1988-04-18

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to eight petitions bearing the following numbers: 3324040, 332-4130, 332-4158 and 332-4169 to 332-4173, inclusive.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from constituents of Brant who are strongly opposing the Government's trade deal with the United States. The petitioners call upon the Government to issue the writ for the next election as soon as possible, so that this can be a major issue for the people of Canada to decide, not just the Government.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 287.


Mr. Young: 1.	In 1987, were applications received by the Department of Health and Welfare for disability benefits under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan and, if so, what number of applications (a) were received (b) were approved on the basis of information provided with the initial application (c) required the provision of further information by the (/) applicant (ii) attending physician (f/f) employer?
2.	Were applications for these benefits refused and, if so (a) in what numbers (b) were appeals filed against these decisions and, if so (i) in what numbers (ii) what number of appeals were successful?
3.	What was the average length of time between (a) the date of an application approved on the basis of information provided initially and its approval (b) the provision of additional information and the approval of the application (c) the filing and the hearing of an appeal (d) the hearing of an appeal and the rendering of a decision?


Hon. Arthur Jacob Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
(a) 62,174; (b) 21,094; (c) 12,627
(i) (ii) and (iii) Not readily available, however, past experience indicate: (i) 2%; (ii) 98%; (iii) One or two cases a year
2.	Yes.
(a) 26,148; (b) Yes.
(i) 11,226; (ii) 3,666
3.	(a) 2 1/2 months; (b) 4 1/2 months; (c) and (d)
Average length of time between the receipt of a first level appeal (to the Minister) to the rendering of a decision.
5 months
Average length of time between the receipt of a second level appeal (to a Review Committee) and the issuance of a decision without proceeding to a hearing.	6 1/2 months
Average length of time between the receipt of a second level appeal (to a Review Committee) and the hearing of the appeal and the rendering of a decision.	10 months
Note: While no statistics are readily available on the average length of time between the receipt of a third level appeal (to the Pension Appeals Board) and the hearing of the appeal, the great majority of these appeals are heard within one year of the granting of Leave to Appeal.
It should be noted that the statistics for the various stages of the application and appeal process do not correspond directly. Many decisions rendered in 1987 were for applications and appeals received in 1986 and, similarly, decisions on many

April 18, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
initial applications and appeals received late in 1987 will be rendered in 1988.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (mo)



ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 15, 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.
And on the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 14501) that this question be now put.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that once again, we have a situation that may create problems for Opposition Members. In today's Projected Order of Business, the Government indicated that Bill C-l 10, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other acts in consequence thereof, was to be considered by Members at eleven o'clock this morning.
It seems the Government has changed its mind, since it is now proceeding with Bill C-121. To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, how this can complicate matters, when the order of business is published, the critics, the people who are responsible for speaking to the Bill called this morning, are advised accordingly, and when the Bill is to be C-121 instead of Bill C-110, all these people have to be called up again and told the Government has changed its mind and that it will be C-121. And then they have to call all the people involved with Bill C-121. The logistics can get very complex for the Opposition!
I am raising this point of order simply because I want to remind the Government that when I first became a Member in
1972, and even before that, it was customary for the Opposition to rise every day to ask the Government for the next day's order of business, and that is what we will have to do if we can no longer rely on this list, Mr. Speaker. It would be one way, between now and the end of June, to ensure that we can plan accordingly and also that the Opposition is not taken for granted and treated in this cavalier fashion. We do want to work, we do want to co-operate with the Government, but we must be given a chance to do a good job and to come well prepared.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my House Leader I want to rise on the same point of order. If this House is to function the way it is supposed to and deal with the business of the Government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada there has to be some order. That is why we have Orders of the Day and advance notice to indicate to the parties involved that particular issues will be dealt with. This kind of last minute change makes it more difficult for us to participate in this House in a knowledgeable manner. We are quite prepared to debate either Bill, or any Bill, but we would like to make sure that we have the kind of notice that is needed.
More important, this action indicates, as have a number of other actions over the last little while, that the Government does not even have control of its own agenda, let alone the House. It is indicative of the problems the Government has. I expect, and I regret this, that between now and June there will be many more of these kinds of last minute decisions which will make it more difficult for us to co-operate on other matters.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I would point out briefly to the House that the Government is in full control of its agenda and also in full control of the business of the House, except for Private Members' Hour. I would also point out that in the projected order of business Bill C-l21 is listed as the second item.
As a matter of fact very few Bills get to the point of having eight hours of debate and more which Bill C-121 has. It is now at the stage where speeches are limited to 10 minutes. We feel there has been full and adequate debate and we feel that continuing debate would be a method of moving the Bill along. For that reason and it being the back-up legislation, I think we should be in a position to proceed to debate the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This point of order was raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Both members of the Opposition did not contest the fact that the Government does have the right to decide which order of business it will deal with. I am sure that the Government House Leader will take note of the representations made by members of the Opposition.
Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus).
April 18, 1988


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to participate in the debate on Eldorado Nuclear. I am sorry that one of the government Members has decided that there needs to be an elimination of further debate by moving to prevent additional amendments to the Bill.
I want to deal with a couple of matters. One is the question of privatization, and the second is the impact of privatization as it relates to the handling of nuclear waste, be it low level or high level.
I had the opportunity both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of the provincial legislature of Ontario to deal with the matter of low level nuclear waste being stored in the Port Hope area and I was able to meet with citizens concerned about the existence of a dump so close to a major water body.
The people see quite realistically that although they have had difficulty getting a Crown corporation to move the dump away from their source of drinking water, they fear, legitimately, that a privately owned company would be even less responsive than a government owned one. When we have commodities such as uranium and its by-products, I do not think we should follow what the Americans do, which is to leave it to private profit enterprise to handle and manage this volatile fuel, a fuel that has well known, well documented dangers to the health and safety of those who come near it whether in its fuel or in its waste form. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Forestry tabled an excellent report. That committee reviewed the whole nuclear waste cycle and made a number of recommendations to the Government as to how it should approach the issue. The privatization of Eldorado flies in the face of the intent of that report and flies in the face of sound economic management of a company that is using as its energy source a volatile material. It is wrong for that reason.
Then we have the whole concept of privatization as embodied by the Conservative Government of Canada. It is really difficult for the Government to accept the reality that you can actually have a publicly owned, that is, a taxpayer owned company, that can be efficient and profitable and that does not need to draw on the taxpayers of Canada to sustain it. The Government for years has preached that the private sector is the only sector that can do that, that public Crown corporations do not work and are a socialist evil. Whether it is Eldorado Nuclear, Air Canada or any other Crown corporation in this country, Canada has a tradition of where there is a public need the Government has the responsibility to ensure that all of us own it.
Where in Canada over our history have we had for any length of time privately owned hydroelectricity distribution systems? The vast majority of them are publicly owned. I come from a community in part of the country that has gone beyond the electricity aspect and has got into the telephone company business. We have Sask Tel, Alberta Tel, the City of Thunder Bay telephone company, and the Kenora telephone
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
company-all are publicly owned, profit making companies that are able to keep rates down.
Let us look at Air Canada. We have in Air Canada a company that has not cost the taxpayers a cent in 25 years. In fact, in the last 11 years, its after-tax profit has been in the magnitude of $450 million. It is an efficient company. It provides a public good. It gives the Government of Canada and therefore the people of Canada a window into the industry to help shape policies in a deregulated environment. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with every taxpayer having a share in Air Canada? Every man, woman and child who lives in Canada and is a Canadian citizen does in fact own Air Canada, Eldorado Nuclear and all the other Crown corporations.
Now the Government, in its Conservative wisdom, wants to give as few as 10 people the right not only to own 45 per cent of the shares of Air Canada but, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) stated in the House when he announced the sale of those shares, the right to have total control of Air Canada. The Minister responsible for privatization, the Deputy Prime Minister, will order the Chairman of Air Canada to vote his or her shares in accordance with the majority of the public shareholders.
Let me backtrack. Ten people could own Air Canada, but six individuals could tell Air Canada what to do.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Oh, come on.


Iain Francis Angus: I hear some guffaws from across the way, but the Government's stated policy is that no one can own more than 10 per cent of the share offering, amounting to 4.5 per cent. However, 10 individuals collectively could own that 45 per cent. In fact, a number of them could be non-Canadians. That is the Conservative view of privatization.
The Conservatives want to privatize Air Canada rather than having it remain a company that is there to do the bidding of the Government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada. The Government now says to Air Canada that in spite of what the competition does, it will have to service smaller communities and it will have to service them with jets that will accommodate the needs of the people.
We are in a deregulated environment. In its wisdom, the Government has thrown the environment open. Gone are the days of ensuring public necessity and convenience. It has been now left up to the market to decide. The Conservatives argue that in that kind of an environment, Air Canada, Eldorado or whatever Crown corporation will be better off privatized. However, the Government is missing the point that it has the responsibility to ensure service to the people in all parts of Canada.
Let us take a look at one of those other major airlines in Canada, a privately-owned one. It is a fledgling airline which is growing. Wardair started out as a western-based airline,

April 18, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
primarily dealing in charters. Now it is involved in scheduled runs and is moving into the lucrative Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of the rules we hold dear in this Chamber is the rule of relevance. This is the sixth day of debate. We are into a filibuster on Eldorado Nuclear, and I do not think it is appropriate to allow too much straining toward other issues which will be before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair feels that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) is relevant, but unfortunately for the Hon. Member, he has only 30 seconds left.


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for both your ruling and for the notice of time.
Obviously the Hon. Member opposite was not listening. I referred to Eldorado Nuclear on a number of occasions, pointing out comparisons between the ideology of the Conservatives on that matter and on the matter of Air Canada. It is clear that the Conservative Government does not want to do what is best for Canadians. It wants to apply its Conservative ideology to a system that has worked well.
There is an old rule of thumb: if it works, don't fix it. Eldorado, Air Canada and many other Crown corporations work. Instead of leaving them alone and moving on to provide leadership in other areas required to stimulate the economy, the Government is wasting our time and, more important, it is wasting the dollars of the taxpayers through this kind of measure.
I realize that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you for your indulgence.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points with regard to the Eldorado privatization legislation which is before the House. Eldorado as a Crown corporation has been able to carry out a very important role in regional development. The federal Government located some of its refining facilities at Blind River, Ontario. As well, it has undertaken important developmental activity in Saskatchewan and has located a refinery and upgrading facility in Port Hope.
Crown corporations play a dual role. They play a role of economic development, job creation and wealth generation and they also play a national role in developing regional economies. When we privatize an industry of this type, we must be sure that commitments which have been made by the Crown corporation to the municipalities and communities involved are honoured by the company that will succeed Eldorado.
This may seem like a small thing in the global context of a corporation which will have assets of $1.6 billion and annual sales of $500 million, but those commitments which have been made to the communities are of vital importance. They are
important to the communities' over-all social activities, the organization of the communities and their recreational facilities. They are important as well to the economic viability of the communities.
For instance, in the Town of Blind River, Eldorado established a uranium refinery in 1983-84 and made commitments to provide certain leases to the town at nominal rates for recreational facilities such as a campground and a golf course. In the case of the golf course, I believe that the lease is $1 per year for 100 acres or so of land. That golf course was developed in co-operation with the town. I am sure there are similar kinds of arrangements in Port Hope as well.
The people of these communities want to be sure that when the company is amalgamated with the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, those commitments will be honoured. If they are not, then clearly I as an elected representative cannot and would not support this divestiture and privatization of the corporation. It would simply be breaking a legally binding commitment.
There are other commitments as well. For instance, Blind River built a recreational facility which carries a debt of some $1.2 million, I understand, and Eldorado Resources has made a commitment of a grant of some 60 per cent for recreational facilities in lieu of taxes. The details of this tend to be rather technical, but it is a very real benefit for the Town of Blind River. This past year, the grant for recreational facilities was some $85,000. That figure is prorated on the basis of the grant in lieu of taxes. Certainly we on this side of the House, and I am sure the Hon. Member from the Port Hope area, if there are similar arrangements with that community and perhaps areas in the West as well, want a commitment that at committee stage those arrangements, such as in the case of the community recreation facility in Blind River, will be honoured if and when the amalgamated company is sold to the private sector. If not, Blind River will be thrown into complete financial disarray because that commitment could not easily be picked up by the local taxpayers. The town's industrial base is practically just the uranium refinery there.
I think over-all this privatization-amalgamation with SMDC can be a positive thing. SMDC has always tried to get an exemption for further refining and upgrading in this country. If it is concerned about the long-term benefit to that corporation, it will want under this arrangement, to see uranium refined as well as mined in this country.
The amalgamated companies will have extensive low-cost reserves and will be well able to compete on the world stage. That strength will help in the further refining and upgrading part of the company. Unfortunately, in the free trade deal the Government has given away our upgrading policy in many areas, including uranium. It wants to drive our country back to being hewers of wood and drawers of water. This amalgamation will partially compensate for that because SMDC will
April 18, 1988

obviously want to do its refining in Canada when it amalgamates with the only company with uranium refining and upgrading facilities.
In conclusion, I hope those concerns relating to the communities where Eldorado has facilities will be taken into account. Clearly we will be looking very closely at the Bill in committee to ensure that those legally binding commitments are honoured not only by the Government of the day but by Eldorado Resources and the new company being created. We want to see those commitments and binding obligations carried forward to the new privatized corporation.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate on Bill C-121. I am glad to have the opportunity to raise some questions about this proposal to take a vitally important company, one of the most important developments in mining and processing which the 20th century has witnessed, and have it pass out of the immediate control of the Government of Canada through a Crown corporation.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), judging by the tenor of his observations this morning, has accepted this situation. In my remarks I would like to reject that outcome and consider good reasons why the proposal the Government has put before us should be rejected by this House. In that way we will ensure that Eldorado Nuclear continues as one of Canada's Crown corporations in order to achieve a number of desirable economic, social, and, if you will, political goals for the Canadian people.
One might of course ask at the outset why it is necessary to privatize Eldorado Nuclear. Our Conservative Government would still, I suppose, pride itself on being one of a long tradition of Conservative Governments concerned about the development of Canada's resources in order to provide economic development and other gains for the Canadian people. Given that, the Canadian people might well ask the Government for its reason for the decision to privatize in this particular area. Surely it is not sufficient simply to think that ideology should govern in any of these matters. I do not think the Canadian people are ever impressed when the only reason a Party has for doing something is that that is what the Party program says. They want to be convinced that the Party program makes sense for them. I know the Conservatives will be very good at making that kind of criticism of items in the NDP program, so it seems to me more than fair to ask the same kinds of questions of the Conservative Government.
Why privatize something that was created during the 1940s as a vital instrument to ensure that uranium would be available for war purposes and then turned to more peaceful purposes later on? I make that comment to remind Canadians that there can be no doubt about our involvement with the nuclear age and our responsibility for the use of atomic weapons, or our role in the way in which the use of nuclear weapons has developed in this century, particularly in the
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
United States. Canadians have been involved both directly and indirectly.
Given that reality, it made sense to have a Crown corporation do this. Is there now any reason at all to turn away and put it out to the private sector? Surely one can summon any number of reasons. I know my friends and colleagues speaking before me in this debate, having 20 minutes to respond to this Bill, have provided abundant reasons why Eldorado Nuclear should remain a Crown corporation, why this kind of flotation should not be carried out.
The Government has decided that holding the shares on behalf of the people of Canada is the way to go. Having questioned that decision on behalf of the people of Canada we might look to the others involved in this company, those who work for it, those who are represented by the United Steel Workers and by the Energy and Chemical Workers. We might well ask them whether it makes sense to carry through this privatization.
The media have been having a great deal of fun in the last days asking Air Canada employees whether privatization of our national air carrier makes sense. Of course, the fun has been that a certain number of Air Canada employees have said that it is a great idea. It is significant that in the case of Eldorado Nuclear such support does not exist. The two unions involved have listed a number of very good reasons for being opposed to this particular proposal. They have pointed to concerns about occupational health and safety. They have raised concerns about the environmental problems which uranium mining and processing create in the areas in which it is carried on. They have, of course, the most natural reason for being concerned about jobs as well.
I would think that everyone knows that the mining and processing of uranium involves very real dangers to those who do it and to the places in which it is carried on. In fact, concerns about health and about the environment are profoundly interrelated. We have here, after all, some of the most insidious dangers to life of all sorts that the late 19th century has to offer. Those who did the initial research-and one thinks of Madame Curie who carried out research on radiation without realizing what it could do-very often died a terrible and early death because of the lack of knowledge of its consequences.
The concern about health in the processing of uranium is one which private corporations can all too easily dodge. A Crown corporation should have the highest standards, and Eldorado Nuclear should be maintained as a Crown corporation to ensure that Canadians remain state of the art in terms of occupational health and safety in the mining and processing of uranium.
With regard to the environmental concerns rising before us, at the Port Hope refinery we have enormous quantities of tailings. The dump is practically full and the disposal problem

April 18, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
gets larger and larger in an area which is all too close to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence system. We have disposal problems in other areas as well.
Not immediately related, but as a consequence of the way in which we use the nuclear age to produce electric power, we have additional waste disposal problems. Atomic Energy of Canada has been involved for years in trying to come to grips with these questions. Surely it would be far better to support and supplement the endeavours of AECL by maintaining Eldorado Nuclear as a Crown corporation equipped to do the work that is necessary and ensure that the environmental concerns of so many Canadians will be provided for adequately.
The occupational health and safety and environmental concerns which the unions have expressed and so many Canadians believe exist are powerful arguments against the proposal the Government has put forward.
In the area of jobs the Government may provide fine assurances that there will be continued employment in the mining and processing of uranium, but the reality is that there is no real guarantee given. In an era of over-production, of difficulties of controlling and managing supply in order to maintain prices that allow the industry some small amount of profit, activities that created enormous difficulties for Canada when a legal process was begun in the United States against the cartel-like arrangements that were involved in this argue all the more for careful involvement with the industry rather than hiving it off on the private sector to have Lord-knows-what happen.
If the Conservative Government, in utter irresponsibility, in rejection of all the concerns-the public concerns, the workers' concerns, and the public interest that I have been sketching- wanted to dispose of the whole area, simply get itself out from under it, there might be a case for looking at that, although it would strike everyone as completely irresponsible. However, this particular proposal is not as clear-cut as that. We are going to see a flotation of stock in the best stock promoter tradition of the capital markets of this country and other countries of the world. We are going to see an attempt to sell stock in order to bring in capital for Eldorado.
How is that going to be facilitated? How does the Government want to encourage investors to buy the stock? It is going to do that by ensuring that the new company resulting from the reorganization of the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear is not burdened with debt, and particularly not burdened with the expenses which may well ensue at Port Hope as the environmental control and tailings disposal problems arise and someone is forced to deal with them. Those who buy the stock of this new company will be spared all of those problems because the Government of Canada intends to shoulder the larger part of the cost.
There, of course, is the most atrocious kind of privatization which the Conservative Government has carried through a number of times-tempt someone into control of a new
enterprise, or an old enterprise transformed in this way, turn it over to them, make it tempting for them, offer them the chance to profit by leaving all the costs with the Canadian taxpayer. Take from the Government of Canada the possibility of future profits and give those to others. Leave the burden of the costs on the Canadian taxpayer. That surely, Mr. Speaker, is the final stupidity in this kind of privatization.
It is for those reasons that I join with my colleagues in firmly opposing the Government's proposal in Bill C-121.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-121.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Filibuster.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) accuses me of trying to filibuster. I want to correct the Hon. Member, who flits in and out of the House. I have not spoken on this Bill since it was introduced for second reading and I want to say a few words because, first, the whole subject of privatization is a principle and issue on which I want to put some comments on the record. Second, the whole business of nuclear development, the business of finishing uranium, affects many people in the areas in which I live.
Just to the west of my riding of Nickel Belt are some very large reserves of uranium which are mined by two companies, Rio Algom and Denison Mines. We have a long history of workers who have carried on an ongoing battle to improve occupational health and safety in those mines. As a matter of fact, the founder of Denison Mines, Mr. Stephen Roman, passed away recently. Many articles in the newspapers comment on how he was a great capitalist who dragged himself up by the bootstraps after immigrating to Canada, to build Denison Mines into the great uranium giant it is today. However, the fact is that this was done with a considerable amount of public moneys. I have often said that he has lived off the avails of the Canadian taxpayer.
All of these so-called great giants of free enterprise who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, including Roman, Pocklington and Campeau, made it off the taxpayers. They continue to live off the taxpayer but are the first ones to say they do not want the government on their backs and telling them how to operate. They are the first ones there with their hands out at the trough to collect from the taxpayer.
I wish they would stop those phoney arguments because they cannot have it both ways. If they do not want government involvement, they should stay out and stop asking for handouts.
I believe that the real reason we are seeing Bills such as C-121 and the move to turn 45 per cent of Air Canada over to

[DOT]<;v;
%
;

i.
April 18, 1988

the private sector is that there is a real problem in the Conservative caucus. The Neanderthals on the back bench are tugging at the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), telling him to put the Government back into what they believe are the true blue Conservative colours. They want the Government to return to a real Conservative agenda.
However, the Government recognizes that this is not the wish of Canadians. The problem is that the Prime Minister recognizes he is facing a real hornet's nest in the area of language and, in order to get these Neanderthals off his back, he announces an intention to privatize. Privatization is like a national hymn to those Conservatives. Whenever they put on the pressure, the Prime Minister throws them a bone in the form of privatization. The Prime Minister can then say that the Government is sticking to the principles of Conservatism by turning over to the private sector many of the things in which the taxpayers have invested and which they have built up in the past. We do not like this knee-jerk reaction of the Government to privatize everything the taxpayers have invested in and built up over the years.
In the 1940s the Government established declaratory powers with respect to uranium. The Government of the day recognized the importance of uranium and therefore brought Eldorado into the public sector. While resources are a provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution of Canada, uranium became a federal responsibility because the Government recognized the importance of having direct control over the exploitation of that resource. As a result of moving in and establishing Eldorado Nuclear, the federal Government and the people of Canada had a direct control over this particular resource. The federal Government is responsible for this resource and its jurisdiction is clear. Parliament can hold the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources responsible and accountable for the exploitation and the research and development of uranium which is part of Eldorado's mandate.
The Government is going to privatize Eldorado. In doing so, where does it leave the taxpayers? I have already said that the Government is removing its direct control over this particular company. Furthermore, the taxpayers of Canada will keep the debt. The buyers get the gravy and we get the scraps.


Ms. McDonald:: Who gets the waste disposal problem?


John R. Rodriguez: We have a problem with that. We cannot give that to the private sector because it is too costly for them. Those great free enterprisers cannot be given that problem because it will cost money. Leave that for the people of Canada so that we, the taxpayers, pick up that cost.
The Member from Mississauga thinks that is pretty funny. We get to keep all the risks while the private sector gets all the gravy. We get the clean-up and the debt and the risks, while the private sector gets the profits. That is why we oppose Bill C-121.
Eldorado Nuclear Limited


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to address Bill C-121 and further motions on it, I must express my grave concerns as the environment critic for my Party. The previous Member talked about the money aspect of this deal and the total unfairness for the Canadian public since the privatization deal will mean profits to the private industry and responsibility and costs to be left to the public sector. As well, the cost of long term clean-up and waste disposal problems are left with the people of Canada. That is certainly unfair.
If privatization meant that companies would become more responsible in this industry and, looking at the long-term costs, would decide that it is not an industry in their best interest from the point of view of profits, I would be in favour of privatization. I would favour it if I thought it would result in environmental improvement, improved health for Canadians and more sanity in an area where we as a society have made mistakes in the past.
That does not exist with Bill C-121. It is a very misguided Bill which will not have the same results as we have seen happening in the United States where nuclear facilities are either being closed down or planned ones not opening because of the enormous costs and the fact that profits will evaporate in an industry which entails such danger. There is also the possibility of law suits, spills, melt-downs, and so on which would certainly discourage private facilities in the United States. However, we will not have any of those disincentives with Bill C-121. Instead of talking about privatization, we should really be talking about environment and health and whether this is a safe industry for Canadians in the first place. If we thought it was safe, and I think the answer to that is no, the question would be, would it produce as many jobs as using other energy sources? We would certainly find the answer to that is, no, that we would do much better in terms of job creation and safety of communities in Canada if we went a different route.
I do want to spend a little time in dealing with a problem within Eldorado Nuclear itself. All Members of Parliament will have received a letter from the Port Granby Monitoring Committee. I would like to read a couple of paragraphs into the record. They read:
We are writing this letter to you to enlist your help with a very serious problem. Eldorado Resources Limited, a Crown corporation, has been operating a nuclear dump right on the edge of Lake Ontario since 1952.
The Port Granby dump is leaky, ill conceived and a potential disaster, a fact which is not unrecognized by various experts and authorities who have examined this dump site.
Indeed, the danger of the situation has been recognized for a very long time. We are talking about Lake Ontario from which 2.5 million Canadians get their drinking water. We are not talking about some obscure place unconnected to any major waterways. There are no obscure places unconnected to major

April 18, 1988
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
waterways in Canada. Our water is connected by stream and underground river. The letter goes on to say:
In 1976, the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) issued a press release recognizing that the site is a problem and decided that the dump was to be decommissioned as of January 1977.
This has not been done.
In 1978, a panel of experts examined all aspects of a proposed refinery and permanent dump site in Port Granby and decided that neither the refinery nor a dump should be located in Port Granby.
This was decided for all kinds of good reasons. This is what the experts had been saying. But this dump site is still in use. The licence expires at the end of April this year and we do not know whether it will be renewed. We do not know what is going to happen. We do not even know what rights citizens will have to participate in the decision-making because the procedures under the Atomic Energy Control Board are very sloppy. Citizens do not have clear rights. They fare somewhat better before other regulatory bodies, but the AECB is one which has not remotely recognized the need for citizen participation. AECB has ordered plans for decommissioning, but this dump site is still in use and, possibly by the end of this month, it will be licensed for further ongoing use.
In the meantime a task force was established on the principles of establishing a site for dumping. The task force set out the kinds of criteria which meant that Port Granby would not be chosen. Indeed, it is hard to imagine what communities might be chosen because the task force set very strict criteria. Unfortunately, it did propose to let communities bid for the honour of being a nuclear dump site. I say "unfortunately" because perhaps there is no alternative. It considered that there might be communities which are so desperate for jobs that they would be prepared to take this on because there would be some income coming into the community.
The issue of the Port Granby dump site actually became a subject in the last election campaign. I have a letter dated August 21, 1984, and everyone in the House will remember the time in August of 1984 as being at the height of the election campaign. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the then Leader of the Opposition, an aspirant for the Office of Prime Minister, wrote to the Port Hope community saying:
Thank you for your letter outlining your concern about the proposed permanent disposal site for low-level radioactive waste in the vicinity of Wesleyville, Ontario.
He pointed out that this had been contested for a very long time and that the proposals by Eldorado Nuclear for establishing a permanent radioactive waste disposal dump either near Port Granby or Wesleyville were not acceptable to the people of those communities. He further stated:
All such waste should be removed from major population areas and kept well away from any major resource such as Lake Ontario.
Let us look to the fine print of this message. It is fine if one lives on Lake Ontario, and after all Toronto is on Lake Ontario and we would not want to have some kind of leakage which would affect a large population, but if one lives in a
smaller community, further away and not on Lake Ontario, on some smaller lake, then it is all right. They do not want to bump off millions of people with some kind of nuclear disaster, but what is wrong with hundreds or thousands? There is a notion that as long as it is moved away from major centres, perhaps it is all right. What that means is that people are dispensable. If they are in small enough numbers we can ignore them. They can be left out of consideration completely. I think it is highly immoral to think that if it is only a small number of people who will get leukemia, or a small number of women who will bear children with birth defects, that somehow that is acceptable. The Prime Minister pointed out:
While this would involve greater expense, the federal Government, as owner of the Eldorado Nuclear Limited, must accept at least partial responsibility and provide the leadership.
Well, what the Government is doing now is moving to privatization and simply ignoring the ongoing problem, and that is something the public will have to pay for with their lives and with their quality of life. The Prime Minister concluded:
I appreciate being advised of your concern about this matter which, I know, is shared by many Canadians. You can be assured that a Progressive Conservative Government will work most actively towards a safe, acceptable and permanent storage arrangement for all hazardous wastes.
This is beautiful language, "safe, acceptable and permanent storage arrangement for all hazardous wastes". But that does not exist. We do not have safe methods of disposal for low-level or high-level radioactive waste. The Standing Committee on the Environment and Forestry, in the case of high-level radioactive waste, recommended a moratorium on nuclear facilities until we have a safe and affordable method of disposal. Yet there are even more low-level radioactive wastes than high-level in Canada. Quantitatively, it is a greater problem even considering the disproportion in the effect it may have, because we have millions of tonnes of low-level radioactive waste. We have had mining for a long time. The material has not been dealt with adequately and this problem will continue.
I simply point out that we have an enormous environmental and health problem with which to deal. The high sounding words of the Prime Minister do not help us to solve the problem because they do not recognize that the problem exists and we do not have a solution. That is what we should be talking about.
The question of privatization has to be dealt with within the context of what we are talking about. We are not talking about a cookie factory. We are talking about an outfit that mines and processes uranium into nuclear products, either military or non-military. We are talking about a product for which we have as yet no safe means of disposal. We are talking about a product that requires safe disposal for thousands of years. The problem is serious. The Government is not dealing with the environmental consequences and, therefore, I urge the House to send this Bill back so we can really look at the environmental questions which are absolutely critical.
April 18, 1988


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Hawkes. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen: During the ringing of the bells:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In accordance with Standing Order 13(4), at the request of the Chief Government Whip, the recorded division is deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow.



EXCISE TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 14, 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, and on the amendment of Ms. McLaughlin:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-117, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Debate.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that common courtesy would require that, even though it is not within the rules to allow the third Party to have a say in whether or not a vote is deferred. I think it is common courtesy that the Government Whip or the Government House Leader
Excise Tax Act
should at least have the courtesy to inform the third Party and not have us discover on television that the bells have stopped ringing when we thought that there was an agreement to have a vote at 25 minutes to the hour. This is a ridiculous way to run this place. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is not going to be any more co-operation, that we are going to do whatever we can to disrupt this place.


Mr. Nickerson:: That is what you are doing already.


Iain Francis Angus: No. What we have been doing is debating an important piece of legislation. We finished debating it. We are now ready for a vote on a motion put forward by a member of the Government, a motion that would force the question to be now put. Instead of taking that vote at the time at which we thought we had an agreement, the Government has run roughshod over the House without any consultation whatever.
Quite frankly, we are not going to tolerate this kind of gamesmanship at all.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It has been a long-standing practice around this place, and I have been here for a while, that the business of the House is moved forward on the basis of consultation among the three Parties. That has been the practice and the process here.
Before us was Bill C-121 with respect to which there was to be a standing vote. We were told that there would be a 30-minute bell. Lo and behold, 10 minutes into waiting for the vote, the Government Whip and the Whip of the Official Opposition got together and cooked up this deal that they would postpone the vote until tomorrow. The only conclusion I can come to is that either the government Party or the Official Opposition would be embarrassed because of the fact that they do not have the Members around this place to make a favourable showing in a vote. That is the only conclusion that one can come to.
I must say that when the Government takes this type of action and ignores the practices of the House and does not follow the procedure of consultation, it is inviting trouble. I want to say that. The Government Whip is inviting trouble. In fact, if he does not recognize the need to consult, then he will have to accept the consequences that will flow from that action. In fact, we will do our thing. That is the danger of following this departure from practice which occurred today.
I can only say it is probable that the Liberals have not got their troops around and they do not want to be embarrassed by the vote and have only eight or ten people stand up. They have been embarrassed in the past by their own motions when they have not had enough Members. I think that they have got together and forced this vote to be postponed until tomorrow. This Party is not in agreement with postponing the vote until tomorrow.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of hearsay around here about an agreement between the Government

April 18, 1988
Excise Tax Act
Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip. I want to tell Hon. Members that there is no co-operation. I had the courtesy to go to the Opposition Whip and advise him that I was deferring this vote until six o'clock. It was nothing to do with numbers. We have 88 people here today. If the Hon. Member wants to check, then he can just wait until Question Period. The intent was to move on and to get into Orders of the Day and deal with the legislation that we have to get through in the short period of time between now and the end of June.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. I was told about five minutes ago by the Chief Government Whip that he wanted to defer the vote until tomorrow at 6 p.m.-tomorrow at 6 p.m.


John R. Rodriguez: They do not even know when.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is what I was told.


John R. Rodriguez: He said today at 6 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Whip confirms that. His agreement with me was that he could do that according to Standing Order 13(4)(a) which states:
When the Speaker has put the question on any debatable motion, except as provided pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than thirty minutes; provided that, while the Members are being called in, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may approach the Speaker to request that the division be deferred, in which case, the Speaker shall defer the said division until a specified time but, in any case, not later than six o'clock p.m. on the next sitting date thereafter, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes-
This Standing Order has been used before. It is a product of reform. We do not catch people by surprise. I am surprised that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt-


John R. Rodriguez: You did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was just as surprised as the Hon. Member. But to tell me that with the Chief Government Whip I was planning or cooking something in the kitchen, it does not make much sense.
The Government Whip has that authority. He can go to the Speaker and ask him to defer the vote. I did not ask him why he wanted to do that, I just said, "Thank you very much". That is the way that civilized people operate. I was surprised to hear the bells stop after only perhaps 10 minutes of ringing. Normally they would ring for half an hour before the Speaker would interrupt the bells. I was surprised because I was in a meeting at the time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: 1 think we have heard enough on this point of order. Whether something is polite or good manners is not a point of order. The rules are clear that the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip can ask for the vote to be deferred. The Speaker can
grant it. I declare that there is no point of order and debate shall resume.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it we are now on Bill C-l 17, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. This was introduced into the House on March 22 and combines a number of provisions announced in the 1987-88 budgets and a number of the tax reform items in the June and December Ways and Means resolutions which were put before the House. The most current item from the point of view of Canadians is the implementation just a week ago of the excise tax on gasoline amounting to 1 cent a litre. Although this occurred during the week of April 1, it certainly was no small April Fool's joke for Canadians.
It is interesting that in the Ways and Means resolution we have tax adjustments which provide for the reduction of tariffs of some $460 million in the first full calendar year under the trade agreement between Canada and the United States. In those same Budget Papers there is provision for a reduction in tariffs of some $55 million in the first three months of 1989. This Ways and Means resolution taxpaper suggests that the increase in revenues generated by the Government of Canada from the excise tax provision included in Bill C-l 17 will raise, I believe, some $300 million in the second year and some $275 million in the first year. Those figures indicate some of the problems of the free trade agreement. The Government would have us believe that the equivalent of 1 cent a litre will give us massive new access to the United States market. It is hard to believe that the equivalent of tariffs of that amount will give us that massive new access. In fact, it is unbelievable.
When we look at the tariffs under the trade deal we see that 80 per cent of everything that goes into the United States goes in tax-free or tariff-free already. The tax tariffs involve only 5 per cent, on the balance of 15 per cent on which item there are tariffs. We see a trade-off there of the Government imposing an excise tax of 1 cent a litre to pay for the loss of the tariffs from the free trade deal.
These revenues raised under the Excise Tax Act through Bill C-l 17 are some of the tools used by the Government to create a smoke and mirrors illusion that the deficit has been reduced. If so, the deficit has been decreased at the expense of the average Canadian's wallet.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member deserves to have an audience. I call for a quorum count.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I have now had time to count the Members in the House and there is a quorum. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has the floor.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) getting a more adequate audience for my comments regarding Bill C-l7, which is not one of the Government's finest achievements.

April 18, 1988

The Government's proposition that it will reduce the deficit level is really hard to believe. If we look at the list of taxation items which the Government has imposed on Canadians since 1984, it is devastating. It reads like one of the largest taxation grabs in our history. I believe that in the first two and a half years it involved some $22 billion. Most Canadians hardly notice these things because they are so constant. The increase we had last week in gasoline tax will raise $300 million.
The tax levied on January 1 will raise hundreds of millions of dollars. The sales tax, without getting into the new sales tax planned by the Minister, which will apply to everything from getting your car fixed to getting your hair cut, has raised hundreds of millions and billions of dollars because the Government has increased the sales tax by some 25 per cent from 9 per cent to 12 per cent in its first two and a half years in office. To look over the list of taxes, let alone the excise tax on gasoline, is a frightening prospect for Canadians. People often come to me and ask, "What are you guys doing down there? Every time I have been able, through my union, to get an increase in my pay of 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent over the last three or four years, I don't have any more take-home pay". That is the problem of the Government having deindexed the income tax schedules. The Government has imposed every conceivable kind of tax on Canadians.
This Bill provides for some taxes in 1987 and 1988. Let us look at the list of taxes from 1984 to 1988. The first sales tax of 1 per cent was imposed in the fall of 1984, which increased taxes for Canadians by $1 billion. The second one was imposed via the sales tax in 1986, which increased the sales tax by another $1 billion. The third increase of 1 per cent in sales tax in 1986 raised another billion dollars.
Looking at the increases in gasoline tax, the first increase of 2 cents a litre was imposed in 1985, and it raised $930 million. The second increase of one cent per litre on gas occurred in 1987 and raised $450 million. The third increase of one cent per litre on gas in 1987 raised $450 million. Those are just excise taxes and sales taxes which have been imposed since the Government came to power.
The equalization of the sales tax on unleaded versus leaded gasoline in 1987 raised another $30 million. The extension of the sales tax to candy, soft drinks and pet foods in 1985 raised $400 million. Just think, we are even imposing taxes on children's confections and soft drinks and on pet food. There was then an extension of the sales tax to snack food in 1987, raising $60 million.
The first increase on cigarettes and tobacco taxes in 1985 raised $320 million. That was in direct defiance of the promises of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) who made a solid, binding commitment that there would be no new taxes on cigarettes and tobacco because of the adverse impact they would have on the tobacco farmers of southwestern Ontario. There was then a deliberate, planned, calculated increase
Excise Tax Act
designed to hurt those hard-pressed tobacco farmers of southwestern Ontario.
As if that were not enough, there was another increase of taxes on tobacco and alcohol in 1986, raising $150 million. There was a third increase of 4 per cent on tobacco taxes in 1987, increasing taxes by some $70 million.
The elimination of the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan occurred in 1985 at a time when there was a shortage of affordable housing in many areas of southern Ontario. The Government took away that program, not only increasing taxes by $105 million but making things impossible for young couples who were just starting out and had been saving to be able to buy a home. That ability was snatched away from them by a Government hell-bent on raising taxes but not actually reducing the deficit by any appreciable amount.
The deindexation of the taxation system in 1986 increased taxes by $635 million. The elimination of the federal tax reduction in 1986 had the impact of increasing taxes by $650 million. The changes to the marital exemptions in 1986 imposed an additional $20 million in taxes.
The general 3 per cent surtax change which occurred in 1986 is costing Canada a whopping $1.2 billion, the largest single tax increase since the Government came to power. The temporary 5 per cent and 10 per cent surtaxes of 1986 raised $500 million, creating a greater burden of taxes on Canadians.
An increase in the airport transportation tax in 1987 has required travellers to pay an extra $45 million. The 10 per cent tax on long-distance phone calls and cable services effective January 1 is imposing some $945 million in taxes on Canadians. That particular tax measure is seen by many Canadians, and particularly those who live in rural areas, as being a tax on rural Canada and on the regions. It is also a tax on older people because they are often the ones who make long-distance calls to their children and their grandchildren who live across Canada.
We know that there already is a very high taxation rate on long-distance calls, and this new tax only makes it worse. Some small businessmen from my constituency find that this raises a major new cost for them, an additional cost of up to $100 per month. This is a tax which they cannot afford to pay.
We know that long-distance charges already carry a larger burden of the cost of phone services of almost $1 billion because more charges are put on long-distance calls than on monthly charges for individual telephones. The rate structure of the CRTC has, over the years, put the additional cost on long-distance charges rather than on the hand-sets in homes.
The last item on the list I have here of tax increases the Government has implemented in the last three and a half devastating years of tax increases is the taxation on paint, wallpaper, toys and handicrafts. The Government has taxed everything in sight before the election, even to the point of taxing the wallpaper and paint used in our homes and our toys and handicrafts. This increase amounts to $370 million.
April 18, 1988

Excise Tax Act
This is a very harsh and destructive tale of tax increases, some of which are to be implemented by Bill C-117. We see this as being an ongoing approach. The Government just dealt with the divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear, and through that we see the Government reaching out to get its hands on another $4 million, $5 million or $6 million which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will use if and when the deal goes through to the private sector to try to make the Budget look good. At the same time as the debt will be left with the federal Government, the available cash from that deal will go into the Government's current Budget.
Of course, the Minister of Finance did the same thing with Teleglobe Canada. That sale of some $500 million or $600 million was used last year in an attempt to get the budget deficit for the year below $30 billion. That comes on top of the hit list of at least $22 billion in tax increases for the average Canadian. Everything from the indexation of income tax rolls to toys, handicrafts, pet foods and non-prescription drugs has come under the hammer of this Minister of Finance in his quest for more taxes.
I spoke of the deficit of $29.3 billion that the Government has sustained in its last Budget. The Government was able to get the deficit down below the magical figure of the Minister of Finance through the sale of Teleglobe and other Crown corporations. I suppose that Air Canada will be the next item which will be used to generate revenues while leaving the national debt untouched and making the deficit for the current year's financing drop below that figure of $30 billion.
It bears repeating that one of the ways this illusion was created was through the use of accounting tricks such as acceleration of tax remittances. Employers who deduct income tax, unemployment insurance premiums and Canada Pension Plan contributions from their employees have been required to do it earlier and with greater frequency since 1987. Employers had been remitting once a month, but in January of that year they had to start remitting twice a month. It is this kind of trickery that the Government used to try to get the deficit below the $30 billion mark. That does not really fool Canadians. It just shows how desperate the Government is to look good even though the facts say otherwise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Questions or comments?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tb comment on the speech given by the Hon. Member on Bill C-117 which the Government suddenly sprung on the House. The uncertainty that characterizes the Government is never more clear than in the planning of House business.
The Hon. Member represents a riding at the other end of Lake Superior and has done so for a good many years now as a member of the Liberal caucus. I would like to have him comment on some of the particular consequences the tax
measures of the Conservative Government have for our constituents in northern Ontario. I am thinking particularly of the several increases in the tax on gasoline, which he said something about. I would also like him to refer to the impact of the 10 per cent telecommunications tax which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) so kindly gave Canadians who have to use the telephone to keep in touch and do business. The combination of those two taxes could be very serious indeed for our constituents in northern Ontario.
We can easily appreciate that persons in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, where the Minister of Finance has his own political base, are able to make all kinds of business calls without running into the kinds of charges that constituents in my riding and, I expect, in his, face. Our constituents who do business with people in the large cities have to pay long-distances charges. To have this tax laid on top is just another burden. I recognize that in the resource industries we sometimes have pretty good wage rates, but in comparison with what one can do in Metropolitan Toronto I would not think our constituents have much to boast about on the income side. To have these taxes loaded on them is really a very heavy burden.
The Hon. Member represents a riding where the Liberal Party has had strength for a long time. We NDP and the Liberals will be wrestling in northern Ontario again to see how many seats we can win there. It is going to be a pleasure to see the Conservatives bite the dust in some of those ridings which they happened to win in 1984 or a little earlier for just the kinds of reasons we see in this Bill. It spares the people in the metropolitan areas, who can make business calls without longdistance charges or who can ride the subway to work, those expenses that our constituents face in Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Algoma, and the other northern Ontario ridings.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I could not have put it better myself. The Hon. Member has raised the inequity of the Government's fiscal policy as it relates to the regions.
If we look at the impact of the several Budgets the Minister of Finance has brought in, we find that he has imposed at least a four cent a litre increase in the tax on gasoline. That is almost 20 cents a gallon. We recall that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), when he was Minister of Finance and brought in his Budget in 1979, went down the drain by imposing an 18 cent a gallon tax on gasoline. Clearly 20 cents a gallon will be enough to break the Government's back in the next election, certainly in regions like northern Ontario.
This is not only a regressive tax for northern Ontario, it is regressive for every low-income person in this country. The person earning $100,000 a year probably lives in a big urban centre anyway and can certainly afford that 20 cents a gallon much easier than the low-income person who maybe has to drive 10 or 15 miles a day to work because he lives in a rural area. He lives there because he cannot afford a home in the urban centre. That of course is just doubled and tripled for
April 18, 1988

everyone living in areas like northern Ontario, northern Quebec, the Prairies and other regions.
This gas tax is extremely regressive and is part of the overall scheme of the Government to get away from the graduated income tax. It is always interesting to hear the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) saying that with tax reform we are going to take 850,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. What they do not say is that they have put over a million people on the tax rolls by deindexing income tax rates, and are taking millions of dollars away from them when they buy their gas. The sales tax has been increased by 25 per cent as well. That applies to non-prescription drugs, confectionery products, even pet foods. All this will impact much more heavily on low-income Canadians.
The Hon. Member mentioned the telecommunications tax. We already pay extremely high long-distance charges. Over the years the CRTC skewed the rate structure for Bell Canada and other telephone companies so that the basic service charge is relatively low and long-distance charges are high. It is skewed by about $1 billion. What do we find out on January 1? It is skewed by another $1 billion. This is not something that built up over a period of time, it went boom in last year's Budget.
That impacts especially on small businesses. I am familiar with one small business in Little Current, Ontario, a marina. They wrote to me and said they just cannot afford this. It is an extra tax of almost $100 a month on the operation of the business. They are in a rural area far away from the sources of supply. As the Hon. Member indicated, the impact is very adverse for the regions of our country like northern Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The time for comments and questions has now ended.
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.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has totally bungled the issues of the St. Pierre and Miquelon boundary and the French fishing quotas. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has failed to take these matters seriously. In a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
(Mr. Siddon) dated August 29, 1986, the Prime Minister wrote:
I agree that in dealing with this sensitive issue we must weigh, on the one
hand, the interests of Canadian fishermen and fishing communities and, on the
other hand, our bilateral relations with France.
This policy was fundamentally wrong. The interests of our fishermen should have been the foremost priority. It is no wonder that the Atlantic fishing industry strongly condemned the agreement reached in January, 1987.
What is the state of our bilateral relations with France now? In response to the arrest of a boat apprehended for illegally fishing in our waters, the French Government has recalled its Ambassador. Canadian travellers are now being harassed by the French at border points. I hope that now, finally, the federal Government and the Prime Minister will give this matter the serious attention it deserves.



NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, during this National Citizenship Week all Canadians should reflect on one of the most fundamental aspects of our citizenship, namely, the rich multicultural diversity of our society. Citizenship in Canada means acceptance of difference, tolerance of difference, and celebration of the richness that this diversity has brought to our nation.
I believe that the positive approach to preserving our linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the things that sets us apart among nations. It is worth preserving. It is an integral part of our concept of citizenship. By living together and working together in harmony we can provide an example for all people and enrich our own lives as well.
Citizenship Week provides a real opportunity for all of us to reflect on how much we have benefited from our multicultural-ism and the enormous contribution that Canadians of all ethnic and religious backgrounds have made to the building of this great country.



COPYRIGHT ACT


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, this morning representatives of the Creators and Artists of Canada, a coalition of over 20 artistic and creative groups, came to Parliament Hill to pressure the Liberal Senate finally to pass Bill C-60, the amendments to the Copyright Act.

April 18, 1988
Among those present were Dan Hill, Pierre Berton, Pat Durr, Timothy Findlay, Paul Siren and others.
The Liberal Senate is delaying and threatening to block this Bill which received all-Party support in this House. The artistic community has waited 64 years for copyright reform. These are the actions of a Liberal Senate which has turned a blind eye to the aspirations of Canadian artists and creators.

Bill C-60 recognizes that artists must have a certain copyright income. The Senate knows that by acting this way, it is calling into question years of effort for copyright reform.

If the Liberals in the Senate sabotage this Bill the artistic community will hold the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Liberal Party of Canada responsible. The Senators should realize that Canadian artists deserve a fair deal.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, ironically the booming economy of Metropolitan Toronto has created a strange contradiction. Federal funding for a program aimed at making productive citizens out of hard-core unemployed youth is being threatened by the low Metro unemployment rate.
The Metro Youth Job Corps was initiated to help young people 16 to 24 years of age who are unable to get or keep a job because of their poor attendance or punctuality, or attitude toward their work, their supervisors, or their co-workers.
Unfortunately, the lower the unemployment rate the less federal funding there is available to train these young people to find and hold jobs. The kinds of young persons assisted by the Job Corps program will always be a problem for themselves and for society unless we give them a helping hand. I hope the Government will re-examine its funding criteria for this program.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, since last week, I have received many letters and comments from constituents deploring our attitude to the Turks' problem. I myself was very disappointed to hear the new Minister
responsible for this issue say that she could do nothing for them when we all know in this House that she has the authority to intervene without breaking the law.
This attitude led me to re-evaluate our work as parliamentarians of whatever party on this issue and several others. Unfortunately, we find that in our discussions and our decisions, political or partisan considerations too often override the public interest, that narrow-minded politics outweigh ethics, etc. For the Turks and the 40,000 people awaiting a reply, I hope that we will be able to hear the suggestions of those who can act, make the necessary corrections and amendments to the Immigration Act quickly and without political fanaticism and thus restore our image with our fellow citizens. Especially on issues where humanitarian considerations come first, we must set aside partisanship and together try to find a solution to the problem at hand.



NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WEEK


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, National Citizenship Week, which we are celebrating this year from April 17 to April 23, is an important occasion for all Canadians. It is particularly important for our young people.
The concept of citizenship represents an ideal of how we see ourselves as a society. It is important that we pass on from generation to generation an understanding of what citizenship means, the benefits it bestows and the duties that good citizenship entails.
This week, in classrooms all across Canada, tens of thousands of young Canadians will be taking part in many projects designed to build that understanding. Teaching our young people about Canada and about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is one of the best investments we can make in the future of this nation.



LUMBER EXPORTS-EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES AND EXCHANGE RATE OF DOLLAR

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the actions or, should I say, inactions of the Government, are once again laying the grounds for further hardship for Canadian lumber producers and their workers who depend on the U.S. market.
April 18, 1988

The holding of Canadian interest rates at current high levels and the rising value of the Canadian dollar are jeopardizing the competitiveness of not only our lumber exports but all our exports.
A growing number of Canadians are convinced that the maintenance of high interest rates in Canada, coupled with the rising value of the Canadian dollar, constitute a deliberate government policy to appease U.S. interests and secure U.S. support for the trade agreement to which the Government has tied its political future.
I say again: whose side is the Government on? A cut in interest rates would not only assist the average consumer but would go a long way to safeguarding jobs in our resource industries.
The NDP once again calls upon the Government to cut interest rates by one per cent to two per cent. But is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) listening?



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, banks defend increased service charges because they pay higher interest rates on accounts. However, when asked for facts, that often turns out to be a myth.
For example, one Canadian has written to me about his opening a small account and after one month finding that the service charges were three times the amount received in interest. To make it worse, there had been no cheques, no withdrawals, no deposits and, as far as he could see, no service.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will no doubt remember statements by the former Minister of Transport who said in the House that Mr. Ramsey Withers had not been involved with the Air Canada airbus transaction.
I have here a letter, dated December 22, 1987, signed by Mr. Ramsey Withers. It states:
Thank you for your letter of December 7, 1987, in which you expressed concern over Air Canada's reported fleet plans and offered to assist in assessing these plans.
In today's highly competitive airline environment I do not feel at liberty to disclose Air Canada's future plans, but I am able to say that the article upon which your concerns are based was inaccurate in some significant areas.
Your very extensive experience and knowledge in the field of airline fleet
planning are well recognized in the industry . ..
Clearly there is contradiction here between statements by the Minister and the facts.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the New Democratic Party's position on defence in the light of recent changes towards an irrealistic policy.
As it stands today, the NDP policy calls for a withdrawal of our Canadian troops stationed in Europe, the cancellation of the NORAD agreement and pulling out NATO.
Our withdrawal from NATO will alienate our allies, not to mention the fact that we would be barred from the negotiation table which recently made it possible to conclude the FNI agreement.
Any change to NORAD would also involve huge expenditures for Canadians. For example, under the existing agreement our contribution amounts to only 12 per cent of the $7 billion being spent to modernize it. To that we can add annual operating costs of more than $100 million.
In short, Mr. Speaker, if Canada were to put an end to these alliances, as advocated by the NDP, it will cost every taxpayer more to have a less effective defence system in this country.



DISARMAMENT


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this morning my Leader and I had the great honour of speaking with a woman of uncommon determination, eloquence and conviction, Dr. Helen Caldicott. The driving force behind the Nobel Prize winning Physicians for Social Responsibility and the founder of Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament, Dr. Caldicott has devoted herself to preventing what she has aptly described as the "final epidemic", a nuclear holocaust.
Travelling the world simply with a suitcase and a vision, Dr. Caldicott has mobilized hundreds of thousands of men and women in her great crusade to end the nuclear arms race. Her message is one that we and millions of Canadians share, that national and international security can only be achieved

April 18, 1988
through disarmament and peace, that we can make Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, that we can end the militarization of the Canadian economy and that we can reverse Canada's increasing complicity in the world-wide trade in arms.
I urge Canadians to meet Dr. Caldicott as she continues her Canada-wide tour this week.



GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO REDUCE INTERNATIONAL OBSTACLES

Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend an important meeting was held in beautiful British Columbia, bringing together representatives for 70 per cent of the world's international trade. The focus of discussion was barriers to trade and how to reduce them.
Unlike the opposition Parties in this house which state a desire to tear up current trade agreements, the federal Government continues to seek new and better ways of reducing these obstacles to trade.
Canada is a trading nation. Our national economic health is directly dependent on healthy foreign markets for our goods and services. The opposition Parties continue to demonstrate a total lack of understanding that our sovereignty, our culture and, indeed, our national social programs are only sustained by a strong healthy economy.
This Government believes in negotiation, consultation, conciliation, and discussion. We support GATT. We continue to initiate important new measures in GATT. Unlike the opposition Parties that want to ignore or reject GATT when an unfavourable decision for Canada is reached, we believe that the mandate and authority of GATT must be strengthened, as must our access to that vital U.S. market to the south. The Canadian public is developing this understanding. What a pity that the thinking of the Opposition is still mired in the 19th century.



MULTICULTURALISM


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the new Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) gave Canadians a fine demonstration of Cabinet solidarity over the weekend. The Minister attended a Baisakh celebration in Toronto planned by various Sikh organizations,
including those whose meetings the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) asked Canadian Premiers and other politicians by letter earlier this year to boycott. When the Minister was asked to explain why she attended the meeting in spite of her senior colleague's proscription, she had "no comment" on the contradiction.
I support the Minister's decision to attend the Basakhi celebration and to assure the Sikhs gathered there that the Government's aim is to achieve a better understanding with them. But surely it is time the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognized his mistake and recalled or renounced the advice he handed out so freely. Canadian politicians generally know their communities and can be trusted not to support activities that are illegal or destructive of other states. Let us have a proper regard by our Government for organizations in our communities which are working to advance human rights and the good of their own community.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend we once again witnessed a new interpretation of the New Democratic Party position on defence as a result of its latest policy or, should I say, politics conference. In an attempt to obfuscate an already unintelligible policy on NATO and NORAD, the "No Defence Party" or NDP has taken a major step back from its long-standing position to withdraw from NATO.
This new position is an incredible thing. It threatens to alienate our allies because it calls for an immediate withdrawal of our troops in Germany thereby affecting the balance of power in Europe. It threatens to alienate the NDP's core supporters because it has consistently insisted on an immediate withdrawal from NATO and cancellation of the NORAD agreement.
Finally, it threatens to alienate all Canadians from the New Democratic Party because of what can only be perceived as an immature, irresponsible, and downright reprehensible act.
The Progressive Conservative Party has the only clear position on defence. Ours is the only Government willing to back up that position with realistic commitments. Finally, on the subject of platforms and positions, I would simply like to ask who is the spokesman on this subject. Is it Derek Blackburn, the NDP defence critic? Is it Bob White and the Seven Dwarfs, the NDP's leader in waiting? Or is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who so adamantly opposes this new position?
April 18, 1988



PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH IN CHURCHES


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, next Sunday at the Andre Laurendeau CEGEP in the beautiful riding of La Salle, a biennial event will take place that is extremely important, not just to the Montreal area but internationally. I am referring to the general meeting concerning the work of Father Armand Gagne, who is responsible for the propagation of the faith in the churches that heroically hold the torch of Christianity in countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore have the pleasure and the privilege to invite Members of this House to pay a well-deserved tribute to one hundred volunteers and about 3,000 general participants who will ensure that adequate funds are sent to Rome, to this Trinitarian Father from Ville-Emard, whose mission is to tell people that democracy still exists in our troubled world and to send this message to a civilization deprived of the most elementary freedoms, including the free expression of one's religious convictions.



THE LATE MRS. PHYLLIS ROSS

Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would want me to interrupt proceedings briefly to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government, and I am sure all Members of the House, I wish to extend my sincere condolences to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on the passing of his mother, Mrs. Phyllis Ross. Our prayers are with her and all members of the family.
Mrs. Ross led a full and vigorous life, a life of service to her country, to the Province of British Columbia, and to her family. She inspired more of the same with her son and her daughter, Brenda Norris.
On behalf of us all, Mr. Speaker, allow me to extend our deepest sympathies to the right hon. gentleman at this time.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, as you can understand, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is not in the House today. On his behalf I am very pleased to receive the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I will convey those words to the Leader of the Opposition.
Oral Questions
I also wish to say on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues that we want to express our deepest sympathy to the Leader of the Opposition and to his sister Brenda Norris on the loss of their mother. She was a very distinguished woman, an example well before her time of what women can accomplish in our society and how they can serve the entire country.
She became in her time the most senior woman in the Canadian Public Service. She went on to become the first woman chancellor of a university in the British Commonwealth. She accomplished this by virtue of the strength of her mind and her personality, being an example of a person standing alone, and raising a family alone, in a way that inspired her children with her example of service and intelligence.
The Bible, in the Book of Proverbs, speaks of a woman of valour. Truly, the mother of the Leader of the Opposition exemplified that concept to the utmost. Therefore, on my own behalf and on behalf of all of the colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition, we wish to extend to him and to his family our deepest sympathy on his tragic loss.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the House Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gray) in extending to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) the deepest sympathy of the members of the New Democratic Party on the passing of his mother earlier today.
As has been noted, Mrs. Ross was an outstanding Canadian. In addition to having a distinguished son she established very much a reputation in her own right many years ago in this city as one of the forerunners, if I can put it this way, in the women's movement, achieving outstanding success in the Public Service of Canada. She also made a distinguished contribution to the Province of British Columbia.
We extend to the Leader of the Opposition our heartfelt sympathy on the passing of this woman who played such an important role in his life and, of course, extend those sympathies to his sister Brenda.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In good part as a result of the fisheries dispute, we have seen an unprecedented deterioration of the relationship between Canada and France over the weekend leading to the recall of the French Ambassador.

April 18, 1988
Oral Questions
Canadians have been dismayed to see some of their fellow citizens harassed at French airports, with some of them having their passports confiscated. We understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has filed a protest with the French. However, some of the people who are now visiting France, or who are planning to do so shortly, would like to know more.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he can provide an update report as to the situation at entry points to France. Can Canadians expect to be able to leave or enter France in a civilized manner without being harassed, or has the Government come to think that it will have to issue a travel advisory?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this incident of course arises directly from a long-standing negotiation regarding fisheries matters between Canada and France. This most recent and isolated episode was created by a decision by some French citizens from St. Pierre and Miquelon to take actions which challenged the law of Canada. When they challenge the law of Canada they are subject to the penalties of the law of Canada. That is what occurred in this case.
There was also an action authorized in France that involved delays imposed upon Canadians who were visiting in France. I protested those delays. We have been advised today that senior authorities in France have ordered that those delays be stopped.


CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, Canada no longer has an Ambassador to France and France has recalled its Ambassador. The sad fact is that the two countries are not able to talk to each other in a normal fashion through Ambassadors, all of this at a time when there are differences between the two countries that the Government has not resolved and which have to be resolved quickly.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to the House and to the country how the Government could let the relationship between Canada and France fall to this all-time low. What does the Government intend to do to normalize relations between our two countries? What has former Ambassador, Lucien Bouchard, been doing in Paris over the last three years?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not to take the whole day, among the things that former Ambassador Lucien Bouchard had been doing in Paris was to be very instrumental in achieving an agreement on the basis for establishing the international conference of la francophonie, an accomplishment which was impossible for years when the Government of this country was led by a Liberal Party of which the Hon. Member was a participant and supporter.
Among other matters that Mr. Bouchard was able to move forward was a quite dramatic improvement in the relations, whether in economic exchanges, science and technology, or in others.
In a third area it was possible for us, during the time that Ambassador Bouchard represented Canada in France, to begin to make progress on a very serious fisheries dispute that had been caused in part by a bad decision taken by a former Liberal Government with regard to the fisheries questions. Those are some of the things that have been done by Mr. Bouchard, since his name has been raised.
The Hon. Member is wrong on a couple of other points. He suggests that there is not full diplomatic interchange between Canada and France. That is false. There is that type of interchange between our two countries.
Third, there is scheduled, as there has been for some time, a meeting for Thursday of this week at which the negotiators of the two countries will come together again to see if we can make further progress toward resolving the fisheries dispute by resolution. We are hopeful that we might find some progress in that regard.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should say that our relations with France are very important to us as they are to France. We do not intend to allow those important relations to be diverted by an episode of a voyage by a few people from St. Pierre and Miquelon who were almost certainly seeking political profile.


NEGOTIATION OF MARKETS WITH FRANCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State may be proud of Mr. Bouchard's achievements as our ambassador and of our relations with France, but the fact is, our relations have never been this tense. We don't even have a Canadian ambassador in Paris, and now France has recalled its own ambassador for consultation.
Canadians are being harassed at French airports. Passports have been confiscated, and Canadians certainly have every right to wonder what former ambassador Lucien Bouchard has been doing with his time in France during the last three years. Meanwhile, it's business as usual between Canada and France.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State or the Deputy Prime Minister whether they do not think the time has come to reconsider the suitability of continuing negotiations with France on major purchase contracts, including the purchase of a fleet of Airbus aircraft and those silly nuclear submarines. Is it going to be business as usual for the Government?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): There are two or three points I would like to make, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Hon. Member certainly has a short memory, if he thinks relations between France and
April 18, 1988

Canada have reached a new low. I remember the statements made by General de Gaulle, and I remember the problems that arose between Canada and France. By contrast, the present situation is just a straightforward disagreement about a matter that is important to both countries. The way to resolve this disagreement is to continue negotiations on the fishing zone, and the next meeting has been set for Thursday. Canada intends to have its negotiators at the meeting to protect Canadian interests in the fishing zone. And as a Government that wishes to do business with everyone, we intend to continue to seek out opportunities for investment and projects involving Canada and France. Relations between our two countries have improved a great deal since the Mulroney Government came to power. We would like the situation to continue. We want to continue to take advantage of the possibility such a situation creates for this country.


ARREST OF FRENCH NATIONALS-SUNDAY COURT HEARING
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday after being taunted for over 12 hours the Government finally took a long overdue step, however symbolic, and arrested those persons who were aboard a vessel owned by the Government of France, for violating Canadian fishing regulations.
By what precedent did the Government of Canada agree to have a court hearing on Sunday, when it was scheduled for Monday, to allow for the early release of those people who had broken Canadian law, and to allow the Royal Bank of Canada to bail them out to the tune of over half a million dollars? By whose suggestion did the court sit on Sunday?

Sunday night wasn't-was God the Government of Canada? [English]


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's French has brought me to my feet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Fet me say that when the Hon. Member asks at whose urging did the court meet on Sunday, quite obviously the defendants are represented by legal counsel. Any experienced legal counsel experienced in the criminal law knows that it is not novel to arrange a bail hearing on a Saturday or a Sunday. Although it is not usual, it is certainly not novel. I think the Hon. Member will have to contact those legal representatives of the defendants to discover just how they made this arrangement.
But, Mr. Speaker, after all, there has not been any trial yet and everybody is entitled to bail as anyone should know who sits in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that Canada is the country that is in a position of strength in this dispute? Can he guarantee Canadians that in the negotiations that are coming up on Thursday, the Canadian Government will go no further than a 12-mile zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon, and that the Government of France and the French metropolitan fleet from France will be treated the same way as anyone else who breaks Canadian law in Canadian waters? Can he guarantee that there will be no special Sunday soirees in court, let alone any special Sunday banking privileges?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the negotiations that will be proceeding again next Thursday, these are not negotiations to deal with the territorial boundary between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada. Those are matters that we have been trying now for several years to get before an international tribunal so that an international tribunal could decide that issue.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that Canada takes the position that France should certainly not have any territorial boundaries around St. Pierre and Miquelon that exceed 12 miles, if indeed it should even be 12 miles, and not something like the 200-mile economic zone it is claiming. However, that question is not now up for negotiation. We are trying to persuade France to agree with us to send that matter to an international tribunal for decision.
With respect to the French metropolitan fleet, I believe the events of the last several days have shown what action the Government takes without fanfare, without histrionics, and without hysteria, when foreign fleets or vessels fish in Canadian waters without a permit.


OPPORTUNITY TO APPOINT LUCIEN BOUCHARD TO CABINET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister decided to appoint Mr. Bouchard to Cabinet at the very moment of the most serious conflict between our two countries. Before this decision, did the Prime Minister discuss it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and does the Minister agree with this decision?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult to know where to draw the line between ministerial and other conversations. But 1 can tell the leader of the New Democratic Party that I was one of Lucien Bouchard's present colleagues who suggested that he seek a position as a Minister in our government. I have great respect for his abilities and his vision of Canada. I am sure that he will continue to be an effective Minister in our Government. Of course, I was involved in the discussions that

April 18, 1988
Oral Questions
resulted in Mr. Bouchard's appointment to Cabinet. I think that it is important to know that the decision made by some French citizens from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon came after Mr. Bouchard's appointment to Cabinet. Our diplomatic relations with France are as strong as before. Mr. Bouchard's successor as Ambassador to France will be appointed shortly.


TIMING OF AMBASSADOR'S APPOINTMENT AS MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the question, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Bouchard's personal competence. I certainly have no question about that or his past performance as Ambassador to France. The question is directly pertinent to the competence of the Government.
Since this crisis did not just begin before the weekend and has been ongoing for a number of weeks, was it not very irresponsible of the Prime Minister to take our Ambassador out of France and have him selected to go into a Cabinet, to run in a by-election that has not been called, in a part of Quebec that has not yet been selected, during the period of the most serious crisis in modern history between France and Canada? Was the timing not entirely wrong? That is the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I learned over the weekend that the New Democratic Party has a very peculiar view of Canada's defence requirements and how we deal with them, but I did not know that they were also so confused about diplomatic practice. The Hon. Member is talking about a fisheries dispute that has been going on for 18 months, a fisheries dispute that we want to have resolved, a fisheries dispute in which negotiations are being carried forward by a very distinguished negotiator, Mr. Yves Fortier.
It is always the case that, when a diplomat leaves a post that is an important post in its relations with Canada, some files continue to be open. The Hon. Member laughs. He laughs, betraying his ignorance of the way diplomatic practices proceed.
The point I am making is that we cannot expect every Ambassador in the real world to stay in place until every important file which is current between another country and Canada is completed. That would be an absurdity. That would be a diplomatic practice as absurd as it would be to have a defence policy that said: "Well, we're going to pull out of NATO but we might not do it now. We just want you to know that for the first four years we might be there you couldn't trust us with a single secret, you couldn't trust us with a single plan of common action".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has exceeded his capacity to go to the lowest level of argumentation. I did not think he could do it, but he did it today.
Now would the Minister deal with the issue? Since the Minister, earlier in Question Period, correctly acknowledged that the relationship between our two countries is important and is at a very low level, and since no one in his right mind would ever contend that there are not some files open that continue when Ambassadors are changed, the question is surely still pertinent, and would he answer it? Is it appropriate for a Government to take an Ambassador who is doing a good job out of his job while an ongoing crisis is under way in order to run in a by-election that has not even been called? That is the issue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let us have a little honesty here.


John Edward Broadbent: Good idea.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I can attribute the NATO policy to naivete and the NDP will have to answer for its naivete on a policy that says: "Sometime we are going to pull out of NATO and say goodbye to Europe, goodbye to our obligations; we are going to hunker down here in Canada". That is simple naivete and they will have to answer for that kind of position.
Let us come back now to the question of honesty and let us look at the sequence of events. There was a discussion about the signing of an arrangement in January of a year ago that might have brought some resolution to the fisheries disputes. It turned out that that did not succeed, has not yet succeeded. Negotiations are continuing. Those negotiations have been continuing in an atmosphere of quite remarkable calm. The next meeting had been established-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: No, no, they were proceeding in an atmosphere of quite remarkable calm. The next meeting had been established for Thursday of this week. During that period of remarkable calm in those relations on this issue, the Government of Canada decided to bring back to Canada our Ambassador, Lucien Bouchard, and to assign him to responsibilities in the Cabinet of Canada.
After that happened, an episode began, generated by 14 or 15 citizens of St. Pierre and Miquelon, occurring after the return to Canada of Mr. Bouchard, an episode, by the way, that has now by and large been resolved by the steady and firm response of the Government of Canada. Those are the honest facts that I believe are understood by the great majority of Canadians.
April 18, 1988


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM MEXICO
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Mexico led by Senator Humberto Hernandez Haddad.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and pertains to the Air Canada airbus government transaction. On March 14, 1988, the Member of Parliament for St. John's West, when he was Minister of Transport and Ramsey Withers' boss, said about Mr. Withers' involvement in the Air Canada airbus purchase: "He has had no connection with this matter".
Given that statement, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House the existence of a letter which I have in hand signed by Mr. Withers, dated December 22, 1987, which says:
-I do not feel at liberty to disclose Air Canada's future plans, but I am able to say that the article upon which your concerns are based was inaccurate in some significant areas.
In other words, why was he answering letters about a topic in which he was not involved?


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the letter about, you turkey?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to repeat what my predecessor said on March 14, 1988 about Mr. Withers ...

-he is a man of complete integrity, honour, faithful service, and rectitude. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think that as usual, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did not understand that Mr. Withers was then still Deputy Minister of Transport and that he just answered a letter from someone by telling that person that the Department of Transport did not intend to retain his services. That is all. And if the Hon. Member were honest enough, I think he would have read the whole letter, which simply says:
Oral Questions

-I do not feel at liberty to disclose Air Canada's future plans, but I am able to say that the article upon which your concerns are based was inaccurate in some significant areas.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think once again, and I repeat today what the Hon. Member for St. John's West said then, that there is no connection between any matter related to Air Canada and December 22 and the former Deputy Minister of Transport, Ramsay Withers.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minster. I read the entire letter in the House barely forty-five minutes ago.
So I would like to ask the Minister, considering the fact that twenty-two days after Mr. Withers announced he was leaving Transport Canada to work for GCI, a lobby firm, and that he answered certain letters to which the other Minister referred, about a matter with which Mr. Withers had no connection, and 1 am quoting what the Minister said in the House . . .
Does the Minister intend to order a commission of inquiry to shed some light on this matter, and if not, why not?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for ordering a commission of inquiry since there is no law against Mr. Withers using the words "Air Canada". There is no law against a person who advises a Department and the Government that he is leaving ...
Again, this was just a letter concerning a consultant, and what Mr. Withers said was:

Your offer of assistance is appreciated ... However, it does not appear at this time that there is a need to seek external advisory services in this area.
That is all.

Mr. Speaker, I must say once again that the Hon. Member has made a habit of bringing up this kind of issues. I just want to say that once again, he has unfortunately ...


FORMER OFFICIAL'S LETTER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The letter referred to, signed by Mr. Withers, clearly indicates enough knowledge about the potential purchase by Air Canada to indicate to the person the letter went to that his facts were wrong. How does the Minister square the information in Mr. Withers' letter with the article which suggests very clearly he had full knowledge of what is happening with Air Canada and is therefore in conflict of interest?

April 18, 1988
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: What did the letter say?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said, and I repeat, there is no relation between what he said and any purchase by Air Canada. I think all we can do is table this letter so everyone can look at it and realize it has nothing to do with any purchase by Air Canada.


Mr. McDermid:: What did the article say, Iain?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is welcome to table the letter, as he can do pursuant to the Standing Orders, but the information has been fully transmitted to this House already.


FORMER OFFICIAL'S KNOWLEDGE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister once again, does the phrasing of that letter not make it clear that Mr. Withers had knowledge of the plans of Air Canada regarding fleet replacement? Is it not clear from that letter?


John Carnell Crosbie: No, it is not.


Benoît Bouchard: No, Mr. Speaker. Any reference by Mr. Withers relates to what we call the corporate plan, but the corporate plan has nothing to do with any kind of selection of equipment by Air Canada.


AIRPORTS
Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As he knows, Pearson International Airport, with its projected increase in volume, is quickly facing a waste disposal problem. The Department of Agriculture proposed to address this problem with an incinerator system. The residents of Etobicoke appreciate the need, for health reasons, for an efficient system, but are very concerned about the adverse effect an incinerator will have on the air in the surrounding area of Etobicoke and Mississauga.
Will the Minister put a hold on this project until all viable options are examined and the community has had full input?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to extend my appreciation for the interest that the Hon. Member, and his colleagues in neighbouring ridings, have shown in this issue. I can assure him that the project has been placed on hold and will remain on hold until such time as we are satisfied that all of the environmental studies have been satisfactorily completed. Secondly, it will remain on hold until
we are satisfied that adequate citizen consultations have been carried out.

[ Translation]


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Several months ago the Quebec Premier asked the federal Government to share the costs of his St. Lawrence River clean-up program. As a matter of fact, he asked for the kind of assistance Ontario was offered for cleaning up the Great Lakes, $100 million. Mr. Speaker, since the St. Lawrence River is as important to Quebecers as the Great Lakes are to Ontario, when could we expect an answer to Quebec concerning this important matter? Why is the Government dragging its feet on this issue?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that for many years the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have been working together to develop a plan to deal with the very costly measures necessary to clean up the St. Lawrence River. Those discussions have taken on a high level of activity these past two years in particular, between our Minister of the Environment and the Hon. Clifford Lincoln on behalf of Quebec.
These discussions deal with very complex issues and they are continuing, but as in the case of other areas where this Government has made unparalleled progress, for example, acid rain, the ozone layer, CFCs, and the general clean-up of water quality in the Great Lakes, we have to take lessons from no one, certainly no preceding Government, on the attention we are devoting to these important questions.


FEDERAL POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, that is not the impression we get in the Province of Quebec. As the Government might know, the St. Lawrence River is the main street of Quebec. It is important for transportation, fishing, recreation, water supply and so on. Recent surveys show that 83 per cent of the population of Quebec consider this to be a major concern.
On April 8, 1986, the Minister of the Environment said in Montreal that the St. Lawrence was an open sewer. If that is his conviction why is he waiting so long to respond to the demand of the province? That demand was made in February but we still have not had an answer from the Government.
John Horton McDermid: What did you do for the last 20 years?


*
April 18, 1988


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I note that on the weekend the Liberal Party finally discovered the importance of environmental and ecological issues.
I understand that the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the Liberal Party will become the Party of the environment and prove that economic development can go hand in hand with environmental protection.
That is what the Government has been doing since it took office to a far greater degree than his Government and its predecessor were ever able to do.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Minister advise the House what the Government's response is to the assassination of a top Palestinian official in Tunis over the weekend? Will he also advise what our position is on the repression by Israel of Palestinians in the occupied territories in the wake of that assassination, where hundreds have been injured, a score or more killed, and where once again the free press has been banned in an effort to mask the realities?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, a tragic event, both in terms of the loss of personal life and in terms of the continuing nature of the cycle of violence in the Middle East which is not only taking human victims on both sides but is creating an atmosphere, almost a self image, on both sides which will become increasingly dangerous as time goes on.
This underlines the absolute importance of all of us who might have any influence at all, whether on the Government of Israel, on members of the PLO, or of others who might have authority over either side, to use whatever influence we have. We must do that as Governments and we must try to do that as individuals.
I would hope that the large number of Canadians who have begun to join the debate about issues in the Middle East will themselves also use their imagination as extensively as they can to try to find some way in which they might be able to have some small influence upon encouraging some change in the situation which is dangerous, almost lethal, to both sides.
Oral Questions COPYRIGHT ACT


SENATE DELAY IN PASSING AMENDING LEGISLATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications my question is directed to the Government House Leader who, I understand, is celebrating his fiftieth birthday. I would like to congratulate him. He is half way there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister will know that this House passed Bill C-60 to amend the copyright law which, for the first time, really protects the rights of Canadian artists. The Minister will know that the Liberal Senators, the Liberal Party of Canada in the Senate, are delaying this and are likely to send it back to the House.
Would the Minister confirm that if the Liberals send this back to the House, due to the Government's full timetable we may not in fact be able to get back to this Bill before Parliament rises for the summer and that, in fact, Canadian artists will suffer as a result of what the Liberal Party is doing?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for the question. I can assure the House that the Government has every intention of moving to complete discussions, as far as the House is concerned, on the copyright Bill. We believe that the amendments to the Act will benefit the artists of the country. The Government has a great interest in ensuring that that benefit is maintained through the final passage of these amendments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I fail to understand why the Liberal Party of Canada does not want to protect the interests of Canadian artists.

- -SECOND PHASE OF LEGISLATION


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The New
Democrats will be prepared to help in terms of Phase II of the copyright legislation with regard to spontaneous use and so on.
Will the Government be prepared to help matters by bringing in Phase II fairly quickly? If reasonable, that legislation could get through the House so that finally, after 64 years, the artists of Canada would not have to wait any longer for their just share of the products of their work.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we share our colleague's concern with respect to the delays to which this and other matters such as the emergency refugee legislation and the Immigration Act, are being treated by the Senate. I can assure my hon. friend that, once consideration is completed in the Senate, if there are any changes we will deal with them quickly

April 18, 1988
Oral Questions
and be prepared to move on to the second phase of the copyright legislation.


FINANCE
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he may know, without exception every resource region across the country would like to see the full retention of the so-called flow-through share tax deduction. This has proven to be a most useful tool for regional development. For example, 34 new mines were established in Canada in the last two years because of this program. In the Province of Manitoba, I am advised, 70 per cent of all mineral exploration dollars are directly related to the flow-through share program.
Will the Government reconsider its plan to phase out the earned depletion allowance, or will the Minister tell the House that it has to go because this is yet one more concession of the Government to the United States in its trade deal with that country?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to respond to my my hon. friend, he undoubtedly knows that following the initial statement on flow-through shares by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, there has been some consideration given to the submissions made. He is also aware that the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will probably be studying this and, if I am not mistaken, it will be meeting again tomorrow.
The Member also knows that the use of flow-through shares, as is true of other equity financing measures, has fallen off drastically since the recent stock market set-back. All of these things are being evaluated and the Government is giving the matter close consideration.


NORTHERN ALLOWANCES-APPLICATION OF TAX BENEFIT
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. One of the most justified and needed tax breaks for people who live in isolated resource regions is the northern benefit tax package. The trouble with that tax package is that it is being applied in a haphazard, illogical, and arbitrary fashion. For example, in the Province of Manitoba, northern Manitoba is included in general but Thomson and Wabowden are out. That makes no sense at all.
Will the Minister of National Revenue arrange a meeting between himself, the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, and myself, to hear a serious proposal to improve the application of the northern benefits tax deduction? If this proposal could be accepted it would save the
Government a great deal of time and expense in the setting up of the commission which it plans to have some time later this spring.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That is a very constructive suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly discuss this with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. My colleague is aware that both my Ministry and the Ministry of Finance have been giving great consideration to this problem. He is aware that we have brought a lot of tax equity to Canadians who previously did not enjoy it. I agree with the Member that there are administrative flaws in this. We welcome his help in assessing ways to make this measure more equitable for everyone.


SIKH ORGANIZATIONS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is aware that even one of his own Cabinet colleagues has rejected his advice to boycott meetings organized by certain Sikh organizations.
Is the Minister ready to reconsider the letter he sent Canadian Premiers some months ago, and to recall the advice he gave them so gratuitously?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is, unhappily and uncharacteristically, wrong in the premise of his question. The event attended by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, was sponsored by a wide number of organizations representative of Sikhs in Canada. That is precisely the kind of thing that I want to see Members of this House and members of the Government becoming involved in.
I, myself, in Edmonton on Saturday night was present at a celebration of the anniversary of the Prairie Link newspaper at which there were present many members of the moderate Sikh community.
If we want Sikh communities in Canada to be governed by the moderates who want to live within the rules of Canada, a large part of our challenge is to be seen to be associated with those moderates. That is what my colleague was doing in Toronto, that is what I was doing in Edmonton, that is what was done under the auspices of the Speaker of the House of Commons here on Parliament Hill last week, and that is what I want to see encouraged.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, let me break the rules very slightly and welcome to the Chamber of the House of Commons those distinguished students of the school of Tomahawk, Alberta, in the constituency of Yellowhead.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 18, 1988


POLICY OF DEPARTMENT
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, under the eyes of the students to whom the Minister has referred, I want to ask him, given that we are interested in teaching people the principles of Canadian life, how he plans to deal with teaching that people should not to be judged before they have been found guilty somewhere? How will he avoid guilt by association? How will he teach people what a democratic society is about? What does the Department of External Affairs plan to do to ensure that one slip does not become the general policy applied to other communities in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were more acquainted with the evidence that has been gathered with regard to the activities of the Babbar Khalsa, with the activities of the International Sikh Youth Organization, and if he had taken the care to read the constitution of the World Sikh Organization which calls for an independent state of Khalistan, he would then understand the grave concerns we have.
I know him to be an unusually fair minded Member of this House. I know him also to be a person who is very genuinely dedicated to the full participation in Canada of people who bring to this nation the blessing of traditions and cultures from around the world. We all know that that needs to proceed in an atmosphere of tolerance and an atmosphere of order. We have to encourage that.
There is a small minority within the Sikh community in Canada that is running not only against the rules of order of Canada but that is running against the preferences of the great majority of Canadians of Sikh origin. We cannot leave that great majority of Sikhs without support. We need to support them and we need to do it evidently. The Hon. Member needs to do it, I need to do it, and, my colleague needs to do it. That is what both she and I were doing this past weekend.


MINISTERS ATTENDANCE AT SIKH RALLY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It also concerns the attendance by his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, at a large Sikh Canadian rally organized in part by the very same three organizations of which the Minister urged a political boycott only months ago. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
Given that Conservative Members of Parliament in his caucus have disregarded, ignored, and disagreed with this policy, and that a senior Cabinet Minister attended a meeting organized in part by these three organizations, is the Minister
Oral Questions
prepared to tell the House that he erred in the language contained in that letter sent to the Premiers and that he is now prepared to do the right and courageous things, withdraw that letter and change his Government's policy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the meeting in question attended by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, was organized by nine temples in Toronto. The Hon. Member's facts are wrong.
This is a sensitive issue. There is a particular obligation upon Members who want to be engaged in this issue to get their facts right and to act honestly. Otherwise, they will subject themselves to the worst of suspicions.


Sergio Marchi: Of the nine groups, three were the same organizations against which he urged political boycott. By that definition, this senior Cabinet Minister has disregarded the External Affairs direction.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given that the official government line is still to boycott those three organizations, and that those three organizations helped organize yesterday's rally, will the Minister offer her explanation to the House of why she did attend that rally despite the urgings of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this question has been raised four times now.


Sergio Marchi: Not to you, your colleague.


Charles Joseph Clark: This question has been answered. The Hon. Member knows that some of the facts he has put on the floor of the House of Commons are, at least, in serious dispute.


Sergio Marchi: Which ones?


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are the politest words I can use to describe it. If he and his Party want to retain any colour of credibility of being interested in the order of this country and interested in the effective participation of Canadians of different cultures in this country, then he should stop playing politics with issues that are so sensitive.
When he asks questions in the House and receives answers to those questions in the House, he should accept those answers and stop playing politics.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will remember that, in view of statements that were made at 2.15 p.m., Question Period was extended. However, this will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Regina West.

April 18, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson AIR CANADA


SALE OF SHARES-VOTING BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who, I believe, is in charge of privatization and the selling out of Air Canada. Is it government policy that people who are appointed by the Government to a board of directors, to represent the majority of taxpayers, should vote, according to government instructions in accordance with the wishes of the minority private shareholders?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I already answered that question in the House the other day. I think the Hon. Member knows that under the provisions of the Canada Business Corporations Act, directors, no matter who appoints them, must perform their duties in the best interests of the company and in the best interests of the shareholders of that company. That is the law of the land.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now we have it.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Government states in the second paragraph on page 8 of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that the Government will instruct the Chairman of Air Canada's Board of Directors to vote its shares-that is the taxpayers shares-in accordance with the majority of the public shareholders, who are the private shareholders. How can that be in the interest of the taxpayers? How can it be in accordance with government policy should the private shareholders desire to shut down the technological centre in Dorval or the maintenance depot in Winnipeg, when you have already instructed our members of the Board of Directors to vote with the minority?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the majority shareholder interferes in the decisions that are made and are consistent with the best commercial interest of the company, that would be a direct violation of the Canada Business Corporations Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that other Members wish to rise, but I regret that time has expired. I will try to recognize them tomorrow.
* *
*
14522, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hawkes) said:
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 203, 271,
and 272.1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
If you then read through the text of Hansard you will find that there is an answer also given for Question No. 303, which I had asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
I have checked with the Table Officers and they confirm that Question No. 303 was not answered on that day and that the text of the answer appears there by mistake. The Table Officers have also confirmed to me that the purported answer to the question will not appear in the bound edition of Hansard and that the question will continue to appear on the Notice Paper until it is answered.
I wanted to raise this because I believe the purported answer is incorrect and I did not want any embarrassment to be caused to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) says is correct. It had been found that the answer that was given and which was to be tabled was in error. That is what created the difficulty. His intervention is correct.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, there may be a process problem. I do not think that answer was contained in the information I handed to the page. There may have been notification of another kind that ended up in Hansard, rather than the actual document I presented to the House of Commons. Perhaps we could look into that procedural aspect and make sure it does not occur again.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their intervention. I will also take this matter under advisement and see if we can ensure that it does not happen again, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order relating to the answering of Order Paper questions last Friday, April 15. Quoting from Hansard, page


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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, and the amendment of Ms. McLaughlin (page 14479).
April 18, 1988
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say something about Bill C-l 17, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. I particularly appreciate the opportunity to expand on some observations I made just before we rose for lunch. I was commenting on the speech given by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), a colleague from a northern Ontario riding. The Bill we are dealing with covers a great deal of territory in its way. It represents the legislative amendments required to implement quite a number of federal sales and excise taxes and excise duty changes. These are changes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced at various times, for instance, in his Budget of February 18, 1987, and then again in his Budget of February 10, 1988.
There were some changes proposed in the June 18, 1987, White Paper on tax reform and other changes were made in the December 16, 1987 White Paper on tax reform. The changes proposed at those various times have all been gathered together in this Bill, which brings forward for approval by this House of Commons and by the other place changes in the excise tax, sales tax and excise duty.
I am speaking in support of the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), for a six-month hoist. It is a classic opposition proposal to send this Bill away for six months so that the Government can reconsider, the intention being to have the matter dropped. It is appropriate to propose such a motion on this particular Bill because of the regressive nature of sales and excise duty taxation and because of the gross unfairness these tax changes represent for Canadians in some regions of Canada as opposed to Canadians in other regions.
In speaking to the motion to hoist Bill C-l 17 for six months, I want to examine the particular proposals made and to demonstrate why they are wrong in principle, wrong in their economic effect on the people of Canada and wrong as part of the fiscal policy of the Canadian Government. I note that among the changes in Bill C-l 17 there is a proposal to increase the sales tax on paint and wallpaper products from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. That strikes me as a substantial increase. Those who like to play with numbers would say immediately that it is a 50 per cent increase in the rate of taxation because it has gone from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. One can think of the building boom going on in various parts of the country and the way in which people are involved in improving their various properties, and one can readily see the burden represented in this 50 per cent increase in the rate of taxation on these products.
The Minister of Finance has been involved time after time since he was first appointed as Minister of Finance in 1984 in loading down Canadian families and homeowners with more and more taxes. I note that Bill C-l 17 will authorize an increase in the federal sales tax on beer, spirits, wine and tobacco products from 15 per cent to 18 per cent. That is a fairly significant increase. That is a 20 per cent increase in the
Excise Tax Act
rate of taxation. This is an area of taxation that Government after Government has looked at as fair game.
Obviously, when we speak about taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco we are speaking about sin taxes. No doubt the products involved rarely serve the good health of the persons involved. We know tobacco is very detrimental to good health. But this particular loading on of more taxes in this area means the taxes are paid by everyone who consumes the products no matter what their incomes. Some people may think, in the pursuit of virtue and the construction of a moral society, that we ought to try to tax these products right out of existence. Those, of course, with larger incomes will still be able to enjoy these products without feeling anything like the burden put upon those with low incomes, those who barely manage, and there are those who indulge themselves all too frequently at the expense of their families, their wives and children. In those cases I do not overstate the harsh reality of what the Minister of Finance is doing in laying on another of those sin taxes. He is reducing the well-being of far too many of our citizens who are already in very serious circumstances.
In these two areas, the tax on products used to beautify our homes and the tax on products used by people who want to relax and have a little pleasure in life, the Minister of Finance has added to the burden that low and middle-income Canadians have to bear. There is no distinction in the amount of tax one has to pay because one is taxed on the quantity one buys. There is clearly a limit as to how much can be consumed no matter what one's income might be. It is all too tragically the case, particularly with alcoholic beverages and tobacco, that those who are the least able to afford it, may well end up being the excessive consumers of the product. Again, if the intention is to tax these products out of existence, there might be an argument for it. But if the consequence of that action is to reduce the food and the necessities of life of family members, surely it is to be regretted, at the very least, and provides some of the reason why hoisting this Bill for six months is quite appropriate.
However, it was not in those areas of regressive taxation on which I focused my own comments earlier today, although the Hon. Member for Algoma, in responding to my comments, expanded on the regressive features. It is in terms of regional unfairness that I want to make some additional observations. There are some other changes for which Bill C-l 17 provides. First, this Bill establishes a 10 per cent tax on telecommunications services such as telephone and telex, although it does not include any charge on local residential telephone lines. In the imposition of a 10 per cent tax on long-distance telephone charges we have a very good example about which I will elaborate. I notice that the Chairman of the House Committee on Finance, who is here, is shaking his head. Presumably he is shaking it at something else, although I expect that he might agree. After all, he is a Member for a Toronto area riding. He knows how his constituents can do business and carry on social activities in all kinds of ways in the Metro Toronto area without ever incurring a long-distance charge.

April 18, 1988
Excise Tax Act
It would be quite fascinating to know how the long-distance charges of the citizens of Toronto compare with the longdistance charges incurred by people in northern Ontario. Compared with the citizens of Thunder Bay, which is in my own constituency, the difference might not be all that great. However, there are a great many northern Ontarians who live outside the local calling area of a city. In those cases they face very high costs of carrying telephone communications. They have to do this for all types of reasons, whether it is to make an appointment at the doctor or to make a contact on a business matter using the yellow pages, which are such a delightful way of finding out where we can get products rather than burning gasoline. If one wants to do that in the community of Pass Lake, for example, in my constituency, which is only some 30 miles out, those are all long-distance charges. I have constituents there who routinely, although they have modest enough incomes, run up month by month long-distance bills of $100, $150 or $200 and more.
That is an excellent illustration of the situation that faces some Canadians by contrast with those who live in the City of Toronto from which the Minister of Finance himself comes. Persons there can make a diversity of calls. They can ask, inquire about practically any product on earth and do so without ever getting close to a long-distance call. They can enjoy all the marvels that life in Metro Toronto offers in the way of society, culture and so on without facing anything remotely like the type of costs that my constituents face.
That is a nice indication of why constituents of mine began writing and calling when they first spotted this 10 per cent tax. They wanted to know from where it came. They wanted to know who had done this to them. They, living even in the City of Thunder Bay-and I am thinking now of some of my older constituents with children who are grown and gone to work in Toronto, Winnipeg or wherever, far from the City of Thunder Bay, which, too, is all too often another feature of northern Ontario life-are being faced with a 10 per cent tax without any cap on it. That is the same level of taxation that someone would face if one lived anywhere in the City of Toronto. That is surely manifestly unfair.
What I want to spotlight in this matter particularly is that when the on finance committee considered this matter it suggested that there should be a cap on it. It was suggested that there should be a limit to the amount of this telecommunications tax that a person could pay. That was designed to ensure that those who live in circumstances such as my constituents in northern Ontario did not pay a tax that was immediately proportional to the number of long-distance calls they had to make.
The Minister of Finance refused to accept that recommendation. He refused to put a cap on this tax so that a person might have to pay $3 or whatever it happened to be. However, if one has the misfortune of making $100 in long-distance calls
then one must pay another $10 in tax. That is that. There is no way of avoiding it.
There is an element of inflation in the country. Surely putting this tax on long-distance calls and on telex services is to place a cost on the transmission of information in our society that is bound to be reflected in the inflation rate. The Minister of Finance, who encourages the Governor of the Bank of Canada to keep the inflation rate stable or even to cut it down to zero, is being shamelessly hypocritical when he lays on a 10 per cent tax on telecommunication services and refuses to put a cap on it. This allows some Canadians to face the type of disproportionate burden that I have been describing.
There are other taxes in this Bill which are equally unfair in their effect on Canadians in one area and another. I notice that the gasoline tax was increased for the fourth time. We have faced this tax time after time. The Minister of Finance sees an opportunity every time he has to do a financial statement or a Budget in the fact that Canadians use cars and trucks. Some Canadians, in particular northern Ontarians, depend on aircraft to get about. There is another case of the unfairness of things. There is one cent more per litre on gasoline, which is four and a half cents a gallon. The taxes pile up each time a cent is placed on a litre. The Minister of Finance is probably grateful, despite whatever some of his Tory colleagues may have thought earlier, that the country went metric. This way he can raise taxes by one cent per litre rather than by one cent per gallon.
I remember as a graduate student living in Toronto 20 years ago. I do not know how typical my life was that year. I expect there are a good many Torontonians who own cars, which I did not that particular year. The really impressive thing, if one spends any time in the City of Toronto, is that thanks to the public transit system it is possible to get around and to enjoy a marvellous life in Metro Toronto without ever having to use an automobile.
Against that my constituents may very well have to drive 20 or 30 miles to work every day. They will be forced to take longer trips if they want to take the family for any type of holiday outing since they will want to cover some distance. In northern Ontario the distances are extreme.
If one is involved in the basic resource industries, the tax rebates have been increased in order to offset this. However, for all of those who are not involved in the basic resource industries here is another addition to the cost of doing business. Here is another inflationary impact on our society.
The high costs are being run up in terms of the purchases of fuel that have to be made and the burden of taxation on my constituents in Thunder Bay-Nipigon and in other parts of northern Ontario by contrast to the happy lot of people in our largest cities with excellent systems of public transit in order to spare people the expense of using gasoline while we have to use so much of it, and this pays all these tax costs. Lord knows whether or not my constituents in northern Ontario are not helping to maintain the subway system in the City of Toronto.
April 18, 1988

This is the ultimate demonstration of how unfair the system of regressive taxation across the board with percentage increases in one item or another is for Canadians. It is for those reasons that I oppose this Bill so profoundly. It is one thing to have a tax system that is oriented toward the ability to pay. It has been a challenge to be consistent even in that principle in income taxation. We have seen how often the Minister of Finance has rejected calls to him to ensure that our income tax system on individuals and corporations was fairly applied to everyone. That system is rife with exceptions. That system is rife with favouritism. It is favouritism of the wealthy, the powerful and the large corporations.
A splendid example of this came last week when Robert Campeau, after his triumphs in purchasing Federated Department Stores, offered some thoughts on taxation and some musings on social philosophy. What were his thoughts? He was opposed to various features of the Canadian social system. He was not honest enough himself to remind people that he had been a glorious recipient, as was his company, Campeau Corporation, of one aspect of the Canadian social system, that is, favouritism for the powerful and the wealthy in being able to avoid paying income tax for years through the 1980s. He did not talk about that, suggesting that others are free-loaders when he himself is a splendid example of corporate free-loading in Canada. He then ran off to the U.S. to swashbuckle about down there.
If we had a system that was fair to the ability to pay, there would be the revenues to allow us to do away with all of these excise taxes, sales taxes, and excise duties which are loaded on to people without regard to how much they have in the way of resources, and without regard to how much their incomes may be. They are simply loaded on them, grinding the poor into the dirt while the rich get away scot-free.
There is more than enough reason to reject this Bill. There is every reason to give it the six months hoist and tell the Government to go back to the drawing board, start from scratch, do the job right and in the fair way that Canadian taxpayers have been wanting for years and years.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We heard the Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) rant and rave about tax changes without recognizing the fact that every one of these tax changes have been debated before. The ones with respect to telecommunications, cable, and television are all part of the White Paper on taxation and were debated in full with public hearings; 178 witnesses appeared before the committee that travelled the length of the country and made comments on those taxes. These taxes were not objected to in the minutes of that committee.
I would have thought with that degree of unanimity across the House dealing with these particular measures that this Member and that Party would have said: "Well, we have
Excise Tax Act
heard this before. There has been a good inquiry into it, and let us accept them".
I want to ask the Hon. Member if he bothered looking at the finance committee report on the White Paper. Did he bother looking at the evidence with respect to the telecommunications tax? Does the Hon. Member realize that, as far as long distance charges are concerned, the result of the CRTC order is to reduce the price on long distance charges by 30 per cent? The effect of the taxation at a 10 per cent level is that the reduction, instead of being 30 per cent, is only 20 per cent, as far as households are concerned. Did the Hon. Member look at these matters? Does he realize that with tax reform there is a massive and significant reduction in taxes that individuals pay? The result is that the burden has to be paid somewhere, and that burden has been placed on business as that tax affects business almost entirely and totally. It is a transfer from individual taxation to business taxation.


Abram Ernest Epp: In his last words the Hon. Member and chairman of the finance committee of the House indicates something of the ignorance of northern Ontario and generally the remote northern riding situation that I have been suggesting is at the heart of the problem. The Hon. Member may think that long distance is chiefly a business charge. That is not the case in northern Ontario. It is not the case for elderly constituents who live in the City of Thunder Bay who cannot keep in touch with their children across the country without making long distance calls and running up significant charges.
The question is not what I have read. The question is what the chairman of the committee is conscious of and what he remembers. My notes indicate that the committee considered this matter of telecommunications charges and that it actually recommended that there be a cap on them, in some limited recognition of what I am arguing that people in remote ridings face very high costs, and that it is simply unfair to them. Perhaps the Hon. Member's constituents can get away with making a couple of long distance calls a year, so he thinks that it is entirely a business matter. Those in remote ridings for whom long distance calls are a very important reality should find their obligation to pay a tax severely limited. That is the type of thing that I would expect him to be saying. I would like him to recognize that the Minister of Finance refused to accept that advice.
If my notes are wrong and the committee did not recommend that then I have been badly briefed, as sometimes happens.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member does not appreciate the fact that his constituents, via a CRTC order, are receiving a 30 per cent reduction in telecommunications tax for long distance purposes. The effect of this tax imposed on his constituents is that instead of getting a 30 per cent reduction, they are only getting a 20 per cent reduction. Does the Hon. Member not realize that the burden is coming down? I was wondering if he

April 18, 1988
Excise Tax Act
wanted to tie those things together, because that has to happen.
As far as the far northern branches are concerned, I suspect that there are not any of the conditions in his constituency, although I may be wrong, that would have been affected by that particular recommendation the Hon. Member is talking about.


Abram Ernest Epp: I apologize to the Hon. Member for not noting his CRTC reference as well. It is not necessarily to the Government's credit. It has been an ongoing process for the CRTC to consider how telephone costs should be borne, given the way in which the technology reduces the expenses of those transmissions. Here is a reduction, and this is how real progress occurs, when it is possible to reduce the cost of things significantly. The Minister of Finance, of course, sees the opportunity for a revenue grab to get part of that, so that Canadians do not get the full benefit of the progress, if it really is progress.
The other possibility in this rate rebalancing is to load down the residential telephone user, the person who rents the telephone, pays for the service on a monthly rate, with a significant increase in charges. There has been much concern to ensure that that does not happen in any excessive manner.
As far as reductions are concerned, we have seen the CRTC in an ongoing battle, in particular with Bell Canada, which does not want to carry through the reductions. It is going to other courts to try to turn a ruling back, and it will do its best to keep what it can. Certainly, there has been a saving there. Like all Canadians, I appreciate progress that produces economic gains for us.
If the Member is correct that the provision that I was alluding to, the $3 cap, would have done nothing for northern Ontario, that only underscores my indignation that the resident of Toronto may well be able to avoid paying any of this tax while leading a rich and well-rounded life, while some of my limited income constituents, many of them seniors living on pensions or in the situation of many senior women or widows who are living on the edge of poverty find themselves faced with a 10 per cent tax on the long distance charges they make to keep in touch with their children. That is why I am angry. I suspect that is an emotion that the chairman of the Commons finance committee probably would share, if he really thought about it and brought his mind into the situation of my constituents in Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on debate.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-17 on behalf of my Party and caucus. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the many sales and excise tax increases announced by the Conservative administration in the Budget of February 18, 1987, and June
18, 1987 and December 16, 1987 with respect to tax reform proposals, and recently the February 10, 1988 Budget.
One of the pertinent aspects within these fiscal plans and arrangements that irks Canadians and angers Members on this side of the House is essentially the commitments and promises made by the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) back in 1984.
They promised Canadians very clearly that the Tory administration had no desire to raise the taxes of Canadians. Yet following the September 1984 election, we in this House and Canadians across the country not only saw but experienced unprecedented tax increases.
I think it is worth recalling that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister promised not to raise taxes. On March 6, 1984, the Minister of Finance, as reported in Hansard, said:
We will reduce spending. We will refrain from increasing taxes, which are
already too high.
Not to be outdone by that promise, the Prime Minister, according to Le Devoir for November 29, 1984, said:
Canadians pay a good deal of money for government services and feel that
they are already paying quite enough.
Yet, despite those statements, we in this House have had to sit in our places, despite our urgings and complaints about what we hear from average Canadians when we meet with them in our constituency offices, when we visit them in their places of work or in their homes, and we have had to endure and witness a litany of tax increases which makes all the promises simply a sham. But it is more than that. These so-called promises have instituted a certain kind of cynicism among Canadians about their elected representatives and political institutions.
Right after those statements were uttered in 1984, we had a sales tax increase from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. In January,
1986	the sales tax went from 10 per cent to 11 per cent. In April, 1986 there was another increase from 11 per cent to 12 per cent. Those three increases have had an impact of raising tax revenues to the tune of $3 billion, taken from the pockets of Canadians. The Government between the years of 1985 and
1987	extended the sales tax on candy, soft drinks, fast food and snacks. In January 1988 there was a sales tax increase from 8 per cent to 12 per cent on paper, wallpaper and toys. In September, 1986 there was a gasoline tax increase of two cents a litre, and an additional one cent increase was imposed in January, 1987, with a further one cent increase on February 19, 1987. There were other increased taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The first one came in January, 1985. Since then there have been three increases.
Canadians accept their duties as citizens of this country. We enjoy a certain kind of lifestyle, we receive services and programs from our government and accept as part of this
April 18, 1988

contract with Canada the imposition of taxes so that we and our children and their children's children can live in a country as blessed as Canada is. Canadians are prepared to share the burden of taxes to maintain the social, economic, cultural and political stability that we enjoy as a nation. What is upsetting to Canadians is that they realistically perceive and realistically believe that some of us are being asked to share a disproportionate share of the national burden. They are correct.
When we look at the litany of tax increases we have had, we have to ask ourselves what is the cumulative impact on the average Canadian household. When you do that, you find there is an unfairness in the system. If you take the four federal budgets presented to this House by the Conservative Government, you will find that a Canadian earning $15,000 to $20,000 a year will by 1990 have to pay nearly a 36 per cent increase in taxes from the tax level of 1984. An individual earning between $35,000 and $45,000 will have to face an increase in his or her taxes of approximately 12 per cent. But those Canadians in the $100,000 bracket will have an increase of only 4 per cent. If you are fortunate enough to be in the circle of Canadians who earn $200,000 and up, your increase is only 2 per cent. That is the spectrum, Mr. Speaker.
On the one hand, a $15,000 wage earner has a 36 per cent tax increase while on the other hand a $200,000 wage earner has only a 2 per cent tax increase. You can say what you want and cut it in however technical financial language that you can, but at the end of the day Canadians are seeing that proportionate tax sharing as being fundamentally and irresponsibly unfair. It is having an impact.
We are seeing the squeeze play. Those who are working class Canadians and those who are middle-class Canadians or who think of themselves in those two categories are being squeezed. If you talk to Canadians in those economic brackets, you will hear that they are finding it more difficult with each passing day to maintain their current standard and status. If you talk to Canadians who see themselves as middle-class Canadians, they will tell you that they are finding it hard to stay in the middle class section.
Because of the cumulative effect of these fiscal policies by the Conservative Government people are seeing a stratification of class like never before. For the first time in many years, perhaps for the very first time, Canadians see themselves through various polling studies being more in a class stratification while the British see themselves in very well delineated classes by class designations. That is dangerous. One of the things about which we have pride is an underplaying of class stratification seen in other societies.
The taxes and budgets that we have had do not help. These taxes and budgets do not provide the bridge or shorten that gulf, that growing disparity, both in reality and in feeling which is dividing those who are falling more and more every day between the haves and the have-nots.
There is a struggle in certain communities and families at the end of the month. Canadians who face increased property
Excise Tax Act
taxes on their homes, coupled with increased federal income taxes, excise and sales taxes are having a tough time making ends meet. This struggle is all the more acute if you happen to be a senior and you want to hold onto the home that took a lifetime of work and sacrifice to build and own. If you are a single mother trying to keep the household together, these numbers make your life very difficult.
Individuals who are collecting workers' compensation because of injuries incurred on construction jobs face property taxes and increased sales taxes. We will meet those construction workers at some point in time in our constituency offices. They will be looking for help, looking for answers, looking for direction.
For a family with two parents, both of whom are working in middle-class jobs, with kids to clothe and send to school, the end of the month is not a day that is looked forward to. We in this House of Commons have to look beyond the numbers. We have to know that behind these numbers are real, living Canadians who have real, living struggles.
We in this House have recognized the need to try to pull Canada ahead, to leave it one step forward from where it was when we found it. We must recognize as well that as Canada goes forward, we cannot allow some Canadians to be left lagging behind. While we will not have a perfect system, we cannot have those who earn $200,000 per year paying an increase in taxes of 2 per cent while those who earn $15,000 per year are paying an increase in taxes of 36 per cent. That gulf must be minimized. We must bridge that difference so that Canadians in the lower income brackets can have the perception that though it will be difficult, they know that their next door neighbours are also pulling their weight and other Canadians in similar circumstances are paying for the future of their country.
What breeds contempt, anger and cynicism is having such a perverse difference in the rates based on the incomes brought in at the end of the year. That is why we complain. That is why we are not timid about standing in our places and talking about these issues. They need to be talked about.
The chairman of the finance committee has done a good job on the finance committee and he has been recognized for that. However, he asks why the Opposition is continuing to talk about this matter if it has already been analysed in committee and in the Budget. We are talking about it because there have been no changes. These voices of anger across the country have fallen on deaf ears. Canadians continue to have their struggles. That is why we are still talking about it. That is why we are still prepared to debate it. We are talking about two different visions of Canada, and Canadians ought to have the opportunity to witness these debates on their television sets and to agree with whatever vision they believe to be correct.
We will continue to argue for a tax system in which Canadians must participate that comes a step closer to being

April 18, 1988
Adjournment Motion
equitable and fair and to breeding the confidence that all Canadians are giving a bit and sacrificing a bit for the building of a great country. Everyone must shoulder the burden, pull up his or her shirt sleeves and put the shovel to the ground.
We do not want to go the way of Great Britain where there are great stratifications in classes, and everyone knows them. If we do not want to go in that direction, then we had better do something about it by changing these numbers. That is why we are standing up today and why we will continue to stand up.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this Bill involves certain sales tax and excise tax items that have largely been debated before and are part of the over-all thrust of paying the bills of the country. These are not brand new propositions that have not been broached before or have not been subject to debate.
I wonder why we hear this haranguing about the problems of taxation. I appreciate that the taxes in Canada are too high, but so is the debt of Canada too high. That Hon. Member was responsible, as a member of the Liberal Party, for putting us where we are.
If we get into the glue, we have to do something about it. I wonder if the Hon. Member has any suggestions for what public expenditures he thinks ought to be cut, what pensions, for example, ought to be cut, in order that we would not have to levy the taxes set out in Bill C-117.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has asked me why we are haranguing the Government about what he calls old taxes. As I mentioned in my remarks only a few moments ago, we are debating these policies because we believe them to be wrong. We believe them to be fundamentally unfair. We find that they impose a greater degree of burden on many Canadians and their families who can least afford to pay.
The Hon. Member asks what I would suggest instead. I suggested that we cannot afford to have $200,000-per-year wage earners facing 2 per cent increases while $15,000-per-year wage earners are facing 36 per cent increases. My suggestion would be to minimize that difference. We would find that we would still bring in the capital required to fund our services and programs. Not only that, we would regain the confidence of many Canadians who will again believe in the fairness of the system.
We as a country have existed for a long, long time. We have not had to place such a high proportion of the taxes on the poor and middle-income earners. It is only in the last four years that we have seen a tax imposition that has been unprecedented. Unless the Government is prepared to make it fairer, I suggest that it remove itself from governing the country and allow the people who can do it properly and with some compassion as well to do it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)- Labour Relations-Federal minimum wage; the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner)-Finance-Northern tax allowances-Geographical delimitation of affected community/Request that regulations be amended; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-National Defence- Acquisition of new trucks.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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, and on the amendment of Ms. McLaughlin (p. 14479).
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in the context of tax reform, something that is dear to our Party's heart, I believe that this is the most significant piece of legislation we have been able to introduce in the House. Bill C-117 puts into place many of the elements of the White Paper on tax reform which we presented to the Canadian people well over nine months ago, and in fact last June, I believe.
The measures which came out of that consultation process were discussed and presented to the House in the Budgets of February 18, 1987, and February 10, 1988. They are also in this piece of legislation, and I think it is particularly discouraging that, so quickly, a six-month hoist amendment was moved.
Many farmers in western Canada, for instance, are in difficult circumstances. The collapse of farm prices on a worldwide basis created severe economic hardships, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) needs to have the legislative capacity to produce for the Canadian people and for the farmers of Canada the rebate on excise taxes which will help their cash flow situations.
Last week was a disturbing week. I think there was some consternation in the House this morning as well related to legislation and the Government's responsibility to manage the
April 18, 1988

business of the House. I think it is important that this Bill get to committee as quickly as possible. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-117, an Act
to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: According to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), if 15 Members rise in their places to object the motion is defeated. Shall the motion carry?
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There not being 15 Members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to be carried.
Motion (Mr. Hawkes) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions in the last week or two the Government has made appeals for the co-operation of members of the opposition Parties. Something occurred this morning and just now which means the Government is insincere and does not want that cooperation. It could not care less about Parliament and its traditions. Because the Government has to find something for its great number of Members to do, we have lots of legislative, standing and special committees, some of which are meeting this afternoon. Members of the opposition, in our temporarily depleted ranks, are part of those committees. The Government knows it is highly unlikely, indeed physically impossible, if members of the Opposition are to carry out their duties, for us to keep 15 Members in the House at all times. After its demands, requests, wooing and handing out of sugar in an attempt to gain the co-operation of the opposition Parties, the Government then does a dumb thing like extending the hours.
I want to inform my hon. friends opposite that I am something of an expert on extended hours. In balmier days we kept the Government sitting until six o'clock and eight o'clock in the morning. We even sent out for Kentucky Fried. If we have to do that again, so be it. If we have to do it on every other damn Bill it wants through between now and the end of June and again this fall, or as I strongly suspect when it calls us back this summer if the Speaker agrees, then do not say we
Excise Tax Act
did not warn you. Even if we are in a situation of 10 Tories and one NDP, it will be an even fight.
I do not understand why the Government cannot use, as Conservatives are wont to say, sound business practices, but more particularly why it cannot arrange to implement that Party and Prime Minister's commitment on the issue of federal sales and excise taxes. The Conservative Party when it was in opposition, and the NDP as well in those years, were on all fours kicking the bejabers out of those awful Liberals over federal sales and excise taxes.


John R. Rodriguez: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) deserves an audience and I do not see a quorum here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but there is a quorum.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are not in their seats. They are still scrambling around.
An Hon. Member, to be considered part of the quorum, has to be in his seat and these birds are hovering around by the curtains. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is way down that end of the Chamber and his seat is here. With all respect, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: With all respect to the Hon. Member who has been around here for 20 years, I am in the chair and I will count the quorum. There are 21 Members in the House. The Hon. Member has the floor, he can carry on with the debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your prescience and superior knowledge of the subject. My understanding is that Members must be present and in their seats in the House for any kind of a count. I hope, Sir, that you will take that under advisement for a future occasion. When you watch the spectacle of these guys acting like a flock of wild partridges running out of the bushes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a lot of admiration for the Hon. Member and I would just like him to know that even when we start off the session in the morning Members do not necessarily have to be in their seats in order for us to have a quorum. I know how intelligent the Hon. Member is as far as the rules of this House are concerned, but I must say to him that it is not necessary for any Hon. Member to be in his seat as long as he is in the Chamber to a count of 21 Members.
I do not wish to get into an argument with my friend who I have known for many, many years. The Chair would just like to hear his speech, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope there are more than you who would like to hear my speech. You see, there they go again out the door. If they do not have duties somewhere else then they should be sitting in their place in the

April 18, 1988
Excise Tax Act
House earning their keep. I hope I can find enough of them who have earned their keep.
Let us get back to the issue of federal sales and excise taxes. I was saying, before I was interrupted by my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who has done properly, that if the Government was living up to what it said, promised, and the way it acted in this Chamber in the years when the Grits were in power, we would not have this Bill in front of us now.
Now you and I, Mr. Speaker, had to suffer through listening to the Conservatives making the same speeches that the Liberals made about sales and excise taxes when the Liberals were in power. Now we have to suffer through listening to Liberals making the same speeches that Conservatives made in the terrible Liberal days about sales and excise taxes, which proves again that there is no difference between them except that one is in and one is out. They have the same basic economic philosophy. They may differ on a minor detail about how they are going to do it and who they are going to do it to, but there is no basic difference.
I can remember Conservative Members getting up in support of speeches by NDP Members and NDP Members getting up in support of Conservative speakers about the terrible situation concerning deferred corporation taxes. There is over $32 billion on the books of Canada, an interest-free loan which corporations will never pay which has been accumulating since the mid-1950s. If they were charged just the bank rate, which is the best interest rate that preferred borrowers can get, which last Thursday was 8.8 per cent, that would bring in $2.7 billion in interest on deferred corporation taxes.
By the way, if we were to start charging that you would be surprised at how fast they would start paying back their deferred corporation taxes. By doing that the Government could cut its required revenues from sales and excise taxes by over 50 per cent.
If we were to lower the interest rate by 1 per cent or, at worst, set it at no higher than the U.S. rate, the business community would be able to borrow more and would put more people to work. Those people would purchase a lot of things and the Government's revenues in income tax and a low sales tax would increase accordingly. It would have as much, or more, money as it says it needs in the current fiscal year. If we were to impose a modest minimum tax of 10 or 15 per cent on all corporations which show a profit, the 60,000 corporations which earned a profit last year and will pay nothing this year would pay a minimum tax. Tories have been known to put a minimum tax on the individual taxpayer. Why can the same rule not apply to corporations? Why the double standard?
Corporate profits to the end of October, 1987, were up by 26 per cent. Their tax bill went up by 15 per cent.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again I do not see a quorum in the House. We seem to be having a lot of trouble this afternoon keeping the government Members in the House and they are the ones who want extended hours.	'


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, I do see a
quorum.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They might as well stay in their seats because we will flush them out of the woodwork and out of the lobby opposite every five minutes as and when necessary.


Mr. Andre:: I thought you were a nicer guy than that, Blackburn.


Thomas Scott Fennell: You have to listen to him but we don't.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do I have the floor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What is happening here? This is only Monday.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Wait until we get to Wednesday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not a full moon. 1 do not really know what is happening here today. The hon. gentleman for Regina West has an extra five minutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to need it. We are going to keep flushing these birds out of the bushes very frequently. The Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has made it plain that they do not want our co-operation, so be prepared.
I was saying that corporate profits to the end of October, 1987, were up by 26 per cent and their taxes in total went up by 15 per cent. Therefore, they had 11 per cent to their benefit. That would be all right, but why did the same thing not happen for the individual taxpayer? Personal incomes stayed about the same. Most of them did not quite keep up with inflation, but let us say that they stayed about the same. Personal taxes went up by 16 per cent. The corporations get to take home an extra 11 per cent of increased profits after taxes but the individual taxpayer, the average family with two children earning about $30,000 a year, pays more.
The best economic brains on all sides of the political spectrum have said that a sales and excise tax is a regressive tax, that those on the lowest end of the income scale have to pay proportionately more than those on high incomes. I have always believed that that is what is so unfair about exemptions. If you raise the exemption of the person in the 50 per cent tax bracket by $1,000 he saves $500, but the person in the 16 per cent tax bracket, because of his low income, saves $160. That is unfair.
I want to remind the House that in the great debate of 1984 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said twice in response to my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who raised the whole matter of tax fairness in the
April 18, 1988

tax system: "You're right, Ed". Since we are right and the Prime Minister has said on national television that we are right about a fair tax system, why in the name of heaven are we dealing with a Bill such as this? It flies in the face of tax fairness. It flies in the face of equity. It flies in the face of teaching people decency. It shows an unmitigated bias for those who have and a terrible insensitivity for those who have not.
Surely the Government could go back to the drawing board on legislation such as this, or could ask for a new royal prerogative and make substantial amendments to this legislation so that it will be a beginning to a fair tax system. Canadians believe they are being unfairly treated because they see it happening to them every day. They will notice this particularly between now and the end of April while they are filling out their income tax returns.
I had the honour to visit Sudbury on Saturday. There will be an excellent New Democratic Party Member of Parliament from Sudbury, a United Church minister. I know that we will want to welcome Bill Majors as a new Member of Parliament here before too long. Another clergyman will not do any of us any harm.
In Sudbury last Saturday I spoke with small business people, professionals and steelworkers who are in the process of filling out their income tax returns. They know from filing their returns and knowing what others who are much richer than they are paying that they are being unfairly treated. Even the Prime Minister said that.
It is time the Government withdrew this Bill or rewrote it. If it introduces a fair system of taxation it will have the support of my Party. It can take all the credit it wants. The people of Canada deserve a fair tax system because it is long past due.
Mr. Speaker, there were many occasions when you and I demanded fairness for people in our constituencies and throughout the country but did not receive it from the Liberals. Now, we are not receiving fairness from the Conservatives.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish nevertheless to deal briefly with this Bill which will impose a great many sales and excise tax increases which, contrary to what some people may think, have already been announced and for which we are already paying. I do not know what would have happened if the Government had been defeated or had called an election, for it would be collecting taxes which would not have been noted by the House.
But, for the information of our listeners these taxes are the result of the February 1987 Budget, Mr. Speaker, I insist on this, as well as from the tax reform of June 18, 1987-I emphasize 1987-of December 16, 1987, and the February 10, 1988 Budget.
Excise Tax Act
Of course, I could not forget this date of February 10, because it was on that date, 24 years ago, that I came here for the first time as the elected member for the Montreal-Saint-Denis riding, a riding which has undergone a great many changes, but which I would represent should the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) decide to call an election after July the 13th-I repeat, July the 13th. If he calls an election before, I hope to be a candidate for the present riding of Montreal-Saint-Denis.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that all these taxes to please the Government Whip, Mr. Fennell, who is giving me his undivided attention and whom I prefer to call by his name-in order to cooperate, I shall not read the whole list of these taxes. But the Canadian people are paying them even if they have not yet been voted by the House of Commons. These are hidden taxes, so people are not too sure who imposed them, but these are major taxes, Mr. Speaker. A 12 per cent tax on snack foods and they said: Children are being taxed, but they forgot to tax rich people! In 1987-88 it will produce $60 million in revenues and, according to the 1988-89 estimates, that will rise to $80 million. A 4 per cent increase in the cigarette and tobacco tax. I take this opportunity to say that I have not smoked since this morning and I find it very difficult. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Prud'homme: I know, it is a very bad habit, and I say that to the people who are listening to me. Smoking is a very bad habit and I hope to speak long enough not to smoke this afternoon. At least I will try not to smoke until tonight.
This tax was imposed on February 19, 1987 and brought in $70 million last year and it will again bring in $70 million this year. A $4 increase in the tax on every airline ticket was imposed on May 1 and August 1, 1987. The higher gasoline tax which became effective on April 1, 1987 yielded $30 million this year.
There was also another major increase which is not always immediately obvious and which came on stream as a result of the tax reform of June and December 1987, a 10 per cent tax on long distance telephone calls, along with another one of 8 to 10 per cent on cable TV. Both together will bring in $870 million in 1988-89, and estimates range from $945 million in 1989-90 to $1 billion in 1990-91.
There are other tax increases-my colleague mentioned them- on paint and wallpaper, and the sales and excise taxes must be remitted more often, another $1.6 billion. As people used to say in my neighbourhood, that is not chicken feed! A total of $1.6 billion. A record 15 to 18 per cent tax increase on alcohol and tobacco. I insist that smoking is a bad, a very bad habit. I am addicted to it, I shake it, I am hooked again. I have not indulged since this morning, and it is now 4.30 p.m., but anyway that tax will bring $175 million this year, Mr. Speaker, $175 million next year, and another $175 million the year after.

April 18, 1988
Excise Tax Act
We now come to the February 1988 Budget. Another lc. per litre increase on the excise tax on gas. That adds up to 4.5c. a gallon. On April 1st, 1988, it went unnoticed, but it was not an April fool's hoax-$225 million were suddenly imposed that day on unsuspecting taxpayers. That hidden tax will bring $300 million next year, Mr. Speaker, and another $300 million the year after.
That coming from a Government that suggested we were paying too much in taxes. I am realistic enough to realize that any expenditure must be taxed. But they should stop stating they will not impose new taxes during election times, because three and a half years later, we now find this is the Government that taxed the most after saying it would not tax that much, and that was a public commitment, a commitment that was taken at face value by the people who voted to change the Government and who found themselves in a situation that is much worse than before.

We have an old expression which comes from my grandfather: "Tory times are hard times".

I feel this is increasingly accurate. The Minister of Finance suggested he would cut spending he would not raise taxes which, according to what he said, and I was here in this House, Mr. Speaker, I was in Parliament when the Minister of Finance on March 6, 1984, not any Minister of Finance but the current one, one of the two Ministers from Toronto ... At least in Toronto they are lucky, they have two. In Montreal I wonder if we have one or half of one. The two largest Canadian cities are underrepresented in Cabinet, even though everything may not have been perfect before. But when we look at the then impressive delegation from Montreal in Cabinet, we knew that the interests of Montreal were protected. Presumably this Government decided to erase Toronto and Montreal from the election map. This seems clear to me.
But again it is the same Minister of Finance who on March 6, 1984, stated they would not raise taxes because tax levels in Canada were already too high. And as usual I cannot but call him my excellent friend-what else could I call him?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was quoted in le Devoir in November of 1984, after the election, as saying: "It's been done before me. I am going to do it too".

"Canadians pay a whole lot of money for Government services. They feel they are paying enough". Well, what happened since November 29-that is the day before my birthday, this is why I recall perfectly those dates-there has been-it is unbelievable, I see my colleague who is smiling, and I am also smiling because the poor Prime Minister is always caught up in his
rhetoric. How do we reconcile today's actions with yesterday's promises? That is what's happening.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a quick look at the revenue. I don't want to keep on talking just to play a trick on the Chair. If other speakers come forward, we might still be here tonight. In any case, let's look at the revenue.
In 1984-85, individual income taxes amounted to $29 billion; in 1988-89, to $45.4 billion. That was from people who paid enough income tax, according to Le Devoir of November 29, 1984. It was from people who paid too much income tax, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said on March 6, 1984. I repeat: individual income taxes amounted to $29.3 billion in 1984-85 and $45.4 billion in 1988-89. Corporations were a lot better off: they paid only $9.4 billion in 1984-85 and $12 billion in 1988-89. In 1984-1985, excise and sales taxes went from $13.7 to $24.3 billion. Other taxes worth $18 billion increased to $21 billion in 1984-85 for a grand total, in that same year, of $70.9 billion if my researchers' figures are correct and I believe they are. That became $103.3 billion in 1988-89.
And that from a Government who said, on March 6, 1984, that they would not increase taxes that Mr. Wilson found too high already. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (M. Mulroney) also said in Le Devoir on November 29, after the election, that taxpayers were paying through the nose for Government services and felt like they were paying too much. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have paid a lot more since then.
Once more, I must point out that this Government broke its promises and collected hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars more in taxes. And there lies the danger, Mr. Speaker, as I try to convince my own party to quantify its promises. We are currently developing our electoral platform. People are becoming cynical about politics. They do not often believe politicians because they listen to electoral campaign speeches. Candidates promise this and that and, two or three years later, they take the opposite course of action.

I am not surprised that people are becoming more and more cynical because they believed passionately during the election campaign that here was a Party which would be the kind of Party they wanted, and so it was elected. But it was promises, promises, promises. Then they turn around and they see that all the promises were broken. I am not at all surprised that people become very cynical when they talk about politics.
I am suggesting to my own Party that we put a price on every promise that we are going to make in the next election. We are at the moment writing our electoral platform. It is not an easy task.

It is not an easy thing because we well know that to win votes, we have to make promises left and right, promises in the
April 18, 1988

Atlantic, the Far North, Montreal, Toronto, the West. But we must still have a sense of responsibility. So Mr. Speaker, I hope that the party I represent will have a sense of responsibility the next time and will quantify the expenditures that we will have to impose on the people as a result of our promises or our election platform and that we will stop lying to the people by making completely unacceptable promises because we know in advance, when we make them, that we cannot pay for them. So we will have to tax. And that has happened to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. That is why we took the time required. That is why I wanted to stand in my place this Monday afternoon, April 18, and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the more I read these promises, this pile of promises, the more I see the increasing numbers of people telling me that almost all this government's promises have been broken. I just wanted to point out some of them. And by speaking out, I hope to help political parties a little to act more wisely in the coming elections that may be held next year.

I see that you are ready to jump with the motion, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I should not keep talking.


Iain Francis Angus: No.


Marcel Prud'homme: There is only one person who can tell me to sit down here. It is Your Honour and certainly not the third Party which will be the fourth Party after the next election.
Having said all that, I will still show some co-operation and allow members of that Party to hearken to what I have just said. One thing is for sure, and at least members of the New Democratic Party will agree with me when I say it. It is that Tory times are hard times. That is what my grandfather said. That is what my father said. That is what I will say.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment of Ms. McLaughlin. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
National Senior Citizens' Day And more than five Members having risen:


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 13(4)(a), at the request of the Chief Opposition Whip, the recorded division is deferred until six o'clock p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, April 19.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being after 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   SENIOR CITIZENS' DAY DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL DAY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study the question of designating, as National Senior Citizens' Day, the second Sunday in June each year in order to recognize the outstanding contribution made by senior citizens to Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of a motion which would recognize the outstanding contributions of senior citizens in Canada. My motion, which I hope will receive the support of Members on all sides of the House, reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study the question of designating, as National Senior Citizens' Day, the second Sunday in June each year in order to recognize the outstanding contribution made by senior citizens to Canada.
This motion was appropriately seconded by my hon. colleague and friend from Beaches who has done an outstanding job over the years speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party as our official spokesperson on senior citizens' issues. I intend to concentrate, during the few minutes available to me, on some of the concerns of the senior citizens of Canada in the areas of health care, community support and services, housing and pensions.
I might just say that this is an issue which I have been interested in from the very earliest age. Indeed, the first volunteer job I had was at the Napier Personal Care Home where I worked as a volunteer with senior citizens, helping them do their shopping and calling bingo. I did this at the age of 16 years, so I got involved at an early age with volunteer work with seniors.
Later, I had the honour of serving as a member of the board of directors of the New Vista Society in Burnaby, B.C.'s largest seniors' housing complex. The New Vista Society was

April 18, 1988
National Senior Citizens' Day
founded by a great pioneer of the CCF, Ernie Winch, who did an incredible job in service to seniors and indeed to the people of Burnaby for many, many years as the CCF MLA for Burnaby.
As well, it is appropriate that I note the extraordinary contribution made by leaders of the CCF and the NDP at the national level who have acted as tireless advocates for the rights of seniors in Canada. M. J. Coldwell and J. S. Woods-worth single-handedly pressured the Liberal Government of the day into implementing old age pensions. Yes, the people were means-tested at the age of 70, but certainly it was M. J. Coldwell and J. S. Woodsworth, those great CCF leaders, who established that fundamental principle.
Then, of course, there is the indefatigable Stanley Knowles who served for so many years as a Member of this House with such great distinction, over and over again speaking out for seniors, for better pensions and for dignity for those who have served our community over the years. Of course, it is particularly appropriate in the context of health care to mention Tommy Douglas, who in fact represented the constituency that I have the honour of representing now, Burnaby-Seymour. Certainly we join today in paying tribute to people such as Ernie Winch, M. J. Coldwell, J. S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas and indeed, my own colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who has done such an outstanding job in this area.
I am not today speaking solely of the role of the Government of Canada in improving the lot of seniors and in recognizing the contribution made by seniors. I also want to highlight one particular area of concern for immigrants from the United Kingdom who are now entitled to a pension from the United Kingdom. However, the Conservative Thatcher Government of the United Kingdom has refused to pass on the cost of living increases to which they are entitled. Certainly justice demands that these senior citizens originally from the United Kingdom receive the increases to which they are entitled.
It is true that the Government has taken an important first step in recognizing the contribution of senior citizens, recognizing the contribution of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) by appointing him as Minister of State for Senior Citizens. I am speaking, of course, of a Member of Parliament who is admired, respected and loved on all sides of the House, and I speak of the Hon. Member for Northumberland who has done such an outstanding job in this important capacity.
This motion is important both in terms of symbolism and of action. Just as we recognize each year the contribution of our mothers on Mother's Day and of our fathers on Father's Day, so too I suggest it is appropriate to recognize the contribution made by senior citizens in Canada.
I mentioned some particular concerns of senior citizens and I would like to touch on some of them now. One of the major concerns is health care. Older people, of course, are some of the most frequent users of the health care system, in terms of both acute and chronic health problems. We recognize a need
in Canada to study the important and emerging area of gerontology. This is an area of study for health care and social agency professionals. This recognition should be made by promoting gerontology as a field of study for the future and by way of increased funding by the federal Government for universities and research agencies in the field of gerontology.
Another area of major concern for senior citizens in my constituency of Burnaby and indeed those throughout the country is the question of affordable and accessible health care. Affordable health care is absolutely vital to seniors who remain on fixed incomes. Certainly we have concerns that the recent legislation covering the generic drug industry may in fact result in a significant increase in the price of essential drugs in the future. These are concerns that must be addressed by the Government.
As well, one of the most devastating concerns for seniors is the question of isolation, of loneliness. It has been said many times that friends are good for your health, and when it comes to seniors, nothing could be more accurate. In my riding, for example, which I have had the honour of representing for almost nine years now, there are over 74 different senior citizens' groups.
With respect to community support, once again I would like to use the example of my own riding because we are fortunate in having not only a large number of senior citizens, who live both at home and in senior citizens' facilities, but they are also very active. They work with their peers in providing many needed services in the community. After all, it is the community where services are needed. I am proud to be a member of a community which is prepared to look at the challenges posed by its large number of seniors.
For example, we have the Burnaby United Way Services for Seniors group ably chaired by Eddy Fisher which brings together a number of different services for seniors in order to provide the most efficient and needed services in the community. As well, we have the Seniors Bureau of New Westminster, presided over by an exceptional woman, Corol Strand-berg, the executive director. It provides a wide range of services to seniors in the Burnaby-New Westminster area. These include shopping, friendly visiting outings, income tax clinics and handyman service. Most of those services are provided on a voluntary basis. I suggest this could serve as a model for other communities in realizing that seniors want to remain independent and active when well past retirement.
The municipality of Burnaby provides a number of important resources to my constituents, whether it be the Cameron Rec Centre, Bonsor Recreation Centre, Confederation Centre, or the Edmonds Community Centre for the Retired which provides special programs, events, workshops and bus trips for Burnaby senior citizens.
I mentioned that in my constituency there is a particularly significant number of seniors. Many of them live in seniors'
April 18, 1988

housing complexes, including the New Horizons Facility, Seton Villa in North Burnaby, the Salish Tower, Doug Drummond Manor, Hall Towers, and many other outstanding facilities. In March, the mayor of Burnaby, Bill Copeland, announced that from June 12 to June 25 he would proclaim B.C. Old Age Pensioners, Senior Citizens and All Elder Citizens' Week. I am proud that my community has recognized the importance of seniors and chose this two-week period to concentrate on the issues and concerns facing senior citizens. Indeed, I hope the House will adopt this motion in time to designate the second Sunday in June this year as National Senior Citizens' Day which falls during that two-week period suggested by the mayor of Burnaby.
When I speak of these groups, of course there are similar groups throughout Canada, including in Edmonton, Winnipeg and many other areas. I speak now of the B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization. I am always pleased to meet with representatives of that organization, people like Bill Anderson, Mildred McKay, and certainly their hard-working secretary, Delphine Carroll. The Burnaby Health Department, along with health departments throughout Canada, sponsors a volunteer section which provides shopping and banking services for seniors as well as volunteers to accompany them on walks or simply have a telephone conversation. The Edmonds Community Centre recently received New Horizons grant funding to run the Retired Health Watch Program. I had the honour of presenting a cheque to that group so they could continue this important work.
Similarly, the Burnaby Seniors Peer Counselling Service offers counselling to senior citizens in Burnaby who are experiencing the normal difficulties in life. These are seniors in the community who have completed a training program and are chosen for their warmth, sensitivity and life experiences. I would hope similar programs would be developed across Canada.
Other New Horizons grants which have gone recently to my constituency include one to the Bonsor seniors of Burnaby who requested a contribution for their program of recreational activities. Then there was the New Outlook group based at the Swedish Senior Citizens Home which got a contribution to establish a gardening program. Telecare Burnaby Senior Services assist with a support and information referral service for those in need. The New Vista Seniors Bowlers involves a program of carpet bowling. Finally there is a group called the Use It or Lose It group in Burnaby which just received a contribution to enhance a variety of outdoor sports activities at the Cameron Community Centre.
There is much that is being done in the community and many important services are being offered. However, there still remain concerns. There is the question of telephones and the Post Office, vital services for seniors in keeping in contact with relatives and friends and remaining active in volunteer work. It is therefore essential that the Government consider seniors when it increases postal rates and pursues a policy which may jeopardize door-to-door delivery. In my own riding, for
National Senior Citizens' Day
example, on too many occasions the Post Office has removed postal boxes without even consulting seniors affected by the decision. Seniors are also very concerned across Canada about the possibility of telephone companies such as B.C. Tel and Bell Canada implementing Local Measured Service which would mean charges for individual calls. My colleague from Beaches spoke about this on a number of occasions. It is a policy which flies in the face of the concept of universal access to telephones. I have tabled many petitions on behalf of the residents of Burnaby with respect to this issue.
Other concerns include the question of taxation. We in the NDP have long called for a fair tax system. Our most recent figures show that 8,000 Canadians with incomes in excess of $50,000 paid not one penny in income tax. Another 250 Canadians with incomes in excess of $250,000 did not pay a cent in income tax. That is unacceptable. That increases the burden on senior citizens and other ordinary Canadians. Frank Helden, for example, a senior in my constituency has raised concerns about the fact that the small pension he receives is taxed at the source. Surely that is unjust and unacceptable.
Another group of seniors who should be recognized for their contribution to our community and country is our veterans. This is done in an outstanding way in many cases by the Canadian Legion. I have two branches of the Legion in my constituency, the South Burnaby Branch, No. 83, and the North Burnaby Branch. Certainly they do a terrific job. However, veterans from World War 1, World War II, the Korean War, indeed veterans who volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War, the Mac-Paps, of which I understand some 100 are still living in Canada, fought for democracy and deserve recognition. We have called on the Government to recognize their contribution. Other seniors volunteered for combat duty but were never called to serve overseas. We believe they should be entitled to be treated with justice, fairness and equity. That is a promise the Government made which remains unfulfilled.
Finally, with respect to housing, there is no doubt many seniors would like to live on their own but are prevented from doing so because of the lack of affordable and accessible housing. Seniors want to live independently and with dignity. Recently I participated in the opening of Douglas Manor in Burnaby, named after Tommy Douglas, of course. That is another example of the tremendous work done by the New Vista society in Burnaby. The goal of that society in striving for an integrated living system for seniors is essential to our communities. They have, for example, special facilities for the disabled. That is the kind of concept we want to encourage everywhere in our society. I had the pleasure of opening the new wing of Douglas Manor with other officials recently and I could only think of how civilized it would be if all our seniors could live independently in such well-constructed, well-designed and well-maintained facilities. It is truly a great tribute to Tommy Douglas.
Finally, there is another sadder part of the story. We recognize that seniors in communities have contributed an

April 18, 1988
National Senior Citizens' Day
enormous amount to our society. The purpose of this motion is to recognize the contribution they have made. It is clear that we have forgotten about too many of them with regard to such things as pensions and housing. It is unfortunate, as well, but we must remember that the vast majority of seniors who live in poverty are women. In 1984, 59 per cent of single elderly women lived on an income of less than $9,000 per year. That was well below the poverty level set by the National Council on Welfare. In 1981, 14 per cent of the men over 65 were widowed while 49 per cent of women were. We must look seriously at eliminating this inequality and bringing about meaningful pension reform which addresses the very serious problems faced by elderly women in particular in our society.
As I said, this motion is important. It is important, both in terms of action and in terms of symbolism, to recognize the outstanding contribution which senior citizens have made to our society in the past and will continue to make in the future.
Probably the most important legacy that a society can leave is a world of peace and disarmament. I know that groups such as Veterans Against Nuclear Arms and other seniors across Canada are deeply concerned that Canadians reaffirm our commitment to peace, disarmament, development, and a more just distribution of wealth globally. In fact, this Saturday, April 23, in Vancouver I will be joining with, I hope, tens of thousands of people, many of them elderly, in the annual Walk for Peace. Seniors will be walking for peace for their children and for their children's children.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will recognize the importance of this motion which is not a partisan issue. I hope that Members on all sides of the House in all Parties will join together in agreeing to consider seriously this important issue of recognizing the tremendous work and the tremendous contribution of senior citizens in Canada and designating the second Sunday in June of each year as National Senior Citizens' Day.
As the Member of Parliament for Burnaby and a member of the New Democratic Party caucus I am proud to bring this motion before the House. I hope that it will be approved unanimously by all Members.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be the lead speaker for the government side on the motion before us today. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I have had the honour to take part in a number of seniors-related discussions and activities. I can tell the House that the Minister's interest in and commitment to seniors is no less than his very well known commitment to veterans.
Hon. Members will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed the Minister as Canada's first Minister of State for Seniors in August of last year. This appointment
was a very important watershed in the Progressive Conservative Party's long and distinguished record of caring and commitment toward seniors. It is a tradition which we in this Party build on day by day. The significance of the appointment of a Minister of State for Seniors should not be underestimated. Seniors themselves certainly do not.
For the first time seniors have a Minister who is mandated to represent their interests at the cabinet table and in government. They also have, as the Minister himself describes it, a "friend at court" to speak out on their behalf, to help cut red tape, and to simplify their dealings with the Government. If seniors need help, they know they can always count on George to provide it.
Finally, seniors have a Minister who is actively to seek their thoughts and ideas and to make those views known to the appropriate line Ministers. We have already seen the effectiveness of this role with the announcement of the seniors initiative on February 9. I will touch on that later in my remarks.
Consequently, in considering what can and should be done on behalf of Canadian seniors it should first be recognized that the appointment of a seniors Minister is a very major accomplishment. All of us on the government benches are proud of the development and I can assure the House that seniors are delighted as well. Fundamental to the success of a seniors Minister is that he or she be in touch with the views of the people being represented. The current Minister is firmly dedicated to that principle and he has often said that seniors are the ones setting the priorities. This was exactly the course the Minister followed with veterans, and with considerable success.
Over the past several months the Minister has heard from over 2,500 seniors and seniors' organizations. First-class ideas have come forward and the Minister has been actively reviewing these proposals. The Minister has also been asking seniors for their views on specific questions so as to enable them to best represent their interests in government.
In keeping with this approach, it very much seems to me that this motion is premature. Instead of barging ahead with a motion or referring the subject matter to a parliamentary committee, we should have some assurance that seniors themselves feel that this is an idea worth priority call on our time and efforts. This raises an interesting question and I tend to believe, Mr. Speaker, that seniors would prefer that we concentrate on initiatives similar to the seniors' initiatives announced this February.
I say this because the seniors' initiative was tailored to the priority items raised with the Minister of State for Seniors during his consultations. These items reflect the areas of importance to seniors and are worth reviewing to provide a point of comparison with the motion before us today.
The first component is the seniors' independence program. It is an entirely new program designed to improve the quality of life and independence of seniors. I am very excited about this
April 18, 1988

initiative because it will help keep seniors in their own homes, where they are far happier, and out of institutions. Twenty million dollars a year will be made available for projects approved under this program.
Increased support for the New Horizons program was the second component of the seniors initiative. This program has helped thousands of seniors to develop resources, services, and opportunities that will benefit themselves and their communities. Some $8 million a year has been provided. This will rise to $15 million a year by 1989-90.
The third element on which I would like to touch is a less happy one. As too many Canadians are personally aware, the devastation caused by Alzheimer's disease is horrendous. There is no known cure and seniors are the chief victims. At least 300,000 Canadians suffer from Alzheimer's disease and many more, primarily family members, suffer along with those stricken by the disease. A research fund of $4 million annually has been established to focus on Alzheimer's as well as osteoporosis, both of which are serious impediments to independent living.
These initiatives are important, imaginative, and innovative, just like the people we are here to serve. However, this is only the beginning. The Minister has embarked on a second round of consultations and he is counting on seniors, their representatives, and parliamentarians to provide the help and advice needed to plan for tomorrow and beyond.
Knowing the Minister, he will want to follow up on this motion, as well as the one sponsored by Senator Croll, to see how seniors themselves feel about a national day or week in their honour. Further speakers may wish to elaborate on this point but I would be very concerned about intruding, or appearing to intrude, in an area that has largely been provincial in nature. Discussions with the provinces are a must in my opinion.
Another concern which I believe would be shared by all Members of Parliament is the fact that seniors are a diverse group with tremendously different backgrounds, goals and aspirations. We see this every day in our constituency office meetings, our mail, and our conversations. Consequently, what is it we wish to celebrate in a national seniors' day? Is it to celebrate the attainment of an arbitrary age or retirement status? It is easy enough to say that we want to acknowledge the outstanding achievements of seniors in building this country, but it is far more difficult to define the segment of the population we wish to recognize.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that we follow the Minister's philosophy and, indeed, the Government's philosophy of letting seniors speak for themselves on this question. Let us seek out the views of our constituents. Let them bring forward their thoughts on the advisability of a national seniors' day. If we truly believe, as this Government does, that one listens and then acts, we will not proceed with a motion that has had only limited discussion among seniors and seniors' organizations.
National Senior Citizens' Day
I, for one, have no hesitation in waiting until the seniors in my riding have had a chance to consider this proposal.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I must say that after a very careful scrutiny of the orders of the day I became aware just a few minutes ago that this is the evening on which we were supposed to consider the motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby ( Mr. Robinson). I was in fact very supprised to see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine ( Mr. McKenzie) rise in his place since it would have been a first here in this House to see both Members agree on something. I was simply astounded to see them speak on the same issue for the first time. But after careful scrutiny, after having listened attentively to what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine was saying, I realized that he was wondering what would be the use of examining this issue or of proclaiming a National Senior Citizen's Day.
I must say that I always find great interest in the debates of this House. Whether they be of a political, ethnic or religious nature, I listen and I respond. I shall therefore respond. Why have a National Senior Citizens Day? It seems so obvious to me. We have Mother's Day and we have Father's Day. Why have Mother's Day since we should celebrate our mothers every day? Why have Father's Day since we ought to celebrate our fathers every day. And what about Secretaries' Week, which is this week, unless I am mistaken? Why? It should be all year long. The reason is that we want to call people's attention more specifically at a certain time during the year to a group or a commemoration, such as the one which will be held on a coming Sunday, on April 24th, here on Parliament Hill, between twelve and one o'clock. The day will be devoted to the commemoration of the Armenians' massacre, or the Armenian genocide. Why on the 24th? We know the facts.
Therefore why should a day be set aside to acknowledge the outstanding contribution of our seniors to the development of Canada? This is because the more we age the more unfortunately our communities neglect their seniors. We forget them. I ride the subway in Montreal, I do not drive a car and I often see older people sitting there who are sadly looking at me. I look back and smile at them. This is not difficult. And suddenly I see their face alter and they often tell me: "You were quite nice, you smiled at me". You know that according to a saying, nobody needs more to smile than the one who has no reason to be smiling. So, I smile, because it is a nice gesture. It may seem insignificant for some, I see some laughing. I am quite sincere. I smile. And apparently, it added a little something, on the subway on that day.
It is not much, but the day of recognition will be held in that spirit. It is a national day to acknowledge the outstanding contribution ... You know that today everything is taken for granted in our fine Canadian community, but if we stop to consider the matter a little, should we not say loudly what our

April 18, 1988
National Senior Citizens' Day
grandparents, our pioneers, our senior citizens have done for that great and noble country.

I think it is a good idea. I am even tempted to amend the motion in order to strengthen it.
For example, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) talked about Mr. Tommy Douglas. We all love Tommy Douglas. What about that great lady, Therese Casgrain, or Senator Bird, "Ladybird" as we call her? What about the contribution of an hon. colleague, Senator Croll. Senator Croll is the conscience-
[ Translation]
... the soul that reminds us constantly in the caucus the problems of ageing in Canada. Do you realize ...

"Poverty in Canada: Highlights from the Special Report of the Senate Committee".

... the highlight of the report published by the Senate Special Committee and entitled "Poverty in Canada". It was signed and written by senator Croll.

He is 88 years old, born in Moscow, Russia, in 1900. He has had a brilliant career in Canada. He was a minister in Ontario and now a senator. He calls us young men, and even referred to me that way once. He may have called me other things, but that is another debate.
I am sure he will not mind if I say that I respect the "old man". My father, who died at 90, did not mind being called a "beautiful old man" when he was in his eighties because it is polite. It is said with respect, as I do in the case of Senator Croll.
That is what prompted me to make my contribution today. I see a very esteemed colleague listening to me and I must admit that he is almost inspiring me when I speak. He is the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), a fine gentleman who is young at heart. While politics divide people, on an issue like this I look at him and he inspires me because he has made many contributions. He would not mind if there was a day to remember what these people have done.
In a few minutes I intend to move an amendment because this motion by the hon. younger Member of Parliament is too much like one by Paul Martin. Perhaps he wants to be a great statesman, and will be sooner or later, but he talks a lot like Paul Martin.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Junior or senior?


Marcel Prud'homme: Senior.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has one minute remaining.


Marcel Prud'homme: I wish to move a motion, which you have in front of you.
He said: ".. . be empowered to study the question of designating" but in French it looks like Paul Martin Senior, another fine gentleman who did a lot for this country. He is probably listening to the debate right now.
[ Translation]
"be empowered to study the question of designating". You know, when you don't want something to be done, you say: Let us set up a committee which will study the possibility of doing something.
So, with your permission . . . Anyway, I am not going to ask his permission, I move, seconded by my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that the motion reads as follows: "That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered", Stop! we remove the words "to study the question of designating" and we replace them by "to recommend the proclamation", as National Senior Citizen's Day, of the second Sunday in June each year.
So, in order that people listening to us understand, it would now read as follows: "That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to recommend the proclamation, as National Senior Citizen's Day, of the second Sunday in June of each year in order to recognize the outstanding contribution made by senior citizens to Canada."
Now, that looks more positive, more serious.

You show that you mean business. You are not only saying it would be nice to study the possibility. Therefore, I have prepared it in both languages. I protest too often when I receive something in one language only so I have to show by example. To conclude, I would ask you to recognize the amendment as receivable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say that the Hon. Member-


Marcel Prud'homme: I will conclude in 30 seconds. I want to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) because I was inspired by him and by the Hon. Member for Bow River. So I think it should be done but the way I have proposed kindly to your Honour to put it back to the House.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say, in the spirit of Private Members' hour, my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception allowed me to say a few words. I know he was scheduled to speak next. I will not abuse that courtesy. I only want to speak for a couple of minutes.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKenzie) in his argument in opposing the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. April 18, 1988

Robinson) made the very strong point, and it was central to his argument, that senior citizens themselves should have an opportunity to determine whether in fact they desire to have a senior citizens' day in Canada. That is no argument at all. I know, as a member of the Canadian delegation to Vienna several years ago to the United Nations Assembly on Aging, one of the key proposals put forward at that UN Assembly, in the final document, was a national day to celebrate the contribution of senior citizens, not only in Canada but in other countries around the world, and it was passed unanimously at that UN Assembly. Canada was a participant in that vote. In fact, our delegation, prior to the amendment made to the main document at the United Nations, wanted in fact to establish a senior citizens' day in Canada.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked what we would do on a national senior citizens' day. It is very simple. The seniors in this country want to be recognized for their contribution to Canadian society and Canada's role in the world. Senior citizens do not want any less or anymore than those under age 65. They want to be recognized and encouraged to fully participate in the mainstream of Canadian life. They want equality and they certainly do not have that in Canada today, unfortunately. In the kind of society and economy in which we live, we tend to view people as only being of value in terms of their productivity toward the economy of the nation. That is what has happened to seniors over the years.
If adopted, I think the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, would go a long way toward establishing this. I will not take up any more time. I certainly have no desire to participate in talking this motion out. I would seriously ask those members on the government side who have not spoken to join with me in not talking this motion out, and in fact agree to send this motion to committee, as has been suggested by the Hon. Member, for further discussion and implementation.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply interested in participating in today's debate. The subject matter is too important to prevent Members of the House from speaking about the very laudable motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I believe all Members and the Canadian public totally agree with the designation of a National Senior Citizens' Day. Mr. Speaker, representing a riding like that of Temiscamingue here in Ottawa is enough to understand the important role played by senior citizens in areas such as mine.
A region like Abitibi-Temiscamingue was able to grow over these last years and the past decades because a long time ago, people coming from Lower St. Lawrence settled down in that area...


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of order, I wonder if the Hon. Member would recognize that if he continues to talk this motion will not be referred to committee.
Adjournment Debate
I wonder if he would co-operate in allowing this very important motion to in fact go to committee and he can then appear as a witness before the committee?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue has the floor.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I still want to make my point because as far as the motion is concerned, I said it was commendable, although I was not sure that we should decide on a national seniors' day. On that subject, I think . . .


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Committee can do that.


Gabriel Desjardins: . . . there should be more consultation. I had discussions today with the Senior Citizens Regional Council of my area, and they told me they would prefer that day to fall on the first Sunday in May instead of the second Sunday in June.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should hear from the seniors and discuss the matter with their representatives and with the provinces because we must bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia as well as in Quebec, some specific weeks through the year are dedicated to senior citizens. In Quebec, the last week of May is such a week.
Then, Mr. Speaker, why not consider the last Sunday in May also as a possible national seniors' Day.
The point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is that although I am all for a senior citizens' Day, I think that we should have much more discussion on the subject than we have had so far.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time since last summer I take the floor to speak about those forgotten Canadians who work for the minimum wage. They are so forgotten that Statistics Canada and the Department of Labour do not know how many under federal jurisdiction are living on the minimum wage. It is an indication of how minimal is the interest in the minimum wage.

April 18, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Their lot is hard enough in most provinces but harder still in industries under federal jurisdiction such as railways, airlines, shipping companies, radio stations, television channels, and telecommunications. It is harder because in so many instances-indeed in all but one-the federal rate is lower.
The hardship they endure, however, is due not only to the wage being so low-$4 per hour-it is due also in the way inflation is outstripping their wages. These are wages which are earned by low paid, unskilled, unorganized, and largely forgotten workers.
The last federal minimum wage increase was in May, 1986, almost two years ago. Since that time the Consumer Price Index has gone up over 8 per cent so that the $4 per hour of 1986 are now worth only $3.84 in 1988. It was little enough in 1986, impossibly low in 1988.
It is time, and over time, that this wage rate were reviewed and improved. I submit, as I did in raising this subject, that the solution must include not only raising the federal minimum wage but indexing it according to the Consumer Price Index.
That is done, is it not, Mr. Speaker, for old age security pensions? It is done for Canada pensions. It is done for public service pensions. It is done for parliamentary pensions. Why is it so impossible for us to consider doing the same for those who need it most?
This proposal is not any wildcat radical notion. It has been practised in France since 1952. It was recommended in the United States by the Minimum Wage Study Commission and the General Accounting Office in 1983. It is not an irresponsible notion that surfaces in Private Members' Hour or in the Adjournment Debate. It is demonstrably a reasonable proposal put forward and practised by major Governments.
I am aware that some economists argue against minimum wages at all. I submit that that is not the issue. To raise the point at all is really to be irrelevant. The fact is we have the minimum wage. We have it in every jurisdiction in Canada, federally, provincially, and territorially.
The issue becomes: Is the minimum wage adequate to the need. Is it keeping pace with the cost of living? Is it providing protection to those who need it most, those who do not have other advocacy than this Parliament can afford? I am speaking about people who do not have any trade unions to speak for them or any hired agents, high-priced lawyers negotiating contracts for them. These are people who have to look to where I am speaking. They have to look to Parliament. They have to look to the House of Commons to bring before the representatives of the people of Canada, and through them the people themselves, the need of those who are otherwise without a voice.
I think of people who are struggling to make do on this kind of minimum wage, not only those who receive it under the federal jurisdiction but those who receive it in provincial and territorial industries. I am impressed at how impossible their plight is, especially when I think of what it costs to put a roof
over one's head, the roof of just one rented room, or perhaps two or three rooms in a basement apartment in the riding of Scarborough West or some other part of Metro Toronto.
I see why we have the arrival and the apparent though tragic permanency of food banks, for housing today is costing such a percentage of anyone's income that when a person's income is minimal the result is impossible without supplementary assistance.
I ask the Government to expedite its consideration of this matter and, if possible, to take the second step of indexing this wage so that in the future workers will not have to wait until officials get around to considering them, but like Members of Parliament, like pensioners, they will automatically receive their just due.


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his comments and for his concern for the plight of the working poor.
Since the Government took office it has increased the federal adult minimum wage from $3.50 to $4 per hour, an increase of 14 per cent. Also, given its potential conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the lower youth rate was eliminated, augmenting the federal minimum wage for workers under the age of 17 to the adult rate, an increase of 23 per cent.
Labour Canada is constantly monitoring the status of the federal minimum wage. This monitoring takes into account such factors as changes in the rate of inflation, shifts in the unemployment rate, general economic conditions, and minimum wage rates in other jurisdictions.
As was indicated the last time the Hon. Member raised this issue, the most recent percentage increases in the federal minimum wage are above the rise in the Consumer Price Index since the Government took office in September, 1984. Thus, the purchasing power of minimum wage earners has been protected during the Government's mandate. Moreover, the federal rate remains at the median of the provincial rates.
On the specific issue of automatic indexation of the minimum wage versus periodic reviews, the Government and indeed all provincial and territorial Governments across Canada have until now taken the approach of periodically reviewing their minimum wage policy, rather than binding themselves to automatic increases that may or may not have a detrimental effect on the potential employment of minimum wage earners.
Minimum wage earners, and indeed all Canadian workers, have benefited from the Government's successful battle against inflation. Since 1984, inflation has remained in check despite very impressive rates of growth in the national economy and in the number of jobs created. All Canadian workers, including
April 18, 1988

those working at minimum wage, will benefit from a controlled inflation rate and the creation of new employment possibilities.
In conclusion, I wish to state that the Government will continue to monitor the situation of minimum wage earners and their economic prospects. As the Minister previously indicated to the Hon. Member, a review is presently under way which will be completed shortly. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister will take into account the Hon. Member's concerns in the examination of the results of that review.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ACQUISITION OF NEW TRUCKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 1988, I asked the Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) the following question: Why did the Department accept a truck designed and patented by a non-NATO country when there was an opportunity to get a "made-in-North America" truck to any specifications desired?
The Hon. Associate Minister of National Defence replied:
-on June 6, 1986, an interdepartmental force, which was later confirmed by the Ministers, decided to open up the bidding to all truck manufacturers in the world and not restrict it to NATO trucks.
At that time when the tenders were put out on July 31, 1986, all truck manufacturers, both inside and outside NATO, had an equal opportunity to meet the specifications.
When a truck was purchased, we purchased the lower priced truck of those trucks which met specifications. A couple of trucks did not meet specifications.
I wish to make the following comments. First, this was a wonderful opportunity to secure a truck to the specifications set out by the Department that could have been designed and made to those standards in Canada.
It would not then have been necessary to think about patents or technology that belonged to another country. Bombardier was one firm prepared to do this if sufficient time had been given, and possibly other Canadian firms would have come up with a vehicle. Then we would have had a Canadian or North American vehicle that perhaps would have cost less. This opportunity has now been lost. While the Department is satisfied with the truck that it has purchased it is still not and never will be a Canadian made truck as its technology rests in another land.
Second, the original press release stated that the new truck will be manufactured by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC) Inc., Kingston, Ontario. Actually Lavalin Inc. of Montreal owns 85 per cent of UTDC, and the balance is owned by the provincial Government of Ontario. The trucks are now going to be built in Ontario. The contract is expected to generate some 500 jobs over a 24-month period and a large number of jobs after that.
Third, it is a shame, indeed, that the vehicles required are not to be manufactured in either western Canada under the Western Diversification Program or in the Maritimes. One
Adjournment Debate
firm, Bombardier, would have done the manufacturing in Cochrane, Alberta and would have used the entire western provinces for purchasing supplies. This would have added much to the economy of the West, had consideration been given to disparities. The Minister had advised that, in accordance with the government procurement guidelines no consideration could be given to regional disparities during the evaluation process.
It is my view that every contract let by the Government of Canada should consider regional disparities, and the guidelines should be so amended. This contract was let in Ontario where there is buoyancy in the economy, whereas in both the West and the Maritimes unemployment is rampant and both need industries that will be there for a long time. We missed this opportunity to secure an industry in the West that would have provided a great deal of diversification for many years to come.
Fourth, another matter of concern in this contract is the patent. I have been advised that Lavalin Inc. secured full rights to this vehicle. Is there a patent on the entire vehicle, and also on parts of the vehicle, that may spring up once the vehicle is constructed? It appears that the Government paid Lavalin $116,000 for the technology. I hope that all legal questions of ownership, patents, copyrights, et cetera, have been cleared so there can be no future trouble or cost to the Canadian people.
Fifth, the contract actually included seven types of trucks based on a common cab and chassis. There may be good reasons why these seven types of trucks had to be included in one contract, but, again, had this been broken down, there is always the possibility that a better price could have been secured and the work could have been spread across the country.
Sixth, there is also the matter of parts for the said vehicles. When 122 heavy trucks are being purchased, there should be a requirement that the manufacturer keep on hand a large supply of every part that may wear out or eventually have to be replaced. Certainly the grease, oil, and diesel fuel are standard, but there are some very serious questions about many truck parts that could wear out when lives are being threatened. I believe Lavalin should be required, with no ands, ifs, or buts, to keep all parts that may wear out in ready supply. It is not good enough to say that there might be other NATO trucks that have similar transmissions, similar cargo boxes, similar dump trucks, and similar carburetors.
I and the people of Cochrane, and indeed the people of western Canada, were bitterly disappointed when Bombardier lost this contract. Part of the hurt was salved when the Department of National Defence stated that, even when the present contract has been completed, there will still be a shortage of some 2,500 trucks. The splendid buildings in Cochrane, Alberta are still available. The people are anxious to welcome Bombardier, a Quebec firm to our province. It will strengthen unity of the nation. The firm would have an

April 18, 1988
Adjournment Debate
opportunity to expand its market to western Canada and the western U.S. states, and the diversification resulting would meet the requirements of the Western Diversification Program.
Cochrane stands ready to assist our military to secure the best equipment possible if given the opportunity. May the next tender come soon, and I hope the people of Cochrane will have reasons to cheer when the contract is let.


Joseph Price: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must be congratulated for his vigorous defence of his constituents.
In February, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) announced that UTDC of Kingston would manufacture 1,122 heavy trucks at an approximate cost of $250 million. As the Hon. Member knows, there is a competitive bidding process, and in July of 1986, our request for proposal was sent to 13 Canadian companies. In March of 1987, responses were received from four companies.
In the request for proposal, the prospective bidders were advised that the final selection would be based on an aggregate assessment of five factors: one, the over-all cost to the Crown; two, compliance of the vehicle and its variants with the specification and the bidder proposed project management; three, industrial benefit; four, compliance of the Integrated Logistic Support System; and five, delivery.
An evaluation plan was prepared prior to receipt of the proposals and, as a part of the evaluation, candidate vehicles from the four bidders were acquired for technical and user trials. The results of these trials were incorporated into the final evaluation.
In August of 1987, the four bidders were requested to submit proposals for higher quantities because of the additional requirements arising from the White Paper. These proposals were received and separate evaluations were done by members of the Departments of National Defence, Regional Industrial Expansion, and Supply and Services. These results were consolidated into a final assessment and presented to an interdepartmental senior review board in January of this year and subsequently endorsed by Cabinet.
The awarding of this contract to UTDC ensures that Canada receives the optimum benefits in terms of excellence of equipment, Canadian content, industrial offsets, transfer of technology, employment, and value for money, and fully meets the requirements of the Canadian Forces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers