1989-06-26

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 37 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ACT


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an Act to amend the Governor General's Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the Minister leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When will the Bill be read for the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Windsor- Lake St. Clair.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the reason for this Bill is quite simple. The title Windsor-Lake St. Clair is by

June 26, 1989
Petitions
comparison to Windsor-St. Clair more difficult to say. Perhaps more important is the fact that there are no constituents living in the lake.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is preferable, therefore, to have the title of the riding correspond to the fact that my electors are land based.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You are always in deep water.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I am not allowed to have any views on this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Although I have heard some already, it seems to me a compelling argument.


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

['Agreed.']
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you will find that I will have permission to present, move, and complete without debate two motions.

The first motion is made on the suggestion of my friend, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Right Honourable Prime Minister, I move:
That the Speaker of the House of Commons convey to the President of the French National Assembly and to the President of the French Senate the good wishes of the Canadian House of Commons on the occasion of the official ceremonies which will commemorate in July the bicentenary of the French Revolution and of the Declaration des droits de I'homme et du citoyen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!

I might suggest that that should properly be recorded as a motion moved by me on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada and seconded by another Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Government have the unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I think you will find that I have the same consent and permission for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or arrangement of business for Private Members' Hour on Ihesday, June 27, 1989, Bills C-239 (Mrs. Maheu), C-240 (Mr. Attewell), C-241 (Mr. Bird), C-245 (Mr. Hopkins), C-251 (Mr. Desjardins), C-252 (Mr. Arseneault), and C-254 (Mr. McCurdy) be called for second reading, seriatim, for up to 10 minutes of debate on each, and at the end of each such period the Speaker shall interrupt to put all questions to allow each and all of these seven Bills to advance through all stages in that hour.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said
motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition from a number of constituents of Kamloops, British Columbia.
The petitioners are very concerned about what they perceive to be the Government's support for the growing militarization of our economy. They want Canada, through Parliament, to cease all government involve-
June 26, 1989

raent in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment. They wish that the Government would take action to ensure that countries which violate human rights are not permitted to arrange purchases of military and policing equipment from Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I present another petition on behalf of constituents of Kamloops, British Columbia.
The petitioners are concerned that the Government has, in a sense, severely abused the Unemployment Insurance Act by expecting training programs to be funded in large part by funds contributed through the unemployment insurance package. They are asking Parliament to move immediately to adopt the recommendations presented to it by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its first report to the thirty-third Parliament, second session, and to reject any proposal to fund these retraining programs from the unemployment insurance fund.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on another matter. Petitioners from Kamloops, British Columbia are concerned that the Government may in fact be supporting the exploration of minerals and hydrocarbons off our West Coast.
The petitioners are making the point at some length that this would be inappropriate and are therefore simply calling upon Parliament to stop any hydrocarbon exploration activities off the West Coast of British Columbia.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. They concern the extradition of criminals out of Canada.
The petitioners want the laws of Canada revised so that people can be extradited for crimes committed elsewhere.
Petitions


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to present petitions signed by Canadians who are concerned about the future of the Port of Churchill.
The Port of Churchill is crucial to the health of the economy of the prairie provinces. Already, the result of the reduced grain shipments through Churchill is beginning to show. An astounding 83 of our 185 track maintenance workers on the railway lines in northern Manitoba are being told that their jobs will be abolished in the next five months.
Petitioners from Winnipeg, Churchill, Ilford, The Pas, all in Manitoba, and from Hudson Bay in Saskatchewan call on the House of Commons to ensure that, at the very least, 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped out of Churchill.
Only by stabilizing the flow of grain across the Prairies to Churchill can we stabilize the economies and the communities of our prairie provinces and maintain the jobs of the track workers there.


Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present to the House today a petition signed by nearly 6,000 teachers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, members of the Newfoundland Teachers Association under the presidency of Mr. Keith Coombs.
These teachers are concerned that the anticipated changes to the Canadian laws affecting pensions will directly and significantly affect their pension plan and the pension benefits they have negotiated with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador over a period of time, provisions that have been negotiated as part of a broader compensation package, a compensation package that reflects the realities of teachers and the realities of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Their prayer is that the Government either abandon these amendments or make the amendments suitable to accommodate the particular realities of the pension plan.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of submitting a petitionin

June 26, 1989
Customs Tariff
signed by several hundred of the electorate from my part of the country. These petitions have been properly certified according to Standing Order 36.
All of the signatories condemn the Government for its emasculation of VIA Rail and its intention to cancel routes across Canada. The petitioners point out that this is an unreasonable thing to do in the context of the need for a reconstructed system of transportation.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve, and modernize VIA Rail in those area of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other modes of transportation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to answer Question No. 77 today.


Mr. Gardiner: 1.	For the past ten years, how many applications to export Crown-grant logs from the "E & N" lands have been received from
(a)	MacMillan-Bloedel (b) British Columbia Forest Products (c) Fletcher Challenge (d) Canfor (e) Canadian Pacific Forest Products?
2.	Were such bids made by B.C. manufacturers and, if so, (a) how many (b) what was the comparison with bids made to export lumber by smaller manufacturers?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of International Trade):: From 1986 federal statistics show over 400 applications were received for the export of Crown-grant logs. Specific information about companies is of a commercial and confidential nature.
Prior to issuing export permits, bids are solicited from interested log buyers by notification in the "Canada Gazette" and/or directly to potential buyers to determine whether or not shipments are surplus. The determination of whether logs are surplus is made by the Timber Export Advisory Committee (TEAC) consisting of federal and provincial authorities, and industry experts. Record of the bids is maintained by TEAC and are retained by the provincial government authorities. Federal records of permits are retained for approximately one year as permit validity is restricted to 120 days.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Hon. John McDermid (for Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Horton McDermid: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on Bill C-17. When the Bill was presented earlier, we indicated our support for this legislation.
As the finance critic for the Opposition indicated in his remarks earlier, we are concerned about the question of importation of pornographic materials. Although we recognize that the extension that is provided for in this Bill will be helpful, it is to be hoped that greater certainty be established through either regulation or by legislation to provide for a more structured means by which the importation of pornography can be controlled.
June 26, 1989

We recognize that there have been efforts made in this area. It is not an easy task to deal with such a situation, but this extension will be helpful.
It is clear that those changes, although they have been welcomed by Members on both sides, point out the need for further refinement in dealing with customs tariff areas.
Although this is a beginning, the Government will need to look more closely at some of the items involved here, particularly with respect to pornography.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff. This Bill does several things, largely administrative in nature, but it makes certain amendments to eliminate the tariff on certain goods which are not produced in Canada, to change to some degree some of the remission orders, and to remove duties from certain products such as time recorders, vessels for scrapping, and checking fixtures imported temporarily for manufacturing production equipment.
Duty is also reduced on low alcohol beer, and excise and duty sales taxes are raised to align the treatment of imported lower alcohol beer into line with domestic beer. It also extends the authority to restore the pre-har-monized system tariff rates. In large part, the Bill is administrative in nature. We have no objections to those sections.
One section of the Bill deals with customs tariff prohibition on pornographic, hate, treasonable, and seditious materials. On December 31, 1989 the current regulation is scheduled to expire. This Bill proposes that no longer will it be necessary for annual review of this section in Parliament. In 1985 when this section was implemented as the result of a court case, it was decided that it was important that Parliament have a chance to review this particular amendment on an annual basis.
Since that time, through the Ministry of Justice, there have been Bills presented to the House, which have not gone through owing to the election last fall, to deal with the more serious issue of the definition of pornographic and seditious material, hate literature, and so on.
The customs Department and its officers find themselves making decisions based on an ill-defined definition of materials upon which they have to make judgments. In the Salman Rushdie The Satanic Verses
Customs Tariff
case, customs officers made a decision to withhold the importation of that book for several days based on an interpretation of this particular Act. That then led to a fairly large controversy on the ability of customs officers to make those choices on the law as it stands. Clause 25 of the Bill is not highly explanatory and states:
Code 9956 in Schedule VII to the said Act is amended by striking
out the words following paragraph (d) thereof.
Basically that means that rather than having to come back to Parliament on an annual basis to discuss this issue and to seek further extension, it will be included in the Act for an indefinite period of time.
We raised this question in 1985 when it was originally instituted, and we still have considerable problems with it. Admittedly, much of the problem rests with the Ministry of Justice having to define this and to set the policy. Customs Tariff obviously implements the policy and makes the decisions. However, the responsibility for the definition rests with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis). This is a major unfinished piece of business. The Criminal Code must be examined in relation to this area.
As I stated, there continues to be a problem in this area. There was the recent case to which I referred concerning the Salman Rushdie book. We do not know what other cases may arise of a similar nature. The place that this must be addressed is within the Criminal Code by the Ministry of Justice.
However, this time it is not going forward, at least in this session of Parliament it would appear, and for that reason we will oppose the Bill based on Clause 25 specifically, because of our concern that until this issue is clarified in the Criminal Code it should come before Parliament on an annual basis for review.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Hon. Members know that the Act is a legislative response to changing circumstances. The needs of the business community for exporters and importers make necessary a number of technical changes to the Customs Thriff.
I might suggest to my friends in the New Democratic Party that an annual review by Parliament, referring to the section on the importation of hate literature, seditious materials, and pornographic materials has nothing whatever to do with the Customs Act specifically but more with the Criminal Code. In fact, that is where the review should take place as to definition and not, if I can

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
put it this way, to the policing of the Criminal Code which Customs has to do.
Examining this on a yearly basis is a superficial examination, as the Hon. Member knows since she was in committee. More properly, it should be addressed by the Ministry of Justice. I hope Members opposite would reconsider their opposition to this particular Bill.
Finally, I would like to thank the members of the legislative committee who dealt with this matter in a very thorough and expeditious manner. I look forward to the passage of Bill C-17.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said 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 will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Recognizing that the New Democratic Party has forced the vote, Your Honour will find that there is unanimous agreement among all Parties to defer that vote until 6 p.m., when there is another deferred division scheduled.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, what I think the Whip of the New Democratic Party is trying to do is save the House a little bit of time. If the bells were to ring, then we would defer the vote until this evening at 6 p.m. when there are other votes scheduled. However, if we can do it without the ringing of the bells, and with the concurrence of all three Parties, then on this occasion I think that that would be appropriate.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chief government whip for that very specific detail. The bells have not started to ring. Therefore, we can do anything with unanimous consent. However, if the bells had started to ring I would have invoked Standing Order 45(5), which gives either the official opposition whip or the chief government whip the privilege, I could say, to approach the Chair and to ask Your Honour to defer the vote until 6 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed that we shall not ring the bells and defer the vote until 6 p.m. this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean Charest (for Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources) moved that Bill C-23, an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and to repeal certain enactments in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather disappointed that the Government has not seen fit to have someone from its side to introduce this Bill, particularly since this is second reading.
It is a very important Bill, although the Government would have us believe differently. The Government describes Bill C-23 more or less as a Bill to do some housecleaning points with respect to the National Energy Board. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a great deal more than just a few housekeeping points with respect to the National Energy Board.
Bill C-23 has tremendously far-reaching implications for our country. It will change dramatically the way in which we will allow exports of electricity from our producing provinces into the United States. To a large extent it will affect the regulations and the conditions under which consuming provinces will be able to receive electricity from the producing provinces.
June 26, 1989

In the past we have had certain rules and regulations, a strong presence in the National Energy Board, regarding this point. I think the system has worked quite well. With respect to the National Energy Board, we are also making some changes to the Board itself. We are getting a few significant changes with respect to the export of oil and gas from Canada into the United States and presumably other countries, if we are going to be in a position to sell oil to other countries.
I think the major issue here is electricity. The Government has altered drastically the means by which we are going to export electricity into the United States and the conditions under which we can assure our interconnecting utilities, that is, other provinces connected to the producing provinces, of at least a portion of the electricity from the producing provinces at a comparable price.
To begin I would like to talk about the situation as it was which gave the National Energy Board a veiy strong presence. The Board, which was first recommended by the Borden Commission in 1958, has been a marvellous organization which has served the country extremely well. Even today the National Energy Board is comprised of very competent individuals. They have done the job that has been asked of them extremely well. I think it is one of our best agencies.
First and foremost the National Energy Board has had the jurisdiction to approve or to turn down the export of oil and gas and electricity into the United States. With respect to electricity there were certain guidelines under which the Board operated.
The first was that the producing provinces had to be able to pay the cost of producing the electricity before the Board would allow it to be exported, something which makes a great deal of sense. Also, the producing province had to include in its cost of production certain indirect effects of that production. The foremost effect was environmental. If there were environmental effects as a result of the production of electricity then, of course, there would be a cost not only to the producing province, but a cost to the federal Government as well, which should be compensated for in the price of electricity. That is to say, the price should be able to allow for the reimbursement of the province and the citizens of the province the cost of producing that electricity, and the cost of bringing back the environment as much as
National Energy Board
possible to the state it was before the actual production of electricity took place.
The second point is that if it was being sold into the United States it could not be sold below the least cost alternative. That is to say the National Energy Board insisted that if we are going to sell electricity to the United States it could not be below the cost of the other form of energy which was the cheapest in the United States. For instance, if natural gas was cheaper than all other fuels in the U.S., then the price of electricity, the comparable energy value of electricity, could not be cheaper. It could not be sold more cheaply into the U.S. than the equivalent of the cost of natural gas.
Third, if electricity were to be sold into the U.S. then interconnecting utilities, in particular other provinces, had the right to make application to the National Energy Board to have at least a portion of that electricity sold at a comparable price. This was considered fair for two reasons, the first being that it would be natural to assume that we would first look after the interests of other provinces in Canada before we looked after the interests of foreign countries.
Some of the other provinces, and I think in particular of the smallest province, Prince Edward Island, was absolutely dependent upon getting its electricity from Quebec through New Brunswick, which made that province very vulnerable. With that in mind, the Board protected all the provinces to ensure that they were looked after in that regard and that the price for which the electricity would be sold to these other provinces would be the same as it would be sold in the United States, thereby not creating hardship for the producing province. Of course, there would be different cost depending upon the cost of transmission of the electricity. If it went to a province that was farther away than the American market, of course it would be more expensive to that province because of the transportation charges. That was a benefit for all of Canada and was considered to be a very strongly held principle by the former Liberal Government.
However, there were some objections which I think have to be looked at and considered. Some of the producing provinces were concerned, and I think with some justification, that if they sold to interconnecting utilities then those utilities in turn would sell that electricity into the United States at a higher price, thereby making a profit for electricity that was not theirs. All they would have done was take it from one province and sell it into the United States, thereby making a sizeable sum of money on electricity which was gener-

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
ated in another province. That made the generating provinces somewhat upset, which I think is understandable. It was something that was in the forefront of the Government's mind when it brought forward this legislation. While it has dealt with this, in doing so it has created many problems within the Bill itself.
This legislation is not suitable for the country. It is a cop out on the role of the federal Government on its responsibility to Canada. It is abandoning its role with respect to jurisdiction over the export of electricity and control of the environment to allow the provinces to do what they want.
Of course, there are provincial laws with respect to energy. Electricity, perhaps more than other forms of energy, lies within provincial jurisdiction. That has always been recognized and must continue to be recognized. The provinces have their own responsibilities and jurisdiction.
Bill C-23 is an Act to amend the National Energy Board Act, but as I said earlier, it is considerably more than that. Clause 58.19 states:
For the purposes of sections 58.2, 58.21 and 58.22, a law of a province is in relation to lines for the transmission of electricity from a place in the province to another place in the province if the law is in relation to any of the following matters;
One consideration is:
(c) assessments of their impact on the environment;
This is, to be solely within the jurisdiction of the province. Transmission from one part of the province to another part of the province, and concerns regarding the environment, are a provincial concern. That is not overly disturbing because the province will have to take responsibility for any decisions regarding transmission lines that are offensive environmentally within that province.
Clause 119.06 deals with licences and the export of electricity to the United States. It states:
(2) In deciding whether to make a recommendation, the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, including-
(b)	whether the exportation of the electricity would result in the contravention of or failure to comply with environmental requirements of the Government of Canada;
I will return to that clause later, but the point I want to make is that the Government has addressed the transmission of electricity from one part of the province to another part of the same province, as the responsibility of the Department of the Environment of the province, and the export of electricity to be the jurisdiction of the federal Government, but the Bill does not deal with the interprovincial sale of electricity. There is nothing in the Bill dealing with who has control over problems with the environment when electricity is sold from one province to another. This major omission has been brought to the attention of the Government but it has not dealt with it.
Rather than making a simple omission, I believe the Government has done this intentionally. Let me refer to a speech made by the former Minister of Energy, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) in 1988. He
said:
It is inevitable that provincial regulations will be applied to the determination of the detailed routing for international power lines. National Energy Board regulation of the detailed route is hence unnecessary except, perhaps in the case of a line traversing more than one provinces that is not supported by all of the provinces in which it will pass.
He made that point in his speech but there is nothing in the Bill to deal with that matter. He went on to say:
The detailed routing and land acquisition provisions of the National Energy Board Act will therefore not apply to international power lines except when: (i) the line passes through more than one province; and (ii) a sponsoring province so requests.
Even though a licence for routing power lines is extraterritorial as far as Canada is concerned, the former Minister said that the federal Government can only take into consideration the environmental questions when a line passes through more than one province and when the sponsoring province so requests. That is completely unacceptable, particularly when one considers the importance of environmental factors today and the attention being given to the environment by Canadians today.
The Minister went on to say:
June 26, 1989

The Government of Canada will now seek to develop-
That is within the legislation before us today:
- in co-operation with the provinces and the electrical industry, environmental guidelines and standards applicable to electricity generation and transmission. The goal would be a co-ordinated nation-wide effort designed to achieve a consensus on environmental norms, while providing flexibility on how these norms are to be adapted to local circumstances and on how they are to be achieved.
There is no consensus in this legislation. There is no consensus brought before us in the House today. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) will tell us that the consensus exists, but to my knowledge and according to my information, no consensus has been reached between the provinces on the one hand and the federal Government on the other.
Let me turn to Clause 58.29(4). It states:
The appropriate authority may grant leave under this section after construction of the proposed work has commenced if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the work was urgently required and, prior to the commencement of construction, the appropriate authority was notified of the intention of the holder of the permit or certificate issued in respect of the line to proceed with the proposed work.
I suggest this actually encourages the start-up of construction of power lines before approval is given. The Government is acting irresponsibly in making such an insinuation.
Clause 58.39 states:
The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying into effect the purposes and provisions of this Part, including regulations-
Let me illustrate some of the stipulations of the regulations:
(a)	prescribing matters in respect of which terms and conditions of permits may be imposed:
(b)	respecting the information to be furnished in connection with applications for permits:
(c)	specifying considerations to which the Board shall have regard in deciding whether to recommend to the Minister that an international power line be designated by order of the Governor in Council under Section 58.15; and
(d)	prescribing the form of elections filed under Section 58.23.
This brings us to a very important point regarding this legislation. Regardless of the fact that it has many clauses, it is merely shell legislation. The Government has intentionally made the Bill so innocuous, bland and ineffective that we cannot say what it will accomplish
National Energy Board
unless we have a complete list of the regulations before us.
The legislation is very indefinite and uncertain, yet we are being asked to comment on and approve it at second reading. The Bill is too sketchy. What the Government is doing of course, having intentionally made the Bill as sketchy as it possibly can, is trying to bring in after the Bill is passed the meat of the whole process of the export of electricity in regulations.
I would like to go to what I consider perhaps the key to this Bill. How are we going to regulate the export of electricity into the United States? This Government has come through with a novel concept. It talks about permits and licences. You can export electricity based on licences or you can export electricity based on permits.
If you read the Act, it does not give you a great deal of information other than to say that the National Energy Board can agree to the export of electricity into the United States via a permit without a Board hearing. That is, the National Energy Board will decide if it wants to allow the export of electricity from any province of Canada into the United States and give a permit for this export, but there will be no hearing involved. That means that there is no way really that we have a chance to get the full disclosure of the actual export.
Then it goes one step further and says that if the National Energy Board feels that there should be a hearing, which is the National Energy Board's right and which it has done up to the present time very effectively-albeit some applications have taken a long time to be approved, but that could be remedied with changes in procedure-but it can give a permit without a hearing. However, if the National Energy Board finds that there should be a hearing, they have to make this recommendation to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council decides whether there should be a hearing or not.
Therefore, it really is not the National Energy Board that is controlling the export of electricity, it is the Governor in Council and the federal Government. It decides, be it for political reasons, leverage or whatever, without giving any kind of answer or explanation as to why, whether there is going to be a review or not. If there is a hearing or a review and the review is approved, then of course there is a licence issued. If the Governor in

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
Council says no, there is not to be a hearing, then the permit is given.
This is a complete abdication of the principles of review that have been so important in dealing with Canada's energy self-sufficiency and the export of energy into the United States. I do not doubt that the sale of electricity is very important to the provinces. I frankly do not see many reasons that exist for denying applications, but still it is a federal responsibility. It is a federal responsibility, but Canadians have the right to look at the applications and get some idea of what it is that the Government is doing by way of commerce with the United States.
The Free Trade Agreement has already ruled out the second rule of thumb. That is, that energy can only be sold into the United States at no less a price than the least cost alternative. The Government seems to be saying in this Bill that the price is purely within the realm and jurisdiction of the province and that it does not want to interfere in the provincial domain regardless of whether the domain in which the provincial government is acting is a federal domain or not. What the federal Government is saying is, if the provincial Government has made regulations, the federal Government should not interfere. It is a travesty of the rights of Canadians. It is a travesty as far as this Government's responsibility to fulfil its role in the export of energy into the United States.
Just let me give an example from that same speech that the then Minister of Energy made in September of 1988. He said:
As I have already noted, this regulatory approach does not explicitly take account the fact that Canadian utilities are already comprehensively regulated by the provinces. The new policy does. It can be summarized very briefly.
Four of the points that he makes in his summary are:
Approval will be by permit, except in those cases designated by the Governor-in-Council. Permits will not require a public hearing or a review by the Governor-in-Council.
The Governor-in-Council may designate an export for licensing or a power line for certification if there is any reason to believe that regulation by the sponsoring province is insufficient.
Designations will be made on the advice of the Board, and such advice will be made public.
Proposals that have been designated by the Governor-in-Council will be reviewed by the NEB through the public-hearing process. In considering the application, the Board will have regard to all relevant matters.
The reference to all relevant matters will be the matters set down in the directive of the Governor in Council in the regulations which we do not have at the present time and dealing with the licensing of the application that really the Governor in Council will dictate, not the National Energy Board.
I want to look at another point which I think is very important. At that time, approximately September 2, 1988, we have an example of what the Government of Canada was looking at in a letter to Mr. R. Priddle, Chairman of the National Energy Board. The former Minister of Energy said:
Where appropriate, the Governor-in-Council may designate exports and international power lines for licensing or certification procedures. Once designated, an application will be considered by the Board through a public-hearing process and any authorization will require Govemor-in-Council approval.
It is very strongly stated that there is not to be a hearing unless the Governor in Council says that there is going to be a hearing. With this whole realm of abandoning the responsibility over jurisdiction of exports of energy, and particularly in this case, electricity, we cannot see this Government actually requiring a hearing in any situation.
The former Minister of Energy, the present Minister of Communications goes on to say:
Designations will occur in instances where there is reason to believe that provincial review procedures are insufficient for determining whether a proposal is in the Canadian public interest.
What provincial review procedures? Today the provinces get a contract and they sell. Those are the review procedures, and to say that the review procedures are not sufficient really does not differ one case from another. As I have said, we are just going to have a complete abdication of responsibility by the federal Government in this regard.
Where we had the most concern, and this is something to which I alluded earlier, was whether the interconnecting utilities would be affected by the sale of electricity into the United States. There is considerable progress to be made in that regard. Subsection (2) of Section 119.06 says:
June 26, 1989

In deciding whether to make a recommendation, the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant, including -
(c)(i) informs those who have declared an interest in buying electricity for consumption in Canada of the quantities and classes of services available for sale, and
(ii) given an opportunity to purchase electricity on terms and conditions as favourable as the terms and conditions specified in the application of those who, within a reasonable time after being so informed, demonstrate an intention to buy electricity for consumption in Canada-
There are a couple of things there which I think are important. First, the province that buys the electricity from the exporting province must show that that electricity is going to be consumed in Canada. That is easy for a province such as Prince Edward Island because Prince Edward Island is not in the position to export electricity. However, when provinces generate electricity from coal, nuclear power, or perhaps co-generation, how do we determine which electricity that second province would in turn export into the United States in breach of this provision?
There has to be some determination by the National Energy Board of who would be breaching that guideline. We cannot put the burden of proof back on the province that buys it. If the words "the purchasing province, within a reasonable time after being so informed, demonstrate an intention to buy electricity for the consumption in Canada" are questioned, it then becomes an argument between the two provinces.
The other question is when this electricity agreement has to be entered into. What if there are disagreements and that struggle drags on and on? Who then has the power to intercede? I think that there are questions which are not going to be healthy in the dealings between one province and another.
I would like to point out as well that there is a tremendous amount of latitude with the Governor in Council and I want to mention again that there are two systems. The National Energy Board can issue a permit without an investigation, but if it wants an investigation it has to ask the permission of the Governor in Council. Permission is given under Clause 119.07 which says:
The Governor in Council may make orders
National Energy Board
(a)	designating an exportation of electricity as an exportation that is
subject to the issuance of a licence under section 119.08;
(b)	specifying considerations to which the Board shall have regard
in deciding whether to issue such a licence; and
(c)	revoking any permit issued in respect of the exportation.
Therefore, if the National Energy Board wants to have a hearing it has to get approval from the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council not only says whether or not the hearing will be approved but, if it is approved by the very Act itself, the Governor in Council specifies considerations to which the Board shall have regard in deciding whether to issue such a licence. That takes all the power away from the National Energy Board, the agency which was set up by a former Government of Canada to regulate the export of electricity and oil and gas into the United States.
We have come a long way in reducing the powers of the National Energy Board. We did so, of course, through the Free Trade Agreement, and we are going to do so again through this Bill. We are going to have to study this Bill very carefully.
One thing of which I am glad with regard to Bill C-23 is that it will not be going to committee until the fall when we will have a chance to question at length officials and the Minister regarding these provisions.
It is also important to talk to the National Energy Board and the various provinces to get their opinions. We are going to have to take a very hard look at this. We also say in this Bill, with respect to oil and gas, that the Board does have the power to regulate price in the sale of oil and gas, except in the case of the United States.
I am wondering if this may not be the start of a continental energy policy with the United States. The Government says not; it says that the Free Trade Agreement does not give a continental energy policy. In fact, the Government, quite correctly, still has the power to assure that energy not be sold into the United States at a price cheaper than that at which that form of energy is available in Canada. However, if that provision holds in this Bill and the Government abandons all authority and all provision for regulating any price at which energy is sold into the United States, we will have in fact entered into a continental energy policy with the United States.

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
This Bill is a real problem for this House. It is going to be a problem for Canada. It is going to be a further abdication of federal government responsibility, which the Government does better than anything else it takes on. I hope that we can give this Bill a full study. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be agreeing to this Bill until some very significant changes have been made.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has already mentioned, there are a number of interesting, if somewhat arcane aspects to Bill C-23, all of which are worthy of some attention.
I would like to devote my remarks today to those parts of the Bill which deal with its principal goals, the guts of the Bill which seek, simply put, to make it easier for provincial jurisdictions to export electrical power to the United States of America. However, before getting into those particulars I would like, if I may, to take a few minutes to review the history of electric production and regulation in Canada in capsule form.
The Canadian electrical industry has long been subject to regulation at both the provincial and federal levels. This is largely for historic reasons. The industry began as a collection of small hydraulic plants serving isolated loads at the beginning of the century and developed into a vast interconnected network that now spans the country. Because provincial power networks were developed in isolation, and because electricity service was commonly viewed as an essential prerequisite to economic development, individual provinces were keen to retain the exclusive jurisdiction that the Constitution Act had given them in 1867 over what was then termed the "development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy".
Not surprisingly, given the monopoly position of many electrical utilities, most provinces eventually decided to place electrical utilities under provincial ownership or, at very least, under close provincial control in terms of rates charged to consumers and satisfying the province's needs and export commitments.
In my Province of Alberta we have, for example, the Public Utilities Board, the principal government agency overseeing the electrical industry. We have as well the
Energy Resources Conservation Board which has some jurisdiction in the area and, most recently, the Electrical Energy Marketing Agency which is the provincially created agency for the pooling of electricity rates charged to Albertans. I believe we still have, however, four power companies operating in Alberta, two of which are publicly owned.
The provinces thus have interests that cover both provincial concerns and concerns of export, and these interests are those which often overlap with federal interests. In fact, this overlap was virtually guaranteed by that same Constitution Act, 1867 which granted authority over international trade and commerce to the federal Parliament.
As a result, the regulation of electricity exports and the regulation of international power lines clearly fall within federal jurisdiction. The regulation of the electricity industry in Canada has reflected the growth and evolution both of the industry and the country itself. Industry has long been regulated by both the provinces and the federal Government. This has been a fact of Canadian life.
The federal Government, from the outset, attempted to ensure that any exports of electricity were surplus to Canadian needs. This has really been the hallmark of federal policy for decades. In fact, even prior to the establishment of the National Energy Board in 1959, export prices were reviewed and exports were regulated to make sure that hydro-electric resources would not be alienated from Canadians. This focus persisted after the Royal Commission on Energy recommended the formation of the NEB. As the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Gordon Churchill, put it in 1959:
In the case of electricity, it has been the policy in the past to grant only annual licences for export, so as to prevent permanent alienation of power.
The National Energy Board Act of 1959 extended the maximum export licence period from one to 25 years, but there was a clear expectation that long-term licences would be granted only in exceptional circumstances. As the National Energy Board report of 1987 put it:
The rationale-appears to have been that, if Canadian energy were to be sold to export customers at prices lower than those at which it were sold to Canadians, it would undermine the competitive position of Canadian industry vis-a-vis its American competitors and be unfair to Canadian consumers.
June 26, 1989

I think it worth while to recall what the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, a fine and historic western leader who was possessed of a great wisdom to which this House should still pay heed, said when the details of the NEB Act were debated in Parliament in 1959. He outlined what had been the preoccupation of federal policy for years. In referring to the NEB Act of 1959, he said:
As to the price to be charged for gas and power, it must be just and reasonable in relation to the public interest. With the implementation of this legislation.
No longer will there be any suspicion that the Canadian consumer is being forced to subsidize the foreign markets or that Canadian industries will be asked to pay higher prices for their energy than those paid by foreign industries using Canadian energy - The Bill protects not only the industrial future of Canada but the producer and the consumer.
The statement of national power policy released in 1962 by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, represented a significant policy departure from the past. It stated that under certain circumstances, it would be in the national interest:
- to licence the export of large blocks of firm power to United States utilities to permit the development of large scale remote hydro or other power projects which would not be viable unless supported by the export for long periods of a significant proportion of the power generated.
In spite of this change, which allowed facilities to be built mainly for export, the regulation of electricity exports at the federal level remained important in Canada for a number of reasons. Indeed, there have historically been several reasons for the close regulation of electricity production and sale internationally and between the provinces at the federal level.
These are political and economical reasons. They include, for example, ensuring the security of supply for Canadian consumers and ensuring quality of access regardless of the region in which one lives.
The official opposition critic mentioned earlier the case of Prince Edward Island which has no electric generating capacity itself but relies on imports from other provinces.
A third reason is to assist in regional development. As well, there is the question of balancing interests of investors with over-all public interest. These interests
National Energy Board
may from time to time diverge. They may in fact compete.
For example, electric monopolies are shielded from competition and can raise prices well above the cost of supply. They can engage in price discrimination between customers. They can prevent competition for export markets by denying access to transmission systems. An electrical generation project may be profitable from the perspective of investors but may be undesirable from a national perspective once all of the associated costs, such as the flooding of huge areas of land, are factored in. A project may be desirable from a provincial perspective but not from the perspective of other provinces.
For example, if a province chooses to generate large amounts of electricity through the construction of a very large coal fired generating plant, that can result in airborne pollutants being carried away to a neighbouring province.
Of course short-term perspective may cause future generations to pay higher prices than would otherwise be the case. For example, the exploitation of our most favourable, most easily accessed, most easily developed hydro sites now for export, leaving distant, costly sites for future development for domestic use later.
All these concerns are legitimate. All should be addressed by any responsible federal Government. None should the take the back seat to short-term political or economic considerations or to facile ideological arguments. This is especially important given the critical nature of electricity in Canada's economy and energy future.
It has been argued by some that electricity is a commodity like any other; that like oil and natural gas it should be deregulated; that it is a value added product, indeed a manufactured good in essence; and that it should be deregulated as the oil industry was in 1985 and as the national gas industry was in 1986.
Surely we can agree in this House that electrical energy is not a commodity like any other. The NEB has recognized this in its report on the regulation of electricity exports released in 1987, where it noted:
An essential commodity might be defined, as one on which a country's security, economic health or the well-being of its population depends heavily and for which there are no close substitutes readily available at reasonable cost. The Panel believes that electricity qualifies as an essential commodity in most uses.

National Energy Board
Over time, alternative energy forms could replace electricity in some applications; however, in most applications, there are no reasonable substitutes for electricity, even over the long term.
Even the previous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), took great pains to emphasize the importance of electricity in his speech on November 26, 1987 to the Board of Directors of the Canadian Electrical Association, wherein he said:
Electricity's importance cannot be overestimated. It is essential to our civilization. Without it, we would not be lighting our buildings by merely flicking a switch. Our advanced medical treatment systems would not exist. There would be no radios, no television, no computers.
All the more important, one might add, to have a policy that will protect the interests of Canadians now and into the distant future.
The existing system of electrical export regulation has been clearly outlined in a background paper issued by the Minister of Communications last September. It is the system which has been in operation for many years now and has served Canada well thus far. It features, in summary, the following elements: the board issues export licences and orders for periods not exceeding 25 years; the board authorizes the construction and operation of international power lines, which are lines connecting a place in Canada to a place in the United States; in cases designated by the Governor in Council, the board regulates interprovincial power lines, which are lines from a place in a province to a place in Canada outside that province; and the board regulates the detailed routing of international and designated interprovincial power lines.
The procedure for exports and the procedure for power lines are essentially the same under the current legislative and regulatory regime. Except in very minor cases, the board conducts a public hearing and has regard to all relevant considerations. If the board finds that the proposal is in the Canadian public interest, it recommends to the Governor in Council that it be approved. Otherwise, the board denies the relevant authorization.
With respect to exports, there are two criteria which the board now focuses on: first, whether the export is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian requirements and, second, whether the export price is just and reasonable.
With respect to power lines, the board focuses on the economic and technical viability of the line, on socioeconomic considerations and on the environmental impacts associated with the proposed route.
In addition to assessing applications with respect to the above criteria, the board also ensures that proposals adhere to relevant environmental standards and that export authorizations do not exceed 25 years in duration.
This regulatory regime will be changed by Bill C-23 in four principal aspects. First, and in many cases the most important, the provincial jurisdiction will now be the jurisdiction at which the advisability of export applications is determined. It will now be at the provincial level where the questions surrounding the proposed export are dealt with and some kind of recommendation devised.
Second, on the basis of this provincial work, the National Energy Board will routinely grant export permits in most cases. It is expected that in only a few cases will licences in the case of electricity exports or certificates in the case of power lines, both of which would occasion public hearings, be required. So long as the sponsoring province has complied with relevant federal environmental processes and so long as provincial regulations are deemed to be sufficient, exporters need only obtain a permit and can thereby usually avoid a federal public hearing.
Third, the maximum duration of export licences and permits will be increased from 25 years to 30 years.
Fourth, the National Energy Board will be required to begin to recover its costs.
How will these changes affect electricity trade over the decades? It is difficult to make firm predictions, but a number of concerns must be addressed. Let me elaborate.
First, public hearings for export applications will be rare because of what will now be the usually routine granting of permits. There is no compelling reason for making public hearings less frequent, especially given the importance of electricity to our national energy future. There has been no good evidence presented to the effect that the public hearing process has been overly burdensome in the past. Real duplication in the public hearing process is likely a rather rare thing and certainly not routine between federal and provincial agencies involved. Public hearings address issues of national
June 26, 1989

importance as distinct from items of provincial importance.
It is very difficult to anticipate all aspects of national interest based upon review from the provincial perspective. For example, it is conceivable that a utility or a provincial Government and its neighbour would both be in favour of a given export proposal, even though it may not be in the national interest in the long term. The NEB would be placed in the difficult situation of trying to anticipate these national interests without a national hearing. In fact, some provinces have review processes that can only be considered rudimentary.
A closed process seldom serves the public purposes well. It is not surprising that some utilities find the current process inconvenient, troublesome, even vexatious at times, although it should be remembered that the NEB has never refused an export application. Granted it has forced some alterations in applications, but it has never refused one.
It is possible under the new regime that the occasional export contract might be held up, even lost, but in our democratic system there is no good substitute for open public fora to protect the public interest. The process proposed in Bill C-23 forces the NEB to address the concerns of the public in a way that is not open, in a way that is inadequate, and in a way in which the criteria of the people of the country cannot reasonably be represented. The process that we now have forces the NEB to address the concerns of the public in the open using criteria that are clear and obvious to everyone.
Second, the Bill could politicize the making of decisions regarding whether to grant simply a permit or hold public hearings. Under the proposed system, the NEB would recommend to Cabinet that a public hearing be held if there is any reason to believe that the proposal may not be in the public interest. So far so good. However, the final decision on this is made by the Cabinet, not the NEB. This means that a decision made under this system is much more likely to be made on political grounds, and this could threaten regional interests. For example, a small province with few votes and few seats in Parliament could suffer if the Cabinet
National Energy Board
backed the export application of a more powerful neighbouring province for political reasons.
This could threaten the national interest. For example, Cabinet could side with an exporting province regardless of the national interest, if Cabinet saw that it was politically advantageous for some reason or other to do so.
This could certainly threaten the NEB. For example, if Cabinet reverses an NEB recommendation, vis-a-vis an important export proposal, if but once the NEB recommends to Cabinet that on a particular proposal public hearings must be held, and Cabinet says "no", the likelihood of Cabinet not accepting a given recommendation in future would likely figure prominently in the NEB's deliberations.
In other words, it would hobble the NEB as an effective regulatory body. Once overruled by Cabinet, the credibility of the NEB would be shattered and its future considerations would always have to be taken under the cloud of that disapproval. This would spell the end of the NEB authority as we know it.
Third, the maximum duration of export licences and permits will increase under these amendments from 25 years to 30 years. There has been no good justification for this increased alienation of a valuable Canadian resource. Until one is provided, the current duration of 25 years should remain.
I would like to note that those who are familiar with the speeches of the Hon. Minister of Communications, as I am becoming increasingly, will have noted his fondness for commencing each speech with a quote from some famous authority or person of letters. I will spare everyone here the detailed experience, but he began his speech of November 26, 1987 by outlining the proposed policy changes with a quote from Montesquieu as follows:
No alteration should be made in a law without sufficient reason.
No sufficient reason has been given in this case for the increase from 25 years to 30 years of the maximum duration of export licences and permits. I challenge the Government to provide one or to withdraw this part of the amending legislation.
Fourth, the National Energy Board under this Bill will be forced to recover its costs. Presumably this means

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
from the utilities requesting export permits or licences. This will likely mean higher electricity rates for consumers in Canada, which is another form of regressive taxation.
Fifth, the Government's strategy of making electricity exports easier is all the more worrisome, given the proportionality clause in the Free Trade Agreement. Reducing public hearing processes to increase exports would be bad enough in itself, but this is made more serious by the fact that electricity exports come under the proportionality clause of the FTA. In times of energy emergency, we will be forced to export the same proportion that we exported from Canada for the previous three years. Meanwhile the Government is keen to increase this proportion by reducing the review process here in Canada.
Sixth, making exports easier also runs the risk of Canadians paying higher, not lower, prices for electricity in the future. As Tanis Mathers, of the Consumer's Association of Canada put it, as reported in The Montreal Gazette for September 8, 1988:
Canadians could could wind up paying higher prices because utilities could lock themselves into long-term contracts, making future electricity supplies scarce for domestic consumers.
He said directly, and I quote:
The fear is that-new projects needed to fill the demand at that time may be more expensive and increase electricity rates for domestic consumers.
This view is echoed by the NEB in its report on the regulation of electricity exports from 1987, where the board noted:
Unlike many manufactured products, most Canadian electricity production may be subject to increasing costs. Utilities generally develop their more favourable hydro sites first. Thus, if any but the costliest sites were developed to service the export market, the selling utility would have to develop a more expensive hydro site to service Canadian demand earlier than without exports. This means that, because of exports, Canadians would pay more sooner for their electricity. Similarly, nuclear safety and siting is expected to become increasingly costly over time, so that more rapid development in the short-run may mean higher prices for Canadians sooner than otherwise.
Those are the major concerns with the Bill as presented to us. Those are the concerns that we will be addressing in committee.
There are other questions as well. I think the principal question that the Government has yet to answer is: Why
are we doing this? Why are we changing the statutory and regulatory regime governing the export of electricity from Canada to the United States, and why are we doing it at this time? There are those uncharitable souls among us who would offer the perhaps jaundiced view that this indeed is a pay-off to Mr. Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, in return for that individual's-let us be kind-tacit support for the current Government at the last federal election. It can be noted that the Bourassa Government of Quebec maintains no independent regulatory agency of hydro production, transmission and export in that process, leaving just Quebec Hydro and the Quebec Government as the regulators of future exports sales from that province to the U.S.A.
Just recently we saw a massive new sale of Quebec Hydro power to the United States at a time when most industry forecasters are saying that Ontario is facing increased electricity needs over the next while which could necessarily occasion the construction of new, large and perhaps numerous nuclear plants in Ontario. This is at the same time as cheap Quebec Hydro power is going to the United States. Question No. 1 is why are we doing this at this time?
Question No. 2 is of much greater detail, if Hon. Members will bear with me.
What status is the current first price guideline in this Bill? Under the National Energy Board Part VI regulations, subsection 6(2)(z)(i), an applicant is required to demonstrate that the export price "would recover its appropriate share of the costs incurred in Canada". This ensures that all costs, including the indirect costs that are difficult to quantify, that Canada incurs as a country but which are not borne by the exporting utility are taken into account in the export price. How are these costs, including extra-provincial impacts of a facility, for example, to be quantified and addressed under the provisions of this Bill? We do not know.
Finally, there are some miscellaneous considerations that the House may wish to entertain as it continues to consider this Bill. Because of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States which require we sell to the United States under conditions identical to those under which we sell in Canada, it is virtually impossible for Canada to spur economic diversification and regional development using the natural advantage of
June 26, 1989

the plentiful electrical power we can generate in Canada.
As well, the emphasis of this Bill is toward supplying an ever greater amount of electricity to the United States, toward supplying or attempting to supply an apparently insatiable demand. Supplying this demand obviously brings with it benefit for Canada in terms of jobs and economic activity. It also brings environmental and other problems.
It needs always to t>e remembered that curbing demand can create jobs as well, and it is this focus that will lead us toward a more sustainable future. Random examples of this are light bulbs that use less electricity or producing electrical appliances for export that use much less power.
We must think of acid rain, nuclear waste, flooding valleys and the greenhouse effect when we think of electricity exports. In this context, electricity will be seen to be ever more strategic in nature. Natural gas, alternative fuels and hydroelectric power will be seen to be clean by more and more people and will be more valuable and in demand in the future. It will be more essential to the maintenance of a clean, environmentally healthy nation.
The Government, unfortunately, appears to want to alienate a greater share of one of our most valuable, most strategic natural resources, our electrical power. It is indeed ironic to reflect on the speech made by the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) to the B.C. Hydro's second annual energy forum held on May 11, 1989, when he said:
To ensure that we continue to have one of the world's highest living standards, we will need to increase dramatically the amount of electricity we generate-over the next 25 to 30 years, Canada will probably have to double its present electrical generating capacity.
This is from a Minister who is overseeing a Bill through this Parliament that will make greatly easier the export of our hydroelectrical power or electrical power generated through other means to the United States.
There are too many problems in this Bill. There are too many questions it leaves unanswered. Until those problems are addressed and until those questions are answered, we cannot support this Bill.
National Energy Board


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur State) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my two colleagues, the critic of the Liberal Party of Canada the and Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Ma-cLellan) and the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey), who have presented, I presume, their party's position on Bill C-23. You will not be surprised if I tell you straight off that the Government does not share the opinions of my colleagues from the opposition parties. I am sure the public will not be surprised to hear this either, except that there are some arguments which, I think, should be voiced with great caution.
I am thinking, in particular, of the argument put forward a few minutes ago by my colleague from Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) which is in fact an argument we frequently hear when a bill presented in the House of Commons does not please everyone; obviously, it must be Quebec's fault, this must be a favour to Robert Bourassa. That is not a very original argument, Mr. Speaker. It lacks depth and I would even say it is somewhat lacking in good will, especially this week as we will soon be celebrating our country's anniversary. Anyway, that is not the kind of argument I will use put forward to introduce Bill C-23.

The purpose of the Bill is twofold. First, it gives effect to the Government's policy respecting the regulation of electricity trade announced in September of 1988. Second, it provides for a number of minor changes in the National Energy Board Act that will reduce costs to the Government and will clarify the responsibilities of the board.
The critic for the Liberal Party and the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) mentioned that this legislation was first enacted in 1959. By virtue of its age, I think we could easily draw the conclusion that legislation enacted in 1959 and revisited in 1989 would normally require modernization to make it more responsive to the needs and energy problems of the 1990s leading up to the new century. It is quite obvious that this legislation needs to be revisited since it deals with a sector in which activity is so intense and the pace of change is so rapid.

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
The National Energy Board's present regulatory responsibilities with respect to electricity may be briefly summarized as follows: First, the board issues export licences and orders for periods not exceeding 25 years. Second, the board authorizes the construction and operation of international power lines. Third, in cases designated by the Governor in Council, the board regulates intraprovincial power lines. Finally, the board regulates the detailed routing of international and designated interprovincial power lines.
In describing how the system of regulating works, it is useful to distinguish the board's procedures from the board's review criteria. The procedures for reviewing export applications and the procedures for reviewing power line applications are essentially the same. Except in very minor cases, the board conductsa public hearing and has regard to all relevant considerations. If the board finds that the proposal is in the Canadian public interest, it recommends to the Governor in Council that it be approved. Otherwise the board denies the relevant authorization.
With respect to exports, there are two principal criteria that the board now applies. The first is whether the export is surplus to reasonably foreseeable Canadian requirements and the second is whether the export price is just and reasonable.
With respect to power lines, the board focuses on the economic and technical viability of the lines, on socioeconomic considerations and on the environmental impacts associated with the proposed route.
There are two main reasons that this Act needs to be changed. The first is that the regulatory procedures now in place are capable of improvement in several important ways. Second, the criteria the board applies in assessing applications are no longer as pertinent as they were when the Act was introduced in 1959.
The problem with the existing procedures is that they result in an unwarranted duplication of provincial regulation. In 1959, most provinces did not have mechanisms in place to regulate electricity exports. Today, all exporting provinces regulate their exports in one way or another. This means that federal regulations should focus on complementing rather than duplicating what the provinces already do.
The problem with the criteria that the board applies in assessing applications for electricity exports and international power lines, is that it does not adequately reflect today's realities. I can give two examples of what I mean.
In 1959 when the National Energy Board Act was introduced, most provinces did not regard themselves as exporters, and several anticipated that they might become electricity importers. Flence, there was a need for the National Energy Board to pay particular attention to whether a proposed export would be surplus to Canadian requirements. Today, all provinces are self-sufficient in generating capacity, and nine provinces regard themselves as electricity exporters or potential exporters.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) of the Liberal Party referred to Prince Edward Island a few times during his remarks, quite justifiably so, and I would tend to guess that the only province that would not consider itself to be a potential exporter of electricity would be the Province of Prince Edward Island. However, today, all other provinces, contrary to 1959-and that is the difference-consider themselves, if they are not already exporters, as potential exporters of electricity. That has been a great change since the Bill was first brought in.
This does not mean that surplus considerations are now irrelevant. Quite the contrary. However, it does mean that it no longer needs to be one of the two or three dominant factors determining whether or not an export application is in the Canadian interest.
A second example, and perhaps the most important one, concerns the environment. The existing Act does not mention the environment in the key section that lists the considerations that are to be examined by the board in its determination of whether a proposed export is in the public interest. This is unsatisfactory in light of what we know today about the importance of environmental protection. In this context, it is evident that a new approach to electricity regulation is required.
I would now like to identify the fundamental principle upon which the new system of regulation is to be based. The essence of our federal system of Government is the distribution of powers between a central legislature and distinct provincial legislatures such that each is autonomous within its own sphere of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the practice of federalism is often not a very easy one, as the Hon. Member for Edmonton East knows very well. Spheres of jurisdiction sometimes overlap, and this tends to lead to a duplication by two levels of Govern-
June 26, 1989

ment. Such duplication, where it is unwarranted, is a burden that the public should not have to support.
Under the Canadian Constitution, the provinces have jurisdiction over electricity generation, except for nuclear power, and intraprovincial power lines. The Government of Canada has jurisdiction over electricity exports, international power lines, and interprovincial power lines. Jurisdiction over interprovincial electricity trade is shared by both levels of Government.
However, because of the manner in which the Canadian electrical industry has evolved, those matters formerly within the Government of Canada's jurisdiction, tend to be extensively governed by provincial policies and laws. It is the provinces that decide whether electricity will be produced for export. It is not the federal Government, but the provinces. It is the provinces that decide the extent to which their utilities will engage in interprovincial trade. It is the provinces that govern the management of the provincial electrical grids. It is provincially-owned or provincially-regulated entities that initiate and conclude electricity trade transactions.
These facts suggest that the Government of Canada should design a system for regulating electricity exports that will function by exception. Where provincial regulation is sufficient to protect the Canadian public interest, federal regulation is not warranted; where provincial regulation is insufficient, the federal Government must have the full authority to act. In other words, the National Energy Board should complement and not duplicate measures taken by provincial Governments. This is the basic principle underlying the amendments contained in this Bill.
I now wish to describe the new regulatory procedures set forth in this Bill as they apply to the regulation of electricity exports and international power lines. The regulation of interprovincial power lines, which I shall come to later, will be different in certain important respects.
National Energy Board
Applicants for an export authorization or authorization to build an international power line will continue to submit their proposals to the board. Upon receiving the application, the board will ensure that notice is published in The Canada Gazette, and in such other media as are likely to be seen or heard by interested parties. The board will then carry out an initial screening of the applications. If the board is satisfied that the assessments carried out by the sponsoring provinces have adequately addressed all relevant concerns, the applicant will receive Canadian government authorization in the form of a National Energy Board permit.
A permit will not require a public hearing, nor will it require Governor in Council approval. However, and this is the important point to make, if there is a need to complement the measures carried out by the sponsoring provinces, then the board will recommend to the Governor in Council that a public hearing be carried out. Thus, the full authority of the federal Government will remain. It may be of some comfort to Members of the House and the public to know that the board's advice will also be made public.
If the Governor in Council accepts the board's recommendation, there will be a public hearing. Any such hearing will be conducted by the National Energy Board, and the board will have regard to all relevant considerations. Once the hearing is completed, the board will either deny the application or else recommend that a licence, in the case of exports, or a certificate in the case of power lines, be issued. Certificates and licences will not be issued until they have been approved by the Governor in Council.
In addition to those changes regarding the procedure for the authorization of exports and power lines, there will also be changes in the way that the detailed routing of international power lines is determined. The National Energy Board will, in all cases, authorize the general corridor through which the line will pass. The precise location of the line within this corridor will then be determined by provincial regulatory procedures and any expropriation that may be necessary will also be carried out under provincial laws.
The only exceptions to this general procedure will be in cases where the applicant elects to have federal law govern precise location and construction of an international power line. Upon such an election, the line will automatically be designated for a certification proceed-

June 26, 1989
National Energy Board
ing. Applicants seeking to build power lines will therefore always have the choice of whether provincial or federal law will govern detailed routing and land acquisition. It is anticipated that most will choose provincial law in order to avoid regulatory duplication. However, there may be instances where the applicant would prefer that federal law applied. This could happen, for example, where a line is opposed by one of the provinces through which it is to pass. That is consistent with the role that a federal Government would want to play in the area of energy: to be there and to be able to intervene as an arbiter in such cases where from time to time there are difficulties between provinces. We know that at any time there may be those types of difficulties, but the Act does enable us to intervene in such a case.
It is proper that the National Energy Board should conduct a public hearing to determine whether construction of the line should be authorized. The board should also have the power to ensure that the line, once authorized, can in fact be built. The board's powers regarding the detailed routing will thus be retained for just this purpose.
The procedures for the regulation of interprovincial power lines are unchanged from those set forth in the present National Energy Board Act. For the most part, such lines will be regulated by the provinces through which they pass. However, the Governor in Council may make orders designating that the line be certificated by the National Energy Board. When such an order is made, the detailed location and construction of the line will be governed under federal law.
I have already mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker, the basic principle governing the new policies that there should be no unwarranted duplication of federal and provincial regulations. It follows that the National Energy Board should concentrate on those aspects of a proposal that may not have been sufficiently dealt with by provincial regulatory procedures. The Bill states that in deciding whether there is a need to complement measures carried out by the provinces the board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant. This means that the board's purview will not be limited in any way. That is a very important point for this House. However, in order to give some guidance to
applicants, the Bill does cite three specific criteria not limited in any way that we will want the board to look at.
To begin with, the board will consider any impacts that a proposed export or international power line might have outside the sponsoring provinces. The second criterion will be the environmental impacts of the proposal and in particular whether it complies with federal environment standards. Finally, the board will consider whether Canadians wishing to buy electricity to serve their own domestic needs have been able to do so on terms no less favourable than the terms being offered to export customers. Thus I think the Hon. Member from Edmonton will be happy to know that the words of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker which he cited would still find some effect in today's legislation. I can only assume that the Hon. Member from Edmonton would be happy that the policy put forward by the Conservative Government at that time is still respected, something for which he wished in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton East has also mentioned his concerns regarding the fact that under this legislation we could authorize the period of export, that we could issue periods of more than 25 to 30 years.
And the Member for Edmonton East argues that he does not know, that he has no idea why- Well, it's really quite easy to understand! The reason, Mr. Speaker, is to enable us to undertake large projects, hydro-electricity projects requiring massive investments, several billion dollars worth of investments. And there is no great mystery in that, you don't have to look very far, you only have to look at the energy sector, the oil sector, which also require considerable investments. If you're going to drill in the ocean, that requires considerable investments. Those investments have to be financed.
Mr. Speaker, we in Quebec know a thing or two in this area, thanks to Hydro-Quebec. We have financed several mega-projects in the last several years and it takes a certain time to amortize the costs and reimburse the loans. It's as simple as that, that's not so difficult to understand, except we thought that a 25-year period might be a bit tight and, without necessarily coming up with the perfect measure, because the financial markets also change a lot, we said to ourselves: We'll extend it to 30 years, that will give us extra leeway and enable us to better finance the mega-projects we are considering throughout Canada. Some of these projects will be developed in Quebec, unfortunately for the Member for
June 26, 1989

Edmonton East who does not like Quebec nor Mr. Bourassa very much, but other projects are planned for other regions of Canada, namely in British Columbia and in Alberta. We want to be able to take advantage of this natural resource everywhere in the country.
So, that is why we have decided that the permits should be valid for 30 years instead of 25. There's nothing very complicated in that!

I would now like to summarize the amendments that do not relate specifically to electricity. These are being introduced to reduce costs, to streamline the board's operations, to reflect the reduced level of regulation that has resulted from a more market-based approach to energy policy and to make other minor improvements to the Act. I was hoping there would not be a great clamour when I used the words "more market-based approached". It looks as though members of the Opposition were able to resist commenting on those words.
First, the number of board members is being reduced from 11 to a maximum of nine. The associate vice-chairman positions are to be eliminated.
Second, the board is to be given cost-recovery powers consistent with our over-all approach to deficit reduction announced in the Budget.
Third, the powers of the board with respect to such matters as accident inquiries, accounting practices and repairs are to be clarified.
Finally, a number of other minor changes such as the redefinition of certain terms are introduced to facilitate the application of the Act.
This Bill demonstrates that despite what the critics of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have been saying, Canada's energy interests are still fully protected. Electricity exporters must continue to obtain authorization from the National Energy Board. The amendments state quite explicitly that an application may be denied if it has unacceptable extraprovincial effects, if it has significant adverse environmental impacts and if Canadians wishing to buy electricity have been denied fair access to the electricity. The Bill thus proves that the
National Energy Board
Free Trade Agreement does not undermine the National Energy Board's ability to protect Canadian interests.
The Bill also demonstrates that the federal Government will not compromise its responsibilities with respect to international or interprovincial trade. All international power lines and all electricity exports will continue to require National Energy Board authorization. The Governor in Council will retain the power to designate interprovincial power lines as lines requiring a National Energy Board certificate.
As regards the detailed routing of power lines, the amended National Energy Board Act will state that while in most cases the relevant procedure will be provincial, applicants can, if they so wish, elect to have federal procedures apply. The Bill asserts that the federal Government will continue to exercise its authority to protect Canadian energy interests.
The amendments contained in the Bill will also provide a powerful incentive for the provinces to develop more rigorous environmental protection procedures. Because new exports and international power lines account for only a very small portion of Canada's total electricity supply system, federal export regulation in the past has proven to be an ineffective way to ensure that adequate environmental standards and procedures are applied to new electricity projects. The federal objective is to ensure that all electricity projects, not just those few designed for export purposes, also obtain rigorous environmental scrutiny.
This Bill will give the provinces a strong incentive to apply such scrutiny by putting standards and procedures in place that are equivalent to federal requirements. The provinces will avoid having their export applications subjected to a second regulatory proceeding.
All of this sounds pretty logical to me. Maybe it is something a little foreign to the political process. However, I think this Bill stands out as a good example of the necessity for change in our society. This Bill would amend an Act enacted in 1959, which Act deals with an area of our national life that has been veiy turbulent. It has gone through a great many changes in a very short period of time. It has affected our national life. It has become part of our national culture. It is a piece of

June 26, 1989
legislation that needs to be updated and changed. It needs a new focus. That is what this Bill is about.
It is a piece of legislation that also reflects the way our country works and how it has evolved. In 1959, most provinces did not regulate electricity. Now they do. So is it necessary for the federal Government to also leap aboard and be there with them to over-regulate the regulators? Could we not play a role that is complementary one to the other? What this Bill is about is good Canadian common sense. We recommend it to this House very highly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Sudbury after 3 p.m.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, a real triumph over geography.

From Thunder Bay to Sept Isles ships may travel freely through nine locks, canals, and channels, by climbing the equivalent of a 62-storey building.

The St. Lawrence Seaway remains one of the finest works of engineering in the world. The 20,000 workers who built it over a five-year period removed 210 million cubic yards of rock and earth.
The St. Lawrence Seaway has supported the economy of several regions of Quebec and Ontario for 30 years. We pay tribute to the workers who built it and to those who operate it today for their significant contribution to the Canadian economy.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents who reside in the Mackenzie Delta were interested to learn of the federal Government's probable assistance to the Governor of Illinois when he personally requested that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) allow three whales to be exported from Hudson Bay to an aquarium in Chicago.
Northerners believe these projects should be justified on their economic and scientific merits and should not depend on a Minister's whim.
Residents of Aklavik in the Northwest Territories have been working on a different kind of whaling proposal, but when they asked for assistance from the same Minister, he advised them he would not help and that they should negotiate on their own with authorities in Alaska.
Similarly, other northerners have been requesting assistance from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for at least the last two years to acquire an export permit to remove some reindeer to points within Canada. They have not only received no permit from the federal Government, they have not even had the courtesy of a response.
We cannot all live in the States. At some point the Government is going to have to treat Canadians as well as it treats Americans.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I, along with Alliance for Life and 26 other pro-life affiliated groups with over one million supporters, wish to express our utmost horror and dismay at the recent violent suppression of lives and human rights in China.
Equally important to this abhorrence is the coercion of Chinese mothers into killing their children by abortion. This involves the use of forced abortion and infanticide
June 26, 1989

against families that exceed their child quotas of more than one child.
The United Nation's fund for population activities has been promoting such activities in China and in other countries to the tune of millions of dollars every year. The United States, formerly one of the chief supporters of this program, has ceased its funding because of the coerced abortions in China.
Canada, however, continues to be a very generous contributor to this fund. I firmly believe that most Canadians want no part of it, either directly or indirectly.
I therefore call upon the Government to withdraw support of any or all such organizations which contribute to the destruction of unborn human beings by depriving them of their human rights.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the latest annual report of the Construction Industry Development Council, submitted to the then Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, made a number of recommendations.
The recommendation to contract out construction work to private industry will undoubtedly outrage workers across the country. The council reported:
Contracting out of construction work delivers known costs, timely completion, guaranteed performance, quality assurance and an increased tax base. This compares favourably to the unpredictable costs of construction work when public employees and equipment are used.
This theme of contracting out or privatizing is rapidly gaining momentum in the Canadian workplace. Recently, the aforementioned council, in conjunction with Industry, Science and Technology Canada, produced a pamphlet entitled Can you Afford not to Contract Out. Does this mean that the Government supports the recommendations of the council?


TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian Medical Association released a statement which reads in part:
The (CMA) will encourage the public to buy prescription drugs and other health products from drug stores that do not sell tobacco products. In the opinion of the CMA, the selling of tobacco is incompatible with the primary purpose and role of the pharmacy. The pharmacist is a respected and trusted health care professional, not a seller of products that, when used precisely as intended by the manufacturer, cause disease and the premature death of over 35,000 Canadians a year.
I would like to commend pharmacies in the Kitchener area which do not sell or have stopped selling tobacco products. They include the Hoegler, Riepert, Queen South, Forest Hill, and Heritage Park pharmacies.
I would also like to encourage other drug stores in the Waterloo region and across Canada to follow their example by ceasing to sell tobacco products.


FORESTS
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, Forest Ministers from across Canada are meeting with the federal Minister today. Canadians are anxiously awaiting renewal of the six expired federal-provincial forestry agreements that have provided a significant contribution to reforesting our denuded forest lands.
The Minister has said previously that he would have signed agreements in place by this week and would release the bargaining position of the federal Government.
The Minister should live up to his word, the Government should live up to its word, and release the details of the new agreements and the bargaining position of the federal Government to Parliament. In short, failure to act now means that the future of our forests are threatened.


S. O. 31 TRADE COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
June 26, 1989

Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, it is time to break down the barriers to trade between our provinces. Canada's Constitution and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade prohibit restrictions on the free movement of goods between provinces. Yet, in Canada today, our internal trading practices ignore our international obligations and defy our Constitution.
Barriers to trade between provinces reduce industrial efficiency, distort capital investment, adversely affect the international competitiveness of Canadian exports, inconvenience citizens, and strain national unity. Our national economy is Balkanized into ten smaller markets.
Provincial Governments have set up other less visible barriers to trade by imposing different labour standards, establishing procurement restrictions, and giving tax and industrial incentives to companies based within their borders.
The four western provinces have taken steps to alleviate this situation and have signed their own agreement to reduce trade barriers and provide open tendering for government purchasing. This is an excellent beginning.
It is ironic that while this country has negotiated an outstanding Free Trade Agreement with the United States, barriers to trade within our own country remain. In the last two years a joint federal-provincial committee has reached an agreement in principle on opening government procurement, but it requires the approval of the First Ministers.
There is no reason for further delay. We are strong enough to compete in the global market-place. We can surely compete at home.


FINANCE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) assures the House that the new sales tax will not be a hidden tax and Canadians know about it, he should ask himself the following questions:
Does he know how much federal tax he paid the last time he filled his gas tank? Can he tell us what federal taxes apply to gasoline and what rates? Does he believe that 90 per cent of Canadians have any idea how much tax they pay at the gas pump? I expect not because the tax is built into the price of the product.
How will the Minister keep his promise that Canadians will know exactly what they are paying in federal sales
tax?
I have no doubt there will be a massive propaganda campaign undertaken by the Minister. No matter what that campaign costs, Canadians will still not know how much sales tax they are paying on their children's music lessons or dental bills. There is no doubt that we will see the expenditure of millions of dollars before an information blitz will be allowed to die a quiet death when the Government will then be free to increase and expand the tax behind the veil of secrecy.


VAL D'OR REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE QUEBEC MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1976, the Municipality of Val d'Or applied for membership in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. On May 26, 1987, the Val d'Or drill operators took over this application. Abitibi-Temiscamingue has contributed 530 players to Quebec hockey at the junior, college, university and professional levels. Forty-four of these players went on to the National League, like Jacques Laperriere, Serge Savard, Rogatien Vachon, Pierre Larouche, Jacques Cossette, Rejean Houle, Robert Ritchie, the late Michel Briere, Eric Desjardins, Pierre and Sylvain Turgeon, to name only a few.
Some leaders of this major junior hockey league in Laval, Trois-Rivieres and Shawinigan seem to be afraid to face a team and an organization from Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Mr. Speaker, if the Val d'Or drill operators are refused a team for Val d'Or on August 11,1 suggest that the league change its name to the Quebec Monopoly Junior Hockey League (QMJHL).
June 26, 1989


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians across this country were pleased to hear the news that the United States would bring in new laws to protect our mutual environment. This is certainly something that we are looking forward to. Parliamentarians in this House are delighted to see our American counterparts taking a genuine interest in our concerns over acid rain.
Tomorrow is especially remarkable since Canadians will welcome Senator George Mitchell, the majority House Leader in the U.S. Senate, to our capital. As a member of the Environment Committee, I look forward to his appearance at our committee hearing on Tuesday. We have in Senator Mitchell a politician who is not only determined to cleaning up the environment but, because of his position, he is also capable of making it a reality.
The Senator has long been deeply concerned with the preservation of a quality environment. He is well aware of the damages acid rain can inflict. His state, the State of Maine, has long been a target of S02 and NOx emissions. It is gratifying to see an ally in the driver's seat in the Senate.
I join all Canadians in wishing him every success in this important mission as he brings these proposals into law and as he visits Canada for two days where he will be making a major speech in Toronto on Wednesday.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Native Arts Foundation was founded in 1985 by John Kim Bell, the first native North American symphony conductor.
The foundation provides scholarships to help native young people pursue studies in the arts. Since 1985, $250,000 in scholarships have been awarded to promising native students.
In October of this year, the foundation plans to take a successful ballet The Land of Spirits on national tour. This ballet showcases the richness of native Canadian cultures and deals with the devastating problems of alcohol. In addition to regular audiences, the foundation plans to provide special matinee showings to 18,000 native young people from reserves across Canada.
To date the foundation has raised $1.1 million from private sources and has sought support from the Secretary of State and from the Department of Communications for matching funds.
The proposal has been backed up by four cabinet Ministers by letter and by a former Minister of Indian Affairs.
I call upon the Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to act immediately so that matching funds will be made available to this project prior to the tour taking place in October.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation recently announced its first profit in 30 years as a result of over charging Canadians and reducing services.
In my riding of York North door-to-door mail delivery in all new subdivisions, whether in Vaughan, Aurora, King City or Richmond Hill, have been replaced by supermailboxes. This policy seriously affects all residents in my riding and particularly the blind.
As a Member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, I cannot accept a corporate plan that does not provide boxes large enough for Braille transcripts or talking book material. The blind residents must cope with the dangers of heavy traffic at the supermailbox sites. I am requesting that the Government immediately guarantee home delivery for all blind, visually impaired, and other gifted Canadians.
The Government's obsession with profit making has created two classes of citizens: those who receive door-to-door delivery and those who collect their own mail.

June 26, 1989
Oral Questions
The Government must return to a corporate plan that once and for all places people first.


POLLUTION
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, newspaper reports over the weekend stated that a Canada-U.S. Government study shows that PCBs, Mi-rex, and 28 other hazardous chemicals are accumulating in higher and higher concentrations in the Niagara River as it flows from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario.
The study also shows that seven of the chemicals including PCBs and mercury are showing up at the river's mouth at Lake Ontario in concentrations exceeding government water quality standards.
This study is to be considered by officials from both countries at a meeting on Tbesday, in connection with the 1987 Protocol signed by the Governments of Ontario, New York, the United States, and Canada, which approved a 10-year plan to cut in half the volume of chemicals polluting the Niagara River.
This joint report serves to illustrate that the time for talk is over. The four Governments must now take steps to see that this problem is corrected as soon as possible, in order to protect the health of the people in southern Ontario and upper New York State.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to take a moment to think about Jenny Swanson, a constituent. She is in her early sixties, unmarried, and formerly a waitress. Displaced by younger workers, she is on the Canada Pension's early retirement provision and receives a paltry $65 per month. Her friend, the same age, is married, has never worked, never contributed to Canada Pension Plan, but has a husband aged 65. As a result, she collects more than twice as much as Jenny does each month.
Surely it is time for the pension system in this country to be revised with a view to providing a liveable pension for the many, many Jennys in Canada who are trying to
exist on their Canada Pension Plan. Instead of talking about equality and fairness, the Government has to act.


ABORTION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of abortion remains unsettled. When the Supreme Court struck down the previous law, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) gave us in this Chamber the opportunity to vote freely on this very important matter.
Unfortunately, nothing was resolved by our vote on the motion and amendments presented to us at the time. Then the appeal of the Borowski case was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was moot. Their decision stated that:
The Court would, if it exercised its discretion, pre-empt a possible decision of Parliament, by dictating the form of legislation it should enact.
The ball is clearly in our court, and the Canadian public is expecting us to come to grips with this matter. Let us not fall into the trap of those who say we do not need a law. I say: Let us get on with it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Tiirner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On the weekend, I met several leaders of the Chinese community in Vancouver and a number of Chinese students who are currently in Canada for their studies. I am concerned about the fact that our country has yet to translate the general indignation expressed unanimously by the House of Commons into concrete action. What has happened to the plan to have the United Nations intervene to express international sentiment against the repression in China? Where is the resolution for a Canadian initiative? And similarly, why has the Canadian Government not yet taken con-

crete steps to have the international business community take retaliatory action against China, especially in the high tech industry?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that last week, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to speak directly to our ambassador in China, Mr. Drake, who was recalled to Canada for consultations. Mr. Drake met several Members of this House. Following our consultations with Mr. Drake and with others we had a national forum with a number of Canadians, including China experts-the Government is now preparing the next phase in its response to the events in China. I hope to have a chance to inform the House of the details of this position later this week.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for Earl Drake, whom I have known for 25 years, and I know his views on the bilateral relationship between China and Canada, but I believe that we must explore above all the possibility of collective action in the economic sphere.


FUTURE OF HONG KONG
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Government carefully. I have not heard Canada yet call for strong international action from the International Monetary Fund or from the World Bank. I have not heard Canada talk about cutting off economic aid. In the Minister's own words, we cannot have business as usual.
In that context, I have recently raised with the Minister on the floor of the House of Commons the issue of Hong Kong. My constituents, in particular, and members of the Chinese Canadian community across Canada are very concerned about the future of Hong Kong.
Will the Government, through the Minister, place on the next agenda of the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Governrhent the issue of Hong Kong which is destined to fall under Chinese jurisdiction in 1997?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion and I think that the only appropriate thing I could do
Oral Questions
in the moments after the suggestion has been made is undertake to consider it seriously.
If we think it would be possible for a constructive discussion to ensue at the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government we will do that. As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, that meeting will in fact be in Asia this year, so it may well be a particularly appropriate venue for that kind of discussion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister pursues that, and I thank him for his constructive answer.


SPECIAL PROGRAM FOR CHINESE STUDENTS IN CANADA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my final question, if I might, on the same general subject to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Again I stress that the Opposition has attempted to support the Government in its reaction to China as best we can in a constructive way here in the House of Commons. However, the Minister's program for Chinese students living in Canada is totally confusing to the students with whom I met again this weekend. They do not understand the Minister's multiple option program. With all the chaos in China the least these students can expect is some clarity in Canada.
I want to ask the Minister a question that she has been asked on a number of occasions here in the House of Commons by my colleagues to which she has not yet given, in our opinion, a satisfactory answer.
Why has she not yet introduced a clear, unequivocal, categorical, special administrative program to deal with Chinese students living in Canada? She should eliminate the confusion, suggest a response to them rather than give them this loose series of options, and somehow give them some feeling of security in a very uncertain situation.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, our Department has done a number of things. The Right Hon. Member could assist us in one regard. We have been setting up information seminars across the country for Chinese nationals, not only the students but other Chinese nationals in the country, who want to consider their choices.

June 26, 1989
Oral Questions
I, too, met with leaders of the Chinese community and with Chinese students this weekend. We took the further step of establishing continuing consultation with the National Council which is working very closely with nationals in Canada.
I believe that the answers we gave them met their requests to their satisfaction. However, that does not mean that there is not more that we can do. That is why the information seminars have been important. We are prepared to extend that in terms of providing additional information.
The reason for the visa extension is to ensure that all the Chinese nationals in Canada have the time to make an appropriate decision. Until we consult as fully as we can, I think that we have done a good job, but we are prepared to do more.


FINANCE
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, until quite recently the Minister of Finance kept repeating that the present federal sales tax had three basic flaws, including the following one, which I quote from his folder, published under the title: Goods and Services Tax:
The current federal sales tax is hidden.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is this: Is it part of his Government's hidden agenda to use this hidden tax, which can be increased at any time, unilaterally and invisibly, in order to empty the pockets of Canadian taxpayers in the years to come?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made it very clear that the existing tax is hidden. There is a 13.5 per cent rate and it is buried in the middle of the production process. The new goods arid services tax will be levied at the retail level at 9 per cent, and it will be very clear to Canadians what that tax rate is.
Let me remind the Hon. Member of the current effective federal tax rates at the retail level. For household appliances the lowest rate is 6.05 per cent and the highest rate is 12.67 per cent; for kitchen utensils the low rate is 3.82 per cent and the high is 10.72 per cent.
The point I am making is that currently the consumer cannot know what the tax burden is. Under the new system it will be very clear; it will be 9 per cent.


VISIBILITY OF NATIONAL SALES TAX
M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, all the proposals for tax reform have called for a visible national sales tax. The only thing visible about the present position of the Minister of Finance is that because provinces refused to be coerced in April to accept a take it or leave it deal, the Minister decided to do the sneaky thing; in other words, do the deal and then hide it from everybody, all the time publishing pamphlets and insisting that it is going to be visible.
Will the Minister stand in his place today and demonstrate that he is capable of keeping his word and tell us unequivocally that the tax will be visible, that he will do what he said he was going to do as late as April 27 in his own pamphlet?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the 9 per cent tax rate will be quite clear. It will be 9 per cent on all taxable items for the consumer. Let me give another example to the Hon. Member. On office furniture today the low rate is 7.32 per cent and the high is 10.77 per cent. It is quite impossible for a consumer to know what the tax burden is today, but the tax burden under the new system will be 9 per cent.


RELEASE OF TECHNICAL PAPER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has made frequent reference in this House and outside the House to a technical paper which he hopes to have released by the end of this month. In fact, in Hansard of June 13 he is reported as saying, in response to a question from my Leader, that the technical paper would be out very shortly. He said:
That will be set out very plainly later on this month.
Since he said this technical paper would be out before the end of the month, I want to know whether or not the Minister will keep his promise. Will that technical paper
June 26, 1989

be tabled here in the House of Commons before we recess later this week?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to make the end of June date. We expect to have the paper out in a very short period of time, but we are not going to be able to make it for the end of this month. We believe that it is important to get the technical detail correct, and that is the reason for the delay.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his Department have been planning the tax for many, many months, indeed over a year. He has been promising to have this technical paper available before the end of the month.
Is the real reason he is not going to table it in the House of Commons not that he wants to avoid the heat of an opposition attack and the heat of an attack by the people of Canada by tabling it in the middle of the summer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member realizes the importance of a technical paper. It is complex. It needs to have the right detail for the practitioners to be able to base their conclusions and judgments on when they provide us with advice which we will use to develop the final legislation. That is the reason for the delay.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the only reason for the delay is that the Conservative Party wants to keep this invisible from the people of Canada.


MINISTER'S ALLEGED POLITICAL COMMITMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has now broken three political commitments: first, the national sales tax was to be visibile; second, it was to be revenue neutral; and third, the personal surtax was to be eliminated.
Can he confirm now that he has just broken the fourth political commitment, which was to make his technical document public before Parliament adjourns?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that we are trying to
Oral Questions
hide this. There will be plenty of time during the course of the committee hearings, which I understand the finance committee chairman is proposing to have before legislation comes to the House. Then there will be the debate at the time the legislation is in the House.
There will be all sorts of opportunities for the Hon. Member and his colleagues to debate this matter fully.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE OF ZIMBABWE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Dr. Oliver Musa Munyaradzi, Minister of Trade and Commerce of Zimbabwe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning Members from both sides of the House heard very moving testimony from 50 refugee claimants living in Montreal. They came to Ottawa as representatives of the 125,000 people trapped in this huge backlog. Because of the prolonged delay in reviewing their cases, the claimants have been separated from their families and children, some for up to periods of four to five years.
Given that this is but one of the human dilemmas in this backlog, and given that a case by case review, which can take up to two or three years, is lengthy, expensive and a taxing review on the country, will the Minister consider a middle ground, an administrative review, so that families will not have to wait seven to 10 years to be reunited.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or a Canadian visa officer is of the opinion that an individual is in danger, measures can be taken to bring that person to Canada. However, as a general rule in processing the backlog cases, we intend to

June 26, 1989
Oral Questions
deal with the claimant in Canada before making any decisions concerning dependents abroad.
I would remind the Hon. Member that we have insured that those who are in Canada can work, which should help them in terms of supporting their families at home. We intend to move on the backlog as expeditiously as possible.


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON BACKLOG
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, that is what the Government said two or three years ago, move expeditiously. Now at the very best, that backlog processing will not start until probably the late summer or fall.
The Minister fully knows that these claimants have been in Canada for years, have established themselves in this country and formed the workforce backbone of many key sectors in Canada. I therefore ask the Minister, is it logical to spend taxpayers' dollars and go through the long exercise of removing and deporting these people when in fact levels may be increased next year and may possibly bring these people back? Is it not better to have an administrative review so that the Government and Ministers can say no to those who are clearly unworthy, and yes to those who are deserving and who are contributing to Canadian society?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that one of the reasons there is a backlog is because the Members of his Party delayed the legislation for so long.
Let me say as well that there are many people in the world who have expressed an interest in coming to Canada. It is very important that people who come here come under the same rules, whether they come in the refugee stream or they come in the immigration stream. This country welcomes people coming to Canada as genuine refugees and as immigrants but we expect them all to come under the rule of law.


DISASTERS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it concerns the Gander air crash.
As the Minister will know, the internationally respected American Air Line Pilots Association has now said that the Canadian Aviation Safety Board probe into the Gander air crash relied on evidence that was "fabricated, faulty, erroneous, and more to the point fabricated".
In light of this crucial new information from one of the most respected air safety organizations in the world, is the Minister now prepared to do the right thing and to finally call for a judicial commission of inquiry into the Gander air crash, the most tragic air accident ever to have occurred on Canadian soil? Will he do that now?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Member knows very well that about three months ago we referred the case to Mr. Justice Estey who is looking at all the documentation and at all that has been said or done about Gander air crash. Mr. Justice Estey normally should have recommended something to me this week, but he asked for an extension of his mandate for about one week. Within the next couple of weeks I should receive the report from Mr. Justice Estey, who will deal, if he wants, with the report given by the U.S. pilots association.
\ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that the House deserves some clarification. The Minister should be able to tell us today at least whether the Estey Commission, which is not a full commission of inquiry, will have the authority to review those documents, that is, the documents ALPA, the American agency, provided for us, and if so, is that the reason for the delay of several days, so that Mr. Estey can consider that highly important report on this very tragic accident?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course Judge Estey has the opportunity to consider the report you refer to here. He has the full power to do so in whatever way he likes. Is that the reason why he specially asked for an extension of about a week? I don't know! One thing is clear: he is completely free to consider the report, to use it or not, and once that is done, he will make the recommendation that he wishes to make to the Minister of Transport.
June 26, 1989


NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, better known as the former Prime Minister.
In light of information obtained under the Access to Information Act, Bill Neville, the Tory tobacco tout was given advance drafts of the regulations governing the Tobacco Products Control Act. This allowed him, through his lobbying efforts, to water down the health warnings to consumers in Canada while the health community did not become aware of the regulations until November, 1988. Can this Government justify one of its closest cronies, as a paid lobbyist of the tobacco industry, using his personal connections with the Government to influence their decisions? Is this not a clear case of conflict of interest?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the facts were at all as the Hon. Member presents them, I would be very concerned myself. The facts are not however.
The Government has a very clear policy of sending out draft regulations for comment by the private sector, by industries which are affected and also by public interest groups which may have an interest in responding. An information letter was sent out on November 7 of last year. It was distributed widely, encouraging various groups to make presentations to the Government with regard to the draft regulations. Among the groups which did so was the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, whose brief dated November 16, 1988, dealt specifically with this.
If Mr. Neville was so effective in this case in influencing the Government's actions, perhaps the hon. gentleman could explain why tobacco taxes went up $4 a carton in the Minister of Finance's Budget earlier this year.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the deputy Deputy Prime Minister. Last year, 35,000 Canadians died prematurely from tobacco related illnesses. Tobacco is the only product in use today in Canada which causes death when used exactly as described.
Oral Questions
How can this Government put the success of Bill Neville's lobbying activities ahead of the health concerns of Canadians?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is very simple. We have not. Canada has the stiffest anti-smoking legislation of anywhere in the world. If the hon. gentleman disputes that, let him simply tell the House which country he believes has legislation more progressive than Canada's.
What is more, this afternoon, we will be asking for unanimous consent from all Parties to pass Bill C-27. I hope the Hon. Member will be there to ensure that it gets passed by this House of Commons this afternoon.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Kenneth David Atkinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. There are reports that a study prepared for a meeting between Canadian and U.S. officials on Tbesday shows that PCBs, mirex and 28 other hazardous chemicals are accumulating in higher and higher proportions as the Niagara River flows from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. It is assumed that the toxic dumps on the U.S. side and the discharge pipes along the shore add these chemicals to the river. A protocol signed by New York State, Ontario, the U.S. Government and the Canadian Government calls for the volume of chemicals in the river to be cut in half by 1997.
Can the Minister tell the House what action the Government intends to take in order to see that this goal is met?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian and U.S. environmental agencies are committed to the Niagara River toxic management plan in order to identify the sources of pollution in the river and to develop adequate remedial strategies.
From 1982 to 1987, New York State and Ontario respectively have reported 88 per cent and 60 per cent reductions in discharge from municipal and industrial facilities. It is suspected there are other sources involved as far as pollution is concerned in this river, mainly hazardous waste sites. Both agencies are committed to

Oral Questions
identifying new sources and are reporting publicly a review of the progress.


NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT CHANGES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In June last year Parliament passed an excellent Bill, the Tobacco Products Control Act. Shortly thereafter and up until the last election-and I would like the Minister to be conscious of the time-on several occasions, not only in November but in July and August, Mr. Neville, former Principal Secretary to former Prime Minister Clark, speech writer for Prime Minister Mulro-ney, and President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, intervened on several occasions and had his way in eliminating two important recommendations.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Did the former Minister or the current Minister know of secret interventions taking place, that health groups were specifically excluded and that health officials did indeed cave in to the intervention by Mr. Neville?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member cited Mr. Neville's curriculum vitae, he overlooked one important element of his past. He was also Executive Assistant to the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, the then Liberal Minister of Health. He has reformed since that time.


Mr. Allmand:: How many years ago?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Clancy:: Everyone has some good.


Henry Perrin Beatty: There were no secret meetings. A bulletin was distributed widely both to the industry, to people, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and others, inviting them to make recommendations with regard to draft regulations. That is part of the established procedure for regulation making. Indeed, two meetings were held with the Non-Smokers' Rights Association in order to get its input. On November 16, during the federal election, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association submitted a brief to
the Government-hardly clandestine, hardly improper, quite effective as it turned out.


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN LABELLING
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association has indicated that cigarettes be labelled as addictive. Second, that the arrow circle symbol be included on the package. These are two important considerations, Mr. Minister. Yet, following the intervention by Mr. Neville these two important considerations were omitted.
Will the new Minister now give an assurance to the House that the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, other health association and the public at large will be given equal access as Mr. Neville to rebuttal?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that not only will non-smokers' groups be given equal access, they have been.
The Hon. Member raises the question of whether or not a warning should state that tobacco is addictive. He apparently is not aware of the fact that in January of this year my Department was in touch with the Royal Society of Canada asking it to do a study precisely on that.


Ms. Copps:: You don't know if it is addictive or not?


Henry Perrin Beatty: In August this year we will be receiving the results of that study. There will be a second round of regulations later this year, and depending on the results of those recommendations the second round of regulations may well include just such a warning on packages.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week at the Transport Committee meeting Mr. Hugh Homer, Vice-Chairman of VIA, told the committee that he gave his personal assurances to western tour operators that VIA would be a continued service in the West even if it meant privatization. Today we have learned that the Government is considering selling the VIA transcontinental service to a luxury company for wealthy tourists at the expense of average Canadians who want, need and
June 26, 1989

use this service. I did not think that the Government needed to be told this, but in Canada travel is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
Would the Minister please inform the House exactly what its plans are for VIA, will it be protected, or is this Government putting VIA on the auction block to the highest bidder and to hell with all Canadians?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Member knows very well what I have repeatedly said in this House, that VIA Rail will propose some options. This will be done, I hope, within the next couple of weeks. When it is done the Government will decide about any route in Canada. Once again, it has to be within the proposal which will be made by VIA Rail.
Dealing with the question of private ownership, if it is option by VIA Rail, the Government will consider that option, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: I, of course, will recognize the Hon. Member for a supplementary and I ask him that he confine himself to the appropriate language in the House.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I do apologize, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON CANCELLATION OF ROUTES
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: I say again the report will come to this House conveniently after we have left. It is very clear that with some new rolling stock and a little creative marketing many of VIA's routes can be very profitable. In fact, VIA's own statistics point out that the system is well used on an average of 54 per cent to 60 per cent across Canada.
Will the Minister now assure this House that no route will be cancelled through orders-in-council until public hearings are held? Or is the Minister now telling Canadians that even if you use it you are going to lose it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, obviously I will not give a guarantee of this kind.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why.


Benoît Bouchard: What I will say is there are many options which could be proposed. One option is by order-in-council. Another option is the National Transportation Agency. We will do our best to give the best service but once again there will be no guarantee of any kind to this Hon. Member.
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I direct my question to the Minister of Justice.
Pattigate continues to grow. On Friday the Premier of Ontario was forced to call a judicial inquiry into the relationship between the Tridel Corporation, Patricia Starr and any member or official of his Government.
The federal Government has jurisdiction in the Starr case in the issuing and abuse of the registered charity number, the improper contributions to the Liberal and Conservative Parties and candidates, and the diversion of CMHC funds into Patti's political slush funds. Will the Minister of Justice now order a parallel judicial inquiry into all federal matters pertaining to the Patricia Starr case?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Department of National Revenue, upon finding out that there were some irregularities taking place by individuals within the organization, immediately instigated a full federal audit with total and absolute co-operation of the council itself. Since then, of course, there have been numerous provincial investigations, one a judicial inquiry, called as recently as last Friday by the Premier. At this point in time, I believe it would be improper for anyone else to make any specific comment on the matter in order that it not prejudge or prejudice the inquiry now in place.
I can tell the Hon. Member and the House that the co-operation is a two way street. We are receiving full co-operation from the council, and we, of course, in the Department of National Revenue, will continue with our audit and will obviously co-operate fully with the provincial inquiry.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Minister of Justice. There has been a Revenue Department review and it issued a charity number. There has been a CMHC review and it could not be detected that funds were being misappropriated into a political slush fund. This involves more than one federal government De-

June 26, 1989
Oral Questions
partment. In view of this, why will the Government not now start its own judicial inquiry.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, a number of points in the Hon. Member's question are erroneous. First, it is not CMHC money. Second, when he talked about a federal review or audit, that was during the course of time in preparation for giving the council its charitable status which was several years ago. The new audit only commenced in May. That audit continues and will of course be co-operating with the provincial inquiry as well.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Supply and Services. Recently, it was reported that the Department of Supply and Services has budgeted $200,000 for twentieth anniversary celebrations over the summer. We have also learned that the Minister's Department is launching a new graphic look to project the image of a modem, dynamic Department. In light of the Government's stated commitment to spending restraint, could the Minister please outline how and why this money is being spent on a twentieth anniversary, and what are the costs associated with the design and eventual implementation of the new Department of Supply and Services logo?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services is currently in Winnipeg on government business. I will take the specific question as notice for the Minister, who I am sure will be able to answer in a more detailed manner. However I can tell the Hon. Member, as a former Minister of Supply and Services, that that Department, as do all the others, continues to co-operate with the Government-wide effort of fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility, something that we did not see on the other side of the House when they were in Government.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, with an answer like that, I think that the Department of Supply and Services needs more than just an image makeover, especially since its only client is the Government itself.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister justify spending taxpayers' money on this kind of fluff when personally he has claimed that the deficit reduction is the number one concern of his Department?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, with questions like that from Members on the Liberal side, I think they need an image workover more than the Department of Supply and Services.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: The fact is that the Department of Supply and Services has hundreds of thousands of clients in the form of businesses, small, medium and large, across Canada and the Department is constantly working on trying to open itself up to being fairer and more equitable and straightforward when doing business with all those clients. The Hon. Member should do her homework before she asks further questions on this matter.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Almost one year ago, his Department published a 600-page document which was an absolutely damning indictment of the tragic state of pulp and paper discharge in Canada. We now know that over the last year, the Minister has not acted on the report and in fact, recently his colleague, in response to the problem of pulp and paper discharge on the West Coast, did not close down the mill but closed down the fishing industry. Most specifically, what has the Minister and the Government done to implement the specific recommendations contained in this 600-page report published by his Department almost a year ago?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Environment is now completing a nation-wide sampling program to establish the level of pollution by furans and dioxins. I announced, and I do so again today, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first step towards the implementation of a set of regulatory
June 26, 1989

measures that will control very strictly, starting next year, the levels of dioxin and furan emissions in Canada's pulp and paper mills.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Canada's pulp and paper mills is a crying shame!


POSITION OF MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for the Minister. He says that he will prepare new regulations. Can he explain why, according to information we received today from his own Department, every single pulp and paper mill in British Columbia was in violation of current discharge requirements over the past year? Since this report was published a year ago, every single pulp and paper mill in British Columbia has been in violation of the current laws. Why does the Minister not charge the companies instead of making the fishermen pay for it?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's emotional reaction is no substitute for the facts, which are very well known. We have a set of regulations that were adopted under the Fisheries Act in 1971, which is not effective and does not apply to the majority of pulp and paper mills in Canada. We are now drafting long-awaited regulations after 15 to 20 years of Liberal inefficiency and neglect. We are trying to fill that gap, Mr. Speaker, and within the next two years, we will have the strictest measures ever to control pollution by pulp and paper mills.


CONTINENTAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Is the Minister aware of the push to include Mexico in a continental free trade agreement? That push is being led by two U.S. Senators, Connie Mack and Richard Lugar, as well as a group of Canadian businessmen. What is the Minister's position on whether or not Canada agrees with an integrated economy
Oral Questions
through an extended Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and the Government of Mexico?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the hon. gentleman goes to bed with nightmares of free trade with various countries ringing through his consciousness. The hon. gentleman reads The Sunday Star which says that pressure is mounting for free trade pact to include Mexico. I can tell the hon. gentleman that pressure is not mounting. There is no pressure. There is an absolute zero pounds per square inch of pressure on the Mexico question.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the nightmares and the pressure are not on me, they are on the Canadians who have already lost their jobs to Mexican workers because of the trade agreement.


EXTENSION OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, two American Senators, Senator Lugar and Senator Mack, are both pushing for an extended Free Trade Agreement. Both are powerful Senators. If there is a Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Mexico, goods made in Mexico will be allowed to come into Canada under the existing Free Trade Agreement. Will the Minister assure us that Canadians will not lose jobs because of that provision in the Free Trade Agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it does not matter to us how many powerful U.S. Senators are for free trade with Mexico. They do not determine the policy of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not care if Connie Mack is for free trade with Mexico. We do not even care if Harold Ballard is for free trade with Mexico. We are quite an independent Government.
"U.S. giant targets Quebec for a new plant". Alumex Incorporated, a giant California-based aluminium company will build a $1 billion aluminium refinery near Quebec with 500 jobs.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

June 26, 1989
Points of Order NATIONAL DEFENCE


CHANGES IN PLANS UNDER THE BUDGET
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The White Paper on National Defence made a tremendous commitment to defence in Canada. Unfortunately, one of the tragedies of the Budget was that some of the plans had tremendous changes made to them.
There was an estimate that roughly $54 billion was planned to be spent in the next 15 years. The present plans are anything but that.
Specifically, plans to modernize the Navy have been scrapped; plans to buy new main battle tanks for the Army have remained in the trenches; plans to procure the Maritime patrol aircraft and for the CF-18 attrition aircraft are in orbit. It is very unlikely that we will have 65,000 primary reserves in 15 years.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell the Canadian people, in view of the gap between the plans and the promises and the present commitment, where are we heading with defence policy? Are we going to change the roles and commitments of the Canadian Forces, or are we just going to rust out?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has apparently changed his opinion on the naval plans enunciated by the Government on the SSNs. I suggest that he sits in the Party that initiated rust-out for Canada's military.
I can bring to the Hon. Member's attention the fact that right now we are looking-


Sheila Maureen Copps: How are the new uniforms?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East obviously does not want me to answer the question. I would like to address her colleague.
The Hon. Member knows that the announcements that were made when the Budget was announced identified several projects that would not go ahead as enunciated. He is accurate in assessing the amount of some $54 billion that were to be spent over the next five years, which reduces our 15-year plan by approximately $20 billion plus. Therefore, the initiatives that this Government can take in some procurements are delayed, some are cancelled, and some are put on pause.
We are going ahead with the second phase of the frigate program. We are going ahead with 12 mine countermeasure vessels, for which the project definition was announced a few days ago. We are going ahead with low-level air defence. We are going ahead with building the primary reserves. We may not be able to meet the announced-


POINTS OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
21ST ANNIVERSARY OF MEMBERS ELECTED IN 1968
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) on a point of order.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that 21 years ago yesterday 72 very distinguished Members of Parliament were elected in 1968.
Nine of the those Members are still in the House of Commons. The group not only includes the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), but yourself, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. There were also other distinguished Members, the Lieutenant Governor for the Province of Ontario, a former Premier from Newfoundland, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, many Senators and many Members.
However, most important are the nine survivors. Besides the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the NDP and yourself, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, there is the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for Regina- Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and one other Member whom we call a premature, the Hon. Member for Papineau-St-Michel (Mr. Ouellet), who was elected in a by-election in the fall of 1967.
I know that every Member in the House would want to congratulate those most distinguished Members of Parliament for surviving so long. We wish to express our appreciation to the Speaker for tendering such a lovely luncheon for such a distinguished group today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!
June 26, 1989


Maurice Brydon Foster: We know that every Member of the House will want to wish those nine survivors a very happy birthday on their 21st anniversary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Algoma for bringing it to our attention.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As one of those gallant nine survivors of the Class of '68, I wish to say that although it was our 21st birthday yesterday, none of us look it or feel it. However, I would counsel all other Hon. Members to come to any of the nine of us for sage advice about surviving.


THE OFFICIAL REPORT-VERIFICATION OF COMMENTS REQUESTED
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could indulge the Chair with a request that the June 22nd Hansard be verified at page 3557. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) stated: " -that the present critic of multiculturalism of" our "Party voted against" the idea of forming a separate sub-committee or standing committee on multiculturalism.
I have never done that. I request that the Chair verify the comments in order to see in what context the remarks were made and, if need be, that they be retracted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has taken note.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, and the amendment of Mr. Rodriquez:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be not now read the second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
Bank Act
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-9, the amendments to the Bank Act. This Bill, with the exception of including small businesses in the Bill, is basically the same as Bill C-140 which died on the Order Paper with the last federal election.
I want to point out to the House that although I was not a Member of the debates and did not take part in those debates, my colleagues in the New Democratic Party opposed that Bill forcefully. Our opposition remains steadfast in light of this new piece of proposed legislation.
There are a number of reasons why we oppose this Bill. First, the Bill provides few guarantees for customers and small businesses against unfair service charges that have been applied by the banks. It does nothing to keep the fees and service charges under some degree of control.
We oppose the basic thrust and the basic principle of the Bill which is that the banks themselves can actually be trusted to keep service charges in line. The Bill is proposing that the banks police themselves. To a great extent, that is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop.
The Government took the same position on interest charges on credit cards. Although the charges did come down initially when Parliament first put on the pressure, those charges have climbed right back up, if one cares to look at what has happened in the credit card industry. The concept of voluntary compliance or voluntary policing is a very weak concept. It has shown to be very ineffective.
I would like to point out some basic weaknesses in the Bill. With respect to voluntary compliance, the legislation does not force the banks to do anything about their service fees except to disclose the charges and to notify their customers about the increases and the new fees. In the case of small business, the banks are not required to disclose all their charges but only those that are defined in a core list.
I must say that the Government seems to be basing this approach on the assumption that the disclosure in the notification of charges will sort of open up the competition. However, I would like to point out that this really has very little impact in terms of a customer's ability to move from one bank to another. For example, if somebody has a mortgage or an outstanding loan and finds they have had a service charge applied to that item, it will be very costly for them to pull up stakes and move the business elsewhere. They are locked into the mort-

June 26, 1989
Bank Act
gage or the loan. They would just have to grin and bear it. There is very little latitude for the small business owner or for anyone who has a mortgage simply to pull up stakes without cost to themselves or to their business operations.
In that respect this Bill does very little in terms of opening up the concept of competitive rates between banks. The past record of the banks in terms of voluntary compliance has not been very good. The Royal Bank has a net income of over $700 million. The income of the Bank of Nova Scotia last year was some $506 million. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce had record earnings of $591 million. Despite these massive profits the banks did not hesitate to raise their service charges.
I will give an example of that, Mr. Speaker. The Royal Bank of Canada raised 15 of its service fees on November 1 from 4 per cent to 6 per cent. It raised the cost of writing an NSF cheque up to 12 per cent despite the fact that it had a banner year last year in terms of its profits. The Bank of Nova Scotia and the Imperial Bank of Commerce have also raised their service charges, again despite banner years in terms of the banking industry.
Those types of charges are tough on small businesses. I have spent quite a bit of time talking to small business owners in my constituency, the constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap. There are two major concerns that the owners and partners in small businesses have. The first is with respect to high interest rates. The second is with respect to the many hidden charges that are foisted upon small businesses. They are very concerned about the fact that the banking industry does not seem or appear to be the friend of the small business person. They do not appear to be there to help in making the small business sector flourish.
There is a lot of concern in my constituency, and probably in the constituency of eveiy Member of this House. The small business community is concerned about the high cost of borrowing money from the banks and of the high cost of simply doing business. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, just about every small business
across Canada is in some respect reliant on the banking community in order to operate.
In 1987 five major banks, the Scotia Bank, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, collected over $1 billion from bank service charges from the small business community, the investment community and people who have mortgages. That is a great deal of money. I would suggest that that level of profit-taking indicates that perhaps the service charges are too onerous and have to be brought down. In fact, they are unfair to the business community and to the taxpayer.
I wish to deal now with the charges that the Bill before us does not seek to remove. I refer to charges for deposits and withdrawals. To me, and I am sure to most Members, those are core services of a bank. One deposits money for safekeeping. When the time comes at which the money is needed, it is withdrawn. It is a core service. There should be no reason to apply service charges to this fundamental level of service that the bank is established to allow.
In terms of the service charge for cashing an NSF cheque, I remind the House that this charge was called offensive by the last Minister of Finance. Yet the banks, such as Toronto-Dominion, did not agree to comply voluntarily. It still charges customers for unknowingly cashing an NSF cheque. When a business cashes its cheques it has no idea which cheque will not be sufficiently funded. Yet that business is penalized by the bank for submitting such a cheque which in all innocence fails to be negotiable security.
The Bill does not protect the small business community from being charged. Quite frankly, in some areas of the country where the economy is marginal, some small businesses have a number of NSF cheques. Thus it becomes a burdensome charge on small business to have to pay a penalty for processing NSF cheques.
The legislation before us does not remove the charge for closing the account. This is also something we consider to be a core service charge of a bank. There are charges for going below a minimum balance and for providing the current balance of an account. If an individual or a company representative comes into a
June 26, 1989

bank and wants to find out what their current account level is, why should they be charged? That too is a core service.
Customers are being charged for errors made by the bank itself in the administration of an account. There is no reason that a service charge should be applied to that. The Bill does not prohibit any of these charges. It does not force the banks to provide a basic no-frills account which would provide these services free of charge.
The third point I would like to touch on is self-monitoring by the banks. One of the difficult aspects of this Bill-in fact it is a farce-is that the banks monitor themselves to see whether they have complied voluntarily in bringing their services into line. Again, it is a case of the fox being charged with guarding the chickens.
How can one expect the level of accuracy to be what it should be in terms of whether or not they have in fact complied? If customers are not happy with the way their complaints are dealt with, they should be allowed to contact the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in Ottawa. However, this is not a real guarantee because the Superintendent of Financial Institutions does not have a mandate to protect consumers. The Bill would only create more pressures for an agency which is already overworked and in fact is not established to do that kind of job. The Superintendent's job is to ensure that the banks stay in business, not that they satisfy consumers. In that respect, it is almost a conflict of interest.
Those are three critical areas of weakness in this legislation. Because of those weaknesses, I think the legislation should not see the light of day and in fact the Bill should be withdrawn.
We must accept the recommendations of the Finance Committee which has done a commendable task in uncovering many of the problems we are having with respect to the commercial banking industry. We should accept the recommendation to require the provision of a free basic, or core banking service which is, after all, the main reason why the banks were established originally.
Bank Act
We should accept the recommendation to prohibit certain unfair charges which I have already mentioned, including minimum bank balances and charge backs for cashing NSF cheques.
We agreed with these recommendations but we also feel they do not go far enough. We would like to propose additional recommendations to those made by the Finance Committee. There should be a freeze on all bank service charges for one year. Bank service charges have increased over the past five years at an annual rate of 19 per cent, far above the inflation rate. That is far above the necessary rate of increase in order to simply cover the increased cost of living. It is unjustifiable.
The banks generate about $1 billion a year from these service charges. Therefore a very strong argument can be made that the banks have overcharged Canadian consumers and the small business community in Canada. I believe they should be required to give Canadian businesses and consumers a fair break.
Also, we would recommend the establishment of a financial services ombudsperson who would be empowered to perform customary advocacy and referee services as well as to referee and develop long-term policy advice. I think it is an excellent suggestion in light of the fact that we have seen very strong evidence that the banks have been guilty of overcharging Canadian consumers.
In the last Parliament my colleague, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), proposed legislation that would involve many of these recommendations by the Finance Committee as well as the proposal for a one-year freeze on bank charges and the concept of a financial services ombudsperson. The Bill would have extended these guarantees to all consumers and small businesses. Based on those recommendations, we would like to see this current legislation withdrawn. The appropriate amendments and valued criticisms that the Finance Committee has developed should be implemented into the legislation so that we can develop the kind of protective mechanisms for which the small business community has been asking and which the banks have been guilty of not providing.

Bank Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-War against drugs; the Hon. Member for Surrey-North (Mr. Karpoff)-Housing-Personal housing costs-Minister's position; the Hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Thylor)-Canada Post Corporation-Remarks of constituent-Minister's position / Public relations activities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez (p. 3601).
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party speak about the required changes to the Bank Act, it is amazing to realize that we have to raise in the House of Commons something that should have been regulated in law many years ago. If there is any legislation that should be rigid, it is the Bank Act.
For all practical purposes the banks have a form of monopoly that has been given to them by the Government. Yet year after year in the House we have to bring up the abuses by the banks in this country.
I have been a victim of service charges on many occasions. Recently I received four NSF cheques, each with a service charge of $15. Yet when one attempts to call the bank on which the money is drawn to see if there
is enough in the account, the bank will not give the information about whether the person has sufficient funds. It is necessary to go to one's own bank, get on one's knees and ask them to call the bank to see if there is sufficient funds before depositing the cheque. It is a catch-22 situation.
The rate at which service charges have been creeping up over the years is a disgrace. No matter what government is in power, it should immediately ensure that the Bank Act is the most rigid of all legislation because it deals with one of the most fundamental aspects of our democracy.
The core services provided by the banks operate on a very basic principle, the cost of doing business. If the banks cannot provide the service, why don't they get out of the business?

Mr. Speaker, I know that many of my fellow citizens have noticed that after going to the bank for whatever reason, their statement indicates a charge of $1, $1.50, $5 or $7. When you enquire, the bank says those are fees for this or that service, but these are fees that should not even exist.
And then we have to come here to argue this issue and say: This is abuse! Of course this is abuse, and if there ever was a place where such abuse should be stopped, that place is right here!
The Bill before the House today I must say am not familiar with the other attempts to legislate the matter in the past but I can inform the House that the Bill before it today is only an attempt to deal with the issue but at least we should respect the principle that any Canadian who receives a service from the bank-and don't forget that the bank gets its charter from the government so it is a kind of monopoly, and it gets very rigid.
No bank should have the right to decree unilaterally that it will charge fees for certain services. It doesn't make sense at all. And just the same, we have to come and argue this issue in the House.
Everybody deals in good faith. Of course there are exceptions. Why is it not understood that with our banking system, fundamentally small businesses have been complaining about the charges on NSF cheques and others? The fact remains that the banks should not
June 26, 1989

have the latitude to charge for any service to citizens of this country. This Bank Act is not rigid enough.
It is very simple. We have to get down and start from zero. The banks must be called to task and we must settle the problem once and for all. How many small business organizations, how many consumers have been heard on different news programs, on open-line radio programs telling us stories about creeping service charges that have increased through the years? Yet we cannot come up with an Act to right a wrong within what is a fundamental aspect of this country, our banking system.
I do not have to go into detail about banks' record profits, let alone the hundreds of millions of dollars in write-offs because of poor investments in Third World countries where it was thought the banks were going to make a mint. These proved to be failures. Yet they wrote them off, of course, against the taxpayers. It is an amazing coincidence that when the news was getting out that they were going to have to write off hundreds of millions of dollars of their loans to certain countries, all of a sudden the phenomena of the creeping charges came in. The charges escalated out of proportion.
It is very simple. I think we should put this Act aside, sit down again and take the recommendations from the committee on finance. We should call the banks to task and say: "You are not going to set the rules. We are going to set the rules when it comes to charges."
Basically our job is very simple. You can talk to any Canadian or to any small business organization and it is only common sense, they will tell you, that there should be no bank charges. That is obvious because it is their service and their cost of doing business.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Non-smokers' Health Act


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 will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I think that you would find that there would be consent to defer the vote until the other votes at six o'clock so that we can continue with Bill C-27.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill C-27, an Act to amend the Non-Smokers' Health Act be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to explain to the House the proposed amendments to the Non-Smokers Health Act.
As you know, this legislation was the result of a Private Members' Bill introduced by Lynn McDonald, the former Member for Broadview-Greenwood. The health of Canadians is something that concerns us all, and you will recall that Bill C-204 received the support of Members on both sides of this House and of the Senate.
All Parties being agreed, Bill C-204 received royal assent in June 1988. Once again I want to congratulate the Bill's sponsor for her remarkable achievement in

Non-smokers' Health Act
difficult circumstances: obtaining Parliament approval of the concept of regulating the use of tobacco in the work place.
However, the legislation has not yet been promulgated because it contains a number of aspects that as difficult to administer and to enforce.
Being a Private Members' Bill, the legislation did not designate a specific minister who would be responsible for its implementation and enforcement. Pursuant to Order in Council of December 7, 1988, the Minister of Labour was made responsible for the Bill as it affected the work place, while enforcement on public carriers was assigned to the Minister of Transport.
Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, closer scrutiny of the legislative text by the two responsible departments together with Health and Welfare Canada revealed that in its present form, the legislation presented some enforcement problems. Personally, I think it is important to provide for an inspection mechanism and an enforcement process, both of which were lacking in the existing legislation. Obviously, when there are any doubts that its provisions will be observed, legislation loses its impact and effectiveness.
My concern for the practical aspects of enforcement led me to question the shortcomings in the current legislation and ask for permission to amend it. I would like to stress that the amendments being proposed today still observe the initial spirit and scope of the legislation adopted last year.
I firmly believe that these amendments which are intended to fill the gaps in the legislation and to make it easier to administer the Non-Smokers Health Act, will give the text more teeth and make it more effective. The amendments will not only correct a number of technical and drafting problems, they will also create an inspection and enforcement system that will make the legislation more meaningful.

The amendments provide for a system of inspection which will involve Labour Canada and Transport Canada inspectors and which they will carry out in addition to their ongoing duties. It is not anticipated that there will be any requirement for additional resources to undertake this work. Inspectors will carry out the provisions of the Act within the context of their ongoing inspections.
Indeed, I should point out that under the Act, employers have a responsibility to ensure that persons do not smoke except in designated smoking rooms or smoking areas. If an employee contravenes the Act, the employer would be expected after due warning to take disciplinary measures against that employee consistent with standard employer-employee disciplinary practices without recourse to the inspector. I believe this kind of infraction will prove to be the norm, and in large measure, the legislation will be self-regulating.

A parallel enforcement method is suggested, based on a system of fines, to complement the current mechanism. The system of fines was selected for the following reasons: It allows contravenors to plead guilty voluntarily, pay a fine and thus avoid summary proceedings; fines are used by other jurisdictions in Canada and abroad to enforce no smoking rules and also within the federal Government, more specifically by the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and the Environment.
The Law Reform Commission of Canada recommends this approach to reduce the number of summary proceedings.
The fines will be similar to those applied in the case of traffic violations. Amounts will be determined by the regulations but will not exceed the limits stated in the legislation, which will remain unchanged.

There are also a number of drafting and technical problems with the Auditor General Act. These problems will be corrected through the amendments. For example, in the Act as it was passed, there is a requirement that the employer provide a smoke-free environment. The concept of a smoke-free environment implies a system of measurement. However, it is not technically or administratively feasible to measure concentrations of tobacco smoke to determine whether the environment is smoke-free or not. We need to have a practical and enforceable alternative that still retains the spirit and the intent of this original requirement. The amendments therefore will instead place a requirement on employers to ensure that persons refrain from smoking in the workplace except in designated smoking rooms or smoking areas.
June 26, 1989



Since it is easier to allow smoking in certain areas than to provide for a totally smoke-free environment, the concept will allow for more uniform and more effective implementation of this legislation.

However in the spirit of providing a smoke-free environment, designated smoking rooms in buildings, the construction of which commences after December 31, 1989, will need to be independently ventilated. Designated smoking rooms in older buildings will need to be independently ventilated to the extent reasonably practicable. Detailed technical requirements such as ventilation rates will be specified in regulations that will be developed in consultation with management and labour representatives.
Mr. Speaker, representatives of employers, employees and health groups support these amendments. I only hope that I can count on all Hon. Members of this House to support them just as much so that we can implement this Bill as soon as possible. The original Act was given Royal Assent nearly a year ago.
That is why I propose in clause 16 that the law take effect six months after the amendments receive Royal Assent, which I realize will give just enough time to put the necessary regulations in place.
This Bill is an important piece of non-partisan legislation which deserves to be applied effectively, in keeping with its original spirit and intent. It is a major step towards a healthier work environment for Canadians. I therefore count on the support of all Hon. Members of this House to pass this Bill.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this Bill although there was equal demand to be in my constituency where I was to hear the presentations of citizens respecting pension reforms.
The Liberal caucus supports the quick passage of Bill C-27. In fact, I would have given the Government an excellent rating for introducing Bill C-27 which proposes amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act except
Non-smokers' Health Act
that in stalling for a year the Government almost killed the initiative of a private Members' Bill. The Non-smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204, sponsored by Lynn McDonald, was introduced and given first reading on October 6,1986, almost three years ago. The Bill was given Royal Assent on June 28, 1988, but was not proclaimed. Thus, the Non-smokers' Health Act has been in limbo for almost a year now.
This is not surprising given the Government's initial lack of enthusiasm for Bill C-204. When introduced, Lynn McDonald's private Members' Bill was apparently opposed by the federal Cabinet. However, opposition Members of Parliament teamed up with government back-bench Members of Parliament to force the passage of the Bill, a true example of non-partisan approach when it comes to the fundamental issue of health care and health safety.
Yet, after the Bill was given Royal Assent, the Government did not move quickly enough to proclaim it. Members from all Parties had to continually urge the Government to take action to proclaim the Bill or to introduce amendments to it. I myself, Mr. Speaker, urged the Government to make the Non-smokers' Health Act law when I delivered a statement under Standing Order 31 on the occasion of the beginning of the National Campaign for Action on Tobacco on May 16.
By neglecting the Non-smokers' Health Act for almost a year, the Government has illustrated its inability to translate the scientific evidence of a major epidemic into a corresponding appropriate political action and response. Moreover, the Government's reluctance to proclaim the Bill after it was given Royal Assent proved the Government's arrogant tendency to make a mockery sometimes of the decisions of Parliament. This delay also illustrated the Government's lack of concern for the health of Canadians when the lobby from tobacco industries became very strong.
As I have mentioned to the House before, Mr. Speaker, last year more than 35,000 Canadians died prematurely from diseases caused by tobacco. This total is greater than the total number of people who died as a result of accidents, suicides, homicides, AIDS, alcohol and alcohol-related totalities. Despite such statistics the Government postponed dealing with Bill C-204 for almost a year. In a sense this allowed continued health risks to occur.

June 26, 1989
Non-smokers' Health Act
The old cliche that it is better late than never does not quite hold true in this case. We expected more leadership on this vital issue from the Government. The Government's lengthy inactivity in regard to the Nonsmokers' Health Act causes us to question the credibility and ethics of the Government which does not seem to have the grace to respect the will of the House promptly.
By delaying action on this Bill, the Government allowed continued health risks to occur and thus set a poor example for the country. If justice is delayed, justice is denied. If a good cause is delayed, a good cause has been denied.
It is disturbing to realize that the Government cares so little about the welfare of Canadians that it would allow a good cause, restricting smoking in the workplace and therefore protecting the health and rights of non-smokers, to be denied for so long.
I am relieved to note that the Government has finally acknowledged its responsibilities and introduced Bill C-27 which proposes amendments to the Non-smokers' Health Act to provide for inspection and enforcement clauses which the original Bill, being a private Members' Bill, did not have the opportunity to include.
At this juncture I am delighted to laud the Government on the new structure of the Bill. Bill C-27 is organized so that the definitions are all at the beginning of the Bill, the enjoinders and the inspection clauses are in the middle, and the regulatory-making powers of the Governor in Council are at the end.
I would also like to congratulate the Government for removing Clause 3(6) from the original Bill which state: "Nothing in this Act affects any rights to protection from tobacco smoke at common law or under any Act of Parliament or of a provincial legislature". This provision would have allowed for the possibility of provincial variations in the application of the Non-smokers' Health Act.
Clause 6 of the new Bill states:
"Nothing in section 4 or 5 affects the operation of any other Act of Parliament or regulations thereunder or any rule of law in relation to the protection of persons from exposure to tobacco smoke.
This will ensure more consistent application in all the provinces.
The amendments made to Clause 5 are also to be commended. Whereas the original Bill included provisions for removal of smoking passengers from nonsmoking aircraft, the new Bill also includes provisions which extend this rule to buses and trains.
An additional positive feature of Bill C-27 is that under Clause 14, peace officers and persons employed to act as inspectors for the purposes of this Act may serve tickets to people who are smoking in non-smoking areas. This is important because there are certain workplaces where an employer does not have authority over all the people in the workplace. For example, it is difficult for a bank manager to order a customer to stop smoking. Now the customer will be deterred from smoking in nonsmoking workplaces by the risk of getting a ticket.
I would like to point out, however, that there is still a problem with the provision on ventilation, it is still a vague clause. Clause 3(4) of the original Bill stated: "Every employer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that a designated smoking room is independently ventilated". The clause in the new Bill reads as follows:
"Where an employer has designated a room for smoking under subsection (2) in a building or portion of a building the construction of which commenced before January 1, 1990, the employer shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, ensure that the room conforms to any requirements of the regulations respecting independent ventilation of designated smoking rooms."
Now an employer can argue not only that efforts to provide ventilation would be unreasonable, but that they would be impracticable as well. We should ensure that this does not happen.
The new Bill also results in a time delay for when rooms designated as smoking rooms have to be independently ventilated in newly constructed buildings.
The old Bill required buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1990 to have ventilation in smoking rooms only if this could be done with reasonable effort. The new Bill allows the reasonably practicable clause to apply to all buildings, the construction of which began before January 1, 1990, regardless of when construction is finished.
In addition, in the new Bill the requirement for independent ventilation is removed from the legislation and put into the regulations. I urge the Department,
June 26, 1989

June 26, 1989
Non-smokers' Health Act
Researchers are now discovering that nicotine changes the very structure and function of the brain. I quote now from the U.S. Congressional Quarterly editorial research report of March 24, 1989: "Nicotine controls the release of hormones from the pituitary gland in the brain and from the adrenal gland in the body. It stimulates adrenalin, which may produce the same symptoms as physical and psychological stress. Nicotine also stimulates the release of dopamine and noradrenalin, which may produce feelings of pleasure. Autopsies have found that heavy smokers develop additional nicotine receptors, sites on the surface of brain cells that provide entry points for nicotine.
These changes in the brain, if permanent, might explain why some smokers say they never regain their abilities of mental concentration years after quitting. Another possibility is that such smokers are suffering some form of long term withdrawal.
What is also important to note is that the earlier one starts smoking, the longer one will smoke. Thus it is important to stop smoking before it starts with the young people.
According to a survey conducted by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, over 25 per cent of the high school seniors who ever smoked had their first cigarette by Grade 6, over 57 per cent had their first cigarette by Grade 8 and 94 per cent had their first cigarette by Grade 11.
According to the same survey, the highest rates of initiation into daily smoking are among children who are 12 to 14 years of age.
Cigarette smoking is the future No. 1 killer of today's teenagers. According to an article in The Journal of School Health every day more than 2,000 American adolescents smoke their first cigarette and a proportionate number of Canadian adolescents equally do the same.
Over the lifetimes of these children, a significant number will die.
Twenty-five per cent of the teenagers who start smoking today will eventually die from diseases caused by this addiction.
This Government must accept the responsibility for supporting programs that will prevent our children from becoming addicted to nicotine and being lifetime smokers.
This is the Government's responsibility because smoking does not just pose health hazards to smokers themselves, it also puts non-smokers at risk because of the negative effects of secondhand smoke. Therefore, smoking is not just a personal health problem, it is also a social public health problem.
As a social public health problem, and in the interest of the common good, there are grounds for the Government to intervene to try to protect non-smokers from the ill effects of cigarette smoke.
Research has shown that the spouses and children of smokers have increased risk of serious health problems. One study found that children whose parents smoke have much higher rates of respiratory illness such as colds, influenza, and pneumonia and reduced lung capacity.
Of particular importance to the Bill we are now debating is the following statistics reported by the Canadian Health and Welfare study. A non-smoker who is exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace for 20 years suffers the same negative effects as someone who has smoked 10 cigarettes a day for 20 years.
This is not only totally unfair to non-smokers, it is almost criminal. As a medical doctor, I am appalled that this Government has stalled so long before introducing amendments to a Bill which is so obviously vital to the welfare of Canadians.
There are also adverse economic effects of cigarette smoking. It is society that pays when a person is ill, is absent from work, or dies young and leaves dependants. Depending on the country, the direct health cost of dealing with smoking-related illness varies from 3 per cent to 5 per cent of all health care costs.
Health and Welfare Canada has estimated that the cost associated with smoking is twice as high as the revenue from tobacco taxation. The Health and Welfare study found that the economic costs of tobacco use in terms of mortality, disability, fire damage, direct hospitalization and physicians' fees is over $7 billion compared
June 26, 1989

with only approximately $4 billion in economic revenue from the tobacco industry.
It seems to me that most people would welcome this law banning smoking in the workplace except in designated areas. It has been enthusiastically supported by groups such as the Canadian Lung Association, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Finally, I must point out that this Government does not have a good record when it comes to implementing legislation regulating smoking and tobacco. As noted in The Globe and Mail today, this Government allowed the tobacco industry to succeed in its lobby to remove two fundamental recommendations from the Tobacco Products Control Regulations, regulations which were to provide a serious warning system for tobacco.
First, this Government removed the requirement that every tobacco package should display messages identifying tobacco as addictive.
Second, the Government also removed the requirement that packages have an arrow circle display symbol which would draw attention to the risks of smoking.
This has seriously weakened the Tobacco Products Control Regulations and shows us that this Government cannot be trusted and that we must be careful to ensure that the Government takes its responsibilities to the citizens of Canada more seriously. It is obvious that the Non-smokers' Health Act is one that is necessary to help protect the good health of Canadians and to alleviate some of the negative and economic aspects of smoking.
With this new Act, hopefully the Government can redeem itself and show the people that truly the safety of Canadians is paramount and never can be subservient to the interests of the tobacco industry.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues and say it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. What becomes very clear is that this Bill is indeed a victory of parliamentary reform.
Non-smokers' Health Act
The Non-smokers' Health Act, known as Bill C-204 in the last Parliament, was a victory for the role of Private Members. It was the first controversial Private Members' Bill selected as a votable item to succeed its passage through the House of Commons. Its eventual passage was certainly a testament to the determination of its mover, Lynn McDonald from the constituency of Broad-wood-Greenwood. It was her incredible work that focused on the need to change the attitude of Canadians toward smoking, to show parliamentary leadership in terms of what could be done to clean up the Non-smokers' Health Act.
What we are debating today is a reflection of the success of that Private Members' Bill and indicates the diligence of the health community, particularly the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung Association. There are other groups and hundreds of thousands of individuals who became involved in attempting to move parliamentarians to take action on this very, very critical issue.
I must say the willingness of back-benchers from all sides of the House, members of the New Democratic Party, Liberal and Conservative Parties, set aside partisan differences in moving that Private Members' Bill through. They voted for a cleaner environment and voted against the work of the tobacco lobby which if it had had its way would have us all smoking and smoking as much as we possibly could. That is a testament to how successful this place can be. All Members of Parliament deserve to be commended, those who voted in favour I might add, because there were still some who bowed to the pressure of the tobacco lobby and voted against a smoke-free workplace, if you can imagine, Mr. Speaker.
In the intervening months we have seen unanimous support for this initiative and now it seems incredibly Draconian to think that Members wanted to encourage people to smoke and encourage young people to begin the practice.
Unfortunately, the Bill did not emerge from the House unscathed. During very often acrimonious committee review, sections of the Bill were reworked and redrafted without the guidance of those who knew what elements were needed for the law to be enforceable. As a result, the Bill was more of a statement of principle than a framework for regulation. We all remember that

June 26, 1989
Non-smokers' Health Act
Bill C-204 received Royal Assent almost a year ago, yet it has never been proclaimed. It has not been enforced. It has never been able to become an act of law because administrators felt that it was unproclaimable until rewritten in a more enforceable framework. Fair enough. We are seeing the results of that effort today.
Earlier this year the Department of Labour, through the initiative of the Minister, entered into discussions with various employers, employee groups, health groups and, I suspect from recent news, tobacco interests and we worked the Non-smokers' Health Act into the version before us today. In the process a few changes were made to the principles involved but essentially preserved the integrity of the Act. Whereas Bill C-204, Lynn McDonald's Bill, gave workers the right to a smoke-free workplace, Bill C-27 before us imposes on employers the responsibility to ensure a smoke-free workplace for their workers. Those and other changes go to show that there is more than one legislative way to skin a cat.
What we know in the context of this legislation is that for more than a generation smoking kills people. I do not think there is any other way to put it. If you smoke excessively, chances are that you will die prematurely and that smoking will cause illnesses that every year lead to the death of many people. The most recent statistics- almost unbelievable-show that 35,000 Canadians die prematurely each year from diseases caused by tobacco smoke and illnesses caused by tobacco smoke.
We have only recently learned that the number of deaths caused by involuntary smoking, breathing the air which contains second-hand smoke, causes deaths as well. Last week the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States reported that environmental tobacco smoke was the greatest source of indoor air pollution in the U.S. Obviously, the same situation would apply to our own country. It is also reported that second-hand smoke was the greatest source of exposure to carcinogens. In other words, second-hand smoke exposed nonsmokers to more cancer-causing chemicals than any other aspect in their daily lives. I do not know if you are aware of it, Mr. Speaker, but there are 32,000 chemical agents in tobacco smoke, over 50 have been identified as likely carcinogens.
Health and Welfare has provided us with estimates that 330 Canadians die each year from lung cancers caused by breathing tobacco smoke-contaminated air in the workplace. This means that every year on average 330 Canadians die because people around them smoke. They do not, but the fact that there is smoke in the workplace causes 330 people to die.
We can all be very proud because this Bill, once it passes, will save the lives of at least 330 people every year. Bill C-27 flows out of Private Members' Bill C-204 introduced by Lynn McDonald.
There are a number of items I wish to refer to specifically, and one is the whole idea of a designated smoking room. Under the previous Bill, common carriers would have had to provide a separate room for smokers. Now they need only to set aside a separate area. That is essentially the situation that exists on airlines and buses now, as only a few rows of seats are made smoking seats, but the second-hand smoke still affects non-smoking passengers and employees on common carriers. I have a number of questions I want to put to the Minister on that issue in Committee of the Whole. As a matter of fact, to move this matter expeditiously, I should wait and make those comments and raise those questions during Committee of the Whole stage.
With that, I want to say that it is a delight to participate in this debate. All of us are concerned when we see young people encouraged to smoke by their peers or by advertising. We have taken steps in another way to pull back on those kinds of initiatives. I hope, through this legislation and related legislation, that we can encourage people not to smoke or to stop smoking. We should encourage people to rethink what the tobacco lobby has been successful in encouraging them to think, and that has been to remove some of the impact of the warning on cigarette packages. I think both sides of a cigarette package should simply say that smoking will cause premature death-


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is 20 per cent on both sides.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) is indicating that it is already on there, but I would like to see the entire side of a cigarette package taken up with the warning. If people want to find out what brand it is, they can look along the edge of the package.
June 26, 1989

Let us move on with the passage of this Bill. I will have more comments to make in Committee of the Whole.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find that if you were to ask for consent, there is the consent of the House that we take this Bill to Committee of the Whole rather than to a legislative committee so that we could complete all stages of the Bill this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, though I am given only a few minutes to speak on this Bill, I do wish to bring up a point of view that is expressed by those in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. My riding contains one of the largest numbers of tobacco growers in the country. It is a tobacco growing region where farmers have most felt the impact of Government policies in this area.
I rise knowing that all three Parties have indicated their support for this Bill and that numerous cancer associations and anti-smoking groups have also supported the Bill. However, I do want to bring up the point that issues affecting the farmers of Haldimand-Norfolk have not been addressed in this debate. The tobacco companies about which everyone seems to be talking with Mr. Neville speaking on their behalf do not speak for the tobacco farmers, so I want to say a few words in this regard.
When we talk about this issue, it seems that we sometimes forget about the rights of the rural tobacco farmers to sustain themselves and to create livelihoods for themselves and their families. I am not placing the economic well-being of some Canadians ahead of the health of other Canadians, but I do want to point out the shortcomings of the Government's policies with regard to tobacco farmers. These policies were greatly discussed when this Bill went through committee the last time. The committee recommended that something had to be done for the tobacco farmers to help them get out of the industry and get into alternative crops.
Non-smokers' Health Act
I feel that the Government's programs relating to alternative crops should be condemned by the House. The committee reviewed the situation of tobacco farmers and indicated that tobacco farmers should be compensated adequately. However, the recent Budget shows that money going toward the orderly rationalization and diversification of the tobacco producing industry was cut.
The tobacco farmers realize the situation they are in. They have worked for many years to develop the industry but they realize that there will be a need for them to move to other areas. However, they expect that a Government with programs which directly affect them should help them to grow alternative crops.
In the Budget there was a decrease of some $6 million, from $10 million down to $4 million in funds to help tobacco farmers grow alternative crops. I condemn that outright. I think-


John Carnell Crosbie: So vote against the Bill.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I will, thank you. I feel that the Government made a commitment. In fact, during the election the Deputy Prime Minister, the part-time Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski), came into my riding and to a number of surrounding ridings, including the ridings of Elgin and Oxford whose Members are not present for this debate, and said that he would support tobacco farmers and would help them get into other areas of production. We see that this is not the case.
I want to read into the record a little note I received, and I know the Hon. Member across the aisle will want to listen to it. It is a note from a tobacco farmer, a lady who lost her husband. She is indicating the situation she is in. Granted, this is a letter from just one family, but I can show Hon. Members the numerous letters I have received which essentially discuss the same thing.


John Carnell Crosbie: Quit beating around the bush, just tell us where you stand.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I am not beating around the bush and the Hon. Member knows that. Someone has to stand up for the tobacco farmers of Canada. The Government does not seem to be doing so.


John Carnell Crosbie: You stand up for them.

June 26, 1989
Non-smokers' Health Act


Robert (Bob) Speller: I do not see Government Members here. In fact, I do not see any other Members representing tobacco areas here discussing this Bill. Where are the Government Members?
This is a very serious case of a farmer who has been adversely affected by the Government's policies. I know I only have a short time in which to speak, and if the Hon. Member would keep his interjections to himself I could outline to the House the seriousness of this issue and how it is affecting individual families in my riding. The letter reads:
I have a very hard time making my living of $350 every two weeks with three children still at home-
I am writing this letter you to realize how hard life is after I sold my quota. Sometimes I feel like I am going to have a nervous breakdown. Even my children are suffering. They are nervous because they see all my hardships and problems. Last year my 19 year-old son underwent a terrible surgery for a bleeding ulcer. The specialist even said that he couldn't understand how such a young person could get such a bad ulcer. Without surgery, my son would have died.
I was forced to sell my quota because of financial problems, and my means of living have been destroyed. I feel that it is unfair and very wrong that we get treated different than the people who sold their quota under the redux later.
That is a whole other issue, one which the Government has yet to address. I hope the Government will help these people who originally sold their quotas and were treated unfairly by the Government. The letter goes on:
What about my family's health? What about my own health, or others in the same situation as me?
I do not know if Hon. Members realize this, but the suicide rate in the tobacco area is outrageous. It is much higher than the national average. In fact, there is a great deal of suicide, family break-ups and general poor health. This is a product of the Government's policies, or of the Government not directing proper policies to help those people who have been adversely affected by the Government's decision to implement certain programs. I am referring not only to programs like this Bill but to the Budget cuts the Government has brought in.
I know I have been given only a couple of minutes, so I will end my remarks. This Government's policy with regard to tobacco has been completely wrong and unfair. The Government should be providing programs for those farmers. They are good farmers and good people
and they deserve better than this Government's programs with regard to tobacco.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On Clause 3-Duty of employers
Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, and I suspect that Clause 3 is as good a place as any to ask them. We seem to be moving expeditiously. Perhaps I will ask one question at this point and raise others.
My question relates to the whole matter of designated smoking areas on board buses and airplanes. Presumably, at the moment where there are smoking flights, a certain number of seats are designated for smokers and other seats for non-smokers. All of us who have been on those flights or on buses that do it in a similar way realize that smoke blows all over the place and that does not seem to be a very satisfactory manner, if we are serious about providing a smoke-free area.
Would the Minister give some assurances that the regulations that will be passed associated with this Act will protect passengers and also people who work in those environments from environmental smoke as a result of the different seating arrangements?


Jean Corbeil: I am informed that there will be provisions concerning the regulations, and that will be done in consultation with the labour movement and employees' groups.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It could be exciting to see how that will actually be done. I have to accept the Minister's words that it will be done. I have a related question. Obviously, from time to time, employees will be required to enter areas that are smoking areas. An example could be caretakers who have to go in and clean up rooms where
June 26, 1989

people have been congregating to smoke. Therefore, we are requiring employees to go into a dangerous area by the way it has been described.
Would the Minister's deliberations at the regulation stage take this problem into account as well, and ensure that there is some way to deal appropriately with those workers who will be required to go into a smoke-filled or a dangerous environment in terms of a smoking area?


Jean Corbeil: I take notice of the Hon. Member's remarks. I will certainly take them into consideration when we draft the regulations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the response of the Minister, and I do not want to be difficult. I appreciate the position the Minister is in. However, it is not much satisfaction when the Minister states that he will take these into account when the regulations are being drafted. Is the Minister in a position to be a little more forceful, or at least sound a little more committed to dealing with these critical issues? As I say, I am not attempting to be problematic in terms of the issue, but I do believe it is serious enough that we need to hear more than it being something that will be thought about or raised during the deliberations at regulation stage.


Jean Corbeil: Any worker who feels that he or she is being asked to work in unsafe conditions can, under the regulations of Labour Canada, refuse to work.


Nelson Andrew Riis: One would assume with the regulations being what they are that an employee who was asked, for whatever reason, to go in and perform duties in what would be determined by the employee to be an unsafe place because of the smoking environment, would have that right to refuse and be under no obligation to do otherwise.


Jean Corbeil: Part II of the Canada Labour Code already provides for employees, under those circumstances, to refuse to work. Part II of the Canada Labour Code will continue to be applicable to employees who refuse to work under those circumstances, and they will have available to them the ordinary grievance procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Non-smokers' Health Act
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry? The Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Since we are at the title now, this is the last stage. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to seek clarification from the Minister. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, but I recognize that this is not the appropriate place to ask this question, but having missed the appropriate place, I would like to ask it now.
The previous saving clause mentioned: "no limitation of rights under common law, provincial, or federal statutes". We understand why reference to provincial law has been removed. Obviously, it is a federal statute that will evolve. However, why have the rights at common law been replaced by rule of law? Is this is a lesser protection of existing rights to a smoke-free environment? Perhaps the Minister could provide at least a clarification of that change.


Jean Corbeil: I am informed that we have been assured by the lawyers who have reviewed this legislation that this drafting has the same meaning.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have two further questions and will perhaps pose them both at the same time. In the original Bill, that was going back to the Lynn McDonald Bill, the Bill ensured that smoking rooms in new buildings would be separately ventilated, and that makes sense. However, in this Bill that section is removed. It seems to me to be an obvious provision to have in the Bill that, if a smoking room is built where people smoke, it would be separately ventilated, but the Bill removes that. I am curious to know why that would have been done. What I am seeking from the Minister is an assurance that these new regulations that will flow from this Bill will provide that separate ventilation is guaranteed for smoking rooms in buildings to be constructed in the future.
Second, is the Minister satisfied that we as a country are indeed heading rapidly toward a situation in which no federally regulated worker will be exposed to tobacco smoke against his or her wishes? I realize in a sense that that is a repeat of a previous question.

June 26, 1989
Non-smokers' Health Act


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Chairman, in response to the concerns of the Hon. Member with regard to the ventilation of smoking rooms, I would like to state that the draft regulations to be discussed with industry and labour representatives in the next few days will include provisions for the air to be exhausted to the outside without being recirculated for designated smoking rooms. New buildings will need to meet the specific technical requirement for independent ventilation. Designated smoking rooms in older buildings will need to meet it to the extent reasonably practicable.
As far as the second question is concerned, I will repeat my answer. Part II of the Labour Code of Canada provides that any employee who finds that it is unsafe for him to work in an area where people have been smoking will have the possibility of refusing to work, with the proper grievance procedure to be applicable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we appreciate the responses and the assurances that the Hon. Minister has given us.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Jean Corbeil: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Corbeil: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is very pleased that finally the Government has seen fit to bring back this legislation which has been in limbo for almost a year.
Once and for all Parliament is recognizing that the safety of Canadians from the hazard of smoking is truly there. It is known that smoking affects not only the growing child and adults but that it affects equally the unborn child in the womb of his or mother.
One particular point I would like to emphasize is the matter of addiction to cigarettes. It is one of the fundamental harms that can come from smoking. With this harm comes a series of harms. One of them is the
propensity or determination of the smoker to continue to smoke. In fact, he finds it difficult to stop smoking.
With these continued habits we know, as I indicated earlier, that the cost to Canadians is measured not only in terms of costs to physical health and costs to mental faculties but as well there is a tremendous cost to our health care system.
That this Bill would have been delayed for a year tells of the lack of commitment of the Government to such a fundamental concern as the health safety of Canadians.
A national campaign on tobacco was started last month. I hope that the Government in trying now to redeem itself from its hesitancy to proclaim this Act for a year would utilize every resource to ensure that the very intent of this law is carried out. One of the challenges to the Government will be to introduce and to provide programs that will help our teenagers in the many schools across the country. The real challenge to Government is to provide funding for our schools so that education against smoking and its hazards is given to all teenagers and other school children from coast to coast. The Government cannot be allowed to make the interest of industries paramount over the safety of Canadians.
I am delighted indeed that the Non-smokers Health Act will finally become law. Hopefully, we will start to see a decrease in the number of deaths which ensue from this serious health hazard, smoking.
Smoking is a scientifically proven health hazard, according to the advertisement by the National Campaign for Action on Tobacco. There is no longer any scientific controversy about tobacco being a proven health hazard. Tobacco causes many diseases which lead to serious illnesses, disability and death.
Again, I am very pleased to say that, finally, the Non-smokers Health Act is about to become law.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: cancer, which can be prevented by the cessation of smoking.
What we have learned recently, and part of what this Bill attempts to address, are the results of involuntary smoking, in other words, inhaling second-hand smoke. More and more we see studies which indicate that this is a hazard, both to the person who does not smoke but who inhales the smoke and perhaps to women who are pregnant, to their foetus, and has many severe consequences beyond just those for the smoker themselves.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States reported that environmental tobacco smoke is one of the greatest health hazards to indoor pollution. Therefore the kinds of recommendations that are made in this Bill to address adequate ventilation to ensure that it is done in a way that does not contaminate further the air where there is access to smoking rooms, to protect those employees who work in areas where there may be smoking, and to protect those employees, such as those on aircraft, who have long been exposed to second-hand smoke and so on are welcome. In that sense we are very pleased to see this Bill. We know that there are about 32,000 chemical agents in tobacco smoke and over 50 of them have been identified as likely carcinogens. It would be very difficult not to support anything that would reduce this risk to Canadians.
I listened carefully to the Hon. Member who spoke about the concerns of his constituents who are tobacco farmers. One of the important facts to recognize in this case is that the responsibility of the Government in enacting legislation like this, which I believe is responsible legislation to protect the health of Canadians, is to also make sure that the burden for this kind of good legislation does not rest on the workers and farmers. The Government should ensure that adjustments are made for workers and farmers in this industry. That is the responsible way to deal with this type of positive legislation.
I hope the Government will consider those kinds of adjustments so that the workers and the farmers do not bear the economic burden of making these real and positive changes.
Non-smokers' Health Act
Finally I want to give credit to a former New Democratic Member who first brought this to the House. Lynn McDonald, the former Member for Broadview-Greenwood, worked very hard on this issue. Through her determination and work within her own New Democratic caucus, through the committee and the House, and the work she did with her private Member's Bill, she deserves a lot of credit for the legacy she left not just to this House and Parliament but to Canadians as a whole. We in the New Democratic Party support this legislation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too want to rise briefly and express my support for the legislation before us. It is rather ironic that we are dealing with a Bill to amend the Non-smokers' Health Act on the same day that we learned of the continuing, persistent and unwanted lobbying of the kind we heard about this afternoon during Question Period with respect to a former highly-placed Conservative, Bill Neville, doing everything he can to prevent health warnings from being published predominately on cigarette packages.
I had an opportunity to work on the committee that originally introduced the Non-smokers' Health Act, for which I too would like to give credit to the former Member for Broadview-Greenwood, as well as for Bill C-51 in respect of smoking more specifically. We have heard expressions of concern from various communities and groups, including the Non-Smokers' Rights Association and the Canadian Medical Association. Mr. Douglas Geekie, who was very instrumental in getting this issue brought to the fore, is watching this legislation very closely.
We also heard from people whose livelihoods were directly affected. We heard from the Haldimand-Norfolk Tobacco Producers' Association who had very specific concerns about programs that the Government is ignoring. That was alluded to by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Speller).
It seems that only one association, the Tobacco Council, came to the committee to try to convince us that smoking does not cause cancer. Every other group and organization, including the tobacco producers and the Town of Haldimand and the regional representatives from that area were quite forthcoming with the committee and basically pointed out that if they had known 40 or 50 years ago what they now know about the potential

June 26, 1989
Non-smokers' Health Act
dangers of smoking, they would not have been so quick to license tobacco as a legal product, advertise and encourage its distribution.
In light of the information we now have, I am amazed that the tobacco manufacturers actually appeared before a Standing Committee of the House of Commons and tried to convinced us that tobacco smoking did not cause cancer. I am one who has most recently in my own family experienced a direct cause/effect of the relation of cancer to a smoker of many decades who has had part of a lung removed. I know how painful it can be to have to break the habit, but it is certainly something that smokers and non-smokers alike understand, except for the tobacco manufacturers.
I was surprised to hear in the House today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) refer the question of addiction to the Royal Society. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I took from that statement that the Minister is confused about whether tobacco is an addictive substance. He referred to the fact that he was having the question of addiction referred to the Royal Society for scientific reasons. He seems to be casting some doubt as to whether tobacco is an addictive product. One only has to travel through the hospitals of this country to see people who have just had part of their lung removed, suffering from emphysema and hooked up to oxygen but desperately craving tobacco to realize that no further studies are needed to tell us that it is an addictive substance.
Last week most of Canada's newspapers published a story that was a very powerful indictment of the addictive capacity of tobacco. It was a picture of a young man in British Columbia, I believe, who was in hospital suffering from the after-effects of surgery related to tobacco smoking. It was a picture of him walking along a city street in his bed clothes, hooked up to an I.V. with the needle running through his nose. He was being stopped by an RCMP officer wanting to know what he was doing wandering the streets hooked up to an I.V. He was going to buy cigarettes because the hospital in his neighbourhood had passed a resolution to no longer sell tobacco products. This addicted individual was pushing his I.V. drip along the street because he was desperate for a cigarette. Obviously tobacco is addictive.
If the Minister is truly concerned, and not simply endorsing the Neville phenomenon of doing as little as possible, he should not be asking the Royal Society to
examine whether or not tobacco is addictive, he should be drafting specific legislation to inform consumers directly about the dangers of tobacco when they purchase the product.
I am pleased that we are passing this Bill today. I think it is ironic that we are doing so on the same day that we see the machiavellian internal machinations of the Conservative Party come to light with respect to the watering down of specific legislation. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare in particular to reconsider his view that the Royal Society should be considering the question of addiction. It is an addictive substance and I wish he would govern himself accordingly-


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. On the third reading of Bill C-27, I would like to thank Hon. Members on both sides of the House for kindly agreeing to pass the amendment to the Non-smokers' Health Act without delay.
This cooperation shows us that all Members of this House care about the health and welfare of Canada's working men and women.
Mr. Speaker, you will allow me in closing to express my astonishment every time I hear Members of this House become indignant that those who might not agree with all the legislation that the Government brings forward are criticized for stating their opinion. I think that on the contrary, for the health of democracy in our country, all should have the opportunity to express themselves on everything that interests them and to make their opinions known.
I think that in the end, this helps us pass the best legislation for all Canadians and in closing, I do not hesitate to join in praising the former Member who presented this Private Member's Bill to the Parliament of Canada. This shows once again that our democracy is alive and well!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
June 26, 1989


An Hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-13, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Ltd., be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at 3.06 p.m. Friday, June 2, 1989, there were nine minutes left remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall). I would now recognize Hon. Members who wish to continue the question and comment, but since the Member is not here, I am afraid I cannot do that. Debate.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-13, the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act. It is something in which I have a great deal of interest. I do not believe that the privatization of these two companies is similar to a normal privatization which the Government would carry out. These are two very special companies. I believe the Government would be making a very severe mistake if it proceeded with the privatization of these companies, and I will relate why I feel this way.
In order to put my views across, it is very important to go back to the founding of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and to the beginning of the nuclear industry in Canada. It began approximately in 1947 when the NRX reactor was developed in the Chalk River laboratories. Very soon thereafter, we had radio isotopes. These radio isotopes became very important in the treatment of cancer. When AECL was formed in 1952, it was logical that a branch of AECL called Commercial Products would become a separate division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Thereafter AECL and Commercial Products continued to develop their technology for fighting cancer in Canada and eventually throughout the
Nordion and Theratronics
world, becoming more and more dependent upon the Cobalt-60 isotope. This became a world famous treatment.
With respect to that, Commercial Products, which in the early 1970s became two divisions, has developed most of the world's supply of Cobalt-60. AECL has secured a large portion of the world market for industrial units in fighting cancer and in the utilization of Cobalt-60. AECL has provided 71 of the 132 units in operation in the world today.
In the late 1970s, Commercial Products, because of its success and because of the fact that it was entering into the Medical Products Division and having some difficulty in marketing these newer products, Medical Products was split into two different groups. The company which dealt with the radio isotope and Cobalt-60 became the Radio Chemical Company. The unprofitable ventures into medical accelerators resulted in the formation of the Medical Products Division of AECL which looked after the accelerator work, the Cobalt therapy, the medical simulator treatment, planning and manufacture. After it was split off, these accelerators, treatment and therapy units became profitable.
So we have as recently as last year the two divisions, Radio Chemical and the Medical Products Division of AECL, being profitable. In fact, the Radio Chemical Company accounted for 80 per cent of the net income of AECL, the most profitable aspect of AECL. This should count for a great deal because we have heard from this Government that it wants the nuclear energy industry in Canada to thrive, to grow and to be solid. They want it to be secure and they want the people in Canada to have confidence in this industry.
In spite of this rhetoric, the Government has done absolutely nothing to secure these results in Canada. It is reducing the money that is being put into AECL and being put into the Atomic Energy Control Board which regulates the atomic energy industry in Canada. The Atomic Energy Control Board in fact has said in committee that it needs 100 per cent more funding if it is going to do the necessary supervisory work in the nuclear industry, if it is going to fulfil its obligations to find final depositories for high-level nuclear waste and for the other very important jobs that it must do.

June 26, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
Therefore we have these two arms of AECL as recently as last year: the Medical Products Division which became profitable, and the Radio Chemical Company which accounted for 80 per cent of the net income of AECL.
What did this Government do? It decided that it would break these two divisions away from AECL. It put the two divisions under the Canada Development Investment Corporation and changed the names from Radio Chemical Company and Medical Products Division to Nordion and Theratronics, two entirely different corporations divested completely from AECL.
I mentioned earlier the reduced role of the Atomic Energy Control Board. I would like to talk about the problems within AECL itself. AECL was told by this Government: "We are going to cut back your budget. We want you to get into new areas. We want you to develop new technology." AECL has done that. There have been a lot of spinoffs from AECL which can be spun off into the private sector.
It would be unreasonable to say that all of the new technology that AECL has developed should be kept in AECL or should be kept in a separate Crown corporation. To do that would be asking the private sector to fund AECL and to be in competition with them. That would be highly unfair. There are a lot of companies that could be spun off.
The fact is that AECL has done what the Government has asked it to do. The only requirement that I would make to the Government is that when it splits off these areas from AECL and there are technological breakthroughs, that they at least put the money back into AECL. It is AECL technology that has led to these developments. If it wants AECL to look after itself, the Government cannot on the one hand say: "You have got to sell off these profitable arms", and on the other "put the money into the consolidated revenue account."
That being the case, generally I would say that new technology developed within AECL should be spun off into the private sector. However I make exceptions in the cases of Nordion and Theratronics because these are two unique companies. They deal first in health-related matters. They deal in matters that have been under the arm of AECL for many years. In fact, Radio Chemical, the radio isotopes and the Cobalt-60 technologies go
back to before the actual coming into being in 1952 of AECL itself.
AECL is dependent for 80 per cent of its net income on Nordion and its predecessor branches. If those two companies are spun off, AECL will not be able to rely on that income from them. In addition to not being able to rely on the funding, AECL will not be given the sale price of the two companies. It is estimated that $150 million will be brought in for the sale of Nordion and that Theratronics will bring between $50 million and $70 million. As far as we know, that money will go into the Consolidated Revenue account. AECL is going to lose its source of income year after year and will not be the recipient of the sale price of these two very important companies.
The Government believes, of course, that it can blunt any criticism about the sale of these two companies by taking them away from AECL before the actual sale and putting them in the Canada Development Investment Corporation. It did so to try to make these sales more palatable. The problem is that that cannot change the facts. These two companies are very important to AECL, they are very important to the future of AECL and they are very important, through the future of AECL, to the health of the nuclear industry in Canada.
Whatever your feelings about the nuclear industry, it is going to stay. We are not going to spend the billions of dollars in Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec which would be needed to replace the nuclear reactors which exist and are providing that power. First and foremost, we must ensure that our nuclear industry is healthy. We keep it healthy by properly financing the umbrella that looks after the technology of our industry, that being AECL, and we make sure that our supervisory branch, the Atomic Energy Control Board, is properly supervised.
There is another reason why we should not be selling Nordion. That is,because Nordion has now developed the technology for irradiated food and they can sell this technology throughout the world. The problem is that there is a great deal of concern about irradiated food, not only in Canada but in countries throughout the world. There is a great deal of work to be done to ensure that this technology is further enhanced and is developed to remove the concern.
June 26, 1989

We know that the major problem with nuclear products is the concern of the public. It does not matter how good the technology is or how acceptable the product is, if we continually have to deal with apprehension by the public the nuclear industry in Canada is going to be inhibited, it is going to be a problem for government and is going to be a problem for the country. We must have the technology necessary to assure that irradiated food is brought within the realm of acceptance of the Canadian public, not through jingles or through public indoctrination but through fact and acceptance through the normal channels.
Canada and Nordion are so far ahead of the rest of the world in this technology that if we sell Nordion and its irradiated food technology, a private company could get its money back without doing any further research in this field. It could absolutely milk the technology for which the citizens of this country have paid over the last 37 years and we would be the losers. The world would be the loser. The countries where spoilage and bacteria of food supplies are a problem would be the losers. The Third World would be a very severe loser. We are playing with benefits which will come ultimately not only to Canada but to all mankind. If we can develop this technology it will be a source of tranquility for the world in general.
If there is no further technology, we will not have that assurance and we will also lose the edge that Canada has in this very important technology. Most important, we are playing with the health of Canadians and all citizens of the world. These are health-related companies. There is nothing that says we have to abandon every Crown corporation we ever had. There has to be some logic, some responsibility when dealing with the privatization of Crown corporations. Surely to heavens, companies that deal in products which affect the health of Canadians and people throughout the world must be kept under the federal umbrella to ensure that the technology dealt with is brought to a stage acceptable to Canadians.
The Government says that it handed out irradiated cookies to children and they could not taste the difference. What kind of an experiment is that? What kind of an assurance is that? If those parents knew that their children were eating those irradiated cookies there would be one heck of an outcry. The Government has not been able to say which children ate those irradiated cookies, but that is not the way in which the Government
Nordion and Theratronics
of Canada is going to be able to sell irradiated food to this country.
It is vital that the Government keep this technology within the framework of a Crown corporation or agency so that it can maintain the development, so that this technology will not be aborted and will not be commercialized by a private company in order to make a fast profit, thereby scaring the rest of the world and making this technology forever taboo. This is vital, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely vital that the Government maintain the technology.
We have been told that the Government cannot retain the technology in Nordion because Nordion is under AECL and you know how long it takes for AECL to make any decisions. Well, it is the Government that takes the time in making decisions. If the Government wanted to make decisions more quickly with respect to Nordion and Theratronics, it could do so through its own actions. It does not have to pass any legislation, it does not have to coerce the business community, it does not have to frighten the Canadian public, it can do it through its own operations, its own management facilities, through a more efficient administration. It does not need to get rid of the company.
Some say that if the private sector is involved in Nordion we have a better chance to raise capital. Who is going to give the capital to AECL to replace the money it is losing if Nordion and Theratronics are privatized? The Government says that it wants a healthy nuclear industry in which the people of Canada have confidence. It is doing the opposite by privatizing these two very important and very lucrative Crown corporations.
I ask the Government to reconsider the privatization of these two corporations. I hope that second reading will be all we will be able to attain before we adjourn for the summer in order to give the Government the opportunity to rethink what I think would be a very serious mistake, that being the privatization of Nordion and Theratronics.


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


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today is obviously one on which the Government wants fast passage. I was afraid for a moment that you were not going to recognize me out of the comer of your eye. I consider this Bill on radio-medical isotopes and Theratronics International dealing with cancer research to be one of the most important Bills that we will

June 26, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
see before this Parliament in this session. It should never be passed over lightly.
As my colleague has just stated, the Government of Canada has come up with two Crown corporations and passed them over for sale.
This Bill will pave the way for that sale of the radio medical isotope industry in this country, and of the cancer therapy units and all its related research to private enterprise in this country. All this research that is now up for sale by this Government has been created by public funds. It has been created through the excellent research and development over the years by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
Of all the comments we hear about radiation and nuclear energy today, it is without a doubt the most progressive factor and factors which have happened in our modem day society. The research was done basically at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The radio medical isotope industry became very profitable. We have produced 60 per cent of the world's supply. We sell around the world. We are well known for a first class product.
The cancer therapy units are also well known around the world. All we have to do is take a look at the background of these two companies which have been created in those two medical areas and we will find that the sales are basically international. All this research which was done in the background, we are selling it to private enterprise. What is John Q. Public getting in return? What is Atomic Energy of Canada, as the senior parent company, getting in return? They are getting absolutely zero. That is a crime.
This Government is stealing from the Canadian public by selling these two Crown corporations with nothing to show in return. This is a government which says to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: "You have to pay your way or we are not going to give you any money. However, while you are trying to pay your way what we are going to do is take away all those profit-making ventures which you have created on your research money over the years". Then the Government turns around after robbing the bank and says: "Now pay your way." It
is like sending someone out to the bank on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board, taking out his entire bank account and saying: "Now you've got to pay your mortgage".
This Bill today, with these two very important medical institutions being sold to private enterprise at large, is a sin.
Theratronics International Limited has done fantastic work in research on cancer and on the treatment of cancer. It is well known around the world, well tried and safe, in spite of all the gossip we hear to the contrary about the nuclear industry today for peaceful purposes. Atomic Energy of Canada deals in it for peaceful purposes. Radio medical isotopes are used in many areas of the medical field. Indeed, they are used in other areas as well in the form of isotopes.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent a telex into my constituency during the election campaign of 1984. He stated that not only would the government under his prime ministership keep paying and keep contributing to research and development in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at the same level, but it would consider improving it. That was his commitment in 1984. In February of 1985, when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought in his Budget, what did he do? Condoned by Cabinet, he brought in a $100 million cut for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. That was the way the Prime Minister of Canada kept his promise.
Then, as the Government kept taking money out, it not only took that $100 million out-it still has a year or so to go on it depending what decision the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) gives here-but it also lifted $70 million out of the reserve fund to the company. Not only is the Government selling off two very profitable areas, set out on life by AECL, but it is also taking money right out of the bank of the corporation itself. Then the Government turns around and has the nerve to say: "Pay your way". No businessman can run an operation in that way. These people are supposed to be business heads over here. I do not know where they got their experience with that kind of philosophy floating around today.
June 26, 1989

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, on March 31, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made an announcement that he and his deputy minister and the acting president at the present time, who is an outstanding public servant, were forming a special committee to liaise with the Board of AECL in order to bring in a new management and a new type of direction for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Here is what he said: "Let me state clearly that the federal Government fully supports the Canadian nuclear program." Fully supports. However, on page 1 of the same letter, which went out to all employees of AECL across the country, he said: "The sources for continuing the necessary level of research and development funding are uncertain."
At the same time that this Government is tremendously in support of research and development, it is uncertain where the money is going to come from. There is not an aggressive, forward looking industrial nation on the face of this earth, except this Government now in Canada, who is saying to its research and development organizations: "You pay your way." Those governments are making a public commitment to them. Japan is making a public commitment to them. The United States makes public commitments to them. Great Britain makes public commitments to their R and D organizations. However, what do we say to them here in Canada? We say: "If you make a buck, we are going to rob the bank. We are going to take everything out of your bank and then if you create a profitable company, we are going to take it over and we are going to sell it, and we are going to put the money"-as my hon. friend has just said-"into the treasury of Canada, the Receiver General of Canada." For what? How can you ever go out and complain about a company not paying its way in research and development when you are taking away its bank account?
The action taken in 1985 clearly mapped out the road that this Government was taking. It failed to give support to science in this country. The Government said: "Pay your way, yet I am going to take away your profitable parts."
What about these private enterprise companies that are going to purchase these two companies, Nordion International, which produces radio medical isotopes, and Theratronics International on cancer equipment and cancer research? Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a government selling off stuff like that when it has been such a
Nordion and Theratronics
success where it is right now? The Government is going to say: "We are selling it off to private enterprise."
It is a continuation on the part of this Government. It has already proven itself to be friends of the drug companies. Now, it is the friends of the people who want to take away the cancer research and the cancer equipment which has been produced in this country, free of charge, research done with public funds. At the same time, the Government also wants to sell off to its friends the radio medical isotope industry in this country. I say, shame on it.
Public funds provided all kinds of good research and development in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Now, what is happening here? My hon. friend has just stated that not only is Atomic Energy of Canada being cut back-and I do not mean just cut back, it was 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker-but also the Atomic Energy Control Board is being interfered with. If there is anything that is needed more to build confidence in the nuclear industry of this country it is to have a strong well-equipped Atomic Energy Control Board to do the job that will give all Canadians confidence in the industry. The people across the way are destroying that. This Government has already proven itself to be the friend of the drug companies and now it wants to befriend other big enterprises by selling off these research and development arms.
What is going to happen in the future to these well-founded institutions? Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has produced Candu reactors for the production of hydroelectric power in this Province of Ontario and in other provinces of Canada. If it were not for that we would not be enjoying the standard of living that we are enjoying as Canadians today, because that hydroelectric power feeds half the industry in Ontario, to say nothing of the production of the jobs that are there because of the research done by AECL.
We now have a special committee looking into how the industry is going to fund itself because the Government has made a big decision that in no way will it support the industry. The Government is going to wave a flag and say "We do love you. We are in favour of you. The Government is fully in support of you, but you get out and raise your own money after we take the money you have already and after we take the profitable assets that you

June 26, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
have and sell them off". What terrible business management, Mr. Speaker.
The future energy projections in this country are very obvious. We have heard about recent updates of the energy needed in the years to come. Maybe there are people who do not think this is related to this Bill. What I am saying, what my colleague has said, and what my hon. friend from Newfoundland said on the first day this Bill came before the House is that this industry must be kept going if we are to meet the energy needs for the future. A lot of the waterways in this country have been used up. Are we going to move into northern Ontario now and block up James Bay, because we are not putting money in from the profitable areas of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, these two crown corporations that the Government wants to sell via Bill C-13? I know the Members across the way cannot see this because they have tunnel vision when it comes to discussing these things known as energy, radio-medical isotopes, cancer therapy units and all related equipment thereto, namely, the research done by the parent company.
I said on May 1 in this House, I am saying it again today and I will keep on saying it, that I wish this Government would come to its senses, retain these two Crown corporations and let the funds from them go back into research and development so that things can continue. The Government has its source. What will it have after it sells these two profitable companies? Your income ends right there.


John Horton McDermid: Speak to the employees.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mr. McDermid) says speak to the employees. I have spoken to them.


John Horton McDermid: When?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: They are worried that if the corporation does not get sold out the Government will close other operations down and they may well become the victims.


John Horton McDermid: That is not what they are afraid of at all.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member does not want to hear that. He does not understand that part of it.
I am absolutely firm in my stand that the profits from these offshoots that originated with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited should go back into the parent company to help finance them. There will come a day, if the Government lets this corporation go down the drain, if it is reduced, if it cannot operate, when someone will have to pick up the tab. You cannot let it go down the drain because reactors have to be serviced. You cannot turn off the tap in industrialized Canada. If you do, you are turning off the tap on the dollars that this Government needs to gobble up for projects under way.
The Government wants all the money it can get and yet it is selling off some of the best assets we have in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Minister says "nonsense". What kind of nonsense is it to have two Crown corporations sold off that are making money for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, to take the money out of the reserve funds, to cut the Budget and then turn around and say "You guys pay your own way"?


John Horton McDermid: They are being bled to death by the parent company. That is why.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That kind of logic has got through to him. He is suddenly thinking. If there was one thing I wanted to do in this speech it was to start the thinking process within the mind of the Minister for privatization. I hope he continues to think about this all night. I hope the Government decides to do so as well because it is cutting off some of the finest products ever produced with public funds in this country.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense. They are being cut off.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That public funding is needed to continue sponsoring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited so it can continue its role in research and development in this country as one of the gems of research, not only in the medical field but in the energy and in many other fields as well.
I was quite interested in the Minister's letter. I hope that he will come out with a very positive program for this corporation. It will be very interesting to see how this whole matter is turned around and how the Government will continue to tell Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to "pay your own way. But if you make a buck we want it for the federal treasury. Once we get it in the
June 26, 1989

federal treasury you are not getting it back because we are not going to fund you any more. You have to pay your own way". That is Tory logic.
How anyone is supposed to cope with that kind of mentality, I do not know.
I simply want to say in closing that this Government is permitting the biggest offence to research and development and the continuing of good research and development as it passes this Bill than has ever been committed in the past. That is really saying something, Mr. Speaker.
I implore the Government not to sell these Crown corporations. Let the money go back into further research and development. The country will then be on a solid basis.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments in regard to this legislation. Before I begin I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of my Liberal colleague who just had the floor. I think the points he made were extremely salient. The arguments he made were well developed and I certainly concur wholeheartedly with him.
This legislation is going to permit the Government to privatize Nordion and Theratronics, two wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Nordion, formerly a radio-chemical company, and Theratronics, are both world leaders in nuclear medicine. Over 90 per cent of their sales come from export markets. When we look at the companies, we see that Nordion had annual sales of $90 million. Nordion is a leading global supplier of industrial sterilization systems and medical diagnostic products. Theratronics had annual sales of $40 million. It produces and markets Cobalt therapy machines to clinics and hospitals, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Together those two companies employ almost 700 people.
These are two very profitable, successful companies which are spin-offs from Atomic Energy of Canada. This is a demonstration that a Crown corporation can pay its own way. As soon as these two subsidiaries were showing that they could hold their own and pay their own way, that they could turn themselves into profit-seeking ventures, the Government sought to privatize them. It
Nordion and Theratronics
sought to give what has been years and years of Canadian investment of taxpayers' money and public interest in the development of a nuclear industry and nuclear technology away to the private sector. This is after Canadian taxpayers have taken the risk in developing these companies.
It seems to me to be illogical for the Government to say that it does not want any longer something that is working well. Everyone agrees that if Crown corporations can become profitable, that is great, but the Government cannot have its cake and eat it too. It cannot have a profitable corporation and then, because it is profitable, give it away to the private sector. How can we expect a Crown corporation to continue with profitable spin-offs when as soon as it develops one, it is taken from it? It is like the old saying, if it is not broken, why fix it. That is clearly the case with these two companies.
The private sector will milk all the advantages of the risk taking and development of technology that has occurred through the structuring of these two companies. The private sector will reap the advantages of those years of public investment.
Something that is also of concern is the fact that through privatizing these two corporations, the Government is closing a window of opportunity to maintain a level of influence, control and direction in the high-tech industry, particularly in the field of nuclear medicine. It is a very important window to maintain control through. It is an area of expansion in our technological evolution, and I see no reason, nor do my colleagues, for giving up the kind of leverage we could maintain by holding on to these companies in the public sector. Once we give up that leverage, we will have less ability to direct that technological evolution which Canada must be at the forefront of if it wishes to maintain its position in this industry.
Privatizing these companies will inevitably open the door for the potential for American control of Canada's nuclear medicine industry. I want to point out that this is the first time a nuclear company is to be privatized. In recognizing that decision, we have to question the health and security risks that go along with the privatization of such a firm. Of real concern is the fact, for example, that Theratronics will not be protected from any foreign investment control. It would be a mistake to see Canada's nuclear industry and nuclear technologies become controlled or owned outright by other than Canadian

June 26, 1989
Judges Act
hands. I would submit that in light of the Free Trade Agreement, that potential exists.
It is also important to recognize the philosophical direction the Government has taken. It has continued its mindless following of the corporate agenda, to try to pare down the size of Government, to try to privatize all the Crown corporations that have been developed through the risks taken in the public sector using taxpayers' money. The Government is willing to throw that away because of pressures brought on by the corporate agenda. It is a mistake, in light of the importance of this industry to the future of Canada and the future of technological evolution, to lose control of those industries.
In light of those arguments, I would like to conclude by saying that I cannot over-stress the importance of maintaining that control. I cannot over-stress my feeling and that of my colleagues on this side of the House about the dangers of privatizing these companies, particularly in light of the Free Trade Agreement. I believe it is a serious error. I maintain that these are two profitable companies that demonstrate amply that a public utility or a Crown corporation, if run properly with good management, can become profitable. Why throw it out? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


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 motion of Mr. McDermid. 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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that if you were to ask the question of the House, you would find that there would be an agreement to defer the vote to six o'clock along with the other votes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


JUDGES ACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had consultations with the other Parties, and I believe that you will find that there would be consent to refer this Bill to the Committee of the Whole House rather than to a legislative committee so that we could complete all stages this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered. Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to a Committee of the Whole House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to put some facts on the record with respect to Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Judges Act. Hon. Members will know that with respect to the number of provincial governments and appointments to the bench, there is a need from time to time to increase the size of the Superior and County Courts in all the provinces. Over the past few years, the demands on the court system have increased significantly. The workload of federally appointed judges across Canada has reflected this increased demand, and for this reason, we are appearing today with this Bill to try to adjust the number of possible appointments to take care of that demand.
June 26, 1989

The Judges Act provides for a specific number of judicial positions for each Section 96 Court. At the present time, there is a provision for a pool of 49 unassigned judicial positions so that additional judges may be appointed as the provinces and the territories increase the size of their courts between periodic amendments without the need to amend the Act for each individual judge.
Bill C-30 will add 35 judges to the specified authorized levels in six provinces and the Northwest Territories, in response to increases in the size of their courts which have occurred since 1985. The courts affected include provincial courts of appeal, and trial courts at both the superior court and county court levels.
Of the 35 positions which the six provinces and the Northwest Territories have created, the Governor General has drawn on the "pool" provision in the Judges Act to make appointments to 21 of those positions since 1985. An additional 14 positions, therefore, would remain to be filled as a result of the amendments contained in Bill C-30.
Bill C-30, consequently, will also "replenish" the Judges Act "pool" by re-enacting the relevant Section to make contingent provision for future increases in the number of judicial positions.
Another important aspect of Bill C-30 is that it will implement three more of the recommendations of the 1986 commission on judges' salaries and benefits, which was established pursuant to the Judges Act and is commonly referred to as the Guthrie Commission after its Chairman, Mr. H. Donald Guthrie, Q.C. The report and recommendations of the Guthrie Commission were tabled in this House by my predecessor, the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, on March 11, 1987.
In 1981 the Judges Act was amended to provide, with effect from 1979, an accountable annual allowance for judges in the amount of $1,000, separate from salary, "for reasonable incidental expenditures that the fit and proper execution of the office of judge may require". This incidental allowance applies against the cost of repair and replacement of court attire, the purchase of law books and periodicals, membership in legal and
Judges Act
judicial organizations and other similar expenses not recoverable under any other provision of the Judges Act.
This $1,000 allowance is obviously inadequate. It has not been changed in 10 years. The effects of inflation will be well known to the House. Therefore, we are increasing that to $2,500. It is a modest increase and we think that it will do the job.
Bill C-30 will also extend to retiring judges of the Supreme, Federal, and Tax Courts of Canada, and to the surviving family members of judges of those courts who die in office, the benefit of a removal allowance to cover moving expenses to facilitate their relocation outside of the National Capital Region, which is where judges of those courts are required to live. In order to qualify for the allowance, the judge must have been resident outside of the National Capital Region before his or her appointment to the court in question. This removal allowance must be utilized within two years of the judge's retirement or death. This removal allowance was recommended by the Guthrie Commission, and we are also pleased to put it into effect.
The third big change is when a judge dies in office, a lump sum "gratuity" equal to one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time of death is currently payable to the surviving spouse pursuant to a series of Treasury Board minutes that date back to 1965. Bill C-30 will convert that lump sum payment which was on an ex gratia basis to a statutory entitlement, which was another recommendation of the Guthrie Commission.
Bill C-30 will increase from $4,000 to $6,000 the northern allowance provided to judges of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Supreme Courts, to compensate for the higher cost of living in the territories.
This is what might be called a housekeeping Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to consult with my colleagues opposite and the co-operation which they have given to us in allowing us to pursue second reading, Committee of the Whole House, and hopefully third reading stage today.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I see that there are 15 minutes left and we hope to get the Bill through all three stages by 6 p.m. The Minister summed it up well when he called it a housekeeping Bill. It is that.

June 26, 1989
Judges Act
I have read the provisions and I am satisfied to offer the support of the Official Opposition.
I only wish that the Minister were more ambitious and that we were doing more than housekeeping in the justice area. His predecessors saw that Canada was suffering from a drug epidemic and attempted to do things about that. They referred to pornography as an epidemic, and they were going to do something about that. We have witnessed law after law, some passed by the preceding Parliament, struck down by courts at various levels, and there has been no response.
I want to take this opportunity to urge the Government to not only be a housekeeper, not only take orders from the provinces and deliver them in Parliament, but to do something substantial in the way of law reform and in the way of advancing the interests of a good system of justice in Canada.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, we too are
pleased to support this Bill on the basis that has already been put forward. However, we do not wish to let this occasion pass without making some additional comments. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has stated, the Minister might have been more ambitious.
Perhaps the Minister could advise us whether he has taken the opportunity, since the meeting of the Justice and the Solicitor General's Committee to read the report by Professors Peter Russell and Jacob Ziegel from Toronto on federal judicial appointments, an appraisal of the first Mulroney Government's appointments. At that committee meeting, which was approximately 10 days ago, the Minister stated that he had not read the report. Apparently, he at least had noticed the clippings in The Globe and Mail because he had well formed views on the subject, without having read the report. I would hope that in the interval he has read the report. The report is a searing indictment of this Government's approach to judicial appointments. It is essential for the integrity of the judiciary that the Government decide that it is going to make its mark in Canadian history and be the first Government in the history of this country to make judicial appointments on a non-partisan basis.
The Minister stated before the committee-my Liberal friend from Kingston asks: "What do you think we were doing?" I have to give the Government credit for at least improving on the Liberal system.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John F. Brewin: Again, I have lost my friends to my right, and I have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) on my side.
The Hnatyshyn system at least added a veneer of review of the qualities of judicial appointments. It is clear that the Russell and Ziegel study shows that the Government has failed in its objective of cleaning up judicial appointments in this country. It is essential, if the public's overwhelming desire to see that our judiciary's integrity is preserved and that justice is not only done but seen to be done that the Government and Parliament take a very serious look at how judicial appointments are made.
The Government can, if it wishes, it has the freedom to do so, choose to continue to abuse judicial appointments and the judicial process. However, if it wishes to survive through the views of the electorate in the next election, it will have to take this issue far more seriously than it has. Judicial appointments are absolutely critical to how our system of justice works. It has been one of the travesties of Canadian history that repeated Governments have used judicial appointments to reward their friends.
The present system involves a number of groups in vetting judicial appointments, but it still has allowed the Government far too much latitude to pick and choose its friends. We have, therefore, comments coming from the professors along the lines of: "We see no reason why Canadians should acquiesce in a system that seems bound every year to produce a few really bad appointments to the higher courts of this country."


Mr. Milliken:: Who?


John F. Brewin: Last year the federal Government set up a non-partisan vetting committee in each province to rate would-be judges. The criteria for applying have received scant publicity, and it would appear that most of the candidates now being assessed by the committees came through the old networks that brought names to the attention of the Minister.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Name them.


John F. Brewin: My Liberal friend wants me to name them. That is the old tactic. The Canadian Advocate produced a study which is severely critical, as are many lawyers in the country, of the capacity of many judges.

That fact can be ignored if the Government and the Liberals wish to do so.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It does not mean that they are Party hacks.


John F. Brewin: The studies suggest that, in fact, it is the partisan nature of the appointment that is the source of the few really bad appointments.
It is interesting, is it not, Mr. Speaker, and I can see the Minister of Justice smiling as the Liberals leap to his defence, that in the system of patronage-


Philip Derek Lewis: I was smiling at you.


An Hon. Member:: We cannot have it both ways.


John F. Brewin: We cannot have it both ways? I think we are all consistent. The NDP has consistently stood for the independence of judicial appointments. The Liberals and the Conservatives appear united in speaking against it. It is time for judicial appointments to be taken out of political patronage.
We remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the 1984 debate scoring so many points with the public by leaving the impression that he was going to clean up the patronage system. He has simply not done that in the area of judicial appointments. The Minister can choose to ignore that if he wishes, but he will do so at the peril of the judicial system and the administration of justice.
I think the time has come for us to vote on this particular Bill and for all Parties in the House to pledge to do what we can to clean up the system of appointments in Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Exploration and Development


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the bells were to commence ringing at 6 p.m. and ring until 6.15 p.m. I imagine that it would be with consent that the bells should ring until 6.15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


CANADIAN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp that Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. MacLellan:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and
Development Incentive Program Act, be not now read a third time
but that it be read a third time this day six months hence."
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of Mr. MacLellan.
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House to call the vote on Bill C-13 next, followed by Bill C-9 and then Bill C-17. In that same vein, I think the results of the vote we just completed could be applied to Bill C-13 but in reverse.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Agreed.


Alex Kindy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am voting with the Government on Bill C-13.


NORDION AND THERATRONICS DIVESTITURE AUTHORIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill C-13, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc. and Theratronics International Limited, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division of the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez to the motion for third reading of Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act.


BANK ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; and the amendment of Mr. Rodriguez (p. 989).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the Chamber to apply the vote just completed but in reverse to the main motion on Bill C-9 at second reading and to the main motion on Bill C-17 at third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House agrees to apply the division just taken in reverse to the motion for second reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Bank Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Customs Tariff CUSTOMS TARIFF


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House also agree to apply the division just taken in reverse to the motion for third reading of Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.	
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.38	
o'clock, pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 13, 1989,	
the House will now proceed to the consideration of	
Private Members'	Business as listed on today's Order
Paper.
On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Justice, the Hon. House Leader.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in order that the Member whose Private Members' Business it is should have the full hour for his or her Bill to be debated, we would suggest that that full hour take place and that the Private Members' Business take until 21 minutes to 8 o'clock this evening.


PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS - MOTIONS   CANADA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine) moved: that Bill C-244, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Those who wish to have conversations could do so behind the curtain. The Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation as well to the Government House Leader for clarifying the length of time that we have to make some remarks on my Private Member's Motion.
This is one of several times that I have presented exactly the same Bill for debate in the House. I think an equal number of times the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), and previous Ministers of the Environment have subsequently assured the House and the Canadian public that it is the intention of the Government to bring in legislation to do exactly the same as what this Bill will do.
I have been here for nearly ten years and I have heard these same assurances from the same Ministers. I am still waiting for the legislation. Hopefully, I will have the support of Members on all sides of the House tonight not to talk this Bill out, but to ensure that it is referred to an appropriate legislative committee so that all Members on can have input into the legislation and certainly the Canadian public can also have input.
Over the last couple years it has become politically popular for politicians to talk about the environment. It is as if suddenly many politicians have discovered that
June 26, 1989

Canadians, and indeed people around the world, are seriously concerned about the abuses that we as human beings have been perpetrating on the environment and the ecology.
I do not want to sound too cynical when I make these remarks because I welcome that new-found interest. In doing that I think the Government should take an enlightened view toward this Private Members' Bill presented for the consideration of the House and allow it to go to a legislative committee for further consideration.
The Bill has four main elements. One, it would provide opportunities for public involvement in the making of regulations to set maximum permissible levels for contaminants and other substances in drinking water applicable to both public and private water systems.
Two, it would establish a water review board to monitor the safety of our drinking water.
Three, it would establish an expert water advisory council to apprise the Minister of current research related to drinking water quality, contaminants, substances and their effects. It would also promote new research into drinking water quality.
It came as some surprise to me when this Bill was in the draw and was drawn for debate. It went before the committee which makes the decisions on which Bills receive one hour of debate or six hours of debate followed by a vote of the House. Prior to my appearance before that committee my office had received a number of telephone calls from the Law Branch of the House of Commons to the effect that it did not feel that this Bill was properly before the House, that the responsibility for water quality rests with municipal governments and to some extent provincial governments. That came as a surprise to me because I never heard that argument before. This Bill has been in the House previously on at least four or five occasions. At no time did any government Member or a Minister raise that kind of objection. It came up under the present Government and a prior Liberal Government, so it came as a surprise to me to hear that kind of argument being made for a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker.
Water quality clearly falls under federal jurisdiction in some respects. That is why we have an International Joint Commission. That is why we have international
Quality of Water
agreements, particularly with the United States, which govern the water quality in the Great Lakes system and other water bodies across the country.
I understand the argument and accept it that municipal governments have the clear responsibility of supplying safe drinking water to the populations they serve, namely, the delivery of systems. Surely to goodness, the federal and provincial Governments have a clear responsibility for the quality of water before it comes under municipal jurisdiction, such as in Lake Ontario. Millions of people live around Lake Ontario. They rely on Lake Ontario for a safe drinking water supply. But that water is supplied by the Niagara River which is under joint jurisdiction between Canada and the U.S. How can an argument be made that the federal Government has no jurisdiction over the water quality? I say to the House as I have said in committee that there are all kinds of studies which have been made and which have concluded that water quality falls under federal jurisdiction.
For my purposes I make the argument that the federal Government has jurisdiction over the Great Lakes through the international joint agreement with the U.S.
I do not want to get too far off the arguments that the Bill presents, but on the best statistics alone, it is reason enough to believe that the federal Government, the House of Commons if you will, has a clear responsibility to give guidance and if that guidance is not forthcoming, the power to provide legislation to enforce the quality of drinking water across Canada and to work preferably in co-operation with provincial Governments to ensure that that happens. In the absence of that co-operation being established, I think that we at the federal level have the responsibility to act on behalf of Canadians to ensure that water quality is maintained at levels we would expect from our water resources.
I just want to give some background information about the seriousness of the dangers that are presented through our water supply, not only in Canada but internationally as well.
Canada has less than 1 per cent of the world's population yet we possess an estimated 25 per cent of the world's fresh water. The Great Lakes contain 18 per cent of the planet's surface fresh water. Canada's rivers have a combined flow of some 68,000 cubic metres per second,

June 26, 1989
Quality of Water
enough to fill all the country's bathtubs every ten seconds. On a global scale, fresh water constitutes only 0.2 per cent of the total water supply. Until the first decades of the 20th century, water borne diseases such as typhoid fever, claimed the lives of many Canadians. Although modern medicine has advanced to the point where this disease is no longer a serious threat, new forms of water borne disease are emerging.
The World Health Organization indicates that in the Third World diseases associated with dirty water kill 50,000 people every day, more than 80 million per year. As long as bacterial contamination of Canadian waters is allowed to continue, Canadians cannot assume that the same kind of effect could not happen here because it certainly could. I recall a month or so ago-it was in the news again several days ago-hearing about a community in New Brunswick where the total water supply is so contaminated by industrial pollutants that it is a sewer. It is not known for sure but the authorities in that community do know that the water is no longer drinkable. The people of that community have had to have bottled water shipped to them because their source of drinking water has been cut off by the contamination. I do not think that that is anything that we as Canadians either should tolerate or should continue to tolerate.
Several years ago, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) the former Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alber-ni, Ted Miller, and I along with several others, formed a task force which went to the Niagara Peninsula to look at the problems about which the people were voicing concerns regarding the Niagara River and the Great Lakes. In the course of that four or five day visit, we had an opportunity to look at the toxic dump sites which string the New York side of the Niagara River. There is absolutely no question that from those chemical dump sites, toxins are leaching into the Niagara River.
One of those particularly dangerous toxic chemicals is dioxin. It is the form of dioxin that was used by the U.S. Army in Vietnam for the purposes of defoliating trees so that bombers and similar equipment could more clearly see what they perceived to be the enemy on the ground. Years after the Vietnam war, the U.S. Government is
finding that many military personnel are suffering from different kinds of cancer because of being exposed to that defoliant, Agent Orange, I believe it was called, in addition to effects felt by the poor people who were the victims of that kind of military attack.
Suffice it to say that one of the dumps on the New York side of the Niagara River has, I am told, tonnes of this stuff buried in it. It is that dioxin which is leaching through the dolomite rock of which the Niagara gorge is made. Dolomite rock is a very porous rock. Over the years, these companies have bulldozed the earth out to the surface of the rock and dumped the chemicals in. Some tell us that they lined the dumps with clay to keep the chemicals from leaching, but I have my doubts that that was the case. Even if that was the case, these chemicals are leaching out the walls of these dumps, going down through the porous bedrock and the groundwater into the Niagara River. Traces of this dioxin have definitely been found on the face of the Niagara Gorge.
There used to be an environmental scientist who worked with the Department of the Environment of Ontario, and I believe his name was Doug Hallett. He was a very respected individual. Doug Hallett told me, as he has said publicly in the media, that in his estimation, one shovelful of that dioxin waste, thrown into Lake Ontario, would kill that lake for thousands of years. Just one shovelful of that stuff would kill the entire lake, yet there are tonnes of this stuff buried in these dumps on the New York side of the river.
I know that various Canadian Governments have expressed concern about those dumps. There have been attempts made to convince the American Government that the only safe way to dispose of these chemical wastes is to excavate these dumps and destroy the chemicals either by incineration or by some other means. To date, as far as I know, we have not been successful in concluding these negotiations in a satisfactory way.
Hon. Members would be interested to know that after we had completed our examination of the Niagara River and surrounding area, we drew together a report on our findings. At that time, several years ago, I tabled that report in the House of Commons. If any Hon. Member is interested, I would be happy to provide a copy of that report.
June 26, 1989

The findings we made then are still true today. Nothing has changed. In fact, we have drawings that pinpoint the location of every one of these dump sites and every one of them contains a chemical soup. That chemical soup poses a day-to-day threat to the safe drinking water supply of the people who rely on Lake Ontario to provide that safe drinking water.
I urge the Government and Hon. Members to realize the reality of that threat. Even if Hon. Members do not pass this Bill, we should at the very minimum ask the appropriate House of Commons committee, whether it be a standing committee or a special committee, to take a good, hard look at the threat those chemical dump sites are posing to our water systems, especially in southern Ontario. It would also be worth while to take a look at some of the contaminants that are being poured into the rivers across Canada, whether by sawmills in British Columbia or by whatever caused the problem found with the blob in the Lake St. Clair area.
I see that you are indicating to me that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your patience. At the very least, I would ask the House to seriously consider establishing such a committee.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I welcome this opportunity to speak to you about the safety of our drinking water, an issue that is of considerable importance for the health and well-being of all Canadians and thus an issue that the Department of National Health and Welfare takes very seriously. I am much encouraged by the decision made by the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young) to table Bill C-224 which concerns the safety of our drinking water. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I would indeed appreciate receiving a copy of his research papers, as he so kindly offered during his speech.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should recall that this Bill is similar to Bills C-212, C-266 and C-276 which were tabled in recent years. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has pointed out on a number of occasions
Quality of Water
the importance of safe drinking water for public health. For this reason, the Department of National Health and Welfare has a primary responsibility, at the federal level, for the quality of our drinking water.
When Bills C-212, C-266 and C-276 were presented, we indicated that the Government intended to introduce its own legislation on safe drinking water in Canada.
We must not forget that both levels of government, federal and provincial or territorial, have important roles to play in distributing drinking water that is absolutely safe to drink. The Department of National Health and Welfare fully realizes the extent of the responsibility provincial governments have always had for water treatment for the purpose of producing and distributing drinking water. In fact, the provinces are imarily responsible for protecting and monitoring the water resources that provide our drinking water supply. Generally, authority has been delegated to municipalities, and the public utilities responsible for treating our water supply, to produce drinking water and provide for its distribution in their respective communities. The standards or guidelines for the quality of this water are set by the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the provincial governments.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Department has been actively involved in setting guidelines for drinking water quality ever since 1923, when an order in coucil was passed to regulate the bacteriological content of drinking water on board ships supplied with continental water. In 1968, the Department published the first statement of standards and universal objectives for drinking water in Canada, which set the standards for a substantial number of toxic chemical products, radioactive substances and micro-organisms. These standards were completely revised in 1978 by a federal-provincial committee. Canadian Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality in 1978 provided guidelines regarding 51 parameters, 42 of which concern chemical substances.
Since that date, new scientific data have revealed that water contains a host of chemical products, as the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine mentioned, and that some of them are the result of the treatment process itself.

June 26, 1989
Quality of Water
Considering these new findings, the Department has acknowledged the need for revising the guidelines for drinking water quality in Canada; a new document, published in 1987, is now available upon request.
This edition of the guidelines includes 41 pesticides, 31 of which had not been considered previously. The guidelines include 15 new organic parameters, while we have re-evaluted 9 inorganic and organic substances, including an assessment of the need for setting guidelines for PCBs and dioxins, which have aroused the interest and concern of all Canadians.
The Department of National Health and Welfare intends to revise this document at regular intervals. As in the past, revision is always done in cooperation with the provincial governments and with their full participation under the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. Given the importance of safe drinking water and the rapid advancement of knowledge, a standing sub-committee has been established so that we can continue to keep the recommendations up to date and to deal with other important issues related to the supply of drinking water.
Drafting guidelines is not the only thing the Department of National Health and Welfare is doing with regard to drinking water. A safe drinking water supply can only be assured with a much broader approach. Overall, the Department's long-term goals for drinking water are: to ensure that all Canadians are supplied with drinking water that satisfies the recommendations for drinking water quality in Canada; to ensure that commercially sold water treatment devices used at point of consumption are safe, this being established by laboratory tests and by actual use, so that potentially dangerous devices are taken off the market; also, to ensure that all chemicals and materials that come directly or indirectly into contact with drinking water when it is produced, distributed or stored are assessed for potential danger, in order to guarantee their safety.
In view of the concerns expressed about the quality of some drinking water, it seems that some Canadians have lost confidence in their municipal drinking water to the extent that they have turned to other sources of supply or feel obliged to further purify water for their own use. Annual sales of bottled water by the soft drink industry alone are estimated at around $15 million. There is also
spring water and other kinds of water sold in containers-
I do not know whether you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, mainly in the Mirabel region, we have the best drinking water in Quebec, if not in Canada, and we have a drinking water bottling industry that creates many jobs.
I also think-you are indicating to me that my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker-that the Government of which I am honoured to be a part has acted and will continue to act. Recently, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) said that he was about to prepare documents to improve our quality of life.
I know what the Hon. Member means, because lately I went out onto Lake Ontario myself. I was very surprised to learn that most homes on the shores of Lake Ontario have practically no pollution control equipment. On the other hand, I was told that the U.S. Department had been on the lookout for several years and that things were improving. But with respect to the Great Lakes and the Niagara Peninsula, you can be assured, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine to know, that Government Members from that region are very vocal in our caucus to make us more aware of this most important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to go on, I had taken some very important notes, but unfortunately, my time is up. I would like to assure you that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is following this issue with great interest and that of course we will act to protect the health of Canadians, so that we may always have good, safe drinking water in Canada and leave it as a heritage to our children.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot follow up on the bragging done by the Parliamentary Secretary about having the best drinking water in my province. Unfortunately, the water in my municipality suffers from a slight odour problem because it has too much hydrogen sulphide in it. Last weekend, I was visiting with the Mayor of the Town of Bowden who was very proud of the fact that an independent panel, which included the Minister of the Environment of the Province of Alberta, chose the water from Bowden, Alberta as being the absolute best in Alberta.
June 26, 1989

I am veiy pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the subject of safe drinking water, which is a topic that is most important to the Department of National Health and Welfare, and to all concerned Canadians. The initiative of the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young) in introducing Bill C-224 concerning safe drinking water is most encouraging. As the Hon. Member stated in his introduction, similar private Members' Bills, Bill C-266 and C-276, have been introduced during the past few years.
Canada has as yet no national drinking water standards mandated by or enforceable through legislation. This contrasts with most other developed and even many less developed countries. Under the Canadian Constitution, resources, including water, are considered to be the mandate of the provinces. It follows that the provision of drinking water and the legislation of standards and regulations are the primary responsibility of provincial governments rather than the federal Government, with certain exceptions.
The development of national guidelines for drinking water quality has therefore been undertaken mainly on a collaborative basis between the federal and provincial levels of government with the Department of National Health and Welfare fulfilling a role of health adviser as prescribed under the Department of National Health and Welfare Act.
Measures designed specifically to protect the public health, such as the drinking water guidelines, are normally undertaken under the auspices of the Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health. A permanent sub-committee on drinking water, comprising representatives from all provinces and territories and from the Department of National Health and Welfare, develops and revises the guidelines on a continuing basis. Officials of the Department provide advice through their position as secretariat to both committees.
I had the privilege of sitting as a member of an elected municipal council for some 17 years. During that period of time I chaired our environmental health services committee, the group that had the responsibility for the provision of clean water to the municipal system. I have to confess that only when reading for this Bill did I
Quality of Water
become aware of the federal involvement. We worked with provincial guidelines and provincial people.
The first comprehensive Canadian drinking water guidelines were published by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1968. They were revised first in 1978 and again in 1987. A fourth revision is in preparation.
The guidelines are not legally enforceable unless promulgated as regulations by the appropriate provincial agency. The guidelines are the primary means of assessing the safety, from a health perspective, of drinking water supplies for lifetime consumption. The guidelines also take into consideration aesthetic parameters such as colour, taste and odour.
However, the guidelines are not enough to ensure that the problems with drinking water arising from our modern society are adequately addressed. Canadians from all provinces have recently become increasingly concerned about the quality of the drinking water which their municipalities deliver. In fact, a survey conducted by a major Canadian magazine found that 44 per cent of all Canadians indicate that they believe tap water will not be drinkable by the year 2001.
Although major epidemics of typhoid and cholera are a matter of history in Canada, we cannot afford to let ourselves become complacent about the presence of pathogens in drinking water. Giardiasis became a serious concern in western Canada, a few years ago, when an outbreak occurred in one of our major resort areas.
There have also been outbreaks of viral diarrhoea and occasional outbreaks of typhoid. These have all been traced back to plant failures, cross-connections or flooding of wells, but still serve to demonstrate the potential public health significance of organisms that may escape sanitary barriers. The current emphasis on chemical contaminants and drinking water, therefore, should not divert our attention from the need to control microbial pathogens in drinking water.
Over the last decade scientists have identified, and the media have reported on, more than 1,000 organic chemicals that have occurred occasionally in drinking water. Fairly frequently a dozen or more chemicals have been detected in a single water supply.

Quality of Water
We do not want to unduly alarm people since this has usually occurred at relatively low concentrations, in the parts per billion range or less. This detection has resulted largely from significant advances made in our ability to measure such low concentrations. In most of the cases, the concentrations are so low that they do not represent a health hazard, but at the same time they should not be ignored. Guidelines or objectives are needed to enable an assessment to be made of possible harm to health.
We know that the general public is concerned that conventional water processes, which are designed primarily to control bacteriological contamination and to remove inorganic contaminants, may not adequately remove certain trace organic contaminants. This concern has been manifested by the purchase of home-use treatment devices. It is believed that in-home devices to treat or filter municipal water supplies are used in about 3 per cent to 10 per cent of Canadian homes.
Although many of these water treatment devices may be safe and useful, it must be noted that the quality and safety of these devices is not regulated by any government Department, and considerable excesses in advertising have been known to occur. It is apparent that some control of these devices is required. Requests for government control have been expressed by consumer groups, provincial agencies and the public.
It is now known that some compounds generated in drinking water during treatment may also present health hazards. One of the most widely used treatment chemicals is chlorine, which is used as a disinfectant. Some concern has been expressed that chlorination can give rise to the formation of chloroform and other chlorinated by-products, some of which may be toxic under certain conditions.
The benefits of chlorination far outweigh these concerns, however, and a look at alternative disinfectants suggest that the well proven chlorination process should not be abandoned yet since there is very limited knowledge about the alternatives. Two alternatives being considered are ozone and chlorine dioxide. Ozone is becoming increasingly popular in Canada, particularly in Quebec. Ozonation reaction products are still relatively unknown, but are being studied by scientists in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Chlorine dioxide does not give rise to the undesirable by-products formed during the normal chlorination process. However, a major disadvantage is the production of chlorate and chlorite which may be of health significance when ingested regularly at high concentrations.
Some chemicals may enter our drinking water indirectly, as a result of the use of piping, paint, coatings or other lining materials used in water storage and distribution systems. Chemicals may be released in small amounts as the material ages, or contaminants of the original material may be released. Concern is expressed about some of our distribution systems utilizing asbestos-lined pipe. Any new legislation should address the problems of lack of mechanisms to evaluate and regulate drinking water contaminants arising from both direct and indirect means.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the recent Speech from the Throne included a commitment from the Government to introduce legislation on drinking water. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) intends to introduce a safe drinking water Act for Canada. Already, officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare are working with the Department of Justice in mapping out the areas to be covered by the Act.
Quality guidelines for drinking water, including microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics will be established and published in the Canada Gazette. For reasons outlined previously, these guidelines will not be mandatory standards unless made so by the provinces, as is the case at present.
The present system for establishing guidelines has worked well for the past 20 years, thanks to the continuing high degree of co-operation demonstrated by all the provinces and, in the last few years, by the territories as well. Thus there would be no change in legislative status, but current practice would be given legislative authority.
Consideration is, however, being given to making drinking water quality objectives, based on the guidelines, mandatory for areas under federal jurisdiction. This would apply to drinking water on all federal passenger carriers, including airlines, railways, ships and interprovincial buses. It would also include community drinking water systems in native communities and reserves that have not yet reverted to control by native people themselves or by the province. Individual wells or
June 26, 1989

supplies serving only a few people would not be included for reasons of practicality and cost.
Consideration is also being given to regulating devices sold for home water treatment. At present there are no control requirements or performance standards to ensure both efficacy for the purposes claimed and the protection of human health.
The new legislation will contain provisions for making regulations to cover chemicals used in water treatment facilities, as well as concentrations of contaminants which may be present in these treatment chemicals. The new Bill would also include authority to prescribe standards for the composition of system components and surface materials that come into contact with potable water. This would also alleviate problems that have arisen concerning both direct and indirect contamination.
I notice that you are asking me to wind up, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the safety of drinking water, a very important subject for the Department of National Elealth and Welfare and all Canadians concerned. The initiative of the Hon. Member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Young) in presenting Bill C-224 on the quality of drinking water is encouraging. We recall some very similar Bills, C-266 and C-276, that were presented in the past.
Water is as essential to life as food and air. It is one of the most abundant terrestrial resources and is present in the air, on the ground and in the earth. However, pure water does not exist in nature. Water carries a great number of substances for which it acts as a solvent. For example, it contains gases absorbed from the atmosphere and natural organic and inorganic substances obtained by dissolving rocks and earth. In fact, it is this mixture of chemicals that gives water its pleasant taste. Everyone who has drunk chemically pure water will agree that it is insipid, bland and tasteless.
Quality of Water
Unfortunately, water can also contain many toxic substances. The presence of bacterial and viral pathogens in public water supplies was all too obvious in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when water-borne diseases were common in Canada and among the leading causes of death. The use of effective disinfection methods led to the virtual elimination of these diseases from our society and contributed to a major improvement in public health.
Mr. Speaker, although major epidemics of typhoid and cholera are a matter of history in Canada, we cannot afford to let ourselves become complacent about the presence of pathogens in drinking water. In western Canada, giardiasis has now become a serious concern and also causes problems further south, in the Adiron-dacks in New York State. There have also been outbreaks of viral diarrhea and occasional outbreaks of typhoid. These have all been traced to plant failures, cross-connections or flooding of wells, but still serve to demonstrate the potential health significance of organisms that may escape sanitary barriers. The current emphasis on chemical contaminants in drinking water, therefore, should not divert our attention from the need to control microbial pathogens in drinking water.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I may recall that over the last 20 years, scientists have identified more than 1,000 organic chemicals in drinking water, at relatively low concentrations. This has usually been in the parts per billion range or less. This detection has resulted largely from significant advances made in our ability to measure such low concentrations.
We know that the general public is concerned that conventional water processes, which are designed primarily to control bacteriological contamination and to remove inorganic contaminants, may not adequately remove certain trace organic contaminants. According to a poll carried out recently by a major Canadian magazine, 44 per cent of the population believes that tap water will no longer be drink able by the year 2001. This concern has been manifested by the phenomenal rise in sales of home-use treatment devices. In a survey carried out in 1984 by the Department of National Health and Welfare in metropolitan areas in Canada, it was found that 3 per cent of Canadian homes used some type of in-home device to treat municipal water supplies, and it is estimated that this figure has now increased to 10 per

June 26, 1989
Quality of Water
cent. About 70 per cent of these devices use active carbon filters, about which the Department has some reservations because of the problem of bacterial growth on the filters. We may also point out that other treatment devices, such as those based on reverse osmosis and distillation, also have their drawbacks.
Most small communities and homes in Canada's rural areas use ground water as their source of water supply. Generally speaking, it is assumed that this water is free from contaminants and requires only minimal treatment before consumption. However, this assumption may no longer be correct since organic compounds such as pesticides and industrial solvents have been discovered in ground water in most states in the United States. We have only spotty information on Canadian ground water, but we do know there are problems in some communities such as Joliette and St-Hyacinthe, in the province of Quebec, where drinking water has been contaminated by the pesticides aldicarb and atrazine, respectively.
It is now known that some compounds generated in drinking water during treatment may also present health hazards. One of the most widely used treatment chemicals is chlorine which is used as a disinfectant. Some concern has been expressed that chlorination can give rise to the formation of chlorofom and other chlorinated by-products, some of which can be toxic under certain conditions.
Mr. Speaker, a look at alternative disinfectants suggests, however, that the well-proven chlorination process should not be abandoned yet since there is very limited knowledge about the alternatives. Ozone is becoming increasingly popular in Canada, particularly in Quebec. Ozonation reaction products are still relatively unknown, but are being studied by scientists in the Department of National Health and Welfare. A wide-ranging study that will cost about $1 million, financed jointly by the Government of Quebec, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of the Environment and the federal Department of Supply and Services, is presently underway on the water distribution system in the municipality of Sainte-Rose, near Montreal.
Chlorine dioxide does not give rise to the undesirable by-products formed during the normal chlorination process. However, a major disadvantage is the production of chlorate and chlorite which may be of health significance when ingested regularly at high concentrations. That is why the Department of National Health and Welfare, in co-operation with the province of Alberta, recently sponsored a study to evaluate various disinfectants used in the treatment of drinking water. The Department of National Health and Welfare and the Ontario Department of the Environment also sponsored a study co-ordinated by the Canadian Public Health Association, which included a critical study of the quality of water from the Great Lakes.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has also helped the Province of Ontario as a consultant on contract work concerning the effectiveness of activated charcoal treatment in a Niagara Falls pilot plant. The Department of National Health and Welfare is also cooperating with Environment Canada and the four Atlantic provinces on a major four-year study to determine the extent of contamination of municipal water distribution systems by organic substances. This study is now in its fourth year.
It is clear from what I have just said that the Department of National Health and Welfare is doing research on drinking water in every region of the country and that a large part of the work sponsored by the Department alone or with the provinces is contracted out to industry or the academic community.
Perhaps we should ask exactly what we should do to make our drinking water safe. Of course, the water quality guidelines or standards implicitly define what is acceptable for health.
"The recommendations for the quality of drinking water in Canada, 1987" are used to determine if water under federal authority is fit for consumption. They are updated almost every year and have been adopted by several provinces which have included them in their own quality objectives. Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland use these federal-provincial recommendations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words on this very important Bill before the House today that deals with the quality of drinking water in Canada. The reason why it is so important is that too many communities-hundreds of
June 26, 1989

communities and thousands of people in Canada-are drinking contaminated water. It is perhaps the single cause of a great deal of sickness, especially with children in many of our rural communities throughout Canada. In fact, if one were to examine the rationale used by municipalities in Canada seeking financial assistance for water systems from the provincial Governments and provincial authorities, one would discover that the chief reason listed is contaminated water. In other words, a municipality today, or water authority depending on which province you are in, would seek financial assistance from the provincial administration, because it is handled through the provincial Governments, for funding or permission to borrow based on the fact that the water they are drinking is contaminated.
You can see this throughout Canada, especially in the rural areas. Unfortunately the smaller the community, the greater the difficulty it has in obtaining funding for an adequate water supply. The reason is that municipal financing in Canada is based on the principle of loans. In other words, a municipality either gets the authority to borrow, a guarantee to borrow or borrows from provincial administrations. Therefore, when you have a small community, depending on the province, and certainly all provinces in Canada are alike, there is no funding in the form of grants to put in a water system. There is no mechanism in place today in Canada to provide grant money, not loan money, to put in a water system. There is no provincial administration in Canada where you can get money to construct a water system and not have to pay back that money. If you have to pay it back, then you must have the guarantee of the provincial Government or you do not get it through the banks.
That stands to reason, and that is why a tragic error was made about five years ago by the Government of Canada when it classified all of its works programs in Canada as training programs. You cannot get money any more to build a water system in Canada through the Department of Employment. The current works programs in Canada that the Government brags about every day were changed when the Government came to power. Therefore, you cannot get money any more to put in a
Quality of Water
water system in Canada to alleviate the problem of children and parents drinking contaminated water.
How many times can you train somebody to put down a pipe? How many times can you train somebody to dig a ditch with a pick and shovel? So the Government of Canada says: "All works programs in Canada are training programs, and if you cannot train somebody for an occupation, you cannot have the money." Today there are communities with contaminated water in their water systems and they cannot solve that problem because the Government of Canada has changed the rules. It has said that unless you are training a worker for employment that he can have for the rest of his days, then you cannot get any money.
Just imagine what a foul act that was. What an absolutely outrageous act by the Government of Canada-hundreds of communities in Canada today with pipes under the water leading from a pond or a lake. There has been $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 spent on a pipe under the ground and they cannot continue the construction. Why? Because the Government of Canada changed the rules midstream and said: "You cannot have money any more unless you are training everybody for a job that they can have in the future and a job that is needed in your area."
The local authority says: "Well, I want to put in a section of water line." The Government says: "No, no, you have got to prove that that ditch digger is being trained to dig a ditch so that he will have a job in the future."
That is what the criteria is for every works program in Canada today. For every job creation program funded by the federal Government today in Canada, the only criteria is that you must be training somebody for a job that is needed in that area and that you are going to give him training so that he is going to be able to work after that job is over. That is all job creation projects in Canada today, including the Job Development Program, the Job Strategy Program and Section 25 which is employment under the Unemployment Insurance Act. So all jobs in Canada funded by this Tory Government areonly for training. They say: "To heck with what it does. Who cares", says the Government of Canada, "if people are drinking contaminated water? Who cares if

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
children are getting sick every day? Who cares if they have got half their water line under the ground?" A small community with $200,000 or $300,000 spent in water line under the ground, and it has been like that for five years since the rules were changed by the Government of Canada.
Then the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) stands up in the House and brags about it and says: "Look how many people we are training for jobs in Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.




Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That the debate on second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-20, and on any amendments proposed thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from voting on this motion this evening because I had the honour of being chosen to chair the legislative committee that will consider this Bill. So to show my impartiality, I abstained from voting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister.


Mr. Mayer:: I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast was absent for the vote, but he wanted me to convey to the House that if he had been here he would have abstained.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Whatever is going on in the ranks across the aisle, I remind Members that there is no such
Excise Tax Act
thing as an abstention in the House of Commons. It means that the hon. gentleman was absent for the vote.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Bill C-20 was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres had the floor and had completed his speech.
The question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech is now available to Members, otherwise the Chair is prepared to recognize an Hon. Member for debate.
Since there are no questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Cambridge on debate.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise lax Act and the Excise Act, contains legislative amendments required to implement the federal sales and excise tax and duty changes announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his April Budget.
The Budget proposes tax increases across the range of major revenue sources: sales tax, excise levies, personal income tax, and corporate tax. A major element of the Government's revenue strategy is the replacement of the existing manufacturers' sales tax with a new system on January 1,1991. Sales tax reform will be implemented in a manner consistent with the projected medium term debt plan.
Canadians will hardly be surprised that the largest single item in the budget expenditures consists of the public debt program, which provides for the interest and servicing costs of the public debt and for the issuing cost of new loans.
In the Budget the Minister of Finance identified Canada's large and growing public debt as a serious obstacle standing in the way of our continued economic and social programs. The Minister of Finance spoke of the need to address the problem of our accumulated

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
debt so as to maintain our capacity to achieve our economic potential in the years ahead and to meet the social and cultural priorities of Canadians.
As most Canadians are aware, public debt charges are forecast at $39.4 billion for 1989-90. That is an increase of some $6.4 billion from the Estimates for 1988-89. This is an increase of nearly 20 per cent in only one year and reflects the recent surge in short-term interest rates both here in Canada and abroad.
This illustrates, as dramatically as any words, the extent to which our huge debt has left Canada exposed and why we must bring the debt under control. It will require all the debt control measures the Minister of Finance announced in the Budget, as tough as they are, to offset or almost offset the projected increase in debt costs. Taken together, our expenditure reductions and revenue increases will produce $5 billion this year and $9 billion next year. As a result, by next year the public debt will stop growing faster than the economy for the first time since the 1970s.
The second major category of spending comprises fiscal transfer payments to the provinces. The great bulk of those payments are made under the fiscal equalization program. This consists of the unconditional transfer payments made to ensure that provincial Governments have sufficient revenues to enable them to have reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
Even with the tight spending controls dictated by the debt burden, this Government's support for a wide range of vital national services through these transfer payments is growing. Equalization transfers account for $7.3 billion in the 1989-90 Estimates.
This enabling legislation, Bill C-20, contains a number of important revenue raising measures, including increases in the existing federal sales tax rate and increases in the excise levies on tobacco products and gasoline.
Pending the implementation of sales tax reform, the existing rates of federal sales tax will be raised as follows: the 18 per cent rate on tobacco and alcohol increases to 19 per cent. The fiscal impact is to increase revenues because of this measure by $55 million in the 1989-90 fiscal year and by $70 million in the 1990-91 fiscal year.
A second measure is the 10 per cent rate on telecommunication and programming services will increase to 11 per cent. The fiscal impact will result in increased revenues of $80 million in 1989-90 and $110 million in 1990-91.
The 8 per cent rate on construction material and equipment for buildings will become effective January 1, 1990 and this increases to 9 per cent. As a result of this measure, the fiscal impact will be $40 million in 1989-90 and $255 million in 1990-91.
Finally, the 12 per cent general federal sales tax rate will increase to 13.5 per cent. The fiscal impact will increase revenues in 1989-90 by $1,140 billion and in 1990-91 by $1.6 billion.
Since the new goods and services tax will be implemented on January 1, 1991, the Government will not proceed with the interim measures proposed in the February 1988 Budget relating to the treatment of marketing and distribution costs and to wholesale licences. The fiscal impact on revenue measures will be a reduction in the estimated revenues, because of not proceeding with the interim measures, of $520 million in 1989-90 and $370 million in 1990-91.
In order to protect low income Canadians against the impact of these sales tax increases, the refundable sales tax credit for adults will be increased from $70 to $100 in 1989 and to $140 in 1990. The credit for children will be raised from $35 to $50 in 1989 and to $70 in 1990. For a family of four that will represent in 1990 a sales tax credit of $420.
The income threshold at which the credit begins to be phased out will be increased from $16,000 to $18,000 in 1990. As the refundable sales tax credit is paid through the personal income tax system, personal income tax revenues will be lowered by $135 million in 1989-90 and will be lowered by a further $465 million in 1990-91.
I would also add that further enhancements of the refundable sales tax credit will accompany the introduction of the goods and services tax reform in 1991. The following changes in excise levies are also proposed. In the area of fuel tax increases Bill C-20 implements increases in excise taxes on gasoline of one cent per litre effective April 28, 1989, and an additional one cent per litre as of January 1, 1990. These increases will yield $215
June 26, 1989

million in 1989 and $640 million in 1990 in additional revenues to be used to address the problem of the public debt.
The excise tax on leaded gasoline and leaded aviation gasoline is increased by a further one cent per litre effective April 28, 1989, to discourage the use of leaded fuel. This increase in tax on leaded fuel will accelerate the decline in the use of this type of fuel in recognition of the hazards to the environment and the health of Canadians caused by lead emissions from gasoline.
The excise tax on diesel fuel is not being increased.
There is also a fuel tax rebate program. Bill C-20 extends the sales tax portion of the fuel tax rebate program for primary producers for one additional year to December 31, 1990. The fuel tax rebate program was established in the fall of 1984 as a temporary measure.
Under the program, farmers, fishermen, hunters, trappers, miners and loggers are entitled to receive rebates of federal sales tax and excise taxes on vehicle fuels used for off-highway production purposes. Under the new goods and services tax to be implemented on January 1, 1991, all commercial users will be entitled to recover federal sales tax on business inputs. The rebate of the federal sales tax to primary producers in respect to fuels used for off-highway production purposes will be extended for one additional year pending implementation of the goods and services tax.
Thus, in 1990, farmers will continue to receive sales tax rebates of 3.5 cents per litre in respect of gasoline and diesel fuel for off-highway production purposes. Other primary producers will receive rebates of three cents per litre. The cost of this extension is estimated to be $125 million.
The excise tax portion on the fuel tax rebate program will expire as scheduled on December 31, 1989.
There are also taxes on tobacco products which have been increased substantially.
These measures will raise approximately $900 million in 1989-90 and $970 million in 1990-91.
I would like to conclude my remarks with the words of a tough talking Finance Minister who rose to preach of his belt-tightening Budget. He said:
Excise Tax Act
We intend to continue severe restraint-our experience this past year, and the prospects next year, force us all to recognize the essential problem of the control of public expenditures in Canada
today.
Those words ring as true today as they did on October 22,1968, when Finance Minister Edgar Benson delivered the first Budget of the flower power and just society Trudeau Liberals.
The rhetoric of restraint will always be the same, but this time this Government will take hard action to back it up.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to speak on Bill C-20, which implements various budget measures previously announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Indeed, after the recent comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) I feel renewed vigour in taking this opportunity to participate in the debate this evening.
Bill C-20 contains the legislative amendments required to implement the federal sales and excise tax and duty changes announced in the Budget. During the debates in the House on the Budget, even though I was on the Speaker's roster, due to the number of Members wishing to speak I never did have that opportunity. Thus I am doing so this evening.
My comments this evening will incorporate my reflections on both the excise tax Bill and the government Budget.
All Canadians today are concerned with the annual deficit and the national debt. However, with respect to this Budget and, in particular Bill C-20, the result is very disappointing. Whatever objective the Government had in mind, the Budget has failed to set up a proper course.
In particular I want to address this Bill in the context of three possible budgetary objectives, objectives which the Government espoused in its Speech from the Throne, namely, fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, social fairness and investing in Canada's future.
By any measure the Government has not only failed to make progress on these fronts but seems to be going backward. The Government's budgetary approach is full of contradictions, half measures and false starts. One example is the impact of the manufacturers sales tax on the average Canadian family through the imposition of this tax increase from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. This is

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
the most insidious form of taxation, one that is hidden and one which particularly hurts lower income Canadians.
In terms of fiscal responsibility, the Government has slashed some programs, raised taxes and with what do we end up? A deficit that is $1.6 billion bigger than last year. It is almost comical.
By end of next year the total national debt will be $350 billion. In 1984 it was $200 billion. Thus in little over five years the Government will be well on its way to doubling the national debt.
What is more astounding is that these five years have been a period of strong economic growth, ones in which government revenues have increased by over $30 billion annually. Yet the Government has failed to apply this increased revenue against the deficit. Obviously, we have a Government that was taxing us to the limit while continuing to overspend.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) now seems to have decided the culprit is in interest rates, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Bank of Canada's fiscal policies are largely set as the result of government direction. Any inflationary feelings we are having in the country today are due to the high interest rates that his own Government has imposed on Canadians. Yet when we hear of the Government spending $2.7 million on ads to educate the public about the Budget or $25,000 to count rose bushes in the PM's backyard one begins to wonder if there are not other reasons.
In the area of social fairness both inside and outside the country we are backtracking on our commitments. Foreign aid has been cut back by $360 million directly contradicting our stated commitment to increased funding levels to 6 per cent of the Gross National Product.
The closing of Armed Forces bases across the countiy will particularly hurt the economy of regions such as the province in which I grew up, Prince Edward Island. To take 1,300 jobs out of the economy of P.E.I. is equal to taking 35,000 jobs out of the economy of Quebec, or closing the auto plants in Ontario. If one does not think that Ontarians and Quebecers would be up in arms if we took those jobs out of their economies then one would be in for a surprise.
The relative burden of tax on lower to middle-income Canadians continues to rise. A family with an income of $32,000 pays $680 more in taxes than it did in 1984, while those with incomes greater than $100,000 pay less. With the implementation of the regressive 9 per cent federal sales tax in 1991 matters will only get worse. The Government continues its short-sighted approach toward investing in Canada's future. The new federal sales tax will create an administrative nightmare for small and medium-sized businesses.
Despite the Government's stated commitment to science and technology, it is continuing to cut back or eliminate some of the most successful programs used by small and medium-sized high-tech firms. The Defence Industry Productivity Program, of great assistance to defence related industries, will be cut back by $25 million in 1991. Worse still, the Unsolicited Proposals Program will be eliminated entirely. What was previously called an integral part of the Government's contracting out policy in science and technology, the UPP, is to be phased out. In one fell swoop, the Government has wiped out one of the best ways of assisting the start up of small and medium-sized high-tech firms. I am beginning to think the Government does not know the difference between investment and expenditure.
The Budget will mean fewer jobs for Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada predicts that 97,000 jobs are being lost and they predict that unemployment will rise from 7.7 per cent to 8.5 per cent.
What are the serious effects of the Budget? First, post-secondary education and health cases are being seriously affected with the Government's failure to continue its commitment to fund our colleges, universities and hospitals. Taxes on a traditional family with one income earner and two children have gone up more than seven times faster than families with high incomes. Taxes on families with children have increased more than families without children. The Budget discriminates against families in which one parent is the primary income earner.
The Budget is an attack on the elderly. The so-called claw-back of old age security benefits is one area that definitely warrants further attention. At first glance, the claw-back provision seems reasonable, but when one begins to assess it, one suddenly realizes that the old age

Excise Tax Act
pension benefits will be taxed back at a rate of 15 per cent on individual incomes over $50,000, rising to 100 per cent for incomes reaching $76,000.
According to the Government, this measure will affect only 4.3 per cent of seniors. As one senior's organization put it to me, however, this is but the thin edge of the wedge because the $50,000 threshold is to rise at a rate of 3 per cent less than inflation. Claw-back will start at $36,000 by the year 2,000, and in 20 years it will start at $28,000 and affect two million Canadians.
Furthermore, the whole approach is full of anomalies. One income earner families with salaries over $50,000 will be taxed, but a wife and husband each earning $50,000 or less will not. High-income seniors will find themselves paying more tax than individuals under 65 earning the same income, while seniors who live permanently outside Canada will not be taxed on their old age security cheques at all. Add this to the new sales tax slated for 1991 and cuts to federal funding for medicare, and the result is an unprecedented tax grab on the seniors of this country.
This Budget is an attack on the dairy farmers as well. Our farmers have been told that there will be a capping of their milk quotas for the next two to three years. Milk capping means no new revenue, yet their costs will continue to escalate. Who would want to be told that their salary will stay where it is for the next two to three years?
In addition, after 1990, farmers will be charged excise tax on farm gasoline when the sales tax reform is implemented.
All Canadians are concerned and most anxious to see the deficit reduced, but not on the backs of low-income people, families and our adult population. There is a great concern in the country today as is reflected in the amount of mail that is coming into my office from people in my riding of Nepean alone. They are stressing the points I have mentioned in my speech today. They are extremely worried about their future and the future of their children and grandchildren.
I ask, indeed, beg the Government to reconsider some of the measures in its Budget proposals and to try to have compassion for Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a few questions and to make a speech in the House this evening, particularly when the Minister of State for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (Mr. McDermid) is present, as is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Dobbie), because during my last speech in the House she kept heckling me and I found that rather challenging. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to do so again this evening.

In my submission, Bill C-20 is a bad Bill and should be rejected. I want to talk about some of the more pernicious tax increases contained in the Bill. First, let me summarize its effect briefly. The rates of federal sales tax are increased from 18 per cent to 19 per cent on alcoholic beverages; from 10 per cent to 11 per cent on telecommunication services and telecommunication programming services; from 8 per cent to 9 per cent on construction materials; and from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent on all other taxable goods.
The Government maintains that those tax increases will generate an additional $2 billion in its first full year of operation. That is $2 billion more in tax revenue to help feed the insatiable appetite of the Government for public spending which it has done on a most impressive and continuous scale of increase, despite its phoney protestations to the contrary.
The tax increases the Government has proposed, along with the others it has implemented since it was first elected in 1984, represent the largest tax increases any government has imposed on Canadians in our history. Frankly, it is a shocking record of financial neglect, financial mismanagement, and ministerial incompetence on a scale we have not witnessed since the Diefenbaker Government in the 1950s and the early 1960s. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Dobbie) laughs. I recognize that laugh, a nervous laugh of those who realize that defeat is imminent. The Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) is getting into the act.
They may feel comfortable in their majority in the House, but they are worried. They know that Members like the Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) will be deserting the Party on crucial votes in the House.

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
Sooner or later, people will come to their senses on the other side and desert the Government in sufficient numbers that bad Bills like this will be defeated on the floor of the House of Commons and we will go to the people to let them decide whether a Bill imposing these kinds of taxes is what they want.
I want to deal with Bill C-20 in the context of the leaky Budget that Members will recall was introduced in the House on April 26. Let me refer to some figures prepared by Global Economics Limited, an Ottawa based economic consulting firm which did an in depth analysis of the income distribution implications of the Budget. They have developed a new social policy simulation data base and model. Apparently Statistics Canada refers to it as "a powerful new tool with which to analyse the impact of tax and social policy changes". So it is widely acknowledged to be an extremely effective computer model which is quite useful for doing the kind of economic analysis which is helpful in determining the effect of the tax changes that have been introduced.
When this Budget has been fully implemented-the Hon. Members should try to contain themselves. I know they will want to make speeches later. I know the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South will want to speak in this debate, because her constituents will want to see her views on this Budget. They will want to know how much she supports this kind of Bill that taxes them to the hilt. I do not believe they are in favour of these tax changes, and she may want to remember that come next election.
When these budget measures have been fully implemented, the additional tax burden per family will on average across Canada be $382 per year more out of people's pockets. Let us hear the really unjust part. If you do not think that is unfair, Mr. Speaker, of that $382, $151 of it will be in personal taxes; that is, in income type taxes. The remaining $231 will be in consumption taxes, sales taxes, the kind we are discussing in this wicked Bill tonight that the Government is suggesting that we pass.
I want, as a passing note, to remark that this Bill, having been debated once in this Chamber for a matter of hours on Tuesday morning, June 6, is now being brought forward for debate starting at about 7.40 p.m. tonight under closure. This Government is trampling on the rights of Parliament in order to force this unpopular
Budget on the people. A Liberal Government has never used closure on any budget bill. This is a complete breach of parliamentary practice. It is a shocking display of the inability of the Government to come to grips with the fact that it was elected to be responsible to this House of Commons. That is what it was elected to do and it is not being responsible. It is trampling all over this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Hon. Members laugh at the trampling of the rights of Parliament. Eighty-three per cent of Canadian families will see their after tax income drop as a result of this Budget. Indeed, half of those whose earnings are less than $25,000 a year will see their after tax incomes drop.
This Budget is particularly hard on the elderly. One million, three hundred thousand elderly Canadian taxpayers will experience a decline in 1990 in their after tax income as a direct result of this Budget and of the tax measures contained in Bill C-20 that we are discussing tonight.


An Hon. Member:: It is not funny.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is not funny, and indeed I just today had three letters from constituents of mine complaining about these claw-back provisions. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Cooper) is finding this amusing. I do not find the harsh treatment of seniors by the Budget a laughing matter. I think the Government should be ashamed of itself for the tax changes that it has proposed in this respect.
I had three letters today from constituents who are seniors and who had contributed through Old Age Security-I wish there were not so many interruptions, Mr. Speaker. It is disconcerting to continue with a sensible speech when Hon. Members opposite continually heckle. I see that the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) has disappeared and I know he agrees with everything I am saying.
I had three letters today from constituents in Kingston complaining about the fact that they have contributed money for years through the Old Age Security tax to the old age system. Now they are being deprived of the income that they would have expected to get but for the claw-back provisions contained in the Budget. They maintain it is unfair. I maintain it is unfair and Hon.
June 26, 1989

Members opposite obviously are ashamed of that tax. That is why they are doing all this yelling and interrupting because they do not want to hear how bad this is.


John Horton McDermid: The Liberal Party suggested that. The Member from Etobicoke suggested that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Let me read from a speech given at the time of the introduction of this Bill by the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Loiselle). Hon. Members opposite will want to hear these pearls of wisdom from their own front bench.
He said, as reported at page 2640 of Hansard:
The federal sales tax is also the centrepiece of another key element of our strategy to strengthen Canada's economy and preserve essential programs.
Of course their idea of essential programs and everyone else's apparently are different. We have cuts in VIA Rail which we consider exceedingly important. We have cuts in defence spending which we did not in every case consider quite so important, but in certain cases we consider extremely important, and we have unfair tax measures. Those are what are called essential programs apparently by the Minister of State (Finance). He went on at page 2642 of Hansard, and referring to the Budget, he said:
It recognizes the need to build on our progress to date and to take firm action at this time to ensure that we can pass on to the next generation the ability to protect and strengthen the fundamental values that are so much a part of life in Canada.
I wish we knew what were the fundamental values that the Minister of State (Finance) thought were so much a part of Canadian life. It seems to me that this Government has done irreparable harm to all those values in this Budget. One of the values that we as Canadians have cherished for years is the element of fairness in the tax system, and I suggest that the changes proposed in Bill C-20 that hike that most regressive of taxes is hardly what could be called fair. Indeed, it is contrary to the values of Canadians who believe that fairness in the tax system is an essential principle upon which our country operates.
I do not want to let my hon. friends on my left think that I am ignoring them. Of course their views on the subject of budgets are very important, too. I had prepared this speech to deliver on the day that we started discussing this measure, on June 6, and I had a veiy
Excise Tax Act
timely newspaper account that I had received that day which I thought was going to be of some assistance. I realize it is a bit dated now, but the New Democratic Party always tries to blame tax changes on us. We heard it earlier today where they were maintaining that there was some kind of alliance between this Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. Everybody knows that is rubbish and nonsense. It is more frequent, it seems to me, that the New Democratic Party agrees with the Progressive Conservative Party. They often agree on various things because once you get around the circle of political spectrum, the right and left tend to meet, and that is what is happening here.
I want to read a quotation from The Winnipeg Free Press of June 4,1989. It was a report of a speech that was being delivered by their Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I guess he was making what was to be his swan song before the Manitoba Liberal Convention-sorry, not the Liberal-the Manitoba New Democratic Party Convention. There is more mention of Liberals and Conservatives in this than there is about NDPers. But then there are more of both in Manitoba, I am told.
This is apparently paraphrasing the Hon. Member for
Oshawa:
While the Conservatives talk about the sacred trust during elections and break that pledge in power, the Liberals talk like New Democrats when wooing votes and act like Conservatives after the polls close.


An Hon. Member:: When?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: This is what the Hon. Member for Oshawa said. He continued:
One happens to be in power. The other happens to be in opposition.
The thing that is peculiar about that, Mr. Speaker, and you will see in a minute why, is that he was speaking in a province where the New Democratic Party had been in power, and it was suddenly no longer even in opposition. It was reduced to third-party status. The reason it appears that that happened was that the New Democratic Party government began to act like a Conservative Government while it was in office. It started raising taxes the way this Conservative Government is doing here in Ottawa. The people of Manitoba had the good sense to give them the heave ho. I will read the rest of this excellent article. The article continues:

Excise Tax Act
Broadbent also had soothing words for the Manitoba party, turfed last year from power in a provincial election that gave the NDP a humbling 12 seats in the legislature.
All movements suffer losses and the electorate punishes mistakes, but people eventually see where their best interests are, he said. "They'll go back very quickly to the NDP in this province."
Now, the polls certainly do not indicate that they are returning to that particular fold. Indeed, the polls indicate that they are turning with renewed enthusiasm and interest to the Liberal Party. The Hon. Member from Portage-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann), who obviously has problems in his own riding, had the good sense to abstain on one of the votes on the Budget because he knew what a disaster the Budget would be for him electorally. I am surprised that the same thing has not occurred with more Hon. Members opposite. The Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) must be shaking in his boots. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Dobbie) must be shaking in her boots, because she must know that her chances in the next election are slimming fast. Those are the Minister of State's new boots, presumably purchased for the Budget.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis, on talking the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) out of resigning, said:
I don't expect to succeed, especially now that Ed Broadbent has been offered a full-time job with the Royal Canadian Air Farce.
That is a quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press. And here in this Budget the Government opposite is cutting back on the CBC. How can the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) take his position with the CBC when the Government is cutting back its budget? How can the Royal Canadian Air Farce appear as regularly as it ought to?
We have here an illustration of the kind of problem that the New Democratic Party gets into whenever it gets into office. It starts to act the way this Government is acting; it hikes taxes and it pays no attention to the wishes of the people. Liberal Governments, on the other hand, in general-there has been the odd exception but it is a very odd exception-have tended to fairness in the tax system. The record indicates that we, as a Party-and of course I do not claim to have been a member or supporter of any of the Governments in terms of being a supporter in this House in the past-but as a Party we
tend to have introduced very fair and reasonable tax changes, not the kind of unfair, regressive, harsh and improper measures that are contained in Bill C-20.


John Horton McDermid: What about Allan MacEachen?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Hon. Minister of State for Privatization refers to the former Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen. He was an excellent Minister of Finance, indeed there was a string of excellent Ministers of Finance under Liberal Governments. I would like to refer him to Mr. Benson whom his colleague from Cambridge was quoting a little while ago. He was one of my predecessors as Member for Kingston and the Islands and he presented excellent budgets in this House. No one has stood up here and dumped on those budgets to date. I know that the Conservative Party ranted and raved a bit at the time, but nowadays his budgets are held as reason and light compared with the leaky budgets we are getting from this Minister of Finance. Canadians never objected to the taxes imposed by Mr. Benson the way they have opposed the huge taxes that have been imposed by this Government, and Mr. Benson's budgets were occasionally balanced. He did not bring in a string of budgets over a five-year period that doubled the national debt and led to a complete breakdown of the financial management of the country.
In this Budget we are witnessing a complete failure of a Government to deal with the debt problem. Government Members keep talking about how much they are going to do about the national deficit but in fact they have done nothing, the reduction has been minimal. In fact, the deficit increased this year, and the Minister of State for Privatization knows that. All his pious posturing comes to nothing in this. He must realize that the largest tax increases are being made in this Budget and yet the reduction in the national debt is zero; it has gone up, very significantly up.


Mrs. Dobbie:: No, no.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South shakes her head. Obviously she does not read the Government's own figures because it is perfectly clear that the deficit was $29 billion last year and it is $32.5 billion this year according to the Minister of Finance. That is my recollection of the figures. I may be out a billion or two but not by much more than that.


John Horton McDermid: What's a billion to a Liberal?
June 26, 1989


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What's a billion to this Minister of Finance? With a $340 billion national debt, what is one more billion? It obviously does not matter to him and it obviously does not matter to the Hon. Members opposite. The only person who seems to care is the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) and I congratulate him for his good thinking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that he were more persuasive than I and was able to convince some of his colleagues to vote the way he has.
I know that you would like me to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I know that Canadians reject this Budget, they reject this Bill, and I suggest to all Hon. Members that when the vote comes at one o'clock tomorrow morning we vote against this Bill and reject it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we are witnessing a debate or a live performance of the Royal Canadian Air Farce. I listened to the Member on the Government side moments ago reading dispassionately, almost with the numerical enthusiasm of an accountant, a list of all of the taxes, with no emotional content at all, except his glee that the numbers were so big. That was followed by a little giggling on the other side, only starting, however, because the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) had not yet taken full flight of his senses and referred to the New Democratic Government of Manitoba in what I would say were scurrilous terms. He did not say anything about the small thinking that characterizes the Liberal Government of Ontario. A presidential candidate in the United States talked about a thousand points of light, in Ontario they had only one "Starr".
This is the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. This is supposed to be the place where the will and desire of the common people are to be reflected. I know that you will be saying that the nomenclature is to draw a distinction between the inherited nobility and the others. There is a new nobility in this country and that nobility was not established by the Conservative Government, it had its beginnings in the Liberal Government.
We have a situation in this country where it is perfectly clear that there is a relatively small number of people, powerful people, monied people, and their lawyers and accountants, who make huge quantities of money advis-
Excise Tax Act
ing that new nobility how to avoid taxes. Indeed, they tell Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, how they can not only write tax laws so that the new nobility will not suffer, but as well how to convince the ordinary, average Canadian-who is not a part of that clique of old-school ties and monied network-that this is the best of all possible worlds, that he and she is being treated very fairly and that even if they are collecting unemployment insurance or welfare, they had better be seriously concerned about this deficit.
The Government of the people has been taken away from the people. It has been taken away in the form of taxes which are imposed most heavily on the poor and the middle class while those who have consistently filled the coffers of the Conservative and Liberal Parties have continued to be spared.
The analysis is a very simple one.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is drivel.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, he will probably argue that there was no Carter Commission and that Mr. MacEachen's attempt to produce a truly equitable tax system was not turned down by a Cabinet that he would certainly defend, no doubt.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You opposed the Budget, too. Don't give me that nonsense.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The evidence is clear. What we have before us is a piece of legislation which will add a further burden on ordinary Canadians in the form of regressive taxes. I am sure I do not have to explain that to the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken). He seems well educated on the nature of the tax system. I do not know why he did not say something about this, instead of engaging in this silly little tete a tete with those Members on the other side who do not really give a dam anyway about the effects of this Budget on ordinary people.
Let us make sure that we have this firmly in our minds, because I want the Canadian people to have it firmly in their minds. Between 1984 and 1988, the average family of two parents and two children were burdened with an additional $1,300 in taxes; $900 of that was in the form of consumption taxes, in the form of regressive taxes, taxes that will constitute a higher proportion of the wages of

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
those who earn relatively little as compared with those who earn a lot.
If somebody is making something in the order of $10,000 a year, the regressive tax increases which have been provided by this Government would hit him to the extent of 11 per cent.
However, if somebody is making $40,000, it hits him to the extent of 7.7 per cent. And if somebody is making real money, it probably will not be noticed at all, because it is not going to amount to much more than 4 per cent. That is what a regressive tax means. It means that a higher proportion of the wages of the poor and the middle class is paid in the form of taxes because when they make the purchases of those things they need-and I am not talking about a cabin on the lake. I am not talking about a yacht. I am not talking about a Cadillac. I am not talking about a BMW. I am talking about the ordinary necessities of everyday life. If somebody is making $10,000 a year, that is 11 per cent of what is spent, because just about everything is going to go on consumption taxes.
Then we have this piece of legislation which we are dealing with this evening, Bill C-20. That adds even further to the burden. Depending on whether you smoke a lot or drive a lot, you will be paying an additional $500 to $700 more in consumption taxes, in sales and excise taxes. That means a total of an additional $1,500 for that average family of four which I was talking about. That is supposed to be fair?
This is being imposed upon the poor and the middle class. They just do not have the power, the influence, the newspapers, the editorial columnists and the accountants to protect them. So long as that is true, governments like that across the way and Liberal governments before who started this business will get away with it unless people begin to realize that they are having it socked to them. They had better be getting so mad that they are not going to take it any more. I am sure that the evidence is mounting to the point where the people in Canada are not going to take it any more. They are not going to have this money stolen out of their pockets to benefit the few, while nothing is done to improve this country as far as they are concerned in terms of their security and jobs for their children.


An Hon. Member:: They are all going to vote NDP.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The hon. gentleman over here said that they are all going to vote NDP. There may be some changes in the winds of Canada such that ordinary people are not going to take this any more. They are not going to be the constant source for every little increment in taxes intended to spare the burden on those who have already got too much.
Listen to the litany of new taxes. Can you imagine this, Mr. Speaker? The Government is going to increase the tax on construction materials and equipment from 8 per cent to 9 per cent. We desperately need more taxes on construction materials. We need to increase the cost of housing. That is dreadfully necessary. That is a significant contribution to the welfare of the economy.
The Hon. Member across the way thought it rather peculiar that the Member for Kingston and the Islands was criticizing the increase in the sales tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. However, there is something, I suppose, to be said about taxing the sins of the people. One might say, however, that the Government is making life so difficult that even with the increased tax they may be pushed in the direction of paying that extra money just to get some surcease from the sorrow imposed upon them by this Government.
Let us go on. An increase in the sales tax on telecommunications from 10 per cent to 11 per cent. I understand from the comments of the Member for the Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) that this alone will cost something in the order of $4 million additional in the Yukon. We have no estimates of the increased costs for long distance calls for those who live in rural communities who are dependent upon long distance telephones for communication. Who is going to pay? The great mass of ordinary Canadians will pay a far higher percentage of their incomes in paying for that than will those who this Government represents.
The Government is going to increase the sales tax on all goods from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. There is to be two increases in the excise tax on gasoline. One cent a litre now, one cent a litre later. That is a really popular tax in Windsor. We like the idea of it costing more to drive automobiles, so we sell fewer of them. That is a good idea, too. Yes, this Government is full of good ideas, good ideas which generally affect those who have the least power and those who cannot respond to the influence of those who want to maintain positions of wealth. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to say that we have a deficit. That is true. We have a deficit. I
June 26, 1989

would submit that much of this deficit is caused by the silliness that has been pursued in the constant effort to spare those who ought not to be spared from paying their fair share.
We have heard that the deficit is caused because there are too many expenditures on social programs and all kinds of nonsense. Of course, in response to that kind of statement and belief-I am not so sure it is really a belief, I think it is just a little bit of propaganda that the very wealthy get away with and the Government is pleased to carry forward. Elowever, the notion out there is that social programs are what contribute to the deficit. Of course, we have these rearrangements in the UIC to increase by 50 per cent the payments that workers are going to have to put in even though the outcome of all of this will be fewer benefits, longer qualifying periods and shorter periods during which they will be able to collect it.
I could cite any number of taxes on social programs intended to respond to this notion that the deficit is really about too many expenditures on social programs. We know better, Mr. Speaker. Consider a drop in the marginal rate of income tax from 43 per cent to 29 per cent. I would suggest that that must have made a significant contribution to the deficit.
Considering that in the last 20 years the contribution to income tax by corporations has dropped from around 50 per cent to 11 per cent, I would think that would have something to do with the deficit as well. We have this interest rate thing and that is an interesting one, too. Interest rates have gone up by about 4 per cent. That accounts for about $6 billion in the deficit. In other words, there are alternatives that could have been chosen to get rid of the deficit and maintain some fairness in the system. The New Democratic Party is bound and determined that this country will have a system of taxation which will be fair, not to the special interests and the new nobility that the Government is proud to represent, but a system that will ensure that people will pay their fair share and get their fair share.
I am sure that there are those on the other side who will say that the New Democratic Party has expressed concern about the manufacturers' tax. We are concerned
Excise Tax Act
about the manufacturers' tax. But we do not see that a solution to the manufacturers' tax is adding yet another 9 per cent, upping the ante from some $23 billion to $40 billion in consumption taxes, amounting to another $1,000 taken out of the pockets of the ordinary Canadians, the poor and the middle class. That is unacceptable. This is a tax that is peculiar in a number of ways. First you see it, then you don't. You may see it and maybe you won't. The Government has not made up its mind if it is going to be secret. It would prefer to have it secret, but my God, it would have to break a promise. Oh, well, it hasn't had too many problems with broken promises in the past.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this new goods and services tax, the other shoe to drop in the so-called tax reform, should be wiped from the boards and a whole new approach used that will eliminate this constant push for imposing more and more regressive and hurtful taxes on those who are least able to pay so as to ensure that those who have the money in their pockets pay their fair share. We have a number of suggestions in that regard: optimize the rate on high income earners; impose a minimum tax, a good left wing socialist minimum tax on corporations like that introduced by Ronald Reagan in the United States.
Let us talk about an addition to a fair marginal rate, an increasingly marginal rate of income tax if we are to ensure that wealth is equitably distributed, not punitively distributed, but equitably distributed. We should choose a tax that will not offend the notions of encouraging investment. So let us talk about a tax and not wealth. Let us talk about a tax that taxes what should be taxed, what you have, not what you get each year. One per cent a year is $20 billion to $30 billion a year in new revenue. Some of the wealthiest of the nobility have, in fact, suggested that that would be a good, innovative and fair approach. That is what we should pursue.
There is no way in this world, not under any circumstances, could any member of the New Democratic Party support this Bill before us tonight. There is no way a well-informed citizen of this country, making less than $50,000 a year, could vote for this legislation. We represent those people.


An Hon. Member:: Well, a few of them.


John Horton McDermid: Come on.

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We in this chamber represent those whose interests we will ourselves to represent, whether they vote for us or not. We are strong on principle. We stand on a principle of fairness and fairness says that Bill C-20 should be rejected.


An Hon. Member:: Ele is ranting and raving.


John Horton McDermid: What a pious pomp.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has said it very well. I am not sure what I can add, but I want to make a few comments on Bill C-20, the Bill on excise and sales tax. We could be calling it an example of sorry Tory tax reform, part 2.
First, we are debating a piece of legislation, the results of which to some extent taxpayers are already feeling the bite. Some aspects of this legislation came into force on June 1, 1989. Other aspects came into force on April 28. Taxes on cigarettes were increased in April and are due to increase again on October 1. This is interesting, as we have already learned that distributors made huge windfall profits on the first hikes on cigarettes which was based on inventory and on which they subsequently charged the new tax.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) has admitted that he is concerned enough about this possibility of people making profits, basically speculating on the Budget, and he is concerned enough that he will take these concerns to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Whether they will be addressed by October 1, we do not know. Again it is the taxpayer, the ordinary Canadian about which the previous Member spoke so eloquently, who pays the price in the end.
As for the stock market, those who choose to speculate do it knowingly and I am sure that some businesses can speculate on tax increases. This is hardly something that can be considered fair and hardly something which taxpayers can feel is an equitable burden.
There is the question of the manufacturers' sales tax, a tax which the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) on June 6 called seriously flawed. There has been much discussion in committee and in the House on the evils of the manufacturers' sales tax and why the proposed goods and services tax of the Government will redress those evils. What does the Government do about this seriously
flawed tax? Did it make an attempt to make it fair? Did the Government make an attempt to address the flaws? No. The Government ensured, by increasing the manufacturers' sales tax by 1.5 per cent, that it would deal with this seriously flawed tax by making it worse. This characterizes much of the Budget planning and policy of the Government.
The people who are the consumers are those who see an increasing tax bite out of their pockets and we see more and more people living day to day on that average salary.
I was speaking earlier to my colleague from Saskatchewan. He pointed out to me that in a survey he saw recently more than half of the people in one of the communities he was looking at in Saskatchewan were living below the poverty line. These are the ones who suffer the most from this kind of hidden and regressive tax system. These are the people who will feel that 1-cent increase on gasoline the most. Not only will it affect them personally, but they will see it in public transit and everything else.
I mentioned before that in dealing with the flawed manufacturers' sales tax the Government has chosen to take the tack of entrenching it as opposed to redressing it. Then the Government tries to tell us that the proposed sales tax on every purchase, the goods and services tax, will be good for us, that it will make things fairer and change the inequities of things like the manufacturers' sales tax. During the debate on the Budget leak, the Minister assured the House that no profits would be made as a result of this leak. He assured us that when tax reform came into effect, the personal surtax would be removed. Later he said he would not be doing that. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) also explained that the new sales and service tax would get rid of the hidden aspect of the taxes we are discussing under this Bill. Now we learn that they will not be visible.
In fact, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Valcourt) said on June 11, not very long ago, that he felt that visibility in a tax system is the only way to ensure that consumers in the end do not get ripped off. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was speaking to a meeting of the Consumers' Association. We would agree with him, but in this Bill, there is an
June 26, 1989

increase in taxes without redressing the inequities and unfairness.
This is one of the great concerns regarding the hidden aspect of consumption taxes. I cannot accept a sign on the wall as visibility. Everyone would need to have a calculator to calculate 9 per cent or 10 per cent of the price. When consumers see a tax at the bottom of the bills, they know exactly what they are paying. They know what percentage of the purchases go toward tax and they know when the tax is increased.
An article appeared in The Financial Post today written by Michael Walker, a columnist. He was addressing the issue of visibility of the tax in an article entitled: "I withdraw my support for sales tax". The point this columnist makes confirms the point I am making about the importance of taxpayers knowing what they are paying on each purchase. He makes the point that not having this tax visible to the consumer results in a less open and responsible Government.
This Government has not been open with the Canadian people about the tax system. There are loopholes for corporations, those 60,000 profit-making corporations that still do not pay any tax. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy), mentioned the need for a minimum corporate tax, something we have advocated for some time. That would show the people that everyone carried a fair share of the burden of taxation.
It has been my experience that if people know their tax dollars are going to provide essential services, whether health services, education services or other public services, they are willing to pay the price. However, they want to know exactly what it is they are paying for and that they are not paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
Since the Government came into power, every man, woman and child in Canada is paying an extra $268 in sales and excise taxes, in hidden taxes. Taxes on gasoline have increased by over 7 cents a litre. Taxes on construction materials are now going up by another 1 per cent.
The Government says that it wants to and needs to raise taxes because of the deficit. It seems it has just discovered the deficit and the debt. We did not hear much about it during the election campaign, perhaps because the debt has increased by $100 billion since the Government came into power.
Excise Tax Act


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: More than that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Probably more than that, my colleague says. Regardless of that, the Government has felt it necessary to spend another $2.7 million to tell Canadians that we have a deficit, a ridiculous expenditure if in fact the Government were serious about using tax dollars wisely.
The Government has also not presented to Canadians that there are many assets owned by the Government represented in the debt, investments in schools, hospitals, roads, municipalities, northern territories and services for the disabled, the elderly and families, all of which cost money. These are investments in Canadians, in a Canadian society that we want to see as being compassionate.
We in the New Democratic Party do not accept increasing wage gaps with more and more people becoming impoverished. We see now that one in six children live in poverty. This is totally unacceptable. The Government says it is working toward tax fairness but that is simply a joke. It is not tax fairness, it is a tax grab which takes from those people who are the most powerless to protest and benefits those who have the most wealth and the most power.
I would like to talk about a few of the specifics in this Bill which are particularly onerous for people who live in remote areas but also have an impact on people in urban areas. In an area like the Yukon, it is much tougher. One of these is the telecommunications tax.
Last year when the 10 per cent telecommunications tax on long distance calls was brought forward, it had a very severe impact on those in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other rural areas. There are many people in those areas who use mobile and radio phones for business and also for ordinary, everyday use. All those calls then became taxable. It is a good example of people in one area with one perspective formulating a law without knowledge of people in other areas. I am sure many of those who formulated that tax do not use radio or mobile phones and had not even thought of that particular injustice.
The telecommunications tax has increased significantly the cost to small businesses and to governments. In the end, the taxpayer has to pay for that as well.

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
As an example, I would like to mention a study that was done in March 1989 by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre on northern consumers and telecommunications policy. The centre noted that a study done for it about eight years ago in connection with Bell Canada rate hearings found that Bell subscribers in the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and northern Ontario spent on average between $625 and $650 a year on toll services, long distance services, as compared with an average of $206 for subscribers in the Bell territory as a whole. That is a very significant difference which represents not simply figures on paper but a lifestyle and a dependency on long distance in northern and rural areas. A discrepancy of some $400 per year is an indication of the effect this additional 1 per cent to the telecommunications tax will have in those areas.
In this study, the group related the onerous effects of a tax like this on low income groups and mentioned, for example, that the per capita income for Inuit in the Northwest Territories was only 53 per cent of the average for the general Canadian population. In northern Quebec, it was only 40 per cent of the average for the general Canadian population. These are the people who are most affected by this type of hidden, regressive tax that is a burden to the low-income person and the middle-income person, but largely does not affect the high-income person who can afford to pay an extra $10 or $15 on a telephone bill every month.
In the end, as consumers, we pay double. We pay the cost of the additional tax, and then we pay the cost that businesses will add to cover their costs. Therefore, this type of hidden sales tax is never a one-time effect. It has an effect both at the payment level and as a consumer at the level that business will raise their services to compensate for the tax. Clearly, that is the concern of associations such as the Conference Board of Canada when it reviewed the proposed goods and services tax and forecast the increase in inflation as well as the increase in unemployment that that will cause.
The Bill under discussion tonight is simply an example, a poor example albeit, of what is in store for us as we move toward the goods and services tax.
I would like to say a word about higher prices, because this clearly leads to higher prices and higher prices generally mean inflation. At the end of last week the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, made a unanimous recommendation to the Government to consider having the Bank of Canada reduce interest rates to deal with the question of the inflationary effect of high interest rates.
I rarely speak to business people in my area, and the majority of business people in my constituency have small businesses, who do not feel that these high interest rates are just killing them. Small firms with a small margin of profit create the most jobs in Canada and contribute much to our economy and our communities and they are affected the most by high interest rates.
This Bill does not represent any attempt to address issues of economic policy. It simply continues to add to the tax burden. It does not deal with the basic issues of tax inequities. It does not address the issue of a lack of tax fairness. Whether it is adding to the burden in the construction industry, which again affects many of our areas, or Canadian exporters, Canadians will see that this Bill is simply adding to the burden of the average Canadian taxpayer.
There is no way that I or anyone in my Party could support this Bill or the type of philosophy that underpins this Bill. When taxpayers have seen that in 1985 a family whose assets were valued at $6.2 billion received a $500 million tax break, and some 6,000 upper-income Canadians paid no tax at all, it is easy to see why Canadians will say about this Bill and this Government's tax polity that it is unfair, unjust, and they will reject not only the Government's policy but the Government.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, in listening to some of the comments this evening, one of the things that struck me throughout the discussion of so-called tax reform, and I am assuming because the process was undertaken some time ago that the Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act are a part of that process of the Government, it is often difficult to tell exactly what the process is because there does not seem to be a great deal of continuity in what the Government is attempting to do. However, this Act reflects very well the philosophy of the Government in that it is obviously very comfortable with hidden taxes.
June 26, 1989

The amendments we are dealing with tonight are part of a continuing pattern of a tax grab that is obviously under way from now until January 1, 1991.
One thing I want to reiterate that many people on your left have stated, Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, is that the one promise that we believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will keep over the next 18 months will be that the imposition of the goods and services tax on January 1, 1991 will in fact be revenue neutral. The catch to all of that is that from the time when the taxes were announced until they are to be imposed in 1991, the Government obviously intends to take every penny it can out of the Canadian taxpayer by whatever means possible. That includes an increase in the manufacturers' sales tax from 12 per cent to 13.5 per cent. It also means this plethora of taxes we are being asked to vote on tonight, and as my colleagues have indicated previously we will oppose. Canadian taxpayers have to understand that this is part of a plan. The plan is not to reform the tax system. The plan is to attempt to bail out a Government that has doubled the national debt in the last four years.
We hear talk from members of the Government with respect to the deficit, and we hear talk about the national debt. There can only be one of two explanations as to why there has been this discovery over the last couple of months. If we give credit where credit is due, one has to take as a granted that the people in the Department of Finance last fall were prepared to support their Minister in an election campaign by stating that it was possible to implement $16 billion in promises that the Conservative Party was putting forward to the people of Canada out of existing structures and out of existing revenues. Now, all those programs have been cut or scrapped, or they were just commitments and not promises, and a lot of semantical arguments have taken place.
People who were looking forward to day care, or an enhanced program for military equipment acquisition for the armed forces, or people who were interested in seeing the agenda of the Conservative Party, have to try to to fathom what has taken place. If the people who made the projections last fall were honest, then they made grievous mistakes and somebody should pay, not only the taxpayer of Canada, who always pays the Bill in the final analysis, but those people who made those
Excise Tax Act
projections, who are responsible for them, and who backed up a series of arguments, including those of the Chairman of the Finance Committee who correctly pointed out last fall that the promises could not be kept and would result in a serious blow to the economic and fiscal situation of the country.
If, on the other hand, the people who made the projections last year were not only honest but competent, and in fact the Conservative Party misrepresented the state of affairs that we found ourselves in in this country, that is where push comes to shove. I believe that the people of Canada must, and it is their duty. I recognize that they believe that members of the Opposition, the NDP and the Liberal Party, will simply carp about those things, bring them up, and rehash them.
Canadians have to understand that we are going through a process, a turning away from traditional values and approaches to trying to help those people who need help the most into a Conservative agenda. As usual, the Conservative Party of Canada is running considerably behind events in Great Britain.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom came into this very House and praised the Government for its good management, and praised its approach to international trade. We have had the agenda of the former President of the United States, in his second term. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Government have enormous respect for the former President of the United States. He played footsie with the American public through his first term. In the American system the second term is the last term, and that may prove to be prophetic in Canada that the second term for people with a conservative agenda is the last term. There is no question that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) followed in the footsteps of his friend the former President of the United States.


John Horton McDermid: It is a little misleading that in the United States you are only allowed two terms.


M. Douglas Young: That is what I said. I said that it may prove to be prophetic here-


John Horton McDermid: They have a third Conservative term down there, too, just like we are going to have a third Conservative term here.

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act


M. Douglas Young: It may prove prophetic that the Canadian people may decide differently here.
I know that the Minister responsible for privatization also wants a gentler and more caring nation. Those are the kinds of things we hear in the Conservative rhetoric. However, the fact remains that Canadians, regardless of their political stripe, must understand what we are getting involved in in terms of what kind of Canada we are going to be living in.
As I looked at the materials that were made available to us by Global Television and assorted other people a couple of months ago, it was uncanny that dated April 27 we saw things and wondered whether it was not some sort of deja vu in terms of last fall's election campaign. One wondered who wrote this stuff. Why sales tax reform? Because, among other reasons, it is damaging to the Canadian economy. It is a porous tax and an increasingly unreliable source of revenue, in terms of the existing federal sales tax.
Awfully important as well as the third basic flaw is that it is hidden from consumers. Tonight we are being asked to pass a series of tax increases, all of which are hidden from consumers, and all of which I suggest are part of the hidden agenda. It is not just hidden taxes, it is the hidden agenda that was kept from the people last fall that is now coming to light. It is a clear indication of where this Government wants to take us over the next three or four years.
The only visible thing during this session that the Government has put forward, and in particular the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), is that they want to make sure that they hide every possible tax, oras was the case on April 7 when the Minister of Finance met with the Ministers of Finance from the 10 provinces, it was to try to get the provinces on board. On April 7, at a meeting held in Ottawa, the Ministers of Finance of the provinces were asked to indicate an interest to participate in a national sales tax scheme.
I would point out, because I feel it is appropriate at this time, that that national sales tax proposal that is referred to every now and again by Members to your right, Mr. Speaker, which was agreed to by members of the NDP and the Liberal Party in a unanimous report last year, was supposed to be visible. Every time we bring this matter up people suggest that it was a unanimous report and that we should be happy there is a reform going on. However, as usual, it is only part of what was
proposed, and that is misrepresented when it is presented to the people.
The provinces refused to participate in the imposition of a national sales tax asked of them on April 7 and then told to them on April 21 by the Minister of Finance who said that we are going it alone. There were no details, no negotiations or anything else. The Government just decided to go ahead. That makes it clear to me that the most important thing was not the imposition of a national sales tax but that the Government had to get the mechanism in gear to raise taxes as quickly as it could and as often as it could until January 1,1991. That is why I repeat what I said earlier. In fact, when the taxes come into play in 1991 Members to your right, Mr. Speaker, will be able to point very clearly and proudly to the fact that the new tax will be revenue neutral. Thxes will have been raised so much-literally by billions of dollars from a couple of months ago to December 31, 1990-that there will be no possibility of getting any more taxes out of the Canadian people.
The Government will drainthe tax well until there is nothing left in it. I am asking, and I am thinking that Members to your left, Mr. Speaker, are asking the people of Canada to join with us in insisting that the Government respect its commitments. However, if it is unable to do what it promised it would last fall in terms of implementing new programs such as day care and others because of deficits, high interest rates and because of the burgeoning national debt which it has doubled in four or five years, then the least we can ask of the Minister of Finance is that he respect his commitment to make this national sales tax visible.
Tonight, the House of Commons is being asked to authorize the Government to increase taxes on a tremendous series of services and goods that are essential to Canadian people. We all know that they are hidden taxes. The Minister of Finance has said time and time again in the House in response to questions: "People don't know how much they are paying for gas. They don't know how much tax there is on alcohol. People don't know how much tax there is on their telecommunications bill". We agree with that. However, we are being asked to do the same thing tonight.
It is a very strange conundrum that this new goods and services tax will have the result of having little signs in places of business all over the country and that we are going to hit the Canadian taxpayer with another series of hidden taxes. Everyone understands that people only pay taxes so long as they believe the system is fair and that the money is being spent reasonably well. That has always been put in doubt even at the best of times. However, the time is coming when Canadians are saying
June 26, 1989

not only are we paying too much in taxes, and not only is the tax system unjust and unfair, but we cannot trust the people who are collecting the taxes because we cannot even trust them on something that does not cost anything.
The only cost in making the goods and services tax visible is a political cost. There is no financial cost to anyone. There is not a collection cost to the Government. It will not cost the consumer one penny more, but there will be a political cost. The provinces from April 7 to April 21 did not take the Minister up on his take it or leave it deal. They would not get on board and play the game of collecting the taxes, paying the price politically of collecting both the provincial sales tax and the national sales tax, whichever way it was put together. They would use their collection system and their collection points. In other words, they would pay the political price of collecting the taxes.
When the federal Government saw that that would not work it said: "Now we do not want a visible tax. Because we are going to impose the tax and collect it we want it to be invisible".
As we are talking about the excise taxes and invisible taxes, or hidden taxes or regressive taxes, the other thing is that Canadians have to understand what the hidden agenda is. Not only is there a political price to pay for imposing a 9 per cent tax on January 1, 1991, but there is no question in anybody's mind that by 1992 or 1993 with a hidden goods and services tax how simple will it be to raise that to 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent. That is the other part of the hidden agenda.
Canadians have to understand that the Bill we are talking about tonight is a clear signal that we are not into tax reform. We are trying to bail the Government out early in its mandate by imposing a series of taxes. Part of the process was to eliminate the personal surtax. We were going to talk about getting more equity in the system. It has been pointed out by some of my colleagues who have spoken here this evening that people in low and middle-income families have seen their taxes increase by $300, $500, $800 or $1,200 depending on the level of income. That has begun to cost too much politically. We know how much it costs the families and how much it costs single parent families in particular. We know how much it costs people with young families who
Excise Tax Act
cannot get any day care and there is an added burden on the parents.
Parents in Canada, men and women, children, the poor, the unemployed, the handicapped and the sick have to pay the taxes, be they excise taxes as we are discussing tonight, be they the goods and services tax that will come in in 1991 or be they the taxes that we are going to impose between now and then in various and sundry ways. However, the fact is that the people who will not pay the price are Members to your right, Mr. Speaker. They will not pay the political price of standing up and saying: "We need this much money to administer the affairs of Canada. You have elected us, it is our duty to collect the taxes from the people of Canada. It is our duty to spend the money". However, they won't tell us in a visible way: "We are going to take 9 per cent out of your pocket". The Minister said in the House that his idea of a visible goods and services tax would involve putting a sign up in a store. I will not even get into what that involves now.
One just cannot put up signs in stores now, that is not the Canada we live in. They have to be different sizes. They have to be in different languages, depending on what province one is in. They have to be at the front of the store, the back of the store, or inside or outside. Who is going to decide.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hogwash.


M. Douglas Young: The Member says it's hogwash. It is unfair but it is true.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Quit appealing to bigotry. You can put up any sign you want in Saskatchewan.

Do you know what is going on here, Mr. Minister? I hear a Member who has been here for 15 years calling me a bigot. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, someone who does not even know what I am talking about now, yet he thinks he understands the true nature of Canada. Unbelievable!
Mr. Speaker, when referring to people who have a pretty fair idea of what is going on in this country, one has to admit that they are talking about siphoning more money out of the taxpayers by levying a general tax on goods and services. It is a matter of really knowing what one is talking about. It takes a lot of nerve to accuse me

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
in this House of entertaining preconceived ideas based on the language spoken in Saskatchewan or elsewhere.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why did you mention signs?


M. Douglas Young: I said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) mentioned signs. I did not mention them. He told us-we are going to have to put up signs to indicate whether taxes are visible or not. The sign of the times is that so long as we have a tax that is hidden from the consumer, we are going to have problems that are a lot more serious than we understand.
As I indicated earlier, we are talking about the potential for abuse by a government. If we continue with the kind of deficits that are being run because of the high interest rate policy, where the cost of servicing the national debt is the equivalent of what our deficit is projected for this year, the potential temptation for going after the Canadian taxpayer as a result of a hidden tax that is being set at 9 per cent is too much to imagine.
With the track record of this Government and how it has broken promise after promise after promise, who can honestly doubt that whenever the crunch comes it will be very easy for the Government to change that sign from 9 per cent to 10 per cent, if in fact anybody looks at it.
I hope government Members will recognize that all of the problems that the Government faces at this time are basically because nobody trusts it. Government may not be able to carry out its stated objectives in good faith because circumstances change, realities change, the economy changes. International factors come into play and interest rates are affected by outside pressures. Many things can happen. Canadians are fair-minded.
They understand those circumstances. However, the Government has preached for several years, printed it in its own materials during the Budget process, a fundamental principle that taxation should be open, and visible. For no other reason than it refuses to pay the political price, that tax is hidden. That is what I believe Canadians will not accept.
We are being asked tonight, just before we break for the summer recess from this House of Commons, to pass a series of changes in the Excise Tax Act that will add a further burden to Canadians.
No one on this side of the House will support that. I hope Canadians will think about the hidden agenda of the Conservative Government with respect to the goods and services tax that will begin at 9 per cent, and will see that it's promise of keeping it at 9 per cent and being revenue neutral will be just another promise to break.


Mr. MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present the first report of our committee which was unanimously adopted this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Crosby):: Does the Member have the unanimous consent of the House to present the report?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on the Environment, Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
[jEditor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Thx Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and be referred to a legislative committee.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 will increase taxes on practically everything. This Bill on which the Government just placed closure will affect every Canadian family. It will increase the taxes that every person in Canada will have to pay.
June 26, 1989

It increases the telecommunication services tax, the tax on gasoline, the tax on construction materials, wine and all such goods.
It increases the tax on aviation fuel and on tobacco, cigars and snuff. It increases the tax on practically everything one can think of because it will affect every single Canadian family.
The one tax being implemented in the Bill tonight should show the Government of Canada the inequity of bringing in a tax on all goods and services at the end of next year. While Canadians understand it, I do not think they fully realize now that at the end of next year the Government of Canada will bring in a tax that is going to mean increases in sales taxes anywhere from 9 per cent to 12 per cent in Canada.
Just imagine, the new tax being brought in at the end of next year will mean that when we go to buy something at the retailer we will be hit with a new tax. We will have to pay anywhere from 9 per cent on the item we are buying or the service we are receiving, to close to 12 per cent, depending on where we live in Canada.
For those who live in the Province of Alberta, it will mean a 9 per cent increase on taxes, but for those who live in Ontario it will mean much more than 9 per cent.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


George Baker: The Hon. Minister is asking why. I will get to that.
For those who live in Quebec, it will mean more than 9 per cent and for those who are unfortunate enough to be buying something in the Province of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or Newfoundland, they will be really hit. Under this Bill we are passing tonight the Government is increasing the taxes on all long distance telephone charges. Let us examine the long distance telephone bill, as every Canadian has done since the Government took office.
Since last year it brought in a new telecommunications tax, or was it the June before last? It was either last June or the June before. That new tax that was brought in was for 10 per cent. When Canadians look at their last
Excise Tax Act
month's long distance telephone bills-they can pick them up this evening and look at them-if the long distance telephone charges are $100 for the month and they live in rural Canada, they can almost count on a pretty hefty long distance telephone bill. This is because they are not living in a metropolitan area where there are millions of people. They are calling just a short distance away and they are calling long distance, usually.
If it were $100, say, this new Tory Government would impose a tax of 10 per cent on long distance telephone calls, but that would go on after the long distance telephone charge. In other words, if it were $100, the telephone company would add on 10 per cent, which would make it $110. Then on top of that it would add on the provincial sales tax.


John Horton McDermid: The provinces did that.


George Baker: This means that everybody outside a province with no sales tax was paying double taxes.
What would that mean if you had relatives in the Province of Alberta? I will tell you what it means, Mr. Speaker, because you are very well acquainted with the Province of Alberta. If you are calling Alberta from the Province of Newfoundland and you have $100 to spend on long distance telephone calls, for goodness sakes get your relative in Alberta to phone you because you will get at least another 15 minutes out of your $100. The reason for that is quite simple: when you call from Alberta, you only have 10 per cent added on to your telephone bill. Therefore it costs $110.
If your call originated from the Province of Ontario to Alberta, then you can add on another 8 per cent, which means not just 9 plus 8 to make 17, but because there is a tax on top of a tax, it means that you are adding on another $10 to your $100 charge.
Let us look at the Province of Newfoundland. You have again your $100 plus your 10 per cent federal tax. Then you add on top of that 12 per cent Newfoundland tax, and you are up to 24 per cent tax on your $100 of long distance telephone calls. By straight arithmetic, you can save $13.34 if your call originated from the Province of Alberta to Newfoundland.


An Hon. Member:: What if you reverse the charges?

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act


George Baker: You could save $10 if your call originated from Alberta into the Province of Ontario, and you could save $12 on the $100 if your call originated from Alberta instead of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or the Province of New Brunswick. That is because there is, of course, no provincial sales tax in the Province of Alberta on long distance telephone calls.
When the Government of Canada says that it is to bring in a 9 per cent sales tax at the end of net year on everything you can think of, it is not 9 per cent. It is 9 per cent in the Province of Alberta, yes, but it is more than 9 per cent in Ontario. It is more than that again if you are in New Brunswick. It is more than that again if you are in Newfoundland.
What is the total effect of that? Under this present Bill, they are increasing the taxes on long distance telephone calls. It means a 1 per cent increase in this Bill. It means that the people in Canada are actually paying in excess of that 1 per cent. That is what is wrong with having a federal tax that applies to all goods and services.
With long distance telephone calls, if you are watching every dollar and you know you can save $13 on every $100 if your call originates from Alberta and not the Province of Newfoundland, that you can save $11.58 if your call originates from Alberta and not Nova Scotia, or you can save $9.98 on $100 if your call originates from Alberta and not Ontario, it would be great if you could figure out a way of getting around the new sales tax so that you could use a reversal like that and the tax would be fair right across Canada. If all your long distance telephone calls originated in the Province of Alberta, then all Canadians would pay an equal tax.
The Hon. Minister said to me a few minutes ago that the provinces were to blame here, that they had a tax on. Everybody knows provincial Governments have varying amounts of sales taxes in effect in their provinces. That is why the federal Government is dealing a grave injustice to Canadians when it comes along and says: "What we did on your long distance telephone calls last year we are now going to do on every single good and service there is in Canada; we are going to add on 9 per cent." Some 9 plus 12 in Newfoundland you would think was 21, but it is 24; 9 plus 11 in New Brunswick is not 20 but is over 21.
On top of that, as if that were not bad enough, if that was not unequal enough, what do we have? Somebody says: "Oh, that is a provincial tax on top of a federal tax." The ordinary Canadian who is watching his dollar, the senior citizen who wants to make long distance telephone calls to his or her grandchildren in western Canada, eastern Canada or up north do not askwhether this a federal tax, a provincial tax or a municipal tax. They just look at it and say: "I have lost $13 out of $100 because my call originated in one province and not another one."
The grave injustice of the system is not knowing that you can actually get around that tax if you originate your calls from the province that has the lowest sales tax. That injustice will now apply to everything you buy.
When you walk into the store on January 1, 1991, you will pay over 20 per cent retail sales tax on every good and service in all of the Atlantic provinces-over 20 per cent. If you are buying a stove or a fridge, imagine the tax you will be paying, but if you pay tax in a province with no provincial sales tax, you do not pay the double taxation that you pay in other provinces.
On top of all of that, the Government of Canada says: "Well, now to soften the burden, we are going to give all Canadians in advance a rebate."
We are going to give Canadians, and I am talking about ordinary Canadians now which is the vast majority, an advance rebate. On what, Mr. Speaker? On the tax that the Government of Canada says they will be paying.
What is being taxed, Mr. Speaker? If you buy an article that is manufactured in one province, every time that it changes hands the tax is put on and then rebated, put on and then rebated. The higher the cost becomes as it goes along, the tax is put on and rebated, put on and rebated, until it gets to the end of the line. They will now pay tax on the transportation of that good. They will pay tax on everything all along the line.
One would suspect that the rebate to the Canadian who lives in Newfoundland or British Columbia, if the good is made in central Canada, would get a higher rebate than someone who lives in the town in which it was manufactured, but oh, no, Mr. Speaker, the rebates are all the same. Consider the logic of saying that we are going to tax everything, every good and every service,
June 26, 1989

your hair cut and everything, but we are going to turn around and give you a rebate.
Canadians who can just barely make ends meet now are wondering how they are going to be able to pay all of that money and live between the rebates. It is fine to say that we are going to do this or that with the taxation system and pay someone a lump sum at a certain point in the year, but how do you live between those rebates? How do you even it out so that the rebates are fair. How do you rationalize that people pay an amount of money equal to whichever province they live in? Just imagine a system of taxation which requires that if you live in certain provinces you pay a higher tax than if you live in another province.
The Government has also announced that it is going to take a crack at relieving the unemployment situation in Canada today. I suppose you heard that announcement, Mr. Speaker. The Government is going to hire thousands of people to collect all of these new taxes. How many are they going to hire? Is it 5,000 or 10,000 people? Imagine, the Government is going to hire a minimum of
5,000	people just to collect taxes, just to make sure that you pay that tax on everything you pay for.
To put it mildly, Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today and the new system of taxation which the Government wants to bring in are very unfair and unequal. As a result of this Bill telephone charges are going to go up and a telecommunications tax is going to go on.
There is a commercial about telephones saying to reach out and touch someone. The Minister of Finance is reaching out all right; he has got his hand in everyone's pocket. The Bill before us today should be defeated by the House of Commons. The new sales tax that comes in at the end of next year is going to mean the defeat of the Government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to advise the Hon. Minister of ways in which to abolish it.


John Horton McDermid: Good, that's what I want to hear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well, if you had been listening all these years you would not need to be told again.
Excise Tax Act
First I want to apologize to the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Young). I misunderstood the remark he made about signs, but that was as much his fault as it was mine. I hope he will check the "blues" to make sure it reads the way he meant it. I did misunderstand him and I apologize for that.
My hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Gander-Grand Falls (Mr. Baker), just mentioned something about double taxation. He did not steal my line, but great minds think alike and we ain't foolish about this one. It used to be against the law to have double taxation. In fact, any Government at any level that tried that in this country would be thrown out of court the next day.
We have a tax on a tax. I am a little confused now as to whether the provinces will be taking a tax on the tax, whether the federals will be taking a tax on the tax, or whether they will both be taking a tax on the tax. We need some clarification from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on which is which, what is what.
We have been victimized by federal and provincial sales taxes for many years, including by NDP provincial Governments. When it gets to a point that they put a tax on hair cuts, I feel sorry for the Hon. Minister who is just leaving because he has the same kind of hairdo as I have and there is no way we can get $8 worth from a hair cut. With the tax added on top of that it gets to be a little unfair to those of us who are not as endowed as many people who are older than us.
I want to refer to something I said last year in the budget debate.


Mr. Friesen:: Can you remember it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, I make the same speech every year and it applies.


Benno Friesen: Why do you think I don't listen any more?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: John Diefenbaker appointed a royal commissioner on taxation, a fellow by the name of Kenneth Carter, who spent nearly five years going through the entire tax system. He produced the Carter royal commission report of some three volumes, plus all the research papers and everything else. I only waded through the meatier parts.
It is obvious again, for the umpteenth time, what any Government of any political stripe need do. I am not saying that Carter was 100 per cent right, but he was mostly right in terms of the principles of a fair tax system. A buck is a buck no matter how you got it. Whether you earned it or not, if it is income it is taxable,

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
period. He showed how you could lower the effective tax rate to 15 per cent, and not more than 20 per cent for any individual taxpayer or any corporation, and collect more money than the national Government is getting now or ever has since he came out with the report in 1965.
Mr. Carter died of cancer in 1966. He was so fed up waiting for the Government to act on his report that he started to go public. He was something like Emmett Hall with his royal commission reports on health care and a few other things. It is not often a royal commissioner will go public.
Kenneth Carter started to do so and he died unfortunately much too early. He pointed out then, and it is still valid today, that a fair tax system is based on the ability to pay. That has to be the income tax system. Whether it is individual or corporate is immaterial. It is based on ability to pay. It is based on what is the income.
When he first advocated doing away with all exemptions, there was a hue and cry from the economists, the financial experts, the business communities, the boards of trade, the chambers of commerce, and the manufacturers' associations. Of course, the ordinary citizen said to himself: "Gee, whiz, if I lose my exemption, what am I going to get?"
Mr. Carter pointed out: "You get your tax credits, and whether you make $20,000 or $120,000 a year, the tax credit is the same for each one." It seemed to make eminently good sense to a lot of people.
Walter Gordon tried some halfhearted steps at implementing Carter and so did Allan MacEachen. Even the present Minister of Finance made a halfhearted step last year about non-refundable tax credits. At first blush, people thought that they would not get anything for their charitable donations. By golly, it ended up that they got as much or more with the tax credit. I thought to myself: "Gee, maybe there is some hope. Maybe they are going to start to implement Carter." I should live so long.
Unless and until that kind of a principle is implemented by any Government of any political stripe, we are not going to have a fair tax system. It means throwing out all the conventional wisdom, the shibboleths of going back to the 1890s of the tax system in this country. Of
course we have to do what we can to get rid of or substantially reduce the deficit and the national debt. There is no argument about that.
The argument is about how we go about doing it, who are we going to collect it from, and how are we going to collect it? Economists, financial experts of all political stripes, and other people of all Parties have agreed for many years that a sales tax and excise tax are the most regressive and that the income tax system is the most fair. Why do then Governments continue to rely so much more, time after time, on more and more sales and excise taxes when they know themselves before they do it that it is a regressive tax.
There has been some mythology peddled that the federal sales tax does not show up on an invoice. The last three times I bought a car, which is over the last 15 years, the invoice I got from my car dealer showed the price of the car, all the options, the provincial sales tax, and the federal sales tax right beside the basic price of the car. I always knew what the federal sales tax was on the car. There is nothing new about that. The Minister of Finance tries to hoodwink us into saying that it is a hidden tax. Reputable manufacturers always showed it as a separate item.
I am not sure about the manufacturers from outside Canada but inside Canada it was the same on any durable goods which I bought. I bought a General Electric stove. I bought a fridge. I knew what the federal sales tax was on it. I admit I have not bought one for about eight years, but the federal sales tax was shown on the invoice at the retail level.
Let us not try to hoodwink people into thinking that all of a sudden the federal sales tax or the federal excise tax was a hidden tax. It was only hidden if the person collecting the tax chose to hide it. In my experience, in most instances, it was not hidden.


An Hon. Member:: Even on the gas pump.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is one place it is hidden.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It depends on where you are. At least 90 per cent of our debt and our deficit is money which Canadians owe to themselves. Much fuss is made about the present national debt; $8,0000 for every man, woman and child. The day you are born, you owe $8,000. I am
June 26, 1989

relying on 1987 or 1988 dollars. It is probably more than that in 1989. That is a large, daunting figure.
In 1985, the national debt of Pakistan, India and Zimbabwe was $200 Canadian per capita. To follow this argument to its conclusion, just imagine, they were 40 times better off than we are. Their national debt per Gross National Product per capita was $200 a head for every man, woman, and child.
I just wanted to reverse the argument. Maybe Canada should be applying to those three countries for some kind of foreign aid, some way to cancel our bank loans, our savings bonds, our guaranteed investment certificates, our term deposits, or reduce those since 90 per cent of our debt and our deficit we owe to ourselves.
The truth is that the national debt is not a heavy burden which we are passing on to future generations. Posterity will indeed inherit the obligation to make huge interest payments on the national debt. However, that same posterity will inherit all the bonds and investments which 90 per cent of our debt is presently based on, namely, by Canadians.
There is an expression that I said earlier in this Parliament, which I am going to repeat: "Economists are like theologians. Every religion other than their own is the invention of man, whereas their own is an emanation from God." The economics we have been getting from the Minister of Finance is of course an emanation from God. Anything else that anybody else comes up with is an invention of man.
In the past half century, there have been at least two other periods when the Canadian Government incurred budget deficits comparable to the ones we have had in the 1980s.
From 1930 to 1935, during the Dirty Thirties, the debts averaged 3.2 per cent of the country's Gross National Product. It was therefore equivalent to a contemporary annual deficit of $15 billion, that is in 1987 dollars.
Now apart from there being any inflation in those years, there actually was deflation. The Consumer Price Index fell by 19 per cent. Interest rates rose to an horrendous 3 per cent to 4 per cent. From 1932 to 1935, the deficit was equivalent to $15 billion in 1987 dollars. During the war years, which was the first example I
Excise Tax Act
wanted to mention, 1942 to 1945, and that is only four years, the average federal deficit was 21 per cent of the Gross National Product. It went up from 15 per cent to 21 per cent of the Gross National Product. This is equivalent to a deficit two years ago of $100 billion. The Consumer Price Index meanwhile rose by less than 2 per cent a year while interest rates stayed under 4 per cent.
The federal deficit in 1985 was three times what it was in 1981. The inflation rate instead of going up went down and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has never explained that to us. His theory and the theory of the head of the Bank of Canada is that unless you raise interest rates inflation will go up. But from 1981 to 1985 it went down. If you remember 1981-82 in comparison to 1985-86, interest rates went down and inflation went down. I do not understand this. I am just an innocent country boy.
The Minister of Finance keeps telling us that you have to raise interest rates in order to fight inflation, but the evidence is in the book. It is there. Higher interest rates bring on inflation. Higher interest rates means that the cost of everything goes up for every man, woman and child in this country and it goes up for every level of government. The Minister of Finance is a victim of his own stupidity. He has given incompetence a good name.
You cannot keep doing it the way we have been doing it. The solution is you have to borrow more money and invest it in this country and challenge the Canadian population as was done during the war. Put people to work building houses and working on reforestation. You can put a quarter of a million people to work over the next 10 years cleaning up our air and water. That is not a deficit, that is not a cost, that is an investment. The return on that investment means that when you reduce unemployment from 9 per cent to 5 per cent, you have recovered $8 billion a year in new increased tax revenue from individuals and corporations. Why not do it that way? We can do it in war time with a declaration of war, which is a matter of destruction. Why not do the same thing with a declaration of peace, which is a matter of construction? Why do we not do exactly the same thing for a much more worth-while purpose and a much more worth-while endeavour that puts Canada's financial position in a much better position that it is now, puts this

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
country to work and reduces the deficit and the national debt.
The democratic socialists are the only ones who have been proposing this solution. In fact, we applauded the Finance Ministers in the days of Mackenzie King, St. Laurent and Pearson for doing that very same thing and I have not heard a single Liberal since proposing it, not a single one of them.
All the Tories could say was: "Do you think that money grows on gooseberry bushes"? The war was declared at the end of the Dirty Thirties. That was when we were asked: "Do you think that money grows on gooseberry bushes?" By golly, they found the bush. There was lots of money. So, Mr. Speaker, as your innocent stubble-jumping prairie boy, why don't we try what I just said?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a new Member, I have to register my absolute shock and horror. Here tonight we have been debating a crucial money Bill and as is well known by all Members of this House, it is a constitutional fixture that members of the Cabinet are responsible and accountable to this House.
I want to make it very clear that I am most distressed that there is no member of the Cabinet in this House during this crucial debate. It is astounding.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague has raised that point of order because it is a tradition of this House when important Bills, such as money Bills are being debated that not only should one Minister be in the House but three should be here. Tonight not one Minister is here. Not only are we debating Bill C-20 but we are debating a closure motion. This Government is denying Members here the very rights of the constituents who put us here.


An Hon. Member:: Here is one cabinet Minister.


Jesse Philip Flis: Here is the Government making a mockery of the free election process and of the British parliamentary system in denying the very rights and freedoms that we entrenched in the Constitution of Canada.
Canadians will remember this and I think the polls are already reflecting the situation.
Let us look at the legislation before us, Mr. Speaker. As the explanatory note for Bill C-20 says:
Pari 1 would implement the Ways and Means Motion to Amend the
Excise TbxAct (hereinafter called the "ExciseTax Motion"), noticeof
which was tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of
Finance on April 27, 1989.
I will not bore Members with all the clauses, but I do want to draw attention to Clause 3(1) which reads:
-the said Acts are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) in the case of wines, and goods on which a duty of excise is imposed under the Excise Act or would be if the goods were produced or manufactured in Canada, at the rate of nineteen per cent; -
Here is a Government-I do not know where else Canadian wines would be produced if not in Canada- that has pretty well wiped out a wine industry. How many other industries will it wipe out?
I cannot complain about the intentions with which the Budget was originally presented. I will not go into the way in which it was presented. We are all aware by now that the language we hear from the other side of the House is that of doublespeak and is not to be believed at all. The latest example isthe description of the new progressive and open national sales tax that will hit this country like a time bomb. The tax will be hidden and we can all expect that the 9 per cent of today will soon merely be a fond memory of yesteryear.
Very few people will dispute the fact that the deficit has to be tackled. Even fewer will dispute the fact that the debt has to be tackled. But no one will agree that the deficit or the debt should be tackled at the expense of the average Canadian in the form of unreasonable income tax hikes, cut-backs, safety nets and a national sales tax that will be hidden.
This morning I met a constituent at the opening of the expressway. I compliment the Metro Toronto Government on a project called the beautification of the Gardiner Expressway. People from all over the world come to Toronto and get an impression of it. When they are driving on the expressway they saw that the sides were completely littered with bottles and everything else. Now the corporations and boroughs have all planted beautiful shrubs and flowers. People who are bidding for conventions in Toronto now get the right impression of the city. At this function I met a constitu-
June 26, 1989

ent and others who were complaining about hidden taxes. They said: "Be honest. Put it out in the open. If I have to pay this much, I will pay it, but do not hide the sales tax".
Another constituent of mine came to see me a month ago wanting advice about a job she was being offered. She was a single mother with two children aged four and six. She was on social assistance. Her problem was that were she to take a job, after paying child care costs as there were no subsidized spaces available and after paying transportation costs, she would net only $9 more a month. However, this was an opportunity of a lifetime, an opportunity to get out of a social and moral rut, so I encouraged her to take the job.
Now I will have to tell this woman that because of the financial bungling of the Government, she will pay more taxes and will be bringing in even less than she would have brought in had she remained on welfare. I will also have to tell her that there will not be any more child care spaces available because of a lack of commitment on the part of the Government to the women and children of Canada.
Some Canadians are carrying as much as 71 per cent of the financial burden created by the Government. This is after all the assurances of the Minister of Finance that by the end of the Government's first term, Canadians would be responsible for a maximum of 25 per cent of the debt load. Since 1984, individuals and families have paid $29 billion more in taxes. This Budget will dramatically increase that number.
A report from the Canadian Council of Social Development shows that the working poor with an annual household income of $24,000 paid 44 per cent more taxes between 1984 and 1988. Upper income earners with an annual income of $122,000 actually paid 6 per cent less in the same time frame. Under this Budget, a person working for a minimum wage will pay $137 more in taxes. A middle-income family making $50,000 will pay $645 more. These are figures that do not take into account the new national sales tax, upwards of 9 per cent. Therefore, the low and middle-income earners will once again be paying more for less.
There is no guarantee any longer that additional child care spaces will be available. The people will be paying more taxes for the loss of a $4-billion child care program promised during the last election campaign, more taxes
Excise Tax Act
for cut-backs in transfer payments to the provinces that will affect post-secondary education and medicare, more taxes to support cut-backs to regional development, abandoning the Atlantic and the other regions, more taxes for a total pull-out by the Government from the UI program for decreasing benefits and increasing qualifying periods, more taxes to support the closure of military bases that will devastate local economies in some of the more fragile communities. This is what all the additional taxes the Government will collect off the backs of low and middle-income earners will support, yet the cloud of an economic recession hangs dark and low over our country.
Every day we hear reports that support our position that rising interest rates coupled with higher taxes will lead to a recession. The Conference Board of Canada warned that jobs losses and higher taxes will reduce personal disposable income by $5 billion next year, in large part due to the $2.2 billion that will be collected in additional taxes.
In the words of Mr. Frank, the chief economist, the economy is already on the skids and yet the Government continues to sit back and let Crow get on with the show, a show that will begin when thousands more Canadians lose their jobs.
There is something I think should be very clear each time we refer to the time frame the Government has been in power. It is a misconception to continue to refer only to the last four years because that gives the Government too much credit for being able to cause the amount of damage it has been able to cause over four years in office. The damage it has caused has been over five years and is continuing well into its second term.
When we blame the last Government for the problems we are facing today, we should remember that the last Government was the same Government as today. The honeymoon is over for the Government. It can no longer blame previous Liberal Governments because the previous Government was a Tory Government.
In 1982-83 when the Liberals were in power, there was a global recession and we pulled through the recession better than most OECD countries. Between 1984 and 1988, like other countries, we had four good years of economic boom and in those same four years, the Government managed to accumulate 45 per cent of the current public debt. In September, 1984, the debt stood at $177 billion versus today, $321.2 billion. That is an 81.5

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
per cent increase in a four-year period that was considered to be good times.
What happened? How did government Members do it? When the times were good, they spent more. They got caught up in their own rhetoric of being the direct cause of the good times. They got caught up in patting themselves on the back for the jobs created because of good times. What else did they do? They sure as hell did not make their rich friends pay more for record profits. No, in fact, they gave away the store. They gave it all away.
Every time there was a profitable corporation which had been built with taxpayers' money so that each and every one of us owned a piece of it, without fail the Government sold it. For what? Crown corporations are accountable to the taxpayers who own them. Why wait until we see some activity and then sell?


Mr. Dionne:: If they are in power for much longer, there won't be much left to see.


Jesse Philip Flis: I am glad that my hon. friend from the Atlantic region said that. As far as I know, it does not make good, sound business sense.
An example of this is the Pearson International Airport. Despite the horror stories about the safety elements of the airport, which I may add are in large part due to the Government's deregulation philosophy and its bungling, the Pearson Airport, in terms of profit, is a success. Now a third terminal is being added to the airport and it is being handled by the private sector. Why? Because it is a profit-making project so naturally government Members give it to the private sector instead of bringing those revenues in and keeping the taxes down. Is this because the Government feels that it owes something to its business friends so that in the next election, it may go on the same kind of questionable propaganda spree it went on during the last election campaign? I think the answer is obvious.
Then we have our infamous Canada Post. It made record profits at the expense of the Canadian public. I would have been very concerned if, considering the cut-backs in service and the rise in postage rates, Canada Post had not shown some profit. However, that is not the
priority of our essential services. Quality service and a reasonable rate should be.
Tomorrow I will be tabling petitions in the House from constituents of mine who had been serviced by Postal Station V in Toronto. The Government decided to give Postal Station V over to a corner drug store. The comer drug store went bankrupt and so did the postal service so it went back to the post office. The people were happy. They could register their letters and pick up parcels. What happened then? Without any notice from the Minister or from anyone, we see that there is a for rent sign in the post office window. People are up in arms because again because for the second time, they are losing their postal service. Elderly people in their 80s and 90s will have to go three, four or five miles to post registered letters or pick up parcels. Yet Canada Post prides itself that its main goal is to increase service. That is what it calls efficiency in management.
Government Members sit there and gloat about big profits, not caring about seniors losing the service right under their noses.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They don't give two hoots about it.


Jesse Philip Flis: Exactly. Four years of good times, and in those four years, what else did we see from the Government? The Government did not give Canadians a tax break but increased taxes.
Now what do we see in Bill C-20 and in the Budget? We see the Tory philosophy at work again. Middle and low-income earners will continue to carry the largest burden of the taxes, whether the times are good or whether the times are bad.
The Tory philosophy knows no bounds. In fact, it knows no boundaries. It carries over the oceans into the countries that most need our help. At a time when the world is strife with wars and poverty and literally millions of children are starving, the Government is taking the food right out of their mouths.
In 1984, when the Government first came to power, it promised to commit .5 per cent of GNP to foreign aid and development for 1985. However, the percentage of aid actually dropped and did not reach the target of 1986-87. It also promised that by 1995 foreign aid would receive 0.7 per cent of GNP. Again, it reneged on its promises. In the report entitled: "Sharing Our Future" which was released in 1987, the Government pushed
June 26, 1989

back the date for the realization of this target to the year 2000. This time it has cut its commitment once again. It announced a $1.8 billion reduction in foreign expenditures over the next five years. This includes a $400 million cut from 1989-90.
It does not take an economist or a university professor to see the link between poverty, suffering, and conflict. There are countries that are being pushed so hard to pay back their loans or to fight for the very land that provides their sustenance that they have to literally trade the food they grow for arms so that they can trade the arms for money or use the arms to protect the land to grow their food.
Instead of making it easier for those countries by continuing support in foreign aid so that they can make the structural adjustments necessary to get their economies back on track, we cut back and say: "When times are better, we will give you more". Try to tell the mother of a starving child that today her child will not eat, or the child will probably not eat tomorrow. We cannot guarantee that that child will ever have any food in his or her mouth.
The world is getting smaller because of the information age that we as western nations have led the world into. There is no going back to living as a country in isolation. We cannot ignore what is going on around us. We cannot continue to pretend that what goes on does not affect us. It does. It affects us every time we turn on the radio or the television.
This Government has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted. It has not once lived up to its pre-election, election, or post-election promises. The Government has been indulging in double-speak; it states one thing and does something directly opposite. The latest opinion polls dropping the Tories to their lowest level since the November, 1988 election are giving the Government a clear message: be open in the information to Canadians. They will not accept the Government's hidden agendas. Be above board, forget the hidden taxes, forget the hidden agendas but, above all, to have the trust of Canadians the Government must learn the golden rule that we all learned in elementary school that honesty is the best policy.
Excise Tax Act


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on Bill C-20,1 want to take us back to the Budget of which Bill C-20 is a very small portion, although it is as bad as other portions in this very unsavoury Conservative Budget. I also want to look beyond the Budget to the pre-election period and the promises the Conservatives made to Canadians, and why they made those promises in the context of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
It is important to look at these Budget measures from the point of view of people such as those in my constituency of Vancouver East. Those people are struggling hard to raise their families or to find a job, many of them being unemployed, and they certainly do not represent the wealthy and powerful people of this country.
I also want to point out how the Tory Budget impacts on all regions of Canada. I want to summarize how the Budget hurts families, and how it is drastically cutting services which are needed and expected and are the right of families and individuals across Canada. These services are a federal responsibility. I also want to discuss what the impact will be on affordable housing. I also wish to discuss the measures that are hitting workers particularly hard by cutting back on unemployment insurance benefits that are attacked in the Budget.
It is important to see Bill C-20 in the context of the Budget. It is the worst Budget that we have ever had in the history of Canada. Let us set the stage first by recalling the promises that were made by the Government as it attempted to woo the voters of Canada to re-elect it. They were false promises which we now have evidence of as we look at the promises that were broken and have been proven in the Budget. Remember the promises, Mr. Speaker?
There was the promise that our programs and services were a sacred trust, and universality is sacrosanct, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said. Of course, he has proceeded to undermine universal family allowances and old age pensions. He stated that the trade deal would not cost jobs. In fact, thousands of jobs would be created. As the Minister of Trade has been questioned in the House we have heard over and over again that the Minister cannot come up with any evidence of all the jobs that have been created that can be attributable to the trade deal. In fact, many people have lost jobs. In my riding of

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
Vancouver East, there is lots of evidence of that. He also said: "Don't worry, folks. Don't worry, Canadians. We won't lose control over our resources. Don't worry about the fish processing industry. We are going to save it, just vote for us, and all will be well". In British Columbia we stand to lose close to 6,000 jobs in the fish processing industry, and many of those jobs are in my riding of Vancouver East.
Again and again the Prime Minister assured us that the trade deal would not affect unemployment insurance or regional development. He then had the blatant hide to immediately bring in a Budget, under the sponsorship of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), which attacked both those programs quite drastically.
Remember how the Tories promised tax reform? They said that their tax reforms would tax the wealthy and help average families. We know now that the reverse is true. More than 60,000 profitable corporations still are tax-free while hidden sales tax will be imposed on unsuspecting consumers. Of course, they are the kind of taxes that are regressive and hit poor people with the same amount of taxation as wealthier people.
These are typical Tory broken promises, and let us not forget that. I hope the voters of Canada and the taxpayers of Canada will not forget it. Those voters believed the Prime Minister and were willing to trust him. They voted for him and they have been betrayed. Every one of those promises has been broken.
The policies that led to the drastic cuts that are evident in the Tory Budget are policies that fit perfectly with the American agenda that was part of the Canada-U.S. trade deal. It is easy to see that now. U.S. businesses stated that we had to establish a level playing field; that we could not have social programs that were far more generous and provided far more security for Canadians than those in the United States. The Americans said that we had to limit unemployment insurance because it was an unfair subsidy, and that we should not protect disadvantaged regions. The business community in the United States has been stating this for years, and the Minister should know only too well that this was the agenda in the trade deal. We should not protect Canadian industries and resources. These are the people who won. The Canadians lost and the Tories' drastic Budget
that we are debating tonight, which includes Bill C-20, is proof of that.
The Conservative Budget includes pretty drastic tax measures. The sales and excise taxes in Bill C-20 are only part of these regressive and punitive measures. The tax measures in the Budget will add another $710 to the annual tax burden of the average family in my riding of Vancouver East. There will be another $1,000 added when the goods and services tax is imposed in 1991. That is the hidden sales tax that the Minister states is not hidden.
An average family of four in Vancouver East, an ordinary working family whose parents go out to work, a family struggling with two children, will face the following annual tax increases. At the same time they will be denied affordable child care spaces because the Government has not fulfilled its obligations in that field. They will face a sales tax increase of 1.5 per cent which will add about $273 per year. They will see unemployment insurance premiums increased by 15 per cent which will add $130 per year. There will be a gas tax increase which will add $120 per year. There will be an increase on taxes for cigarettes and alcohol which will result in $100 per year. The federal surtax increase from 3 per cent to 5 per cent will add $120 per year. The new goods and services tax will add another $1,000 per year for a total per year of $1,710 when all these measures come into effect.
How will the Bill we are debating tonight hit Canadian taxpayers? It increases a number of sales taxes which are the most regressive way of getting money from Canadians. Bill C-20 imposes taxes that will affect every taxpayer in Canada. There will be a tax on long distance calls. The telecommunications service tax will be increased to 11 per cent. The sales tax on construction materials will be increased to 9 per cent. There will be a sales tax increase to 19 per cent on the price of wines. There will be sales tax increases up to 1.5 per cent on gas and diesel fuel. Taxes on tobacco, cigarettes and snuff will be increased again. This is at the same time that the Government refuses to introduce the anti-smoking Bill which the Members of my Party fought so hard for in the last session of Parliament. It was passed by the House of Commons and the Senate. Yet the Government has refused to implement it in the interests of the health of Canadians.
June 26, 1989

Sales tax on laundry detergent will be increased under this Bill. I do not know what the Government has against cleanliness.
This Budget not only hurts Canadians by hiking taxes and using regressive sales tax measures but it also hits them at the same time by cutting back on funds for services. These are needed services, ones which are expected and should be the right of Canadians.
Funds for social services will be cut. Child care services which were promised will not be funded. Citizenship programs will be cut back. Pensions will be taxed back from higher income people. Health and welfare payments will be affected, as will education payments, unemployment insurance, housing, environmental programs, foreign aid and social housing programs.
I would like to give a few more details on these. The Budget will slash essential services that are within federal jurisdiction. It is ironic to think that the Tory Government squandered quite a few dollars to whip up hysteria about the deficit, and then expects the citizens will foot the bill for deficit reduction. The Tories refused to attack the root causes of the high deficit. We are concerned about this as well. However, we are concerned about unemployment, high interest rates and the failure of corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. These should be the measures on which the Government is working.
The national child care program has been abandoned. Family allowances and old age security programs are no longer available. Those with incomes over $50,000 will have their benefits taxed back under those programs. This means that as years go by the threshold will be lowered and universal programs will be eroded continuously. Secretary of State programs which funded advocacy groups for women, for natives and for visible minorities will be slashed by $16 million over the next two years. This means advocacy groups for people who do not have power in our society will be cut by 15 per cent over the next three years. This is an erosion of democracy.
Transfer payments to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education have been cut by 1 per cent. There were native students who protested here on the Hill. They, above all others, surely deserve open access
Excise Tax Act
to education, not only for themselves but for the future of their people. We know that they are seriously concerned and have the right to be concerned about this.
Some $400 million will be cut from regional development grants next year. I do not blame the regions, particularly disadvantaged ones, for feeling very strongly about this. However, I do blame them for voting Liberal. They could have chosen New Democrats. Perhaps that will happen the next time around.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: They did in the Yukon.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is right, they did in the Yukon.
The Government talks about environment being a top priority. What did it do in the Budget for the environment? Some $10 million will be cut from environmental programs by phasing out the national conservation and alternative energy initiative in closing the 12 regional conservation and renewable energy offices. That is a great way to expand environmental protection services.
Canadians take pride in the fact that we want to go beyond our borders to assist countries around the world, particularly developing ones. I note that the Minister responsible for aid is here in the House tonight. She should be ashamed that Canada's foreign aid effort will be cut by $400 million to $2.4 billion as a result of this Budget.
Affordable housing is also being severely cut. People in my riding in Vancouver East and in Vancouver generally are extremely concerned about this. There is practically no allowance of units for co-op housing to address a very large need this year. There are thousands of people on the waiting list with only a few hundred spaces in Vancouver. It is the same across the country in the major cities where there are severe housing crises.
RRAP programs have been cut completely. Of all the federal programs, RRAP progams were very practical. They were labour intensive. They restored the housing stock. Yet this is one of the programs being cut. Some $55 million will be taken out of RRAP programs.
The Government promised 5,000 co-op housing starts per year. However, this year's level may go below 2,500.
In the face of a national housing crisis, the Tory Government will build fewer affordable housing units and will terminate a program to prevent existing units

June 26, 1989
Excise Tax Act
from deterioration. It is incredible but oh so typical of the Conservative Government once it is in power.
What is the federal Government going to do with unemployment insurance, something which workers in the country have fought for for years and which is paid for by the employees and the employers? It will be charging more. The workers will pay 15 per cent more in premiums. The benefits will be harder to get and will not last as long. Unemployment premiums will increase to $2.25 from $1.95 per $100 earned. The Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will withdraw entirely from the program to save $2.9 billion. That will destroy the whole purpose of the unemployment insurance program. This program has proven over and over again that it is a very important safety net. We are glad that it now includes some parental benefits and the coverage for workers in seasonal jobs. It is important that the federal Government subsidize those extra benefits, as needed.
Nearly one million Canadians will be partly or completely denied benefits under the new scheme. The rationale of the Government is that this will induce attitudinal and behaviour changes in the unemployed. That is ironic. I am sure the unemployed workers in Vancouver East would not feel this is an incentive when there are no jobs for them in many cases.
In passing, I want to mention the sell-out of the B.C. fish processing industry. That is another burden.
I could go on to refer to many other aspects of the Budget but, in summary, the Government has made many promises and could have chosen other ways to deal with the deficit, including the reduction of interest rates and a full employment program that would contribute more to the income of the country.
However, it has chosen almost every way imaginable to hurt Canadians, particularly average and low-income Canadians. Its tax measures are particularly regressive. The cuts in services are unconscionable and are definitely related to the Government's commitment to the Americans under the trade deal.
This year, 1989 is a sad time for Canadians, but it will get worse. It is a sad time for students who cannot afford post-secondary education. It is a sad time for parents who are struggling to raise a family and cannot get help
with child care. It is a sad time for unemployed workers who paid into the plan and expected coverage. It is a sad time for elderly people who have contributed so much to this country and have earned their full pensions. Regardless of their income, there should be a universal old age pension.
It is a sad time for people in remote areas and in the North who are losing railway services. Fuel costs and phone costs are being increased. It is a sad time for minorities, women and native people who need a strong voice.
It is a very sad time for those Canadians who voted Conservative in the last election because they have been betrayed. Tory promises have been broken by this nefarious Budget, the worst Budget in Canadian history.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek clarification. I presume the bells are now ringing to draw Members to the House for a vote. If this is what is going on, I want to say that according to my recollection it is the first time in Canadian history that a vote has been called on a closure motion prior to the designated hour at one o'clock.
June 26, 1989

Excise Tax Act
I think it proves that there was no need for the Government to introduce closure at this point, and that there are a number of time-honoured ways-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I cannot stop the bells now that they have begun.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am not suggesting that you stop the bells. I do have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are you suggesting that I stop the bells?


Nelson Andrew Riis: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have called in the Members. There is 30 minutes for the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
It being 12.05 a.m. this House stands adjourned until later this day at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made Tuesday, May 23, 1989.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.05 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 27, 1989