into this new company. It states the value of Eldorado Nuclear, which our Party believes is too low. The Bill also states that the Government of Canada shall be liable for any debt or liability of Eldorado.
What will such a blanket provision cost Canadians? What liabilities exist for which Canadians will have to pay?
It is important to consider these clauses more closely in order to determine the actual cost of the new company to the people of Canada.
Clause 11 states:
The Minister, after consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, shall cause such adjustments to be made in the accounts of Canada as are required as a result of any transaction authorized or required by this Act.
1 suggest that this involves a continuing obligation with regard to liabilities which may have been incurred by Eldorado Nuclear.
Perhaps the Minister could inform us whether there will be mirror legislation in Saskatchewan that will give the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation the same back-up liability protection from the Government of Saskatchewan as Eldorado Nuclear is receiving from the Government of Canada. That is a question which certainly deserves an answer.
Clause 16 allows for investments by trust companies pursuant to the Loans Companies Act or the Trust Companies Act. I believe we should consider who will be investing as a result of this legislation. Is the Government encouraging trust companies to invest through pension funds?
If the Government is doing that, I think it has to be ensured that it is going to be a good investment for the people of Canada. It should not just go out and tell the people of Canada: "Here is a great opportunity to invest. Please come and help make this company a success by investing", because I think there is an obligation. Only the Government can really say whether this is going to be a sound investment. I think the Government has an obligation to the people of Canada
March 29, 1988

through this Act, and through the actual encouraging of people to invest, to ensure that this investment is sound. If the Government does not feel that this is the case, is it not just leading the people on? Is there a chance that the investments the people make through pension funds and trust companies are not going to be successful? If there is any doubt, the Government should state the doubt and flag it, or it should give some kind of back-up provision, some kind of protection or insurance against the losses of these particular investors. After all, the Government is giving the new company an insurance policy by saying it will pick up any liabilities of Eldorado which happen to present themselves after this Act is completed.
How do we really know if the company is privatized that the Government will be able to assure us of all these good things? There has to be some kind of stipulation in the agreement that these things are actually going to take place. First, the Minister was talking about the mining operations in her home Province of Ontario. How can the Government be sure that these actual operations will continue if it does not really have any control over the corporation? If the Government is going to tell people that it is going to ensure that these operations will be a success, then there has to be some kind of condition, something in the agreement that will make sure that these operations will continue.
The Minister also said that she is encouraged by the provision that the employees of the company will be able to buy shares. Of course, once again, the shares have to be purchased before the shares of the merged company are sold to the private sector. Afterwards, there will not be any assurance that the employees will be able to buy these shares because the Government will not have control over the shares any longer. If the Government is going to protect the employees and allow them to purchase these shares, it has to put something in the legislation, or put something somewhere, that will ensure that the employees will have an opportunity to purchase these shares before the Government actually loses control of this operation.
It is also interesting to note that the two Governments state that one of the advantages of this merger is having uranium processed in-house. They say that a merger with SMDC will result in a company with an improved balance between its mining and refining capacities. As I said before, that reflects the importance of the refinery which Eldorado is bringing in. I think that gives a certain value to the refinery.
Eldorado's head office will be moved to Saskatchewan. Not only does that mean that 50 employees may be without jobs but decision-making for the company will be done in the head office in Saskatchewan, to which I have no objection whatsoever. However, the Government in its briefing notes stated that there is no anticipated impact on job security in the operations. Is that going to be the operations of the actual mining area itself or is it also putting into that the management capacity? What will it be offering to these managerial people who will be
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
losing their jobs? It is saying that there is no anticipated impact on job security and operations. But it says later on that terminated employees, if any, are to be offered severance packages consistent with commercial and past Eldorado practice. It is either one way or the other. Either there is no anticipated impact or there is an anticipated impact and it is setting out exactly what the situation will be.
i think it is important that the Government state unequivocally that there will not be any impact on jobs from this merger. If jobs are going to be lost in the management area, it should be stated as being exactly that.
Getting back to the costing factor, we have the loss to the federal Government and we have the fact that the Government is going to support any liabilities of Eldorado Nuclear that happen to come up. We have also seen that the Government is making arrangements for existing waste disposal. I think it is very important that this be a consideration. The company is going to pay for the first $2 million of this cost. The next $98 million will be split with the new company paying $23 million of the costs and Canada paying $75 million of the costs. Canada will pay all the costs over $100 million. The Minister talks about the fact that even though it is in the private sector, we can expect to have tight controls over the waste.
However, I think if the Government is going to say that, it has to state a position on the report by the task force on low level radioactive waste disposal. The Government has not done that. Until the Government does so, anything it says with respect to this very important question will not have a great deal of validity. It is vital not only for purposes of this transaction, but for the purposes of this very important question, that the Government state its position.
On December 23, 1987, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) issued a news release which stated a new Canadian policy on uranium ownership in the uranium mine and smelting sector. This policy stipulated "that Canadians must own at least 51 per cent of an individual uranium property when it comes into production". More important, the new policy stated "that in cases where a project is controlled by Canadians, a reduction from the 51 per cent minimum Canadian participation level may be permitted, allowing Canadians more flexibility in raising capital for projects, as long as they maintain controlling interest". It does not seem like a valid policy.
I must say that the Government's intention in this Act to maintain Canadian ownership is much better and much stronger. I would hope that the statement from the Minister in this regard will be strengthened considerably. According to Bill C-121, Canadians will always retain control because the aggregate of non-resident vote cannot be more than 20 per cent of the votes cast at a shareholders' meeting. What we have in this Bill seems to be a good deal tighter than the policy the Minister stated last December. I feel that this sort of control is very important. However, once again, there is the

March 29, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
maintenance of the Government's conviction that this will continue.
The Bill presents a good deal of changes which must be made. However, there are still questions which must be answered. What will be the actual cost to Canada? What will be the Government's position on low-level waste? What is the actual commitment of the Government on maintaining jobs and allowing shareholders a fair deal? Will employees be allowed to purchase the shares? Will that be done at an early opportunity before shares are sold to another party thereby reducing the chance of those workers to buy those shares?
I am hopeful that in committee we will have the opportunity to get the answers to those questions. I will be very upset if the Government does not bring those answers forward.
I feel that this is a very good deal for the Province of Saskatchewan. I feel that if the proper checks and balances are maintained then it can work. However, if the Government is merely going to slough this off under the guise of an agreement that is basically sound in the private sector with the problems and shortcomings that we have seen in it then there will be problems later on not only for the people of Saskatchewan but for all Canadians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my concern that we were given just one hour's notice that this Bill would be debated this afternoon. It seems to me that when there is a Bill which is important, a Bill which changes the structure of a company which has been publicly owned since the 1940s, the people of Canada and Members of Parliament in particular have a right to expect more than one hour's notice before beginning debate on the subject.
It seems to me that what the Government is doing today in its proposal is not based on any real evidence that the privatization of Eldorado Nuclear, which is owned by the Government of Canada and the Saskatchewan mineral corporation, which is owned by the Government of Saskatchewan, will create a more efficient, better operated and more profitable company than the existing publicly owned corporation. What we have here is a decision to go ahead with privatization based not on any real need or any real benefits but almost exclusively on the ideological approach of the Conservative Government that anything operated by the private sector will be done better than that done by a publicly owned corporation.
This type of approach by the Government rejects all the history of the country. The economic lines of North America run north and south, not east and west. If the people who were members of the Conservative Party just before Canada became a country had the same approach which this Government has then there would be no country. Sir John A. Macdonald was the first Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party. When discussions took place as to what should happen with the then colonies established by Great Britain in the northern
half of North America he realized that unless the Government took the leadership and insisted, planned and pushed for the establishment of a railway which would bind the colonies from the Atlantic to the Pacific, something which would encourage, permit and almost demand movement from east to west, there would have been no country.
The same is true of many of the existing Crown corporations, both federal and provincial. After all, it was a Liberal Government which established the airline which at that time was called Trans-Canada Air Lines and which is now called Air Canada. Why did the then Government do that? It was not composed of wild-eyed socialists. In fact, if I remember correctly it was that tycoon, that great supporter of the free enterprise system, Mr. C. D. Howe, who set up the publicly owned airline.
Why did he do it? He did it because private interests were not ready to do it. They did not see the profits, at least not in the near future. So the then Government of Canada set up an airline as a publicly owned corporation.
Here in the Province of Ontario there exists a big asset which belongs to the people of Ontario. It is one of the biggest reasons that they have been able to be so successful in setting up manufacturing industries which can compete with the United States and with other countries around the world. It is because they have cheap power. Why do they have cheap power? They have cheap power because Ontario Hydro is publicly owned.
It was not some wild-eyed radical socialist who first established Ontario Hydro as a publicly owned corporation. It was Sir Adam Beck, the Leader of the Conservative Party. No Party in Ontario since then has suggested for a moment that Ontario Hydro should be privatized. In fact, the example which Ontario set has been followed in virtually every other province in the country.
We have very few privately owned electric power producing companies. Some of the publicly owned hydroelectric systems were established by, as I said, a Conservative Government of Ontario. In other provinces they were established by Liberal Governments. In the Province of Saskatchewan one was established by a CCF, NDP Government. In the Province of British Columbia one was established by a Social Credit Government. Why did these Governments do that? Because it made sense to have a publicly owned corporation which could produce and distribute the power much more efficiently and much more cheaply than any private company could have done.
There are dozens of examples of that type in the country, both at the federal and provincial levels. Crown corporations were set up because the Government of the day, federal or provincial, realized that there was a need to meet certain requirements of the people of that province or of the people of Canada as a whole and they took action. Those needs are still here. I am not saying that those two companies must be maintained as publicly owned enterprises because everything
March 29, 1988

should be publicly owned. What I am saying is that there has been no real case made for the privatization of those companies. There is no evidence that the people of Canada really believe that we need to privatize all or most of the companies, both federal and provincial, which are operating as Crown corporations.
On the part of this Government we see the movement to privatize some of the smaller publicly owned corporations. It certainly has not been ready to bring forward proposals to privatize Air Canada, Canadian National, or any of the other major publicly owned corporations.
Let me deal with two illustrations of successful privatization mentioned by the Minister in her speech. Let me deal for a moment with Fisheries Products International. The fact is it was privatized. It was publicly owned at one point. Why was it publicly owned? Because the private companies that were operating in the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast were losing money, were inefficient, and were virtually bankrupt. At that point the Government of Canada stepped in and took them over and created a publicly owned corporation, Fisheries Products International. When the industry was rationalized through public ownership, when the debts had been absorbed, and when the company became efficient and profitable, because of its ideological blinders, that is when the Government decided to privatize it. Having absorbed all the losses first created by private ownership, it is then sold back to the investors in order that they can make a profit.
For a moment let us look at Canadair. I am sure that some of my colleagues who will be dealing with this at a later stage will go into more detail, but let us look at what happened at de Havilland. Because of the type of labour practices exercised by the private corporation which took over de Havilland there was a strike. The workers at de Havilland had to go on strike in order to maintain the labour conditions and the security of employment which they had when the company was publicly owned.
They were and are concerned about the fact that much of the technology which was worked out when the company was publicly owned has now gone to corporate headquarters in the United States. When the company was publicly owned local servicing and the supply of components was done by privately owned companies mainly in Ontario. The union is worried and the people of Canada should be worried about how much of that local servicing will continue to be done in Canada.
Lastly, the research and development that was done when the company was publicly owned, how much of that will be done in Canada? There may be more jobs. But it seems to us, and it seems to the union, that there will be a repetition of what happened in the automobile industry. Yes, there are more jobs in the automobile industry now than there were before the Auto Pact. But there is virtually no research and development
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
in the auto industry done in Canada because it is all concentrated in and around the head offices of the multinational corporations that have plants in Canada.
It is also worth noting that until now the Government has concentrated its privatization efforts on some of the smaller corporations which were publicly owned. We saw the Government dispose of Canadian Arsenals; now it is proposing to dispose of Eldorado Nuclear. There is no evidence that the Canadian public wants the Government of Canada to privatize the major Crown corporations.
There was an Environics poll published earlier this month in The Globe and Mail on March 5, 1988, on the question of selling Crown corporations. When asked in this national poll whether the Government should or should not sell Air Canada, 31 per cent of Canadians indicated that they believed that the Government should, but 51 per cent indicated that they opposed the sale or privatization of Air Canada. When asked the same question about Petro-Canada, 33 per cent of Canadians supported the idea that Petro-Canada should be sold, and 50 per cent opposed the sale of Petro-Canada.
Therefore, we do not say that we are opposed to any privatization. We say that we are opposed to privatization for the sake of privatization. We say that the Canadian public agrees with us in that approach.
Let us look at Eldorado Nuclear as a company. As the Minister indicated, it was formed in 1942 and acquired by the federal Government shortly after that. Very quickly the federal Government of the day realized the implications of nuclear energy, and used the declaratory power it had to assume jurisdiction in this sector. This was a very significant step, one that should not and was not undertaken lightly. Similarly, the step that the Government is now taking to get out of the active mining and processing of uranium in Canada is also one that should not be taken lightly. We intend to debate this question seriously, and when it goes to committee to ask for and to demand very precise answers to many of the questions which we believe need to be asked.
There are profound nuclear, environmental, competition and public policy issues which have to be faced. It is our contention that the Government has not addressed any of those problems in Bill C-121.
By leaving the uranium field the Government, by its own admission, no longer wishes to be involved in discovery, mining, or processing of uranium ore for which Canada is one of the leading sources in the world, if not the major source. If this Bill is passed, the Government is contending that it will leave a complete regulatory scheme in place through the Atomic Energy Control Board and federal regulation. It loses the hands-on experience with uranium, particularly with the high grade uranium ores found in northern Saskatchewan. Given the experience in other countries and in other jurisdictions, we maintain that this is a very serious derogation of the authority and control which any federal Government should exercise in this area.

March 29, 1988
Message from the Senate
Since this Bill leaves the responsibility for dealing with nuclear waste largely with the federal Government, it is appropriate to ask why the experience in dealing with uranium ore is being forgone. Indeed the disposal of nuclear waste is the nuclear nightmare which must be addressed now. I must admit that the question of the disposal of nuclear waste has not been a major problem for me personally. However, the Minister knows that there is a great deal of concern, apprehension, and opposition to the experiments being conducted in Manitoba which many people believe will lead, if they are not prohibited, to the disposal of nuclear waste in that province. Again, as the Minister knows, there is a great deal of opposition to that in the Province of Manitoba.
The Eldorado waste disposal sites in the Port Hope uranium refinery area are operating on a year by year basis and no replacement has yet been found. This question must be resolved quickly, yet the Government is content to get rid of the corporation without addressing this pressing question. I say to the Minister that we will insist upon much more detailed answers than the few blithe words with which she seemed to dispose of this very important and serious question during her discussion of the Bill.
Does the inability to find new waste sites or even deal with the problems at the existing Welcome site, which is now closed, and the Granby site, which is now open on a temporary basis, say something profound about the future of uranium mining and the use of uranium in Canada, if not in the world?
I ask the question because this problem is not only causing concern in Canada but is causing tremendous concern, apprehension, and debate in the United States. We have received no answers from the Government. It seems to be sloughing off the question altogether.
Is the issue of uranium wastes so fraught with danger that a drastic scaling down, if not phasing out, of uranium use is likely to be in the cards? We do not know, but we certainly think that the matter needs to be discussed. Many responsible people believe that this is so.
The federal New Democratic Party has consistently called for a full-scale investigation of the nuclear fuel cycle and has appointed two caucus Members, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), to address the question They have been travelling across the country, holding hearings, and meeting with people who are involved and concerned. This is something that should have been done by the Government before it brought forward the proposal. Members of my Party regard the question as a serious one.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately I must interrupt the Hon. Member at this time. He will be allowed to continue later.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 the following Bills: Bill C-l 19, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988; Bill C-l20, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1989; and Bill C-l 16, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
March 29, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Eric Le Dain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 29th day of March, 1988, at 4:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-l21, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) earlier, but since there has been an interruption I should like to point out that he began his remarks by saying that he had not had sufficient notice of the Bill today.
I would like it on record that he was offered, and I think received, a full briefing from my officials on Friday and that the Bill was on the Order Paper this morning at nine o'clock as a back-up Bill.
March 29, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, let me just say that there seems to have been a breakdown in communications among the House Leaders, because this Bill was not on the list of business for today which we received. I did not know about it, as I said, until two o'clock.
In the course of her discussion the Minister said that the jobs of the workers in the industry would be protected and that, as a matter of fact, there might well be more work. We have heard that before, but if there are questions about safety and decisions about scaling down the operations, which there may well be, we can foresee the privately owned industry saying that it cannot afford to scale down its operations because earnings will be lost and so on. What if the federal Government were to close its operations for the sake of safety?
Another problem is that at the present time all uranium ore produced by Eldorado is at the Port Hope refinery, the only uranium refinery in Canada. Any company wanting to ship unprocessed uranium must apply for an individual exemption. It already has a partner, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, which is shipping unprocessed uranium. No doubt pressure will be exerted to continue and to expand this exemption. How can the Government insist that upgrading continue when the company which is expected to uphold this policy no longer supports it? It may not be in its financial interest.
I should like to say something about the supposed competitive aspects of the new merged company. Nothing has been more troubling to the federal Government in recent years in this field than the identification and participation of Canada in a uranium selling cartel from 1972 to 1979. We have been given joint credit for starting the cartel with Australia and other participants including South Africa, France, and the multinational mining company, Rio Tinto Zinc. In just three years the price of uranium yellowcake went from $7 to $42 per pound and then collapsed when the cartel disbanded. Needless to say it was not a secret that there was a cartel.
In fact, the Combines Investigation Branch conducted a four-year investigation which ended with a report that was sent to the Department of Justice in 1981, when we had a Liberal Government. Despite demands by Members of Parliament who are now on the government side but were then in the Opposition that the report be made public, it was not done by the former Government. Now that former Members of the Opposition, the Conservative Members, are on the government side, they are adopting the same silent treatment that the former Liberal Government used. This is just another example showing that there is really not much difference between the two sides.
Royal Assent
In order to dispel any notion that this merger will make cartelization of the Canadian uranium industry inevitable, we believe that the report which was brought down in 1981 must be made public. Anyone following events in the uranium industry knows that Denison Mines made an offer to purchase Eldorado and was refused and that Denison holds profitable supply contracts with Ontario Hydro and would dearly love to have access to the low-cost uranium available from northern Saskatchewan. There is nothing to prevent Denison Mines from purchasing a significant percentage of the shares of this new company when both companies which are publicly owned are privatized.
Despite the provisions for restricting individual shares in the new company to 25 per cent, it is not hard to see a takeover by like-minded partners once shares are on the public market. The idea that the newly formed corporation will remain a widely held one flies in the face of the takeover activity so obvious on world stock markets in the past few years.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.", 'Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.']
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-116, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971- Chapter no. 8.
Bill C-l 19, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988-Chapter 9.
Bill C-l20, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canda for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988-Chapter 10.

March 29, 1988
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: that Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (bilingualism), be now read for the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his kind words in support of this Bill and to tell him that we all recognize the major contribution he has made by his consistently positive comments about official languages and the concern he has always shown for the official languages of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I introduced Bill C-280 on February 8, 1988, because after reading Bill C-72, which is now being considered by the House and which was examined in Committee this very afternoon, as I know from spending a good part of the day there, I could find no provision dealing with consumer packaging and labelling. After having noted this omission, I prepared the Bill on labelling now before the House. Some people might think it coincidental that this Bill should have been introduced at the same time as we began debate on second reading of Bill C-72, in which many Canadians have expressed a lot of interest. I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that it is no coincidence, because those who depend on coincidence in politics do not last very long.
In fact, Madam Speaker, I introduced this Bill precisely because, as I said earlier, Bill C-72 to amend the Official Languages Act does not deal with the important issue of consumer labelling. Yet, I believe that labelling is important as it concerns public safety and the right of the Canadians to know what a consumer product contains, and also to obtain this information in their own official language, because we must not forget that, according to relatively recent figures, there are in Canada 4,200,950 unilingual Francophones, 13,804,195 unilingual Anglophones and 3,681,960 bilingual people. These figures were given to me by Statistics Canada. I mention them because we must not forget that, in this vast country, consumer products which are sold and manufactured in one region or province are often transported and consumed elsewhere and must be labelled properly if Canadians are to be well-informed about their contents.
In many cases, the packaging and labelling of consumer products probably represents the first contact many young Canadians have with the linguistic duality of their country.
Everywhere, in their consumer environment, young people see, read and gradually absorb this reality of our society. They realize that in Canada, there are two official languages, two main languages. Many seldom or never hear the other official
language. But the simple fact that it is there on a package of corn flakes or in the instructions provided with a toy or a tool that is used on a daily basis, such as a farm implement or a mower, the fact that instructions are available both in English and French has, in my opinion, a bearing on Canadians in their daily lives.
When bringing forward this bill, my intention was not only to provide young Canadians with a reason to learn the other language that they see on their corn flakes in the morning, as I said earlier, although the idea isn't bad since for many of these people, this would be an enriching experience. No, this is not the only purpose of this Bill. In fact, my first and foremost reason was to preserve labelling and packaging requirements by removing them from the discretionary regulatory field and putting them right in the Official Languages Act, where I think they would be sheltered from any arbitrary decision of the Governor in Council.
Madam Speaker, I felt the need to include these requirements in legislation because I was concerned. Canadians do not usually show much interest in regulations, in general, they don't really know who makes them, who controls their implementation or who amends them from time to time. Given that the Government committed the country to a free trade with the U.S., I thought it would be wise to include in legislation the requirement that consumer products provide Canadians with instructions in both English and French. As it has been said in the House on several occasions and as I have mentioned various times, the trade agreement could well deal a death blow to the specific character of Canada, unless we are careful to ensure by way of legislation that consumer products are labelled in French as well as English. Indeed, to my knowledge, there is no legislation covering consumer products, apart from those Acts which deal very specifically with medical prescription products and dangerous products, explosives, I believe. The Official Languages Act, in any case, contains no provision dealing with this matter.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, it is no coincidence that I have tabled Bill C-280. I waited to make sure that Bill C-72 contained no provision with regard to labelling. Such is the case. There are therefore no provisions, either in the present Act or in the new one, with regard to labelling and packaging and in my view, it would be a good thing to include them.
As I said, there are provisions dealing with labelling under the regulations pertaining to paragraph 18(l)(j) of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, whereby the Governor in Council may make regulations in matters pertaining to bilingualism. Section 6 of the regulations on packaging and labelling of consumer products deals with prescriptions and exemptions relating to bilingualism in labelling.
We should note that Section 6 contains several exceptions to the rule requiring that the information shown on the label of a prepackaged product be in both official languages. They deal
March 29, 1988

with test market products, specialty products, greeting cards, books, talking toys, and games in which a knowledge of the language used is a basic factor essential to the use of the game. The Bill keeps those exceptions in order to maintain consistency throughout the legislation. That means that a whole series of regulations relating to bilingual labelling, made under other Acts and applicable to particular items, would also be exempt under Bill C-280. This is the case, for example, of baby carriages and prams, products containing petroleum distillates or pine oil, liquid cleaners for drains, and charcoal, under the Hazardous Products Act. The Explosives Act aLo contains standards, as well as the Radiation Emitting Devices Act and the Shipping Act.
Bill C-280 is not intended to upset completely the labelling system, but rather to strengthen the regulations by incorporating them into law. Thus, the labelling in English and French would no longer be required by regulations made by the Governor in Council, but by an Act of Parliament duly passed at all stages.
All this stems from the trade deal between the United States and Canada, which raised concerns as to its impact on the Canadian policy respecting bilingualism. Indeed, many are concerned that regulations on bilingual labelling may not be honoured by the United States who could invade the Canadian market with products labelled in one language only or who could consider regulations a commercial barrier and could perhaps...


M. McDermid:: It is not true!


M. Gauthier:: ... I said perhaps could bring the issue to court. I heard the Hon. Member saying that it is not true. He may want to take part in the debate and correct perceptions. I said there is a perception. Interested parties have told me it is a possibility. That's why I am raising the issue. That is also why, by incorporating that labelling and packaging measure in the Official Languages Act, we could give it precedence over any future legislation arising from the trade deal under Section 3 of the present Act.
Madam Speaker, we know that, unlike an Act, regulations can be amended anytime by the Governor in Council whereas an Act must follow the various stages of the legislative process and be approved by members of both Chambers. Bill C-280 aims at ensuring that only a Parliamentary majority can legislate on that vital element of our Canadian culture and identity.
Out of respect for present regulations and the industry that has adjusted so well to them, I do not and will not propose amendments to the regulations. They are incorporated without any change in the Bill, except that the French version has been amended to correct some flaws in content and form. I sought legal advice on that and was told to tighten up and amend the French version to make it more accurate.
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
Madam Speaker, that explains the absence of sanctions in the Bill other than those already existing, that is those provided in sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act regarding seizure, detention and forfeiture of consumer goods where the legislation or regulations have been violated. These would continue to apply and thus would ensure respect of the legislation. Again, as I said a moment ago, it is out of respect for the existing regulations that I decided not to add any new sanctions in the Bill. Since the present system is working, it would seem unwise to change it now and, above all, to launch a full debate on these amendments which would result in delaying passage of Bill C-280.
Madam Speaker, the bilingualism issue has achieved considerable progress these past years, through the impetus given by successive governments. First and foremost, Bill C-280 is aimed at preserving these advances in the labelling area. Time and experience have led us, Canadians, to consider as granted the fact that throughout the country our products are identified in both official languages. It is not sure whether the Americans, with the trade liberalization between our two countries, would show the same amount of good will.
Since the government did not incorporate into the trade deal clauses providing that our labelling regulations be recognized as an integral part of our cultural identity, it was necessary to proceed otherwise. A lawsuit brought under the dispute setting mechanism could easily jeopardize the obvious efforts that we have made in the labelling area.
If this bill is passed by the House, we would enjoy some form of protection since Canadian legislation is protected by the free trade agreement and particularly since the Government will be reassured, I think, concerning trade between both countries. If, Madam Speaker, pressures exerted by Americans were ever strong enough to cause us difficulties in that area of labelling and packaging, the Government would only have to say that the Canadian law prevails as passed and that the policy of the Canadian Government is to the effect that the labelling and packaging are done in Canada in both official languages.
I think, Madam Speaker, that this bill is reasonable. I do not intend to shake up or disturb anyone. There are no major changes here, except that it is time, I think, to incorporate into the law the whole question of labelling and packaging in order to ensure future continuity in that area in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate today not only because I am interested in the subject, but also because of the free trade implications which the Hon. Member has brought to the floor of the House. He has left some misconceptions which I hope to clear up.

March 29, 1988
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
Bill C-280, introduced by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), purports to help consumers by transferring the requirements for the bilingual labelling of consumer products into the Act itself, rather than leaving them enshrined as regulations under the Act. It was I who interrupted his speech by saying "C'est nest pas vrai" because what he was saying was not true. I hope I can convince him that the free trade agreement in no way will jeopardize our high Canadian standards for consumer information and protection.
Presently, we have free trade in about 80 per cent of the products in which we deal with the United States. The Hon. Member raises the fear that the Americans will come here and insist upon unilingual packaging. I assume they would have done that long before now.
The needs of bilingual labelling are already being fulfilled on a uniform basis across Canada by regulations under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. These regulations have the full force of the law.
Both I and the Government fully support current statutory and regulatory requirements for bilingual labelling of consumer products. The changes proposed in Bill C-280 are purely cosmetic and totally unnecessary.
Let me point out why. I believe the Hon. Member admitted today that the Government has a full, firm and unwavering commitment to bilingualism. It has made public statements regarding free trade and its impact on bilingual labelling. There is a self-evident lack of any rationale whatsoever for change. As well, the present regulatory structure has been operating for almost 20 years, with no operational failures or glitches.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) recently released an assessment of the effect of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement on Canadian consumers. This assessment is a sound, objective and scholarly study of free trade's impact on consumers. I want to congratulate the Minister and his department for producing this information.
This assessment addressed the specific question of the potential impact of the free trade agreement on Canadian technical standards for consumer information and protection. It noted that the free trade agreement will benefit consumers by allowing for increased consumer access to imports, where technical standards unnecessarily restrict U.S. imports. In this way, the provisions of the agreement concerning technical standards ensure that consumers will realize the potential benefits from the elimination of customs tariffs.
Canadian consumers will receive the benefit of greater access to U.S. products, and at the same time under the agreement, in the words of the assessment: "Consumer information and protection is accepted as a legitimate reason to maintain technical standards. Thus, Canada's consumer information and protection legislative provisions will remain in place to protect consumers".
Canada's standards for consumer protection and information, including requirements for bilingual labelling, are among the highest in the world. This Government intends to see that they stay that way. This is not just in the area of bilingual labelling, but across the full spectrum of consumer protection and information.
For example, under the free trade agreement, bilingual labelling, as required by Canadian law, is not affected. The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act will continue to ensure that Canadians can determine whether a product is of Canadian or U.S. origin. Canadian health and safety symbols such as the hazardous product symbols will not be affected. Canadian safety standards that exceed those in the United States, such as our crib standards, will not be relaxed.
In short, the position of the Canadian consumer after free trade comes into effect can be summed up quite simply: under the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, Canadian consumers will be safeguarded by standards that are equal to or higher than those they enjoy now.
If the Hon. Member who introduced Bill C-280 were really serious about safeguarding the interests of the Canadian consumer, I believe he would be supporting the free trade agreement rather than opposing it.
When the agreement is fully implemented in January, 1998, Canadian consumers will reap a number of important benefits. A number of consumer gains can be expected when customs tariffs which we are currently paying on U.S. goods are completely eliminated, as they will be under the agreement. The cost of living of low income families will decline by 3 per cent, or about $325 a year. The cost of living for middle and high income families will decline by 2 per cent, or about $800 a year. The average family of four will save between $85 and $130 annually on food expenditures. The increased competition from imports will improve the price, quality and variety of all consumer products, including those produced in Canada.
As these facts and figures indicate, Canadian consumers will benefit tremendously from free trade, while high Canadian technical standards designed to protect the consumers' interest, including our bilingual labelling requirements, are maintained.
There is no need to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. Under the regulations we have now, Canadian consumers are provided with bilingual labelling. This Government does not intend to tamper with success. For example, since I am working on my French, this weekend I assembled a wardrobe according to the French instructions. Those requirements for bilingual labelling with be maintained. This success has continued for 20 years. Our Government guarantees that Canadian consumers will continue to have the bilingual labelling information they need, and to which they have every right.
Bill C-280 will not improve the access that Canadians have to bilingual labelling under this Government. In fact, it may
March 29, 1988

well jeopardize it by needlessly tinkering with a system that is already working very well. The Bill deserves to die on the Order Paper.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-280, which has been presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


An Hon. Member:: A very distinguished gentleman.


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, I agree he is a very distinguished Member. After all, as a colleague of his, working on the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages, we have become well acquainted and I have developed a good deal of regard for the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. It is perhaps worth noting that the Ottawa Citizen shows that this is a good day to say a few words about M. Bilinguisme in its paragraphs about his work in the Province of Ontario in advancing education for Franco-Ontarians and pressing for immersion programs for the English-speaking, and so on, which are important parts of his political and public career.


John Horton McDermid: Hear, hear!


Abram Ernest Epp: I think I hear the Parliamentary Secretary echoing my comments. Because I was at committee I arrived a little late so I unfortunately did not catch the Parliamentary Secretary's first comments, but his notes probably did not include these compliments, so it is a pleasure now to pass them on indirectly from the Parliamentary Secretary.
I did arrive in sufficient time, however, to catch the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Bill is unnecessary and to listen to his reassurances that the achievement of a trade arrangement with the United States, which will have all kinds of radical impacts on the Canadian economic, social and political system, did not represent a threat to one of the very important commercial aspects of bilingualism in Canada, the regulations, in fact, which require labelling and packaging of items in English and French.
I must confess that I am not nearly as sure as the Parliamentary Secretary. The Government's performance in these areas has not often been reassuring. When I think of the activities of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) in particular, or as he is labelled unofficially, the Minister for consumer loss and corporate profit, I think of his efforts on behalf of the International Pharmaceutical Manufacturers. The Government's intention was allegedly entirely distinct from any pressure from the United States, or from any kind of link to the bilateral negotiation carried on with the United States. Here was a good thing which the Canadian people would have to accept. Here was a necessary change. The licensing provisions under which drugs could be manufactured in Canada by generic producers were so objectionable, presumably, to the Canadian people that they simply had to be
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
changed. The Canadian people did not have to worry about the consequences of it. The result would not be higher drug prices.
But in fact, once the changes were made, Canadians experienced far higher drug prices. Very steep increases in drug prices have occurred just within the last few months and it has become clear in the last months of the bilateral trade negotiations that in the American mind, these changes in the pharmaceutical and manufacturing licensing provisions were part of the negotiations.
The Canadian office involved with these trade negotiations desperately sought to get these provisions off the record, removed from the final documents. The fact that they were in other documents certainly allowed one to infer that they had been part and parcel of the whole thing. If it was not being done to satisfy the American administration and international pharmaceutical manufacturers, it certainly was not being done for the advantage of Canadian consumers, not by a long shot. It is all too likely not to be done to the advantage of Canadian scientists or researchers either, because the changes, we are told by the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, are not going to lead to any great increase in research in Canada. We have been sold a bill of goods by the Minister for consumer loss and corporate profit.
A Government which is capable of pulling off that kind of stunt is capable of exactly what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is suggesting in the speech he made in support of this Bill. A Government that does that is capable of doing away with the regulations under which Canadian manufacturers have been operating. It is recognized that if there is this great change in our trading relations with the United States, if the agreement is actually carried through, if tariffs drop, there is surely going to be a significant increase in trade into Canada of grocery products.
Canadian producers of agricultural products, which are processed to make many of these grocery products, have expressed concern about that. Surely, it was very convincing to have the head of the McCain foods manufacturing empire, which began in New Brunswick and has spread out across the country, telling us that the consequences of this trade deal were going to be very serious for Canadian agricultural producers. The survival of our supply management programs, the maintenance of prices for Canadian producers, will be made very difficult under the pressure of products coming from the United States. What he was saying was that he himself supported our marketing board arrangements, and the pressure he would be under he saw as having only the most serious and detrimental effects on Canadian agricultural producers. If in fact we maintain our marketing boards and keep our prices as we want, the result will surely be the undercutting and the flowing in of products.
The Government seems to be completely committed to the idea of vastly increased trade. In those circumstances, when the Government comes under pressure from American producers of grocery products and other items which are

March 29, 1988
Consumer Packing and Labelling Act
affected by this legislation, who want to get into the Canadian market and who are going to be attacking every single item that impedes their free operation in Canada, surely the pressure will develop in the area of regulations.
The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head vigorously. It is, of course, in his political interest. He has been defending the trade agreement with the United States. It is always a good thing. He has had to talk the government line so much that the blinkers are very tight next to his head.


John Horton McDermid: We are talking bilingualism.


Abram Ernest Epp: I am, too. I am speaking about the impact of increased trade-


John Horton McDermid: We are talking about the very foundation of this country. Come on, get serious.


Abram Ernest Epp: -the pressure from American producers, their demands, that bilingual packaging is one of the impediments to their activity in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense. It is not true.


Abram Ernest Epp: Given the lack of principle we have seen in the case of the Minister for consumer loss and corporate profit, in his activities on pharmaceutical drug licensing, we have every reason to want to take the regulations under which these things are done in Canada and put them into law. We have every reason to want to make these provisions, which are important to commerce, which are absolutely vital to the purchasing of products by Canadians who are unilingual and French, into law. It is absolutely essential that the products be made available to them in both languages. We want to be sure that that is going to stand forever. The way to do that is to have it in law. This Parliament has to change the legislation, not simply leave it to the regulations and to the activities of the Cabinet.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address my remarks on Bill C-280 to the underlying premise that has been suggested as presenting a need for the Bill. I want to say that I disagree completely with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and his suggestion as to why this Bill should be considered. I also want to take issue with the Member who presented this Bill, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). As has been said previously, Canadian consumers enjoy the benefit of a highly developed system for protection from inferior and unsafe products, and for the provision of information regarding the packaging and labelling of consumer products. These requirements are known as technical regulations.
Many people consider Canadian technical regulations for consumer information and protection to be among the best in the world, and they are. The present system evolved over 18 years since the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act was first introduced in 1970. In fact, there are some deficiencies
and some voids in that legislation. Bilingual labelling is not one of them.
Earlier on this year I offered my own motion during Private Members' Business regarding consumer labelling. It was Motion No. 86. It dealt with drug labelling and the need for total and complete labelling of all the ingredients in prescription and non-prescription drugs. That motion was debated in the House on August 18, 1987, just about a year ago.
As a result of that motion I appeared before the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare and explained the need for the implementation of my motion. The Minister also appeared. It is likely now that both the industry and the Government will work toward bringing the provisions of my motion forward. I hope to have more to say about that subject one of these days. Notwithstanding some of the voids, such as the one I pointed out regarding the need for complete and total labelling of all the ingredients in a product on the package, with respect to the packaged foods we buy or whether it be prescription or non-prescription drugs which currently do not necessarily include all of the ingredients, our consumer laws are still among the best in the world.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would have us tamper with a system for consumer protection that has been working perfectly well for more than a decade and a half. He does so not to improve the requirements for consumer information but suggests that somehow the requirements that we now have should be rewritten and the format placed in law rather than the technical regulations which outline them.
There is absolutely no need for that to be done. The Hon. Member has introduced a justification that somehow by placing these factors in an Act of Parliament they will not be vulnerable to modification or non-compliance as a result of the recently concluded and soon to be implemented Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I find it rather strange that the Leader of the Party of the Hon. Member who presents this Bill travels around the nation making speeches about how he will tear up the agreement should he ever become Prime Minister. If we were to take him seriously then we would have to conclude that if we accept the premise of this Bill then the Hon. Member must be suggesting that he has very little confidence that his leader, the Hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), will become Prime Minister. Obviously, if that were to occur there would be no need for this Bill.
There is no need for this Bill because frankly, the present Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act provides the statutory basis for the bilingual labelling of consumer goods. The Act and its regulations quite properly reflect the linguistic requirements of Canada. Most consumer pre-packaged products must display mandatory labelling in both French and English. This is equally true for goods of Canadian and foreign origin.
March 29, 1988

Canadian consumers have the right to full and complete information about the products they buy in both official languages. As consumers we must all be able to make informed and intelligent decisions in the market-place. To do so we need information. We should be able to obtain that information in whichever of Canada's official language we are most comfortable with. The Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act guarantees certain mandatory information. The regulations requiring bilingual labelling ensure that this information is provided in both French and English.
As I said, this system has been working well since the Act was passed in the early 1970s. It is consistent and is familiar to business and industry, both foreign and domestic. Suppliers know what is required of them. They have been providing bilingual labelling information to meet this requirement. In fact, I suggest they would do it as a consumer marketing device even if it were not required.
Why introduce an unnecessary change and uncertainty into a well functioning system? The reason it has been advanced for tinkering is that somehow it has something to do with the free trade agreement. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier wants to advance by hint, implication or innuendo the totally false idea that bilingualism will be affected by the free trade agreement. He does so presumably to undermine the strong and growing support for the free trade agreement as the benefits become known and understood by Canadians.
It is likely that the free trade agreement will be the best thing that ever happened to the Canadian consumer. Tariffs on American consumer goods will be totally phased out when the agreement is fully implemented. Consumers will save significantly as a result. The average consumer will likely save in the order of $500 per year. It has been suggested by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that the cost of an entire household of goods, services and appliances could be reduced by as much as $8,000. Consumers will also save because Canadian-made goods will be cheaper in price as our manufacturers gear up to access the huge American market. Service will also improve the competition, as will the choice and availability of products in the market-place.
Yes, the lot of Canadian consumers will change dramatically under free trade, and change for the better. But one thing that will not change as a result of free trade is the consumers' right to product information on pre-packaged goods in both English and French.
Bilingual labelling, as required by Canadian law, is not affected by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Despite the arguments that have been suggested here today the Government has gone on record to assure Canadians that those labelling requirements will remain an integral part of our consumer protection regulations.
The Hon. Member who sponsors this Bill has long been a promoter and staunch supporter of bilingualism. In fact, today in the local newspaper, The Ottawa Citizen, he was referred to as Mr. Bilingualism. I suggest he has nothing to fear as a
Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act
result of the free trade agreement. If he wishes to further the interests of the Canadian consumer then he should be working to support the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. However, it seems that he is using his professed ideals of bilingualism as a stalking horse to attack the free trade agreement and to induce confusion. As a result, he does a disservice to the interests of Canadian consumers.
This is an unnecessary piece of legislation that would do nothing to enhance bilingualism and do nothing to improve things for Canadian consumers. I suggest that the Bill be rejected.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to take part in this discussion on Bill C-280 introduced by our distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and which is entitled: An Act to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (bilingualism).
Madam Speaker, I heard with great interest the speeches made in the House especially by Tory members, although I have also listened to the speech made by our NDP colleague. His comments were quite relevant, but I cannot say the same of those made by Tory members because I do not understand their way of thinking on that Bill.
Madam Speaker, some members maintain today that we should not amend the present legislation because we should not try to fix something that is not broken. It is a rather interesting way of thinking. We could say likewise: "Why did we sign a free trade agreement; our trade relations were surely not broken, so why fix them?" Moreover, I think that the word fix would be somewhat exaggerated under the circumstances since, as we know, the trade deal has almost nothing good to offer Canadians. In fact, the agreement itself will be disruptive instead of fixing things up.
Even those who approve the trade deal, and there are very few, would agree with me that the Government has fixed what was not broken.
Therefore, it seems that this conservative way of thinking, this traditional approach that one must not touch anything, does not apply to the free trade agreement. And it does not apply either to Bill C-280 brought forward by our distinguished colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, I suppose.
Madam Speaker, we are told that the present legislation is adequate since it did work for a number of years. It is a fact that this legislation introduced by a Liberal Government has been on the books for a long time. Besides, it was a good measure introduced by a Liberal Government which I would like to commend for what it did in order to have labelling of consumer products in both official languages in our country.

March 29, 1988
Adjournment Debate
That legislation did encounter some resistance at the beginning from people who complained about the complications and the difficulties they were likely to face at breakfast time since they would have to turn over their Corn Flakes box to read what it says. That was a hard thing to get used to for those poor people. They have all my sympathy, as you can understand, Madam Speaker.
But once they recovered from that serious ordeal, they finally got used to this new legislation or these new regulations on bilingual labelling of consumer products.
And these regulations have been in force since then, but then they were not questioned at all. The only problem came from those few Canadians who did not want any bilinguism at all, but I think that the majority of Canadians agreed, that many in fact were happy when we finally had bilingual labelling in Canada.
However, the situation is different today. We are faced with the threat that comes from the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mul-roney) free trade agreement. And I see that the opposite Member does not seem to be absolutely convinced that free trade poses a threat. But we all know that the free trade agreement makes no mention at all of bilingual labelling of consumer products. But we also know, Madam Speaker, that one of the objectives of the agreement is to suppress barriers or so-called barriers to bilateral trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States.
The Agreement states and I quote:
Each Party shall, to the extent provided in this Agreement, accord national
treatment with respect to investment and to trade in goods and services.
This is what is stated in clause 105 of the free trade agreement.
A little further in the free trade agreement, in Chapter 6, Madam Speaker, under the title "Technical Barriers", it is stated that technical standards relating to products can sometimes constitute barriers to trade. Now, Madam Speaker, Americans are well known for their melting pot mentality; it is quite normal for them that everybody, not only in their country but everywhere in the world, speak their language. Since it is their language, if it is good for them it must be good for everybody; it is good especially for them, but according to their way of thinking it must be good for everybody.
On that basis how can we be sure that they will not consider our labelling standards as some kind of a barrier to trade? Will they say: You know, Canadians do not really need bilingual labelling? Americans might view this as a malicious attempt by Canadians to interfere with trade. They would then say that such a requirement is unreasonable. Some Members will reply that the Americans know better than that. Well, we have had dealings with them in the past. We know that they can be reasonable at times and not so reasonable at other times, that theirs is a rather insular country, and that they often forget that there are other people in this world.
Madam Speaker, article 603 of the agreement provides that neither party will maintain or adopt normative measures which would create needless obstacles to their bilateral trade. Of course, labelling in both official languages is quite useful. We, Canadians, would therefore not view this requirement as needless. However, to come back to what I said earlier, 1 am not at all convinced that the Americains would not view it as an attempt to disrupt the American trading system.
On the other hand, a preliminary comment in chapter 6, which is not included in the Agreement, states that no provision of the Agreement will prevent Canada from requiring the bilingual labelling of products on the condition that this requirement apply to both domestic and imported products. However, this is not included in the Agreement, but only in a sort of preamble. These are preliminary comments at the beginning of chapter 6. They are not included in any article of the Agreement itself.
Therefore, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is now giving every one of us the opportunity to take practical action to reaffirm our commitment to bilinguism under the Act as concerns the labelling of consumer products.
As indicated earlier, Section 6 of the consumer labelling regulations now stipulate in which languages the information on consumer products must be written. However, these are only regulations, not an Act of Parliament. What the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is giving us today is an opportunity to take this action and to indicate clearly that we find this so important that it should be stated in an Act of Parliament rather than in administrative regulations established by Cabinet.
I therefore urge all my colleagues in this House to support the very useful proposal contained in Bill C-280.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Madam Speaker, I can see by the look on your face that the last thing you wanted to hear
March 29, 1988

this evening is the story of my life. Brace yourself, Madam Speaker, because I am going to tell you just a little excerpt from my life history. I know that it does not really come as much of a surprise to you to know that before I stood for Parliament I served for 10 years as a municipal councillor in municipal government.
I served in my own municipality in Metropolitan Toronto as an alderman for four years and as a mayor of my community of East York for some six years. East York is one of the six cities which make up Metropolitan Toronto, and I had the honour of serving on the East York Council for some 10 years.
During that period of time I stood for election some five times. I can see, Madam Speaker, that you are thanking your lucky stars that you and I do not have to stand for election to this House every two years. However, I stood for election every two years at that time.
At the time of my very first election I remember thinking to myself where I would get the money from to afford my election campaign. Fortunately that very first time, although I had a lot of help-and I have had ever since-from friends, neighbours, and family who volunteered and helped me out free of charge-I had one neighbour, Charlie Greco, who tried to raise a little money for me. In fact, he raised the grand sum of something like $200. Together with other donations, during the campaign I received something like $300 in all.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you are as aware as I am that one cannot run an election campaign, even a municipal one, on something like $300. In fact, it costs thousands of dollars, not hundreds of dollars, for a campaign. I paid for it out of my own pocket, apart from the magnificent sum of $300 that I received in donations.
It is interesting to note that during that election campaign one main issue concerned development in my community and whether or not candidates were for or against redeveloping an industrial area in my community with high-rise apartments. I, as well as others, took a very hard stand against that redevelopment proposal. Out of that campaign as well came a question from the residents about whether I would accept money and donations from developers to run my campaign. Having taken the position which I did, it was obvious that there was no developer who would give me a single, solitary cent to help me in my campaign. This is another reason that 1 financed my campaign basically out of my pocket. That was my first election campaign.
I stood for another one as an alderman. At that time I again had to finance the campaign almost entirely out of my own pocket. In fact, nobody decided to take up a collection for me in that campaign. I guess they thought that I had been living out of the public trough, after all, for two years and that I must have amassed an enormous amount and did not need any financial help from other people.
Adjournment Debate
After that I stood for mayor. As I know you are aware, Madam Speaker, a mayoralty campaign across a city costs an awful lot more money than an aldermanic campaign. Once again I had help and assistance from a couple of lawyer friends of mine. Jim Sintzel and Ed Jupp went around to friends, neighbours, and local businesses to see what they could do to raise some money for me. In fact they were somewhat successful, but certainly there was a substantial shortfall. It turned out again that I had to put my hand into my pocket to help finance the difference.
This is the way it was in my second mayoralty campaign and my third mayoralty campaign. Each time virtually all the funds came out of my own pocket. It did not come from other people. It did not come from developers. Basically I financed it myself, and none of the people who donated to my campaign expected to get a tax receipt from it. They all knew that they were not going to get a tax receipt which they could use to write off against their provincial or federal income taxes. They did not expect that at all. In fact, they assumed that it was actually illegal under the Income Tax Act and under the Election Expenses Act. Not only did they assume it was illegal but they assumed that it was certainly contrary to the intent and the spirit of elections legislation and of the Income Tax Act, for that matter, that they should get some sort of a tax benefit from this sort of thing.
What do you think my surprise was, Madam Speaker, when I learned that the NDP federal Party was actually giving tax receipts for donations to municipal NDP candidates in Toronto? The Party was giving federal tax receipts to people who made donations. It was a shock to me, a real shock, because this was coming from the NDP. The Leader of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), is always critical of others, always self-righteous with others, always sanctimonious, always holier than thou and always beyond reproach. This was coming from the NDP, the Party led by the Hon. Member for Oshawa who is always critical of tax loopholes. In fact, it found a magnificent tax loophole and was using it to rip off the ordinary Canadians that the Party tells us it is championing.
Tonight I have one solitary question for the Parliamentary Secretary and one only. Will she permit the NDP and its Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, to get away with this rip-off of ordinary Canadian taxpayers or is she going to do something about it?


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, first I want to commend my hon. colleague for saying that he believes in the honest financing of election campaigns. I do not know if he is aware of this, but last weekend in Montreal, the Quebec wing of our Party voted on a resolution to exclude contributions from companies precisely to make the whole process of financing election campaigns very transparent and honest. If he is preaching to me, he finds in me a convert.

March 29, 1988
Adjournment Debate
The very short answer to the Hon. Member's question is no, of course not. The Government of Canada could not stand by and see the Election Expenses Act and the Income Tax Act being contravened by anyone, let alone by a Canadian political Party, be it the NDP or any other Party.
The Hon. Member brought up a particular incident with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) which occurred back in December of 1987, and he is asking for a longer answer to that today. First I must tell him that confidentiality does not allow me to discuss particular receipts that might have been given for any particular contributions. All records having to do with the payment of income tax, as the Hon. Member should well know, are confidential. I cannot talk about any particular contribution, but I can tell him that the system is quite ironclad in terms of what constitutes a legitimate contribution to a political Party.
At the federal level, only contributions to a bona fide political Party will be recognized under the Income Tax Act. The receipt is issued on the basis that it is a direct contribution to a recognized political Party at the federal level for a federal election. If a complaint were to be made to Revenue Canada that certain receipts were issued for a certain candidate who did not run federally, the person who requested the receipt would find that receipt denied. If the receipt had already been given to that person under investigation, Revenue Canada would find that person in contravention of the Income Tax Act and the elections legislation. Therefore, very severe penalties would be applied.
I can assure my hon. colleague that if he is privy to any such information, Revenue Canada will consider it very seriously, as it would any request from any other Hon. Member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-CIA FUNDING OF BRAINWASHING EXPERIMENTS-REQUEST FOR EX GRATIA
[Stage Direction]
PAYMENT TO VICT1MS/REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to once again draw to the attention of the Government of Canada a profound injustice which has affected a number of our fellow citizens. I refer, of course, to those Canadians who were victims of the CIA brainwashing experiments from 1957 to 1962 by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal, Quebec. It was not until 1977 that evidence of these particular experiments became public and, as we know, too many Canadians were the victims of these terrible experiments.
The details are all too familiar to Canadians. For example, I would remind you of the case of Linda Macdonald who, between May 1 and September 12, 1963, was given more than 100 electro-shock treatments, kept in a drugged sleep for 86 days, and subjected to a long program of psychic driving. Of the many Canadians who were victims of Dr. Ewen Cameron's experiments, nine filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court against the CIA. Linda Macdonald was not one of those nine
but she recently filed a suit against the Government of Canada in recognition of the fact that the Government had contributed a very substantial amount of money to these experiments by Dr. Cameron.
Earlier this year, on January 19, there was a ray of hope for the victims of these experiments because the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that all but one of the Canadian victims had the right to sue the CIA for the brainwashing experiments. Obviously this was a very positive and long overdue development. The victims had been waiting some seven years for that kind of development. However, there was then a very cruel and negative decision announced by the Government of Canada on February 12 to pay the sum of $20,000 for each of the victims to help defray their legal costs. The response to this offer was profoundly negative. Indeed, it was viewed as an insult by many Canadians, not the least of whom were the victims and their families.

For instance, Mr. Jean-Charles Page, who is 55 years old and was admitted in 1959 at the Allan Memorial for alcoholism, commented: We have been waiting for over seven years to get only this? It is very disappointing. Mr. Page, who lives in Saint-Andre, a community about 50 kilometres east of Montreal, claims that he was given electro-shock treatments and drugged, kept in a sleep for 36 days while his subconscious mind was bombarded with the same messages over and over again. He added that because of the memory lapses he has experienced from time to time due to this experiment, he has been unable to work for the past eight years.

George Cooper, who was commissioned by the Government to look into the responsibility of the Government of Canada in this matter, recommended the payment of an ex gratia amount of $100,000 to each of the victims. I would remind you as well that was despite the fact that Mr. Cooper, in an astonishing finding, held that there was no legal or moral responsibility on the Government of Canada for these terrible experiments.
Why the double standard in Canada? George Cooper himself received some $118,000 in legal fees. The Government paid over $650,000 in legal fees for Sinclair Stevens.
[ Translation]
We heard recently that the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Bissonnettte) was going to seek an award to defray his legal costs.
Madam Speaker, I simply cannot understand how this Government can insult these victims by granting them $50,000.

I want to pay tribute, in closing, to the many Canadians who have consistently voiced their concerns about this tragic
March 29, 1988

situation, including the editorial collective of Phoenix Rising, Mr. Don Weitz and a number of his colleagues who have kept pressure on the Government seeking justice at last for these victims.
I call on the Government of Canada to recognize its responsibility to these victims, to recognize that $20,000 is an insult, a pittance, to pay the victims at least the $100,000 that was recommended by the Cooper Commission and, hopefully, to assist the victims far more in their lawsuit in the United States. Justice delayed is justice denied. For these victims justice has been denied for far too long.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I will not comment on the allegations the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has made concerning two former Cabinet Ministers of our Government. Because I feel we are dealing here with a serious matter, Madam Speaker, I suggest we should concentrate on the issue.
The question raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby is in connection with the assistance with which the Government of Canada has provided nine Canadians who are suing the Government of the United States.
As the Minister of Justice indicated in the House in his reply to the Hon. Member, he has been involved in negotiations with his colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the Hon. Member's own House Leader as well as representatives of the people who are involved in this dispute.
The Government of Canada was aware of the circumstances which resulted in their very difficult legal case against the U.S. Government and, consequently, granted the nine people involved a level of assistance unheard of. It has made a great many diplomatic representations to the U.S. Government, transmitted documents and information, allowed some civil servants to testify, met the counsels for the plaintiffs, studied thoroughly the involvement of the Canadian Government, released all the information in its possession and given financial assistance to defray legal costs.

The Hon. Member has made reference to a recommendation by Mr. Cooper of an ex gratia payment of $100,000 to each of the nine plaintiffs. I presume this is a reference to Appendix 53 of Mr. Cooper's opinion which points out that demands for compensation by the Canadian Government may arise from some quarters despite the absence of any legal or moral responsibility, based on a broader social policy for spreading the risks inherent in medical research.
In Appendix 53 of his opinion Mr. Cooper provides a general discussion regarding the philosophical question of spreading the risk for medical research. He highlights some preliminary questions that would have to be addressed before a
Adjournment Debate
medical research insurance scheme could be seriously considered. Even then, if a payment were to be considered, Mr. Cooper emphasizes that individual payments must be limited to a maximum of $100,000. However, he does not in fact make a recommendation in favour of such a payment.
Madam Speaker, I should like to conclude by saying that, as the Hon. Member is well aware following the question he raised in the House in December 1987, our Government has provided nevertheless to the nine plaintiffs $180,000 to cover their legal fees.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION-OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH SPACE AGENCY IN MONTREAL-QUERY WHEN
[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT WILL ANNOUNCE DECISION / AEROSPACE- MONTREAL-ECONOMIC SPINOFFS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight following a question I asked to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), which is of importance not only to Quebecers but also to Montrealers, concerning the location of the space agency in Montreal.
To my great surprise, and to the surprise of Canadians in general and Montrealers and the Government of Quebec in particular, the Minister answered at the time that the decision about the establishment of a space agency was tied to the federal Government's involvment in the U.S. space orbital station.
Madam Speaker, that statement was not consistent with the repeated statements of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) to the effect that the establishment of a space agency was not tied to such a program, since the federal Government was already spending funds in communications or satellites or in other areas, and that it was important to centralize this agency to have a better sharing of contracts.
Then, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) contradicted his Minister and the Minister of State for Science and Technology once again contradicted his Minister, but meanwhile the Minister was forced to withdraw and to admit his mistake.
Unfortunately, as stated by the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Jean Dore, and by the Quebec Minister of Technological development, Mr. Pierre MacDonald, people are still waiting for an answer. The space agency should not be only an empty shell, but it should come with all the support staff and the economic spin-offs, as planned.
And at that time, during the Oral Question Period, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, told us that the sharing of contracts would be on a 35/35 basis, 35 to Quebec, 35 to Ontario. The reaction was very strong in Quebec. As far as we are concerned the answer is no, that kind of sharing is unacceptable because in Montreal and Quebec we have close to 57 per cent of the manpower in space technology and nearly 70 per cent of research investments.

March 29, 1988
Adjournment Debate
So we find this attitude rather strange on the part of the Conservative Government which refused to split the frigate contracts when Quebec wanted to have two of them to save three shipyards in Quebec, namely Lauzon, Sorel and Montreal. The quality of manpower in the shipyards at Lauzon and elsewhere is second to none. At the time the federal Government turned thumbs down, with the result that Vickers had to close their yards, as did the shipbuilding section in Sorel.
Another rather strange thing, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a more specific answer, is that they do not want to share some of the work in the automobile industry and in other sectors. As I am speaking, at a time when Quebec should be playing a leading role in the space program, they want to reduce the share which normally would go to Quebec as a means of restoring some sort of balance between Ontario and Quebec.
Quebecers reacted swiftly, and the Prime Minister had to intervene. This past weekend, along with the Liberal supporters of Montreal East, we got together and reaffirmed our support for municipalities, the Bourassa Government, the PQ opposition, and the Chamber of Commerce. All people in Montreal and in the rest of Quebec want the space agency to be located in Montreal. Even the Conservative convention supported this move. It was last in jumping on the band wagon of the space program. What we want is an honest, open and constructive response concerning the location of the space agency.
Hopefully the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us about contract sharing, and tell us that indeed Montreal will be the site of the space agency, that not only will we get the space agency but also that the contract will be shared on the basis of productivity, manpower skills, research and science technicians, and also on the basis of... To put it another way, the economic spin-offs from the space program in Quebec should be close to 60 per cent.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to deal with this issue, the more so because it was considerably discussed during our week-end meeting.
When the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) claimed that only people in the Montreal area supported the establishment of a space agency in the province of Quebec, he at least overlooked the fact that, in the opinion of Conservative supporters who were there, it was the whole province.
Space is one of the areas of advanced technology which the Government has every reason to support. First, if I may, I should like to confirm what has been said publicly. There will be a space agency. The Government will announce its creation at the proper time, once we have set its mandate. And as we have already stated in the House, we are about to make several
major decisions concerning such programs as the space station, our continued involvement in the European Space Agency and RADARSAT. As soon as these issues are settled, we will make the necessary organizational decisions to create the Canadian space agency.
I wish to remind all Hon. Members that the Canadian space agency is a national program which should benefit all Canadians. The agency will be the co-ordinating body responsible for implementing the national program.
Madam Speaker, Hon. Members are aware that the space industry in Canada, although national in scope, is relatively small. In spite of its limited dimensions, it has been able to stand an increasingly fierce world competition, exporting nearly 70 per cent of its production. I am proud of its accomplishment as well as of the individual corporations which have made Canada's image what it is.
There is first of all Spar Aerospatiale in Toronto and Montreal, famous throughout the world for its Canadarm and its world class communication satellites. Spar Aerospatiale in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue is one of about six or eight corporations, world wide, which have the capacity to provide complete satellite communication systems. There is also CAE in Montreal, whose spatial simulators are well known, CONDEV in Cambridge, Ontario, which conquered more than 80 per cent of the world market in hyperfrequency transmission devices installed in satellites. Let us not forget the Macdonald Dettwiler Associates companies in Vancouver, SED Systems in Saskatoon, Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg and Canadian Astronautics in Ottawa, each and every one of them leaders in their field.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) gave the Hon. Member the data he asked for about the breakdown of the space program expenditures across the country. The Hon. Member can see now that Quebec got its fair share of the federal Government contracts, about 34 per cent under the space program, not including Telesat acquisitions, and 44 per cent of all research and development activities related to the industry.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I emphasize that space technology is a strategic technology. The Canadian Space Program serves as an incentive for businesses and individuals. It is a unique opportunity to develop new techniques that will allow Canada to apply technology and innovation, and therefore guarantee its economic future and create jobs. According to studies, the space station program alone will result in 80,000 person-years and $5 billion worth of sales.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.﻿14271
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 30, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers