1990-06-12

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin -Swan River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the reports of the legislative committees on Bill C-66 and Bill C-67, with amendments.



TRANSPORT-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to report, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, which is its review of the document entitled Strategy on Substance Use in Safety Sensitive Positions in Canadian Transportation.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report with 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, this bill arises out of the fact that when a young person, for example, receives an absolute discharge from a court he finds out sometimes three, four, or five years later when he seeks employment that he still has a criminal record.
The object of the absolute discharge and indeed the conditional discharge as produced in the Criminal Code was to make sure that young people in particular and people who receive absolute and conditional discharges do not have a criminal record.
Under the current circumstances they have, and that criminal record can only be removed by an application to the National Parole Board. That is a travesty and this act attempts to clean up that matter in law.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia. They point out a whole set of reasons why they are disappointed with the government's decision to cut back on passenger rail service in Canada.

June 12, 1990
Routine Proceedings
They are asking the government to reconsider that action and, quite frankly, not only to reverse the decision but to invest in a first-class passenger rail service as we would find in virtually every other country of similar size in the world.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a second petition to present.
The petitioners are again from Kamloops and from Stratford, Ontario and point out that one-sixth of all Canadian children live in poverty. The number of children living in poverty in Canada has increased by 13 per cent between 1980 and 1986. The number of children living in some provinces is as high as 26 per cent of the child population.
They are asking that the House of Commons move to rectify this situation, and the first step they suggest is the production of a comprehensive bill of rights for children.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have another petition to present on a third matter, the one that I repeat most days. Again it is on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia.
The petitioners point out their opposition to the government's 7 per cent goods and services tax. They suggest that any tax which taxes virtually everything, now including I guess in corner grocery stores all food in an indirect way by having one levy on all commodities, is regressive and ought not to proceed.
They suggest that Parliament do whatever it can to stop it, which means that the Liberal dominated Senate should stop the tax.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 hereby present 16 petitions from Lebel-sur-Quevillion and Chibougamau, in response to the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
The signatories reject the Task Force's conclusions, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of 100,000 Canadians I have the honour to present a petition duly accepted by the clerk of petitions concerning the goods and services tax.
This petition has been signed by nearly 35,000 people in the province of Quebec and 30,000 people in the province of Ontario.

In particular, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the people who worked so magnificently to ensure that the government was aware that the GST legislation which has been approved by the House of Commons, must nevertheless be rejected because it has harmful implications for the Canadian economy.

Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, Albertans, people from Saskatchewan and British Columbia-107,804 people-signed these petitions.
I am very pleased to give particular recognition to the hundreds of people who operate bowling alleys and whatnot across the country because they helped out in this in a very significant way, recognizing the tremendous damage that the goods and services tax will do to the economy.
The petitioners beg the Senate to do everything possible to block this nefarious tax.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present seven petitions under Standing Order 36 in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas.
The petitioners are residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, namely from the town of Homepayne, Ontario which is situated 100 kilometres north of Highway 17 and some 500 kilometres from the town of Thunder Bay. Along with Manitouwadge, it is the most isolated community in my riding below the 51st parallel.
June 12, 1990

On average, food and gasoline prices are 25 per cent higher than any heavily populated city of Canada. This tax benefit is the only compensation these people have and should not be taken away.
On behalf of the 527 petitioners who rely on this tax I must reiterate the importance of this tax deduction to northern communities.
The government is presently studying the report. It is imperative that it rejects the recommendations of that report in its entirety.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition signed by numerous residents of the province of Newfoundland concerning the goods and services tax.
The petitioners note that the government has imposed 31 tax increases already since September 1984. They are opposed to this tax and say it will cause serious and unfair hardship for low and middle income Canadians, in particular. It will create an onerous burden on small businesses in Canada.
For those and for many other reasons these petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax proposed by this government.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 267 and 289.


Mrs. Gibeau: Has the Government undertaken or participated in any (a) environmental (b) legal (c) economic (d) costing studies or any agreement with the Province of Quebec with regard to the proposed construction of a lock for pleasure craft on the Riviere-des-Prairies where it is bounded along its south shore by the constituencies of Bourassa-Ahuntsic and Anjou -Riviere-des-Prairies and along its
Routine Proceedings
north shore by Duvemay, Laval and Laval-des-Rapides and, if so (i) what are they, (ii) is the government prepared to make them public?
An Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology): Insofar as the Department of Industry, Science and Technology is concerned, the response is as follows:
The federal government, under the Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic Development of the Regions of Quebec, in cooperation with the province of Quebec, commissioned a study on the possibility of opening up the Des Prairies River. This study focused on the project costs, commercial feasibility and economic costs/benefits, without considering the environmental aspect in any great detail. Before considering publication of the said study, the Management Committee of this Sub-Agreement intends to submit its recommendations to the Ministers responsible for the Sub-Agreement.


Mr. Caccia: For each nuclear reactor currently operating in Canada (a) does the government expect a particular method of de-commissioning to be used and, if so (i) which one (ii) at what estimated cost in 1990 dollars (iii) which agency is expected to pay this cost (b) is there an estimated cost of permanently dealing with high-level radioactive wastes and, if so (i) what cost (ii) estimated over what period of time (iii) using what method (iv) which agency is expected to pay this cost?


Hon. Arthur Jacob Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
(a) (i) (iii)
Each nuclear facility owner is required to submit a decommissioning plan to the Atomic Energy Control Board. The selection of a decommissioning method and the costs thereof are the responsibility of the nuclear facility owner. Substantial reactor decommissioning experience exists today. Since 1960, some 65 research, test and demonstration reactors world-wide have been decommissioned.
For the prototype nuclear facilities decommissioned by AECL, a method of long term isolated, secured storage for the reactor system has been used. All active process materials are removed from the system and then the reactor containment building is sealed and secured for a period of about 50 years. During this period, radioactive decay will very substantially reduce the radiation fields present when final decommissioning is subsequently carried out, making the work easier and safer. Most of the nuclear facility area outside of the reactor contain-

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
ment building can be cleaned and reused immediately. This includes the administration buildings, most of the service area and the turbine hall. Based on experience, through the decommissioning of the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) reactor in Ontario, and the Douglas Point (Ontario) and Gentilly (Quebec) prototype power reactors, typical costs for this method would be expected to be about $30M (1990) for a commercial power reactor. The cost of final decommissioning after the 50 year radioactive decay period is estimated at $60M (1990). Potentially, the site would then be used for a new nuclear facility.
It is expected that the utilities would follow this practice. The utilities are already charging a small amount in the power bills, which is being accumulated with interest, to cover the cost of decommissioning. This amounts to 1 percent or less of the price of electrical energy produced.
(b) (i)-(iv)
In 1981, the governments of Canada and Ontario announced the review process for the concept of deep geological disposal of nuclear fuel waste. The process provides for regulatory and public hearings before site selection for a disposal facility begins. The governments stated that no site selection would proceed until after the concept had been approved. However, conceptual design studies related to site selection and the construction and operation of a disposal vault are being addressed. These are conceptual in nature and deal with reference situations with respect to both schedule and cost. No firm schedule or costs exist at this time. Accurate estimates can only be given when a specific site is selected and an actual vault designed.
Although no nation has yet disposed of its used fuel permanently, there is considerable experience in a number of areas related to disposal, e.g. mining, immobilization, packaging, transportation. Costs of a reference disposal vault including design, construction, commissioning, operation, transportation, decommissioning, and other activities have been estimated. Ontario Hydro has estimated that disposal of all used fuel from Pickering, Bruce, Darlington, and a future Darlington-type station could be carried out at a cost of $8.5 billion (1988 dollars), expended over a period of 80 years. These costs are estimated to be 5.1 percent of the levelized unit
electrical energy cost (LUEC), of a future Darlington-type station.
This estimate is consistent with cost estimates of International Atomic Energy Agency member countries, whose estimates range from 2 to 10 percent of electricity production costs. The Ontario Nuclear Cost Enquiry has noted that there is no practical way of checking the validity of Ontario Hydro's cost estimates at this time. Nevertheless, the Enquiry points out that, although the expenditures will be high when they are incurred, they comprise a very small portion of the levelized unit electrical cost, because of the long time-frame involved.
Canadian nuclear utilities include a charge in customer billing to cover future costs of nuclear fuel waste disposal.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Hon. Shirley Martin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.
June 12, 1990


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
{Translation]
Mrs. Martin (on behalf of the Minister of Finance)
moves that the Bill be read for the third time and carried.
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would like to express the government's support for Bill C-52, which the Finance Committee reported to this House on the 7th of this month.
Bill C-52 constitutes a revision of the regulations governing retirement savings providing entitlement to a tax advantage, such as registered pension plans, deferred profit sharing plans and registered retirement savings plans. By setting out the objectives of tax advantages more clearly, this reform makes it possible for Canadians to accumulate a reasonable income for their retirement years.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the proposed measures are added to other reforms carried out previously to meet the need to promote retirement income security for our population. This, in a nutshell, is the proposal: Improvements in the benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan and the spouse's allowance program; amendments to the contribution rates to guarantee the funding of the Canada Pension Plan; major improvements in the minimum contribution standards governing private pension plans, including particularly a shortening of the benefit purchase period and an improvement of the benefits to be paid to the surviving spouse.
This reform of the tax regulations is important because the present ceilings on tax assistance for retirement savings are not structured so as to help Canadians provide for an adequate retirement income. They vary widely depending on one's employment status; there is hardly any possibility of compensating for the loss of savings during past years; and, finally, it allows certain taxpayers to obtain excessive tax benefits by using various tax planning techniques.
The measures proposed in Bill C-52 deal with these problems directly. They provide for a standard ceiling equal to 18 percent of earnings, up to a maximum number of dollars. This uniform ceiling applies to all types of retirement savings with a tax benefit, whatever the plan or combination of plans.
Government Orders
They make it possible for taxpayers to use RRSP contributions to complement the savings they build up in employer-sponsored retirement plans-again up to the 18 percent ceiling. This uniform ceiling is therefore accessible to all Canadians, whatever their employment status.
By making it possible to carry unused RRSP contributions over for 7 years, they give Canadians a better chance to compensate for losses of savings sustained in previous years.
Finally, they are more equitable and provide for better cost control because they eliminate a number of tax planning mechanisms which allowed high income individuals to obtain excessive tax benefits.
The members of the Finance Committee have thoroughly studied the measures proposed in Bill C-52. They also heard a large number of witnesses and held consultations with labour organisation representatives and pension plan specialists. Following this consultation process, the Committee suggested a number of major changes in both the Bill and the regulations. Those changes were meant to simplify some of the legislative measures and to give plan administrators more flexibility in improving benefits and in offering additional pension entitlements in the case of family related leave or early retirement due to plant closures.
On June 7 last, before this House, the Minister for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs expressed the government's commitment to amending the first draft of the Income Thx Regulations to make it possible to implement the changes recommended by the Finance Committee.
On behalf of the Minister for Privatization and Regulatory Affairs, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on Finance for the diligent manner in which they conducted their detailed examination of a lengthy and complex piece of legislation.
You will undoubtedly allow me to point out, Madam Speaker, that the tax payers of the electoral riding of Trois-Rivieres are anxiously awaiting this Bill, which provides for a major improvement of pensions in Canada and for the best possible combination of different pension plans.

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would point out that the examination performed by the Finance Committee followed a lengthy period of development and consultation concerning these important measures to improve the security of Canadians' income.
I hope that the Members will see fit to adopt this Bill, which is necessary and important for all Canadians, as rapidly as possible.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-52.1 must be very honest and say that it is not a perfect bill. There are many problems with trying to correct inequities within the pension field, but I feel that this bill will right some wrongs and therefore I can say, as the lead speaker for the Liberals, we will support the bill.
Bill C-52, as amended, is designed to correct the inequities of the existing tax system which treats retirement savings for people who are members of the defined benefit pension plan differently from those for members of, for instance, deferred profit-sharing plans, and differently again from the ordinary self-employed Canadian or the employee whose company does not offer a pension plan at all.
This bill will also eliminate excessive and unintended tax deferrals. There have been, over the past few years, some loopholes, so to speak, which have allowed some very high income earners to use the tax system to accumulate very lucrative forms of pension. We feel that these loopholes must be closed. This bill addresses these loopholes and will prevent any further abuse of the system, we hope.
The objective of the tax reform in Bill C-52 is to ensure, with reasonable limits, fair and consistent access to tax assistance for retirement savings to encourage increased private savings now to meet pension needs in the future. We all agree that the current system is in need of revision and has been for some time.
Bill C-52 and its proposed system, as originally introduced in the House of Commons, needed a great deal of study. At the finance committee, we heard numerous witnesses, gave the bill much thought, and come up with a very different bill which is being considered today. The bill has been amended. There is an agreement to draft
regulations that will implement all the suggestions that the finance committee has made. The finance committee and all parties worked together co-operatively to bring about perhaps the best bill possible at this time.
In the past, the system of pensions in place in the past was simple. The only tax reporting was for employee pension contributions, deferred profit-sharing pension contributions, and RRSP contributions. There were no carry forwards. If one did not use up to one's RRSP limit in one year, one lost it.
The present pension regime is very inequitable. All non-contributory defined benefit plans are treated equally, regardless of how generous benefits are, as are all contributory defined benefit plans. Therefore, employees with very poor pensions and employees with very rich pensions all were able to contribute $3,500 to RRSPs according to their income. However, an employee with a poor 1.25 per cent contributory plan with a 5 per cent contribution earning $35,000 was restricted to an RRSP contribution of $1,750.
The proposed legislation attempts to right this inequity. I have talked about some abuses of the present pension system and we have all heard terms such as "flip-flop", "double-dipping", "off-side plans", and "designated plans"-a host of loopholes that benefited very high income earning people. We have absolutely no objection to high income earners preparing for retirement with a very high pension, but we object to them having tax assistance to do so. All people have to be treated equally with regard to tax assistance up to a certain level. If one wishes to have a better pension plan, then one is free to invest one's money, but after tax.
Canadians with company pension plans and those without will be given more equal treatment when it comes to saving for retirement. About two out of every three private sector workers do not have corporate plans, or about six million people out of a total workforce of 14 million. Currently, people building pensions only through RRSPs do not get the same tax assistance as those with company plans. Bill C-52 enables those self-employed persons to have the same tax relief as those with employers to invest in pensions for them. This bill will equalize the treatment between these groups. That is the main purpose of Bill C-52.
June 12, 1990

There are two basic types of plans. The first, to which most pension plan members belong, is the defined benefit plan. A defined benefit plan means certain benefits are guaranteed upon retirement. There is a wide range of plans. A rich plan may guarantee upon reaching the age of retirement 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the average salary earned five years prior to retirement. A good defined benefit plan may have the pension fully indexed. Some have no indexation whatsoever. It all depends on the kind of plan. Basically, these plans give a guarantee of what one will get on retirement.
The other basic type of plan is a money purchase plan which has a defined level of contribution, but no fixed level of benefits. What one receives in the end depends on how well the investment of these funds has done. The legislation attempts to equalize all kinds of systems.
The current limits place many Canadians at a serious disadvantage in saving for retirement. This includes many of those who are dependent on RRSPs, a group which includes the self-employed and employees without pension coverage. We know that in Canada the small businessmen, self-employed people in small businesses, are the ones who create the largest number of jobs, especially in the last few years. It is the biggest growing sector in our economy.
It is extremely important that these average Canadians-and they are very average Canadians who are out there working very hard trying to earn a living-also have the opportunity to invest in a reasonable type of pension. In this case if you are self-employed, then it will Ire through RRSPs. You will also be able to benefit from a similar advantage upon retirement after 35 years.
It is especially important to make these changes to the pension system now while the baby boom generation ages and prepares for retirement. The present pension system with all its unfairness in retirement tax assistance is improved under Bill C-52.
In the next 40 years the percentage of Canadians over 65 will double to 30 per cent.
The new rules attempt to standardize by 1995 the amount of tax relief for retirement savings which a
Government Orders
person can receive from the government by contributing to a pension plan, a deferred profit- sharing plan or to an RRSP. The proposal would set a uniform limit of 18 per cent of earnings that are eligible for tax assisted retirement savings.
One of the reasons for the 18 per cent is that if you invest 18 per cent of your wages over a 35-year period, you will be guaranteed roughly a 70 per cent return, or 70 per cent of your best three to five years of earnings in those five years. That is why the 18 per cent is used and not 20 per cent as is presently in place.
Most members of company pension plans will be able to contribute more money to their RRSPs under these changes. This bill, say many tax experts, goes a long way to correcting the unfairness and inflexibility of the current 13-year old pension system.
If individuals do not make their maximum RRSP contribution in a given year they will be allowed to carry forward for seven years these unused amounts. This will allow them to contribute more than the prescribed RRSP limit in one year, if they have under-contributed in a previous year. But pension income cannot be rolled over into RRSPs.
Why is there a seven year carry forward? It has been observed by the Department of Finance over the years that high-income Canadians are regular users of RRSPs over the course of their careers. However, the average taxpayer tends to concentrate RRSP contributions over the last 15 working years, which are particularly good economic years.
The average family in its early work life will save to buy a home and have a family, all extremely harsh economic realities which all families face. As the family ages, the children grow up. When the last few years of employment are reached, one may be in a better economic position. Children may have left home, or be self-supporting. The family home will probably be paid for. Therefore there will be more income to dispose of and one is more able to invest in RRSPs. That is the beauty of the seven year carry forward.
It will allow one to save that RRSP room, if one cannot make it this year or next year because a house was purchased. Perhaps four years from now one will receive a bonus and wish to use it to catch up on RRSP contributions. This can be done, thereby safeguarding

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
one's retirement years. Even though this may not always be done each year, there is a catch-up time.
Those who use RRSPs exclusively will have this seven year carry forward. Those who have pension plans ranging from poor plans to good plans will have in effect close to working lifetime carry forward periods. This provides a very positive incentive to establish even poor pension plans.
You have heard of the factor nine, Madam Speaker. There is quite a bit of controversy over the factor nine. The factor nine is a factor used to establish the value of the pension adjustment, an amount that will be shown on a person's T-4 slip. That in itself is what will give the person with a pension plan the amount of RRSP room that will be available for them to invest on a yearly basis.
If one has a poor pension plan, then clearly one will be better off dramatically because of the seven year carry forward. If one has a maximum pension plan, then one will be worse off. Those with average pension plans these will be considerably better off.
There is a form of rough justice. It is not perfect, and we are very much aware of that. It is felt that people contributing to pension plans under the age of 45 may be far more penalized in that their pension contributions before the age of 45 are not worth as much as what this pension adjustment will be. However, we are also very much aware that younger people tend not to take advantage of the RRSPs. The seven year carry forward will offset some of these disadvantages.
Under the pension reform in Bill C-52 very definitely the winners will be self-employed Canadians who do not belong to any pension plan at all. The winners will also be those who belong to very poor pension plans. They will experience the largest increase in RRSP contribution limits. The average Canadian is very much the one considered by this legislation.
I would like to describe the new RRSP limits proposed under Bill C-52. If you are not a member of a pension plan, currently you can contribute $7,500, or a maximum of 20 per cent of earned income to a registered pension plan. In 1991 this dollar limit will rise to $11,500, or 18 per cent of the previous year's earned income. The limit will then rise by $1,000 a year until 1995, when the limit
will be $15,500 per year. After 1995, the limit will be indexed to inflation.
If the individual is a member of a contributory pension plan where both the employer and employee make contributions, you can currently put $3,500 minus your pension contribution into an RRSP. In 1991, you will be able to contribute up to 18 per cent of your earned income, or $11,500 minus this pension adjustment, or PA as it is called.
This pension adjustment will be a figure that is calculated for each individual by their employer. It will be put on their T-4 slip. The greater the benefits from the pension plan the larger will be the pension adjustment. This pension adjustment will also include a $1,000 tax free area so that people in a defined benefit plan will still be better off than those just investing in RRSPs.
If you are a member of a non-contributory pension plan where only the employer makes contributions, you are currently allowed to put up to $3,500 in an RRSP. In 1991, this limit will increase to $11,500, minus your pension adjustment.
If individuals do not make their maximum RRSP contribution in a given year, they will be allowed to carry forward for seven years these unused amounts. This will allow them to contribute more than the prescribed RRSP limit in one year if they under contribute in a previous year.
We know that pension reform has been long overdue. It has been put off for far too many years. I would like to point out some of the recommendations made by the parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform set up by the Liberal government in 1983 and chaired by my predecessor, the member for Sudbury, the Hon. Doug Frith, which made the following recommendations.
First, it was recommended that people without pension plans be put on the same tax footing as people with pensions plans regarding RRSP limits. This has been addressed in Bill C-52.
It was also suggested that the existing system of RRSP tax deductions be converted to a fairer system of tax credits. This has not been implemented by Bill C-52, although the finance committee did study the implica-
June 12, 1990

tions of it. There was no easy answer. I will address this particular point as I go on with my speech this morning.
Third, it was recommended that a homemaker's pension be established and funded through the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan. That issue has not been addressed by this bill.
Fourth, the government should establish a 25-year contribution rate schedule for the CPP. Again, that has not been addressed by this bill.
Fifth, all private and public pension benefits should be indexed to some extent. Again, that has not been considered in this bill.
Some of these recommendations are not within the scope of this bill. Some others we will be looking into as quickly as possible.
In 1984 the then Liberal government in its budget proposed the very limits that are being proposed today because it was felt that it was only fair to allow the average Canadian to invest in an RRSP to ensure a pension at retirement.
In 1985 the present government promised pension reform. After announcing in the May, 1985 budget a new 1986 RRSP limit of $7,500 with further planned increases in the maximum RRSP contribution limits to 1990, in October of 1986 the finance minister announced that these future increases in RRSP limits were being changed. He announced that the maximum RRSP contribution limits for subsequent years would be lowered from what he had announced in 1985.
In June of 1988 before these changes could take effect the Minister of Finance announced that there would be a freeze in the maximum RRSP contribution limit for 1988, after which the maximum limit would rise to $8,500 in 1989; $10,500 in 1990; and rising by $1,000 a year until a limit of $15,500 was reached in 1995.
In August, 1988 the finance minister announced that these planned increases in the maximum RRSP contribution limit from $7,500 to $8,500 for 1989, which were announced in June of 1988, would be cancelled until after the election. In December of 1989 the government introduced the current pension reform legislation.
I have said that we do support this bill. We have some very serious fears in some areas where we feel that the legislation is perhaps not the best. Perhaps it is an issue
Government Orders
of timing. The timing is wrong. We want to continue to support this bill. But we feel that the pension reform package and the goods and services tax, which will both take effect in 1991, will discourage consumer spending at a time when the economy is predicted to be slowing down. We wish that were not so. I would rather see the government withdraw the goods and services tax than withdraw Bill C-52.
Higher RRSP limits will encourage savings and discourage consumer spending. The GST will also discourage consumer spending and encourage saving. Both take effect at the same time.
This pension reform will benefit average and better off Canadians who are in a financial position to take advantage of RRSPs. Many social groups such as the National Council on Welfare and the Canadian Council on Social Development have stated that these tax savings for relatively well off Canadians are excessive.
In 1986, 61 per cent of individuals with incomes over $45,000 made RRSP contributions averaging $4,057, while only 28 per cent of tax filers with incomes between $1,500 and $30,000 made RRSP contributions, averaging $1,987. Clearly, the better off received the majority of the tax benefits from RRSPs. By "better off" I am talking about people who are just above being very poor. They make up the bulk of the taxpayers. They are the ones who help finance the social programs which help the poor. We must allow that group of people the right to save toward better retirement.
We must also consider the problems of the poor. We at the finance committee have suggested that we study the Canada Pension Plan within the next year. We think it is extremely important that we consider the position of poor people, but not to the exclusion of average Canadians.
Another problem in terms of the timing of this pension reform package is that at the same time the government is giving this RRSP tax break to average Canadians, it is also implementing the clawback of senior citizens' pensions, imposing the GST and cutting unemployment insurance for the unemployed. The net result is that the burden of deficit reduction is being shifted from the wealthy on to the backs of lower income Canadians and the unemployed. Those least able to pay are being forced to pay more.

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
That bothers me very much because we are really not fully indexing the old age pension. We are not fully indexing the family allowance benefits, we are clawing them back. At the same time we are recognizing that full indexation is needed with pension reform so that after 1995 the $15,500 limit will be fully indexed.
In actual fact this proposal reduces what low income Canadians can contribute to RRSPs. For example, a person currently earning $25,000 and not part of a company pension plan can now contribute up to 20 per cent of their income to an RRSP, or up to $5,000. Under the new rules this amount will be reduced to 18 per cent of income, or $4,500 in 1991, $500 less than before. So while someone earning upward of $35,000 will have RRSP contribution limits increased, low income Canadians will be able to contribute less to their RRSP than before this particular bill. That is the fact.
It is also a fact that low income Canadians find it very difficult to invest in RRSPs, especially when they start off in their careers. It is hoped that because of the seven-year carry forward they will be able to recoup some of this loss.
We realize it is not an absolute answer, but 18 per cent is very much on what a lifetime pension is based. Thus we must for the sake of all stick with this 18 per cent.
The tax proposal does not require the indexing of pension benefits for all private and public pension plans, as was recommended by the 1983 Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform.
Ninety-three per cent of all members of private sector pension plans have no indexation against inflation for their pension benefits. It would have been very nice had this bill been able to put in place that type of indexation, but I believe it is not within the scope of this bill.
RRSP tax deductions are an unfair way of distributing income because the tax benefit from a $1,000 RRSP contribution is larger for higher income individuals than for low income people. The fairer solution would have been to convert RRSP tax deductions into tax credits. Currently, the tax benefit from a $1,000 RRSP contribution provides a tax saving of $450 for a person earning $45,000. The same $1,000 RRSP contribution provides a
tax saving of only $264 for someone with an income of $15,000. High income people save more in taxes because their marginal tax rate is higher.
Because of this unfairness caused by the deductibility of RRSP contributions, the 1983 Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform recommended that these deductions be converted into tax credits. With a system of tax credits the tax benefit from the $1,000 RRSP contribution would be the same for all taxpayers regardless of income. This would be a far more progressive and fair way of distributing the tax benefits from RRSP contributions.
The finance committee studied the implications of tax credits versus tax deductions. Consider, for instance, if we were to give a 26 per cent or 29 per cent credit to individuals. This would clearly benefit low income taxpayers with little or no adverse consequences for high income earners. However, the Department of Finance has estimated that such a move could add $1 billion annually to the costs. As you know, Madam Speaker, these are times of very strict budget controls. It is not at this time something that the government was prepared to recommend, nor was the finance committee prepared to recommend that at this time.
The recommendation of the finance committee is that it be studied so that perhaps a graduated percentage can be used. It has to be done in an economical way so that it does not cost the government gobs of money to implement.
We have asked the Department of Finance for a report on the possibility of changing tax deductions for retirement savings into tax credits. Included in this study would be the possibility of having more than one rate of tax credit, such as what is currently used for charitable organizations.
Under stage one of tax reform most deductions were converted into credits, a move that was supported by Liberals and social groups as being an improvement for the tax system.
Our present finance minister declared then that converting deductions to credits is a key element in achieving a fairer income tax system because credits give the same tax savings to all.
June 12, 1990

I know that an answer can be found when it comes to RRSP contributions. It must be found as quickly as possible.
Another problem is that Canadians will have to rely on their employers to calculate correctly a completely new number called the pension adjustment which will determine just how much they can contribute to their RRSPs. They may not have that figure as quickly as they would like, especially in the first few years. I believe that if most employees consult with their employers, they can be given a rough estimate of the amount of RRSP room they will have.
If they miscalculate in some way and are not given the total amount they would be allowed to invest in RRSPs, then because of the seven year carry forward they will be able to catch up that amount the following year. That will ease the transition. It would be far more serious if it were as it is today. That is to say, if you do not use it, you lose it. If, because we are not as comfortable with the new system as we should be, the wrong information is given out, then all is not lost. The following year you will have an opportunity to recoup.
One of the recommendations of the 1983 Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform was homemaker pensions. This is a very serious problem in Canada. It is a problem that by and large affects women. Women sometimes do take breaks in their careers. They do stay home. By and large, they are the ones who stay home and raise their children. They are often the ones who end up, perhaps, looking after an elderly relative. As a result, when they reach their retirement years they may have very little retirement income. It is a serious problem. It is a problem today when we look at many of our seniors, especially senior women who live on very, very low incomes. It is a problem that must be addressed.
This legislation does not set up a homemakers pension. I believe that the Canada Pension Plan people should definitely look into the matter. What this legislation does is allow that carry forward. For instance, say you have worked for 10 years and you could have invested in RRSPs but did not because you were interested in buying a house, buying furniture, getting established and then you start your family and leave the workforce. You would be able to carry forward those seven years of that RRSP room which you had not used in the last seven years of your work life. If you do not
Government Orders
work for 10 years, then when you do go back to work you can have a substantial portion of that carry forward in order to invest in RRSPs when you do return to the workforce.
That in itself is very much an improvement over the status quo. I know that there are many women out there who will be pleased with this. Again, it certainly does not go far enough. I will be the first one to say it. I have no illusions.
We must as a government give serious consideration to implementing a homemakers pension so that these people who do provide a very essential service within the home, the family and the community have the chance to accumulate some kind of retirement income.
The other area that is not considered by this bill is retirement income for part-time workers. Again, these people who work part-time, sometimes for the better part of their lives, must also have a chance at a good pension plan. There has to be some answer for these people. This is not within the scope of the bill. I recognize that, but I hope that in future we can right that wrong also.
The government's proposed Bill C-52 really does not address the issue of portability of pensions. Again, that is an issue which has to be considered. Other than a few minor technical changes nothing in Bill C-52 improves the portability of pensions, that is the ability of individuals to transfer lump sums from one pension plan to another when they change employers.
The 1983 task force made several recommendations that would give employees the right to take their accumulated pension benefits with them when they move to a new job. That has not been addressed in this case.
During the course of the finance committee's hearings on the bill we heard much testimony about the complexity of Bill C-52. There is no doubt in my mind that this was and continues to be an extremely complex bill.
For example, in a brief to the committee from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries the following was stated: "The degree of complexity inherent in the proposed system introduces the following problems: the level of comprehension of the new system among retirement plan members may be quite low, particularly in the first

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
two or three years, thereby threatening the acceptability of the system by the public."
I am convinced the changes that have been made to Bill C-52 take into consideration a lot of that complexity. I think the bill has been simplified to a very large degree, and I think that is extremely important.
The finance committee's eighth report to the Blouse has tried to simplify the legislation to address most of these concerns. We as a Liberal Party want something in place, and that is why we are supporting this bill.
The eighth report has been tabled, so I do not want to go through the full report. I believe anyone who wishes to read it may do so and will realize that some of the suggestions in Bill C-52 have been totally removed, such as pension adjustment reversal. That would have included in the bill an extremely huge component of complexity. By removing these PARs from Bill C-52 I believe that we have by and large reduced the level of complexity of the bill.
This bill definitely will not satisfy everyone, but we felt that by removing some of the complexities of the bill we were making the legislation simpler. We are leaving a certain amount of rough justice in the bill, and I believe that it important.
It is important that we have a pension bill which is easier to understand and easier to administer. It is always extremely difficult when one adds reams of complexities. It becomes an accountant's dream come true but an administrator's nightmare. We want to keep that nightmare down as much as possible.
Let me end by saying that I sat on the finance committee dealing with this bill. The huge amount of co-operation among all parties made me believe in this parliamentary system. I believe the finance committee should often, and perhaps at all times, work in this co-operative manner for the good of Canadians.
I realize that this was an impossible task for the committee when we were dealing with the GST legislation, but it felt very good to be able to work as a group with this particular piece of legislation and to add as many changes as we felt were feasible, with the co-operation of all parties and with the finance officials.
We as a Liberal Party are aware that it is not a perfect bill, but it is better to have an imperfect bill than to carry on the way we have for the last number of years. It was absolutely essential that we curb all excesses and that we close those loopholes. The closing of those loopholes means that the changes this bill is bringing forward will in effect be revenue neutral.
It is important that we not impose harsher penalties on the economic system of this country and on deficit reduction. I am pleased to see that that is a part of it. Perhaps the timing of the bill is not right, but that is not the bill's fault. It may be the fault of other pieces of legislation before this House with which my party and I happen to disagree.
I will end by saying that we are supporting this bill.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, this bill in front of us this afternoon in fact is a piece of legislation which is tremendously important to people in the millions right across the country. We are going to see marked changes occur in the system by which the tax system of this country assists people to put money aside for pension purposes in the future.
I have to say that I am disappointed a minister has not come from the government to present this bill and to answer some of the criticism put forward from different directions since the final version of the bill was reported back to the House last week. I think some of those questions deserve answers. The correct and responsible people to be putting those answers forward are in fact members of the ministry of this Conservative government. It is very unfortunate that they are not here to meet those responsibilities.
The finance committee which has looked carefully at this bill reported back some changes the government agreed to accept. They were the consequence of significant negotiation between the finance committee and the Department of Finance. As members of the finance committee, many of us are here to take part in this debate today, but it has to be said very clearly that many of the points we wish to see brought forward as a finance committee had to be moderated in the negotiation with the Department of Finance because of its strong views with respect to this legislation.
If indeed it had been the finance committee itself which had been drafting this piece of legislation, it would have been a different piece of legislation than that which is before the House at the moment. This again puts the onus on the ministers responsible to be here to defend
June 12, 1990

this legislation and its many important ramifications for those receiving pensions, those contributing to pensions, those contributing to RRSPs and so forth in the years ahead in Canada.
The NDP has three main criticisms with respect to Bill C-52. The first and most basic criticism is that back in the 1960s we started in Canada to put in place the Canada Pension Plan, a plan which would be organized as pension plans are in so many other countries in the world through the public governmental system of this country. This would permit people to contribute throughout their working lives. Regardless of where they worked, whether they worked for someone or were independent small business owners, they could contribute to that plan. If they moved from job to job they could still contribute. There would be no cost for moving from one place of employment to another. There would be no cost in deciding to open a small business for a period of time and then coming back into the workforce. The Canada Pension Plan was something which would give people a pension to which they could contribute under any circumstance and in which they could accumulate benefits on a consistent continuing basis from year to year regardless of their circumstances.
Instead of recognizing the significance of the Canada Pension Plan initiative in the 1960s as the basis on which to move forward, with this approach to pension reform the government decided instead to take the Registered Retirement Savings Plan deductions available to people in the tax system and mesh this tax break with the private pension plan system in the country: registered retirement plans which take the form of defined benefit plans, money purchase plans, and profit sharing plans. There would be an heroic attempt to mesh together these different systems.
Inevitably in the process there have been some serious problems, difficulties, and inequities created. Although the finance committee has tried to improve upon them, we have certainly not been able to come up with anything close to effective and comprehensive answers to the ridiculous complexities and inequities created by the RRSP system, which in many respects should be the tail of the much larger pension dog. Instead in this approach
Government Orders
we have the tail of the pension dog wagging the whole system. We have the RRSP system and the need to make some kind of fair access to it for people in different circumstances in respect of private pension plans. We have that goal shaping what happens to the broad pension plan system. In the process, we miss the fact that we had a basic Canada pension plan system that could and should have been expanded. Therefore it would have given a system of portability and indexing that responds to Canadians and which would have been straightforward, fair and the same for people regardless of whether they were in small businesses in good parts of the economy or in declining parts of the economy.
The Canada Pension Plan would have provided fairness and equity. Also, it would have given a level of retirement earnings to people across the country once they were outside the workforce. This would have provided security for them once they faced older age. That is not the approach which is taken.
The other thing an approach relying on the Canada Pension Plan would have done is what has happened in Quebec, for instance.

One can see in the province of Quebec that a public savings system has created a large fund to promote development within the province. The Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund, for example, is a product of the public pension plan.

This kind of approach, which would have given us funds created through pension plan creations and contributions, would have given us a basis for really promoting economic development fairly and effectively throughout the countiy. We have missed that, too, by the fact that this approach to pension plans and pension reform has not made the Canada Pension Plan the central part or central concern of pension reform.
Our second broad criticism is that Bill C-52 gives most of its benefits to relatively well-off Canadians. It does so by expanding the RRSP contribution limit from $7,500 a year to $15,500 per year for those outside a pension plan. It is true that this higher limit is phased in until 1995. In 1995, the projections are that it will be at a level of 2.5 times the average industrial wage, which is in fact a lower

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
level than was the case in the past for maximum RRSP contributions.
Nevertheless, it is a significant increase in benefits to those making between $40,000 and $80,000 per year. The cost of these improvements to those relatively well-off Canadians comes first from eliminating something with which we agree, a series of abuses by high income earners in our pension system. I will talk more about that later. I will talk more about that later, Madam Speaker.
Second, the cost of these improvements for better off Canadians also comes from a reduction in the amount of RRSP contribution which is possible for some existing pension plans in which there are high employer contributions and low employee contributions. For example, the telecommunications workers' union in British Columbia will see their members lose from $1,000 to $2,000 per year in potential contributions to RRSPs.
It does not make sense to see losses for lower income Canadians such as those in the telecommunications workers' union in B.C. coming at the expense of benefits going to those high income earners who are going to receive these extra benefits from the significant increase in RRSP limits. That cannot make sense if we are talking about improving equity in the pension reforms that are before this House.
Finally, the last crucial criticism we make of this legislation is that the rest of the income tax system now works on the basis of tax credits. Tax credits provide a benefit to those people who are low-income earners, which is just as important to them in dollar terms as the tax credit provides to higher income people. If you have deductions instead of tax credits, the consequence is that the person who benefits most is the person with the higher income who is in that higher tax bracket. Therefore, there is a bigger gain from the same amount of benefit because it is a deduction at a higher tax bracket.
Our party argued hard within the finance committee to move to a system of tax credits. This is what we have in the rest of the tax system now. It has been proved that it is not impossible to do. But in fact the Department of Finance was not prepared to give ground on this issue. They have agreed, and it is an important agreement which our finance committee has managed to achieve, to
investigate this and come back with a report to the finance committee to see if there is some way of putting tax credits into effect in the future in the pension system. But it is something that should have been done before this broad set of pension reforms came into effect rather than as an afterthought.
There are improvements which our work in the finance committee managed to achieve. As originally drafted, the bill reduced significantly the possibility of trade unions bargaining for improvements in company pension plans through new collective agreements. We fought for and won changes in the regulations so that unions will have much more scope to bargain for such improvements.
For instance, the original bill blocked early retirement options in the case of plant closures or automation. We fought for changes to this and we were successful. Women were hit in the original bill by limits on the period of broken service for child rearing which they could take advantage of. These limits have been extended from five to eight years and made more flexible. This is another victory about which we feel good.
The original bill had a strong bias against defined benefit pension plans, the kind that most unions work out with their employers. These biases have been changed by simplifying administrative procedures, by increasing the amount of RRSP contributions that members of these plans can make in a number of cases and by making the rules clearer for pension portability.
Finally, we won commitments from the Department of Finance to examine tax credits for use in the future and also to look at how it is possible to use RRSP contribution space in a way that limits it for higher income earners in the future. We also won commitments from the finance committee to review the system in operation in three years and to examine how the Canada Pension Plan itself could be expanded in the future.
There are problems that remain but the last point that we would want to stress, is that this bill does plug some very important loopholes by which upper-income individuals were taking massive advantage of the tax system. We put pension maximums in place for higher income earners. A person with a $86,000 income will be able to
June 12, 1990

get 70 per cent of that as a maximum pension. You will not be able to go up to massive levels as in the past.
The current practice for many senior executives was to give themselves maximum RRSP room until close to retirement, then create a pension plan into which they could make retroactive payments. That double dipping is blocked.
We have blocked a number of important loopholes but we still do not have the pension reform system which our party envisions. We should have started, but did not start, in this case, from the Canada Pension Plan and which would have given us a chance to give portability, a chance to give fairness and a chance to give openness to every employee throughout this country.
I hope in the future that that is what we achieve in pension reform.
[Translation\


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague, and I found him very eloquent and most interesting when he discussed the reform of the retirement pension system in Canada. I am always interested in knowing, when he talks about tax credits vs. deductions-I know that the government is carrying out a study to see how it could perhaps do one or the other, how it can use tax credits to reform pensions, but I would like my colleague to explain why, in the past, the government has objected to use a system which appeared much more progressive, more sensible, a system which, I can say it here in the House of Commons, is rational. Why has it refused until now to resort to a tax credit system? Secondly, if the government had objections to using such a system, what were they?
Those are my two questions, Madam Speaker.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it is difficult to understand why the government did not accept suggestions to have a credit system rather than a deduction system. But I think it may have had two reasons to do so. The first reply given by the government was that it was too complicated to grant credits rather than deductions. But I find that very difficult to believe, Madam Speaker,
Government Orders
because we already have credits throughout most of our income tax system.
We have credits for charitable donations, and we also have credits for such things as the expenses of children attending university. We can continue with this part of our income tax system.
If it is not too complex for this part of our income tax system, I do not think it can be said, then, that it is too complex for our retirement pension system.
The other objection raised by the Department of Finance, to the effect that it may cost more than at present, is in my view very difficult to understand, considering that the credit system can be organized in such a manner as to give the same result for income as for expenditures, just as we have now with the deduction system.
I really do not think that this reply is acceptable. The Bill would need to be amended considerably to establish a system of credits, but then it has already been amended considerably in other areas. I believe it is possible to do the same thing with regard to the credits.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I want to put a brief question to the member for Essex-Windsor.
In his presentation, he mentioned the practice of double-dipping. This concept has provided difficulties over the years. I suppose there are arguments that might be made in favour of double-dipping. If a person has legitimately earned a pension and after retirement can provide services that have a specified value, it is proper that they make a claim for those services.
The case that we often find is where two payments are being made from the same source, particularly when that source is public such as the Government of Canada, and a person is receiving both a pension and a salary or fee for services.
However, one could argue that the combination of past government services and a fee or salary from the private sector is all right. If it is all right in those circumstances, why should the government not take

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
advantage of services from persons who have already retired and are receiving a pension?
I would like to ask the member for a more definitive statement from his point of view. Is he in favour of two payments being made to one person from the same source, whether that source is government or a private concern? If he is not in favour, does he think legislation should be enacted to prevent it?


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. Frankly, one of the things which is a problem with pension legislation like Bill C-52, is that it has a special, complicated vocabulary all of its own. We spent hours in the finance committee talking about PAs and PARs and PSPAs and all sorts of other acronyms that I am sure left many people who were watching the committee completely confused. At times it left many of us as committee members completely confused.
Double-dipping, as used with reference to this bill and in discussing what the bill attempts, is a different issue than the one raised by the hon. member. The member has raised the question of whether somebody who has been appointed, for instance, to head the CBC or something like that, should be receiving a pension as, for example, for time spent as a member of Parliament. I could make some personal comments with respect to that. I cannot make a comment with respect to our party's position on it, so I would prefer to stick to the meaning which is dealt with in the bill itself.
In the bill itself, double-dipping refers to the practice whereby people make RRSP contributions to the fullest possible extent for the period of their working life. This tends to apply especially to the owners of corporations and businesses of various kinds. Having made those massive RRSP contributions which would not be possible if there had been a pension system in place in the operation previously, just before they are due to retire they create a pension system for the business. They make back payments which make it possible for them to receive, after they retire, both the complete benefits of a pension plan and the complete benefits of the largest possible RRSP contributions. They would not have been able to do that if the pension plan itself had actually been in effect all those years that they were making RRSP contributions.
This bill prevents that kind of back payment from taking place and therefore prevents double-dipping. It is in that sense that we very much support what is suggested in this bill.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I would like to commence my little talk here today with a quote that I would like to expand on as I go along.
This quote comes from the Hon. Stanley Knowles, the former member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, who stated in the House of Commons on November 9, 1964:
What I like most of all about the Canada Pension Plan-about the two stage plan which we are now developing for Canadians in their years of retirement-is that we are trying to reach a position where we are providing pensions that are adequate-I do not suggest that the levels which will be achieved by combining the Canada Pension Plan, at its best, with old age security, at its present level, are really the last words in adequacy, but at least we are talking about pensions of quite a different order front that what seemed to be accepted a few years or decades ago. I hope that, having accepted the principle that retirement security should be on the basis of adequacy, we will go on improving that basis, finding means and ways of raising the levels of our pensions so that all Canadians can look forward to a retirement in decency and dignity.
I would suggest that what we have at present is a continuation of that thrust toward adequacy, decency, and dignity. I wonder whether in fact we are choosing the route that we should be taking when we look at the lower and middle income earners in Canada.
Personally, I have no objection to some form of registered retirement savings plan that all Canadians can benefit from by putting away some of their extra earnings now to be used at a future date. It ensures that they do not have to live in abject poverty and that they can live in some comfort in their older years.
However, I question the thrust we are going in. If this is pension reform that we have on the table before us, then I question the direction in which we are proceeding in that pension reform.
It seems to me and the New Democratic Party that we should be looking at more basic reforms that look at the adequacy of the Canada Pension Plan and reforms that look at ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of how much money they have in their younger years, can live at
June 12, 1990

least at the same level, or at a reasonable level, in their retirement years.
Can that be done through the present registered retirement savings plan? Certainly, if we look at the changes that are before us, we can see that in the present system those who have $7,500 in additional income at the end of any one year can put that money away for later years, tax-free for the time being. They can draw on that and pay the taxes perhaps at a lower income level. I do not have too many difficulties with the concept, but let us look at what we have in this bill.
The proposal is that in 1991 the registered retired savings limit will go up $4,000 to $11,500; in 1992 to $12,500, in 1993 to $13,500, in 1994 to $14,500, and finally in 1995 to $15,500. It is interesting to note that those who will be able to contribute the limit in 1995 of $15,500 are those who earn $83,111. How many people in Canada will be able to use that?
I would suggest that people with earnings in the $80,000 plus bracket have other means of investment, and can look after their retirement years without the necessity of looking at a program that allows them to defer even more taxation.
This brings me to another section of this bill, which drops the limit from 20 per cent to 18 per cent of earnings. Who does that drop help, or who does it hinder?
Dropping the earning limit to 18 per cent as the maximum which can be put in registered retirement savings plans again hits out at those in the lower and middle-income scales, those of us who make $30,000 or $40,000 and are able to take some of that money each year and invest it for our retirement. I would put an asterisk beside that because at some of those rates it is very difficult for a one-earner family to make a living, and support children and a spouse. However, if there was money left over at the end of that period time, if you were an excellent money manager and wanted to put in the maximum amount, we have seen the maximum amount eroded for those in the lower-income levels.
Where are we going with our legislation? Is this how we are going to look after the vast majority of people in Canada? I would suggest no, because perhaps 5 per cent of the people of Canada will benefit by the upper limits
Government Orders
by 1995 of $15,500. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity for average Canadians? It is not within this bill. There are definite problems, I believe, with dropping that limit. It strikes out at the 95 per cent of wage-earners in Canada who do not have an $83,100 income and the ability to use the maximum. As I stated, it is those in the upper limits who really do not require that additional amount of money.
There is now a deferral system within the new legislation which allows contributions to be carried forward for seven years. I have said this in the past and I would like to repeat it. On the surface, it appears this is and can be a provision that can be used reasonably by Canadians who, perhaps, one year through some particular problem within their own employment area have had an income drop and they have the ability to cany forward. However, once again for the most part, this is a provision that can be used most beneficially by those in the higher income brackets.
It is not hard to imagine a person in a higher income bracket finding an investment opportunity to invest part of the money he would normally put into a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. He invests that money because, for one reason or another, he can get a higher return on it than he can deferring his $15,500 in tax through the Registered Retirement Savings Plan and the following year or years he then takes the money, adds on, and receives the tax deferral. I would suggest that this will be of limited benefit to lower and middle-income Canadians.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that to benefit the majority of Canadians, the thrust of pension reform must be through a proper reform of the Canada Pension Plan. Then all Canadians, regardless of the amount they earn during their working years, can live with some dignity and comfort, as was stated by Stanley Knowles in the House of Commons in 1964.
Would it not be nice to be able to have a Canada Pension Plan system in place that allowed all Canadians a reasonable income of one-half of their earnings throughout their lifetime. This is not beyond our grasp. If it is something that we as parliamentarians want and set as a priority, I would suggest that it is within our grasp, something that is attainable.

June 12, 1990
Government Orders
All Canadians deserve to be treated reasonably and fairly in their declining years. As the population curve for seniors goes up, we know that across Canada 11 per cent of our population are over 65 years of age. The projections show clearly that will be doubled within approximately 30 years.
From my own personal experience in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, there are pockets of population within Canada where the seniors' population is sometimes triple the national average. People cluster together. People go to areas that are easier on them in their old age. As we go on into the next 30 years, these people need some assurances that there will be something to assist them in their declining years, not simply because they have had the good fortune to be high income earners-some of the 5 per cent-but because we as Canadians are willing to assist each other with our equalization payments.
We are proud Canadians. We are proud because we have through history assisted and helped each other. We have the start of a system that can be second to none, but we need the political will to proceed with that system and to do exactly what I have stated. Let us give seniors and our own generation some hope for the future, some hope for that dignity, some hope for that decency, some hope for that equality in the retirement years.
Let me move on to some of the other measures within the bill and some of the problems about which other people have spoken.
In a news release on June 8,1990, the Telecommunications Workers Union talked about the legislation and emphasized that the only people who will be helped are the higher income earners. Mr. Larry Armstrong, president of that union, stated in that release:
There is no good reason for this legislation. It will harm pensions plans. It will harm individual Canadians. It will make our prospects of adequately taking care of an increasingly older population much more bleak. The only clear beneficiary will be the government treasury.
He goes on to state:
Starting in 1991, if this bill passes, Michael Wilson knows that he no longer will have to give millions of Canadians as much tax relief for saving for pensions. This could well add up to billions of dollars of tax revenue for the government.
Mr. Armstrong tells us further that the minor changes recommended by the chair of the finance committee will not undo the terrible damage this legislation will create.
A recent article on the pension bill in the Financial Post stated that actuaries were opposed to the provisions which are before the House today. In the article it states that they:
-object to the committee's proposal to drop provisions known as pension adjustment reversals (PARs) to simplify the new rules.
The legislation reduces individual registered retirement savings plan limits if the worker is part of a corporate pension plan. The formula used to reduce the RRSP limit is called a pension adjustment (PA).
The article quotes pension consultants at William M. Mercer Ltd. as saying:
-the proposal means young people who switch jobs lose retirement savings opportunities. They said some measure must be adopted to reflect the age of a pension plan member.
The amendments proposed by the finance committee make matters worse. "If PARs, pension adjustment reversals, are dropped, pension adjustment must be adjusted by age. The amendment approach is a disaster", states vice-chairman, Robert Dowsett, of William M. Mercer Ltd.
Another Canadian Press release of June 8 states:
-one pension expert said last-minute amendments have turned the legislation into a disaster for younger workers who may change jobs several times during their careers.
The article quotes Mr. Mercer as stating that because the bill no longer lets people increase their RRSP contributions to make up for lost pension benefits when they change jobs that this particular section is a disaster.
It appears that there are many difficulties with this legislation. The difficulties are not simply in some of the things that the pension adjustment people have pointed out. I would suggest part of the problem is the complexity of the terms and conditions within the bill.
How do we, the average wage-earner in Canada, look at these bills and find out how they are going to affect pension plans that we have within our unions, within our companies or, for that matter, carry forward some of the provisions within the bill. How is the bill going to affect us, the average wage-earner?
June 12, 1990

I would suggest that many of us legislators do not fully understand all of the implications and provisions of this bill. In looking at what some of the experts have said, it is obvious they feel that this is a disastrous bill. The complexity is one of the things that has been criticized by tax experts and adjusters.
How are we, the average wage-earners, going to find out where we should go? We are going to have to pay out more of our hard earned income to go to tax experts to have them tell us how we can best use this bill, how we can invest for our future, instead of having a simple system of deductions for Canada Pension Plan.
That is the route we should be going in the future, a look and a review of the basic Canada Pension Plan so that all Canadians, regardless of income, can live their ancient and dying years in comfort.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. After Question Period we shall proceed with a period of questions and comments relating to the speech.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, a parliamentary tradition was fulfilled last night when the pages met the MPs on the ball diamond.
It was a hastily organized match that even required assistance from Hansard. We forgot the need for bats and balls, but Bob Allen from Hansard was there with what we needed.
The MPs spotted the pages an average of 25 to 30 years. It was a classic match of experience versus youth and enthusiasm. All three political parties were represented, and the outcome proved that when we in this House co-operate, play by the rules and work together, the outcome will be obvious.
The MPs broke tradition and easily defeated the pages. We won in more ways than on the field. We got to know a few of the pages better, and the more I know of these young Canadians the more impressed I am. They have served this House well during the past year, and they have proven to be a credit to themselves and to this country.
We owe them our gratitude. I thank them for then-sportsmanship, their patience, their sense of humour and for being young Canadians of whom we can all be proud.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that free trade would mean lower prices for consumers who would save $800 a year as tariffs were removed on manufactured products. Now, consumers are being told by the government that, with the GST, they can expect the cost of manufactured goods to drop 6.5 per cent.
I have a list of prices for manufactured goods such as washers, springs, flanges, saw blades and so on covering 1988-90 which shows the Canadian consumer was sold a bill of goods on free trade as prices have increased on an average of 5.2 per cent while tariffs have decreased by 2.3 per cent.
With free trade, consumers called for independent monitoring of prices to ensure the consumer benefit. The government said the market will take care of it. The market players did take care of themselves.
Now with the GST, the government is again ignoring consumers' calls for an independent monitoring to ensure savings between the MST and GST are passed on to consumers. Again, the government says the market will take care of it, meaning that the market players will take care of themselves.
It is time this government took care of the taxpayer, instead of taking care of only big business.

June 12, 1990


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, since this is National Access Awareness Week and also International Literacy Year, I would like to emphasize the importance of providing literacy training for people with functional disabilities.
In a rapidly changing world, where competition is becoming increasingly fierce, it is a foregone conclusion that education is more important than ever before.
A good education offers better employment opportunities. It opens the door to a whole new world of ideas, to new knowledge and skills that will help the individual realize his full potential.
However, for some disabled persons, access to education may be limited due to the very nature of a functional disability that makes it harder for them to learn to read and write.
Since this is International Literacy Year, Madam Speaker, I urge those who work with the disabled and are involved in teaching to join forces, in order to adapt literacy training to students with special needs and thus give them a chance to take full advantage of the opportunities that come their way.


CITY OF LAVAL
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, last week, the three members from Laval-Guy Ricard, former member of the Laval executive, Jacques Tetreault, first mayor of Laval, and myself, a permanent resident of this beautiful city for 24 years, jointly tabled three bills aimed at changing the names of the ridings of Laval-des-Rapides, Laval and Duvernay.
Madam Speaker, today Laval, which consists of 15 former towns, celebrates its twenty-fifth birthday-25 years of love and friendship.
When I entered politics in 1984, Madam Speaker, believe it or not, the riding of Duvernay was designated as Montreal-Duvernay, which I had changed to Duvernay. I fail to see why the federal ridings still bear the names of former towns, and I am thinking of my own riding, Duvernay, which includes five of these lormer
municipalities: Auteuil, Vimont, Pont-Viau, Saint-Frangois, Saint-Vincent-de-Paul and Duvernay.
The new bills will substitute Laval East for Duvernay, Laval Centre for Laval-des-Rapides and Laval West for Laval.
These changes will make it easier for Laval residents to identify with their respective federal ridings.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and happy birthday to all the people of Laval!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, over one year after the Exxon Valdez violated the Alaskan ecosystem with 270,000 barrels of oil, Canadians are still waiting for the report of The Public Review Panel on Marine Spills. The panel, announced by the Prime Minister last June, is all the more important while Petro-Canada courts disaster on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland.
PetroCan is drilling a wildcat well, but is unable to drill a relief well to contain a blow-out. An oil spill 32 times greater than the Valdez could occur without necessary emergency response. The chances of a spill from the well may be remote, but that is what they said about the Alaska tanker route during its years of safe operation. Until last March.
In the event of a major chemical or oil spill in the Great Lakes or on either coast, the Coast Guard, Transport Canada, the Auditor General and even the interim report on spills say that the government is not ready.
I urge the government to finalize the marine spill report so Canadians know that all plans and policies are in place for a disaster in our waters.


RADIO LICENCE FEES
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, in January, the government removed exemptions to radio licence fees for municipalities. The li-
June 12, 1990

cences cover radios used by emergency services such as ambulance, fire and police.
The new regulations which in effect downloads costs on to local governments have had an enormous impact in my riding. Municipalities from Saanich to Sidney are faced with increases of 400 to 1,400 per cent. This not only imposes an excessive tax on over-burdened municipal budgets, but clearly demonstrates this government's willingness to raise revenue at the expense of health and safety.
This creative bookkeeping may help the federal balance sheet, but it hardly meets the needs of taxpayers. Forcing another level of government to choose between public safety and reductions in other services may be the most cynical deficit-cutting move the Conservatives have attempted.
Once again, this government has failed to consult. It has failed to act in the interest of the people it is supposed to serve, and it has failed to admit an error and roll back the radio licence fees. On behalf of my constituents, I strongly protest this outrage.


FIRST NORTH AMERICAN INDIGENOUS GAMES
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, The "City of Champions", Edmonton, the Hobbema Four Nations and Enoch, Alberta, will host the First North American Indigenous Games from June 30 to July 8. I invite all members of this House to attend these historic games and encourage all their constituents to do likewise.
The games will open with a traditional Ceremonial Run from Wyoming, after elders offer prayers in our spiritual ceremonies. Todd Buffalo and Dennis Samson's rodeo will follow at the Penee AgriPlex in Hobbema on June 20.
Welcome to all those 3,000 plus indigenous athletes from North America and elsewhere who will be competing in these Olympic-style games. Events include archery, basketball, shooting, wrestling, soccer, track and field, volleyball, canoeing, boxing, lacrosse, a marathon, swimming, softball and golf. Welcome also to those who
will be participating in the cultural events, which is the important centre of our way of life.
Thank you in advance to two brothers, Charles Wood and John Fletcher, the sponsors and the hundreds of volunteers who are making my dream come true. This is a good, positive contribution that will encourage indigenous youth all over to pursue excellence, whether it is physically, mentally, culturally or spiritually.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, this government's high interest rate policy is crippling the housing industry in this country and killing the hopes of thousands seeking affordable housing.
Housing starts and sales are down 40 per cent from last year. Thousands of construction workers and thousands of workers in related industries are losing their jobs.
Housing is a very important contributor to the Canadian economy and to our social well-being. It represents $43 billion and 670,000 person years of employment; that is 5 per cent of the total employment in Canada.
Housing is more than bricks and mortar, it is about people, young families, seniors and the physically challenged. This government, instead of telling Canadians "don't worry, be happy", should immediately reduce interest rates, scrap the GST and recommit itself to housing Canadians, especially the homeless and those on waiting lists for social and co-op housing.
Housing is not only good economic policy, it is good social and family policy and it is good environmental policy.


PARISHES OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA, IN GIFFARD, AND ST. GREGORY'S, IN MONTMORENCY
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, in the life of every community, there are milestones that should be pointed out. This is the case for St. Ignatius of Loyola parish in Giffard, which is

June 12, 1990
5. 0. 31
proudly celebrating the 75th anniversary of its founding this week, and for St. Gregory's in Montmorency which throughout the year is celebrating its 100th anniversary.
Madam Speaker, I wish to pay tribute today to the builders of these two communities in the riding of Montmorency-Orleans who have laid the foundations for the economic and social development of their communities.
Now part of greater Beauport, these two formerly independent municipalities contribute actively to the development of Quebec's fourteenth largest city.
I want to thank the celebration organizers for their dedication. Thanks to them, the people of Giffard and Montmorency will have an opportunity to find in their past the values and examples that will help them ensure the future of their community and of the generations to come.


EMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, last week Statistics Canada informed Canadians that 165,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector last year. The Tory government's disastrous policies have claimed another victim. This morning, it was announced that Fruehauf Canada, this country's largest trailer manufacturer, is closing its Brantford plant, resulting in a loss of 334 direct jobs and as many as 1,500 indirect jobs. It is quite clear that a trio of Tory policies are directly responsible for this closure: free trade, deregulation and high interest rates.
In 1988, United States freight companies hauled about 15 per cent of all freight in Canada. This year that will rise to 60 per cent. The result is that Canadian manufacturing jobs are being lost and Canadian industries are being killed off.
Quite clearly, the level playing field promised by the Mulroney government is anything but level. Equally as clear is the fact that the government's free trade deal, its blind drive to deregulate and its policy of squeezing out Canadian jobs with high interest rates are killing the Canadian manufacturing sector.


SENATE REFORM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I was very surprised to learn that the leader of the Parti Quebecois in the National Assembly, Jacques Parizeau, prefers appointing senators to electing them. It is especially surprising given the opinion of former Quebec Premier Rene Levesque that the Senate should be abolished.
For many years, at least twenty, Madam Speaker, Quebecers like Canadians from coast to coast believed that the Senate needed to be thoroughly reformed, not totally abolished.
Therefore the arguments the leader of the Parti Quebecois is making in the National Assembly to Premier Bourassa are directly opposed to what Canadians and Quebecers want on the question of Senate reform.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, these days just about everyone is an environmentalist and that is a very good development.
It is also important to be an informed environmentalist. A lot of members of parliament, broadcasters, journalists, and others, quite often refer to aerosol sprays as containing CFCs. I know, because a lot of these products are made in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
Since 1976 industry itself has been phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs as propellants in aerosol sprays. In fact, only a small number of aerosol sprays, those that are used in prescription pharmaceuticals, which are less than 5 per cent, are still used in Canada.
Within the next two weeks, regulations will be promulgated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which will further solve this problem by closing off any remaining imports of aerosol sprays with CFCs.
June 12, 1990


THYSSEN-BEAR HEAD INDUSTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Madam Speaker, Canada has always been recognized around the world as an international peacekeeper. We have the prospect of being a world leader in environmental technology. There is a project before the government that can support both objectives.
Thyssen-Bear Head Industries has proposed to provide our Armed Forces with a modern multi-purpose vehicle for use in peacekeeping and other defence-related activities. In addition, it promises to bring to Canada access to German environmental technology that is state of the art and in use across Europe.
Thyssen-Bear Head Industries, therefore, could be a vehicle by which Canada becomes a world environmental leader. Moreover, Thyssen-Bear Head, along with Scotia Synfuels, offers two of the most promising industrial opportunities for the Strait of Canso area, an area where lasting jobs are urgently needed. We have the facilities: a world-class superport and excellent industrial training centres. Our skilled tradespeople are second to none.
I have spoken before in support of the Thyssen-Bear Head Industries project and the economic benefits it would provide in eastern Nova Scotia. I want to express this support again.
I urge the Canadian government to act soon to enable this project, which has been in abeyance since 1988, to go forward.

Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, few Canadians know that between 1914 and 1920 thousands of Ukrainian Canadians and other east Europeans were interned unjustly in 26 camps set up across Canada.
Subsequently tens of thousands more were designated as enemy aliens, disenfranchised, and subjected to various other discriminatory measures legislated by the Government of Canada. The property of many so-called
enemy aliens was confiscated and never returned. This is a shameful episode in our history.
Today I met with the redress committee of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has joined with Italian, Chinese, and Japanese communities to form the National Redress Alliance.
The New Democratic Party supports the creation of a national redress commission to deal expeditiously and justly with these dark episodes in our history.
I call on the government to establish immediately such a commission to deal with the issues of Ukrainians and other groups which deserve a fair hearing for the injustices of the past.


EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government on its decision to participate in the newly formed European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This bank will assist east bloc countries make the transition from socialist economies to free market economies.
I know that many people across Saskatchewan will welcome this effort to assist their friends and relatives in improving their lives. After 40 years of stagnation and repression it would be almost impossible for these nations to rebuild without help from the west. As well, Canadian participation in the bank will help to enhance the Canadian business access to commercial opportunities in eastern Europe.
I believe that despite our own difficult financial situation it would be short-sighted and inappropriate to ignore the plight of newly reformed democracies in eastern Europe.


CZECHOSLOVAKIAN ELECTION
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, the National Institute for International Affairs sponsored a delegation to observe the June 8 and June 9, 1990 Czechoslovakian election, the first truly competitive election since 1946.

June 12, 1990
Oral Questions
I was pleased an invitation was extended to me to join this observer team. The delegation was led by U.S. Senators John McCain of Arizona and Chris Dodd of Connecticut. In addition to business representatives, parliamentarians from Panama, Hungary, Chile, Columbia, Australia, and other nations were present.
The election marked the culmination of a remarkable series of events that have transformed Czechoslovakia during the past seven months. The election demonstrated the vitality of Czechoslovakia's democratic culture and the country rejoining, at least in part, the European community to which it historically belonged.
We should also congratulate Elections Canada for contributing advice in the planning of the Czechoslovakian voting. Its guidance and assistance was noted to me by the Czech election committee.
I was most pleased to be invited to be a witness in this historic event. I saw a country that has now just ran the first yard of a 100-yard dash and, in their own words, Czechs and Slovaks acknowledge they have many hurdles yet to overcome.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In his speech to the House yesterday, referring to his recent closed door marathon sessions with the provincial premiers, the Prime Minister said:
This process has proven to be increasingly unsatisfactory in several respects and must be changed.
There should, first and foremost, be ample opportunity for Canadians to participate in the process.
Yet, in an interview published today in The Globe and Mail referring to these recent seven-day marathon closed sessions he held with the provincial premiers, the Prime Minister said:
That's the way it had to be done. You're asking me if I had any regrets? None whatsoever.
I ask the Prime Minister: How can Canadians take the Prime Minister seriously when one day he says he wants to change the process and the next day he says he has no regrets about it whatsoever?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Because, Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction whatsoever. In regard to the process that we followed, it was a process that I inherited pursuant to both past practice and events that developed from the 1981-82 constitutional debates and negotiations here in Ottawa.
Yesterday I was speaking of my personal opinion in regard to this process, which personally I find unacceptable and I announced yesterday will be changed presumably by the House of Commons for all constitutional matters in the future.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, our Constitution as adopted in 1982 does not require the sessions between himself and premiers on constitutional change to be marathon sessions, nor does it require these sessions to be held in secret. Certainly he was not bound by anything in that regard in our Constitution.
In the same interview in The Globe and Mail the Prime Minister, speaking of this meeting with the provincial premiers, said:
I told (my advisers) a month ago when we were going to meet. It's
like an election campaign; you count backward. I said: "that's the
day we are going to roll the dice."
Yet, for weeks the Prime Minister left the impression with Canadians and with this House that he and Senator Murray were engaged in a difficult search for common ground as a prerequisite, as a basis for calling a First Ministers' Conference and not deliberately waiting until the last minute to call a First Ministers' Conference in order to roll the dice with the country possibly at stake.
I ask the Prime Minister: Why did he tell Canadians that he was trying to find consensus among the provinces before calling a First Ministers' Conference when he now admits that all he was doing was waiting until the last minute to roll the dice with the premiers? Is this the way the Prime Minister is really attempting to carry out national reconciliation and build the future of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition is so offended. The process produced the signature of 10 premiers promoting the concept of a united Canada. I would have thought he would would celebrate that.
June 12, 1990


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is nothing very mysterious or sinister about the statement. When on May 111 met with my advisers the first thing we had to look at was the entire schedule of commitments I had entered into as Prime Minister of Canada from June 23 leading back to May 11.
At that point in time this was the relatively fixed schedule that I faced. The Charest committee would report the end of the following week, and during that week there was a state visit of President Gonzalez of Spain. After the Charest report on May 17, Senator Murray would carry out consultations across the country with each premier. That took three days and had to be done before any calling of a conference.
My friend will remember that a House order had already been passed in regard to Bill C-43. Along with most members of the House I was here until late the night of May 23 with the report stage votes.
I began extensive meetings with each premier a day and a half later. They took place over four days from May 25 to May 28. These meetings were obviously necessary before convoking a full conference.
On the day of the last meeting, May 28, there was an official state visit to Ottawa by the Secretary General of the United Nations, and I had undertaken on behalf of all Canadians to speak at a state dinner in his honour in Toronto that night.
On the next day President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union arrived for May 29 and May 30.


Some Hon. Members:: Time, time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That left three days before the First Ministers' Conference. My hon. friend should be congratulating the Prime Minister of Canada for doing all that with his colleagues, representing Canada, and trying to bring Canada together with the support of all members of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not give any of those explanations to the Globe and Mail. Why, in his interview with the Globe and Mail, did he only mention how he planned the process like an election campaign? There
Oral Questions
was no reference to the Prime Minister of Spain. Even though he said in the interview that he had no regrets about the methods used, will he give us a commitment today that he will seriously try to change a process everyone now says must be changed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course I do not for a moment question what was reported by the Globe and Mail journalists. Certainly not! I said yesterday in the House that it was an outdated procedure that obviously needed to be changed. I announced yesterday that we intend to change the procedure to provide for more active participation by all Canadians before a new constitutional amendment is ratified.
The hon. member talked about methods. In 1981-82, we had a Constitution with nine provinces out of ten. I managed to get ten out of ten.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House was advised that shortly after Route Canada failed there were charges laid under the Canada Labour Act.
We are not dealing here with employer-employee relations. We are dealing with over $21 million of taxpayers' and employees' trust money that was spent out of trust. Mr. Speaker, when money is spent out of trust by a company like Route Canada or Route Canada Enterprises, you can pierce a corporate veil and look to the directors of the company for reimbursement of those trust funds.
I ask the Minister of Transport to pierce the corporate veil and make sure that the directors of that corporation, including the Fingolds, reimburse the employees of Route Canada and the taxpayers of this country in excess of $21 million.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments about the corporate veil and trust. My hon. friend will know that the company holds those funds in trust for the various government departments and is required to remit those to the department.

June 12, 1990
Oral Questions
Once a company goes into bankruptcy, all the assets are seized by the receiver in bankruptcy who takes charge of the assets, calculates the liabilities, and pays the appropriate liabilities, whether they are secured or preferred, out of the funds that he or she receives.
I expect the Registrar in Bankruptcy will take care of that matter in due course.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I guess the essence of the question to the same minister is: if there is a shortfall, does the minister intend to go after the directors of that company to make up the shortfall in the trust funds that were spent out of trust by the directors of Route Canada and Route Enterprises Canada Limited?
I think what this situation needs is a full, open and complete investigation into all the affairs as they affect the disposition of Route Canada by CN and CN Rail. I ask the minister to commence a complete, open investigation into this aborted transaction.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the bankruptcy proceedings have not been wound up. I would think that in the normal course of events the Registrar in Bankruptcy will report as to whether or not there have been any illegalities.
All the creditors will be paid in accordance with their preference, preferred or secured. I do not think it would be appropriate to step in with a full investigation until the bankruptcy proceedings are completed.


THE CHAREST REPORT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. About a month ago, the Charest Report was published. The committee had heard 160 witnesses and received 800 briefs and papers. It was an exercise in public consultation. Now we hear that the Prime Minister already had the whole thing planned, even before the committee started its work. It would seem the Charest Report has now become the "charade" report.
I have the following question for the Prime Minister: Is the Prime Minister saying that the committee's work was just a facade to hide the government's real agenda?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already had occasion to praise the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, from Saskatchewan, who was an active participant in the committee, so I think it is clear I was very serious about its proceedings.
I said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition that the explanation was quite simple. The Charest Report was released on May 17, before a long weekend. We had three weeks left. During the first week, we had Senator Murray's visits and my meetings with the Premiers. During the second week, which started on May 27,1 had an official visit by Perez de Cuellar and the official visit of President Gorbachev, and in the third week we started the process of meeting with the Premiers on June 3. So there is nothing out of the ordinary in all this.
It was simply a matter of looking at our agenda for the period from May 11 to June 23 and deciding when we could send Senator Murray on his mission, when I could meet the provincial Premiers, individually and together, at my residence, and when I could fulfil my international obligations on behalf of Canada, with the meetings with President Gorbachev, the Secretary General of the U.N. and the president of Spain. I did all that, and then I held our meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister cannot answer the question. The members of this party participated in the Charest committee in good faith. The public participated in the Charest committee in good faith. Yet this government has not shown good faith with the public of Canada.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the process that happened over this past week. We know that late Thursday night the Prime Minister's office met with Jean Chretien's national chairman, his policy adviser and one of his lawyers, while aboriginal people and women stood on the outside.
June 12, 1990

Even though the future of aboriginal people and women was at stake, can the Prime Minister explain why meeting with Mr. Chretien's campaign officials was so central to his plan?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there are many things that I have in mind for Mr. Chretien but that is not one of them.
I think my hon. friend should know that I spent the time before the meeting of the First Ministers meeting, as well on the Sunday, with the leaders of the territorial governments, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, both of whom had an agenda very largely committed to the concerns that my hon. friend has just raised.
I trust that my hon. friend will not blame me for failing to meet with anyone other than First Ministers and territorial leaders. I sought to meet with many more but there are only so many hours in a day.
I think that my hon. friend, had she the time to listen to the speeches made by the territorial leaders late Saturday night at the Conference Centre, would agree that they seemed to indicate generally that they were very pleased with the way the matter had been conducted and that they were very pleased with the results, and hoped for even better results in the future.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, aboriginal people were on the outside of this process. Women were on the outside of this process. Yes, the Prime Minister's office met with the elected premier of the Yukon, the elected government leader of the Northwest Territories.
Will the Prime Minister explain to this House what the role of Mr. Chretien's advisers was in his plan which he said was necessary to bring forward the constitutional talks of last week?


Mr. Gauthier:: He's the next Prime Minister, your successor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the Liberals to say it is because he is the next Prime Minister. They also asked me to say that about the last leader of the Liberal party, and I do not want to damage Mr. Chretien before he starts.
My hon. friend raises some very good questions. With regard to the issues that are raised, I think she would be
Oral Questions
pleased to note that in the final document that was published there is great care in the matter of gender equality, which was a matter of concern to the Leader of the NDP in Manitoba for example. There are provisions to ensure a fundamental new process-


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Are those Mr. Chretien's provisions, or what?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer the Leader of the NDP on a very important matter.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We put in place a brand new series of provisions for a constitutional process for aboriginal Canadians.
The Northwest Territories were ensured of a priority analysis of their provincehood requirements, not based on 1982 but going back to Confederation, namely, provincehood on the basis of an agreement between the federal government and the territories themselves.
There was further consideration in respect of appointments of senators and justices of the Supreme Court from the territories. There was very ample consideration given to the concerns of the north as reflected by the statements of the two territorial leaders.
If my hon. friend is blaming some member of my staff or anyone else for listening to constructive ideas from members of the Liberal Party or the NDP, then I do not think that that would be appropriate. I listened to and received very many constructive ideas and helpful suggestions from the NDP and from all kinds of Liberals. I acknowledged that publicly yesterday.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Volodymyr Yavorivsky, National Deputy to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and Ukraine and Vice President of Rukh.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Volodymyr Mokry, Deputy to the Polish Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 12, 1990
Oral Questions TRADE


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
While the Prime Minister has been preoccupied with constitutional matters, I am sure he is aware of the important decision taken by the Presidents of the United States and Mexico to begin talks leading toward what the U.S. President calls a North American trade agreement. I think he also recognizes that it is equally important that Canadians understand what this government intends to do about it.
In those circumstances I would like to ask the Prime Minister to confirm that the cabinet has already met on this very important item and has decided not to become involved in negotiations. Will he confirm that that decision has been made? Will he tell us what in fact the cabinet has authorized government officials to do to respond to this veiy crucial initiative that will affect Canada in a dramatic way?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has made no decision as to whether we wish to be further involved in this matter or not further involved in this matter because the matter has hardly even commenced as yet.
There has been a decision between the U.S. and Mexico that they wish to have preliminary discussions and consultations to see whether or not they wish to engage in negotiations with reference to a free trade agreement.
Our own government is reviewing the situation to make a decision after we consult with the provinces and after we consult with the private sector to see whether or not we want to be more closely involved in that.
We are certainly going to be very close observers of what happens in any event. But as to whether we want any closer connection than that, we will decide in due course.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
It is reported that discussions were held between the Prime Minister and President Bush on this very topic yesterday or the day before.
In the press conference yesterday, the U.S. President's spokesperson announced that he sees these discussions leading toward a North American trade agreement.
I would like to know if the Prime Minister indicated to President Bush that Canada is in agreement or disagreement with the objective of leaning toward a North American trade agreement? Did we convey that we are not going to be part of these discussions and negotiations? In other words, what is the position that the Prime Minister took in relation to this very important negotiation with the U.S. President?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday night, I believe, the President of the United States called me in advance of his meetings with President Salinas to tell me that it was his anticipation that this matter might be raised by President Salinas. It was a courtesy call to advise me of that.
With regard to the question of a North American trade agreement, it never came up at any time in discussion with President Bush, least of all Sunday night.


CONSUMER INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Today, the minister announced his so-called Consumer Information Office to prevent consumers from being exploited by the hidden goods and services tax.
Can the minister really expect us to believe that a Mickey Mouse outfit of 20 people can keep 20 million consumers informed on the pricing of goods produced by over 1.6 million businesses?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) and Minister of State (Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I announced this morning a body that is going to look after and help consumers to monitor the situation and to make sure that we will pass on the benefit of the actual federal sales tax to the new GST.
June 12, 1990

I must point out that with Mr. Nicholas Murray, who was the President of the Canadian Consumers Association, as the Chairman it will be a very good body.

It will be very good for Canadians, Mr. Speaker. It will help Canadian consumers be better informed on what is happening. An informed consumer can make better buying decisions. Consumers will be in an excellent position to do so on January 1, Mr. Speaker.


Eugène Bellemare: According to the minister, the GST consumer information office will have to make sure that the expected "savings" will be passed on to consumers.
How can the minister make such a statement if the information office will have no authority to file complaints or to lower prices and only 20 people to do all the work?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the hon. member's reaction, since the great majority of those who spoke at the hearings of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs in recent weeks recommended against having a price-control organization. Mr. Speaker, in this country, we must not take consumers for fools. They are quite able to make a valid choice when they buy. They just need to be well informed. I am surprised at what he said because even people in his own party who took part in these discussions, just like members of the New Democratic Party, were not in favour of having such a body that could roll back prices. I do not think, also, that Canadian consumers want to be in court for two or three years to find out if they paid too much for their refrigerator. What they want is accurate information so that when they buy in January and February, they will pay a fair price, Mr. Speaker.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, the minister who is in charge of arranging tax holidays for large corporations.
Oral Questions
The minister was quite categorical on April 4 when he told this House that he was urging all Canadians being clawed back on their old age pensions and family allowances to pay the tax, even though the legislation had not received Royal Assent.
Will the minister stand in this House now and be just as forceful and categorical in urging large corporations, most of which have been on tax holidays for years, to begin paying the large corporations tax?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, you will know that we have been encouraging large corporations to comply with Bill C-28, the large corporations tax, which is currently stuck in the Senate.
In the first year we had anticipated over $400 million of revenue as a result of the passage of that piece of legislation which is stuck in the Senate. We have been able to collect less than half of that.
For this fiscal year, the anticipated revenue is some $900 million. Therefore, I urge my hon. friend and all members, particularly my Liberal colleagues across the way, to encourage senators to pass this bill so that Canadians can take advantage of the positive elements and so that the Canadian government can reap the benefits of the revenues due it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that the function of the government is not to beg corporations but to demand that they pay their fair share of taxes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: As the minister knows, interest may be charged to the corporations that do not pay the tax until the bill is approved in the Senate.
Can the minister give a guarantee in no uncertain terms that those corporations that do not pay the tax until the bill becomes law will be charged interest? Will the minister guarantee Canadians that large corporations will not be treated differently from those Canadians collecting pensions or family allowances? Let them pay the interest, the same as ordinary folks do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, instead of acting for an Academy Award for the cameras, the hon. member should do his homework. If he did do his homework he would know that in fact once this bill is passed by the Senate-and we hope that the

June 12, 1990
Oral Questions
Senators would get off their bums and pass this bill at the earliest opportunity-that it is retroactive to January 15.
In fact, if the hon. member would do his homework instead of practising to be a movie star or Academy Award winner he would know that interest will be charged retroactively to January 15.


FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Premier of Manitoba alleged publicly that the cellular telephones of the Manitoba delegation to the First Ministers' Conference had been monitored. The Prime Minister has also stated that he had warned the premiers that such eavesdropping of private communications could occur.
Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that electronic monitoring of the premiers' conversations did take place last week and that such monitoring is a criminal offence? Will he tell the House just what he is prepared to do about these serious allegations?


Mr. Blaikie:: Are you bringing in Erik Nielsen again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the NDP on a matter of electronic bugging, and that surprises me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed, at a point during the conference it was brought to my attention that a press report existed to the effect that members of the Manitoba delegation, in particular, because of the presence of the two opposition leaders, were communicating with one another using cellular telephones. I simply took the liberty of telling all the participants to be very careful in their use of these kinds of devices because we had been advised by Government of Canada security people in the past, in entirely different circumstances, that these are considerably less than secure.
I pointed that out to the participants in the hope that they would exercise prudence. I have every reason to believe that they did.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, last February during a budget lock-up here in Ottawa, government officials revealed to the press that they had put technology in place to detect leaks and eavesdropping through cellular phones.
If that technology was already in the hands of our government, and if the Prime Minister knew that cellular monitoring was going to take place during the First Ministers Conference-


Martin Brian Mulroney: And if my mother-in-law were a bus.


Derek Vincent Lee: -did the Prime Minister use the technology to protect his own communications? If so, why did he not make the same security measures available to the provincial premiers at the Conference Centre?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward- Hastings.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Canadian trucking industry is being crippled by past actions of this government and the present inaction of this government. Bill Swan, a transportation lawyer in the United States, said last week: "If something is not done to deal with these problems in the next three to five years, Canada will have precious little trucking industry left".
What concrete action is the government taking to level the playing-field that even the Americans say is tipped 20 per cent in their favour?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that during the recent difficulties in Windsor I met with the Ontario Minister of Transport and took a look at what we could do on a federal basis in all provinces vis-a-vis the trucking industry.
We agreed to a crackdown on cabotage which we came back and discussed with officials from National Revenue and Canada Employment. That crackdown is in place with the co-operation of the various provinces.
We agreed to deal with unfair business practices, given any evidence that came to our attention.
June 12, 1990

We agreed to look into the possibility of a different type of taxing on fuel that is brought into the country.
Those discussions are ongoing with the various provinces. We think we have done everything we can at an official level to deal with the problems of the truckers.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed the same minister.
The reason I bring this to the minister's attention is because I have yet another trucking firm in my riding that is negotiating to move into the State of New York for reasons of high interest and fuel taxes that tip the scale in the wrong way.
For example, in order for a Canadian trucking firm to get permits and licences to go into a U.S. state, it must give permission for the U.S. government to audit its books here in Canada to see that the proper taxes are paid into the U.S. state.
However, American firms refuse to have the reverse be the case. They refuse to have their books audited.
Will the minister tell me specifically what is being done to ensure that Canadian truckers using Canadian highways and Canadian roads are paying their fair share toward the upkeep of those through the fuel taxes they owe us here in Canada?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is: What is the government doing to make sure that Canadian truckers pay their fair share-


Mr. Boudria:: American!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, read the "blues".
-their fair share of taxes in Canada?
I am sure that the Canadian truckers are doing that.
When my friend examines the "blues" he will find out that is what he said.


Rex Crawford: That was not the question.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Oral Questions
Today marks the fifth day of protest by older workers in the Cape Breton construction industry. These workers took extreme measures to make their plights known.
The Program for Older Worker Adjustment currently in place does not provide assistance for these people, even though they are in desperate need of this assistance.
I want to ask the minister whether he will agree to meet with their representative and whether he is prepared to call for a review of the current OWA Program?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour) and (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the Program for Older Worker Adjustment was the result of lengthy and extensive negotiations with federal and provincial representatives. It was designed to help long-service older workers who have no prospects for re-employment following major, permanent lay-offs.
All industries, including construction sector employees, are eligible provided they meet the criteria that were established by this federal-provincial committee.
As for the last part of his question, I would like to inform him that the people in Cape Breton have arranged for a meeting with the provincial labour minister on June 27, and I have agreed to meet them here in Ottawa on July 5.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response.
However, he says that they have to meet the criteria in order to qualify for the program and then said, as reported in an article, that these construction workers are liable to be recalled to work. I would be interested in his response to the fact that these workers' benefits are now running out.
He is claiming that this is an industry that is on recall constantly, that construction workers are recalled all the time, and that they are able to go back to work.
How do you explain the fact that these workers are now running out of benefits, but they cannot apply for the Older Worker Adjustment Program?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member again that this program was designed to help older workers to adjust in cases where they are the victims of a major, permanent lay-off and

June 12, 1990
Oral Questions
have no prospects for re-employment. This is what the program was designed to do. It was negotiated with federal and provincial authorities. It is the program that applies at the present time.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The federal program called "Partners in the Environment" aims at establishing lasting partnerships to benefit the environment.
The Conservative government intends to give subsidies to local groups to enable them to protect, preserve, improve and restore the environment at the community level.
My question is this: I know you are a man of action; are you ready to announce today subsidies to community groups in Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague certainly knows, the federal government has set aside $50 million over five years for the "Partners in the Environment" program.
So far, 164 projects have already been approved and $6.8 million in federal funds have led to some $37 million in projected expenditures by all partners.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Labour. I want to thank the minister for agreeing to meet with the Cape Breton construction workers on July 5, 1990.
The minister will know that the Program for Older Worker Adjustment is a joint agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova
Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia said in a letter to the minister on April 24, 1990, the following:
- if they are indeed not covered by the current POWA agreement, may I ask if the Government of Canada would be prepared, at this time, to either amend the existing agreement or consider separate documents to accommodate the traditional construction worker in the POWA-like program-
In view of the fact that the Government of Nova Scotia has now changed its mind and wishes to have these workers included in the existing agreement, will the minister not now give an undertaking to that government to amend that agreement in order to include the Cape Breton construction workers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that this program, as I mentioned before, was the result of extensive negotiations among all provinces and the federal government. If there are to be amendments to the present program, we will have to reconvene the discussions among all provincial ministers responsible for labour and look at the possibility of amending this program.
However, I have not seen any intention by the ministers from the provinces to modify this program at the present time.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The minister will know that the unemployment rate of construction workers in Cape Breton is 75 per cent. Those who are unemployed will continue to be unemployed for an indefinite period of time. The possibilities of getting work are very, very remote.
In view of that crucial fact, would the minister not give serious consideration to this request which was made years ago by the construction workers in Cape Breton in order to include them in a Program for Older Worker Adjustment? Would he give that kind of undertaking to those workers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that these workers will meet with the minister responsible for labour in the area on June 27 and I will be meeting with them on July 5. We will take their representation under consideration.
June 12, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.


POINT OF ORDER
Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, I do not wish to leave the impression that I misled the House in my question in Question Period. It was my intention to say "U.S." not "Canada". I thought I said U.S. and I would like Hansard to show that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and related acts, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt had just completed his speech. We will now proceed with questions and comments following that speech. The hon. member for Sudbury.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech and I must say that I do agree with many of his comments. Bill C-52 is certainly not a perfect piece of legislation. The complexity of the pension reform has made it very difficult for us to judge absolutely every aspect and to make sure that everything is as equitable as it should be.
As a result of that, we have insisted that there be a full and complete review of the legislation and of the pension system after three years of implementation of Bill C-52. We certainly hope that any problems that have come up during that time could be addressed, if not even prior to the three years.
On the other hand, my hon. colleague mentioned that his party believes that we should have a beefed-up Canada Pension Plan. I would like to remind the hon. member that we have also requested that a review of the
Government Orders
Canada Pension Plan be done by the finance committee within the next year. I personally feel that there is a place for Canada Pension Plan but that there is also a place for Registered Retirement Savings Plans and that both can exist together and complement each other.
I do not know if the hon. member would like to comment on these two aspects of Bill C-52.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, to take the last part of the comments of my colleague from Sudbury first, I do not disagree at all that the two programs can co-exist. In fact, I think they have done fairly well. What I am afraid of is a continuation of what I see as the thread of what has been happening since 1984 with the privatization of a number of programs. I fear that with the raising of the limits of the Registered Retirement Savings Plan and dropping the percentage of earned wages from 20 to 18 per cent, we are moving closer and closer to privatization of pension plans.
If the review is done with the idea of ensuring that all Canadians will ultimately benefit through an expansion of the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, or the Guaranteed Income Supplement, that is fair enough. But what I fear is that the program as set out in Bill C-52 will ultimately erode the system that we have and we will depend more and more on privatization. In other words, people will be encouraged to invest in private pensions plans as opposed to plans such as the Canada Pension Plan which people like Mr. Knowles and Tommy Douglas have fought for in the past.
The review process, in the absence of any real amendments, is an excellent idea as long as it takes into consideration all Canadians from all walks of life rather than, as we have seen in the past with the goods and services tax and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, a very limited number of people being able to give their ideas and impressions on the Registered Retirement Savings Plan. I want to have a system where people can actually be listened to and heard. I do not want a system under which we set deadlines and then leave out most of the people who want to speak as we did on the goods and services tax. On that legislation we heard less than 300 of well over 1,000 representations that requested to be heard.
So let us listen to all suggestions and use some of those suggestions in order to make the Canada Pension Plan system better for all of us.

June 12, 1990
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-52, an act to amend the Income Tax Act relating to RRSPs. While I had intended to speak at some length I do not believe that is necessary. The member for Essex-Windsor and his colleague from Kootenay East worked very diligently in the committee examining Bill C-52. I want to commend them for the job they did in that committee. While there are still many problems associated with this legislation regarding RRSPs, as a result of their work and that of others in opposition it is tremendously improved. On behalf of us all I want to recognize the efforts that the opposition made in improving this legislation.
I also listened carefully to my hon. colleague and friend from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. Ele largely laid out the concerns the New Democratic Party has with the general thrust of this legislation.
The legislation starts, in my judgment, at the wrong point. It aims to allow everyone earning up to $86,000 a year to shelter from taxes the same percentage of income. Obviously that is going to benefit those in the upper income brackets.
On principle we have to ask ourselves whether it is the role of legislation to identity those who are the wealthiest and in relatively privileged positions in our society and arrange legislation such that they benefit much more than people from a low income bracket.
I believe that not only is that the wrong starting point, it also means that tax sheltering of our income becomes the major thrust of most pension-related savings as opposed to the approach which expands the Canada Pension Plan in order to provide satisfactory pension levels for everyone in the Canadian workforce.
Stanley Knowles and many others dedicated their entire lives to improving the Canada Pension Plan. Today, as opposed to improving the Canada Pension Plan so that all Canadians can benefit, we are tinkering around with tax legislation that enables certain people to avoid tax as they set aside money for their retirement years. We are seeing a departure from a trend over the years to improve the Canada Pension Plan. Now we are seeing a trend toward the privatization of our pension system.
It is important to recognize that only 20 per cent of all tax filers take advantage of RRSPs. Five per cent of Canadians earning under $15,000 contribute to RRSPs whereas nearly 60 per cent of Canadians earning over $50,000 contribute to RRSPs. We see with a glance at these simple statistics that the RRSP legislation is earmarked for those who are in the upper income brackets of our society.
The work of the committee has brought about positive changes including improvements to pension affordability, the provisions to allow for earlier retirement, changes in definition of designated plans and respect for existing contribution levels under collective agreements. I want to acknowledge and recognize these and other improvements, as well as saying that I and my colleagues depart from the major thrust of the legislation which is essentially pension reform through tax alteration, which is not the approach that we feel is most appropriate.
I would remiss if I did not note from the comments of previous speakers and the work of my colleagues on the committee the continuing complexity associated with this legislation. I read with interest the evidence of the professional actuaries who spoke to the committee and suggested that the incredible complexity of this legislation will make it essentially unworkable. In the minds of these experts, the legislation cannot work, it is simply too complex.
As a result of the efforts of my colleagues in opposition, a three-year review period has been introduced so that at least every three years we can revisit the changed legislation to see if in fact it is working and serving the purposes for which it was intended, even though we might question those purposes.
It has been suggested that these changes in Bill C-52 will cost employers an estimated $60 to $70 million in start-up costs and an annual reporting cost of between $10 and $15 million. With high interest rates, with the goods and services tax coming, with the changes to the unemployment insurance legislation that will expect more of employers, and now with Bill C-52, how much can a government abuse the small and medium sized business sector? There is a limit, and I suspect that we have nearly reached it now.
In conclusion, while we recognize that improvements have occurred in this legislation as a result of the excellent committee work and an acknowledgement by the government that changes to this legislation were desired, we will oppose the legislation on the grounds of
June 12, 1990

principle and the fact that the actuaries say that this legislation in its present form will make the RRSP program unworkable.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, there has been some discussion, and I think there would be unanimous consent to proceed with Private Members' Hour for the purpose of dealing with Bill S-16.
If the House gives its consent, we could move now to Private Members' Hour and deal with that bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we have had adequate briefings on the legislation. It is a straightforward piece of legislation.
On behalf of my party I can say that we are anxious to act expeditiously on this bill.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Madam Speaker, I would like to have the right to introduce Bill S-16.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING AND METALLURGY MEASURE TO AMEND
Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: that Bill S-16, an act to amend the act of incorporation of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Private Members' Business


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there would be unanimous consent that the motion read that it be referred to Committee of the Whole rather than to a legislative committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I introduce and present this Private Member's Bill S-16 to the House today. The bill is based on a petition that was presented to Parliament by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy to enact a name change for the institute to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.
The institute, which has its head office in Montreal, is a non-profit corporation that has been in existence since before the turn of the century. In fact, it is very interesting to all my colleagues to note that the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy was incorporated by Parliament under Chapter 96 of the Statutes of Canada in 1898.
The objectives of the institute are to promote the arts and sciences connected with the economical production of valuable minerals and metals by means of meetings for the reading and discussion of technical papers and the establishment of a central reference library; to take concerted action upon matters as affect the mining and metallurgical industries in Canada; and, of course, to encourage and promote these industries by lawful and honourable means.
The institute publishes a number of journals in which the most worthy of its technical papers are featured. These journals provide a forum for the exchange of technical information among approximately 11,000 people who are currently members of the institute.
In any given year, 10 to 15 technical meetings are organized and held in various parts of Canada. These meetings are attended by some 6,000 to 7,000 delegates who participate in as many as 1,300 technical information sessions that are held each and every year.
The members are grouped into eight technical divisions according to their professional disciplines and field of interest-coal, geology, industrial minerals, metallurgy, mineral processing, metal mining, maintenance engineering, and petroleum. There is also a geographical

June 12, 1990
Private Members' Business
grouping made up of six districts integrating the 65 branches located in most cities with a mining or a petroleum background.
The petroleum society of the institute has been assuming a greater role of importance in the affairs of this organization for many years. It has about 2,500 members in its ranks and represents the fastest growing division within the institute.
A task force was appointed in December 1987 to study the consideration of a name change to include petroleum, and this change was proposed to the general membership which overwhelmingly favoured it. So the wheels were set in motion to petition Parliament to pass a bill to change the name of the institute to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, which truly reflects the interests of its membership.
This change of name is one of the purposes of Bill S-16 before us today. As you can see, Madam Speaker, the bill was passed through the Senate on June 5, 1990.
The bill also contains a few technical and incidental changes to the corporation's charter. One amendment would clarify the corporate powers and management of the institute and at the same time remove a restriction on the total value of real estate that may be held at any one time by the institute.
Another amendment is designed to provide the institute with general borrowing powers which it does not have today and which of course can restrict the operation. This establishment does not rely on government funding and therefore these particular changes are at no cost to the Government of Canada.
Madam Speaker, Bill S-16 is straight forward. I have reviewed the amendments with you and with my colleagues here in the House today. I would very much like it to go through all stages today so that we can report it back as carried.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, we have absolutely no objections to this bill. We support it and we would like to see it go through all stages today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, when Bill S-16 first came to our attention, the first question we had was to what extent the membership favoured this name change. Often that might be concern
of the executive or a small group of people. The information that was provided-and I think it was excellent information-was that 11,285 ballots were mailed out to the membership of CIM, and of the 4,924 ballots returned 4,256 were enthusiastically in favour of this name change.
We concur that this and the other amendments the hon. member has brought to our attention are appropriate changes to the legislation.
With the purpose of the institute being to promote the arts and sciences connected with the economical production of valuable minerals and metals by means of meetings and for the reading and discussion of technical papers, how could anyone not enthusiastically support this legislation?
I am pleased to say that my party not only wants to pass this bill, but we will move it through all stages quickly today to get the good news to the people of the institute.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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, by unanimous consent considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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 Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-Fisheries; the hon. member for Surrey NorthHousing; and the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River-The Environment.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, at this moment it would be my intention to seek unanimous consent of the House to suspend the sitting, for a few minutes, to the call of the Chair, which we would anticipate being about four o'clock, for the purpose of Royal Assent.
June 12, 1990


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.29 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4.49 p.m.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority, without amendment.



ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa,
June 12, 1990 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Sopinka, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 12th day of June, at 4:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot Secretary to the Governor General



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Royal Assent
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable th Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
['Agreed.\nThe sitting of the House was suspended at 5.02 p.m.']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bill:
Bill C-25, an Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, the National Defence Act and the Trade-marks Act- Chapter 14.
Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (arson)- Chapter
Bill C-59, an Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in British Columbia-Chapter 16.
Bill C-60, an Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and to provide for other related matters-Chapter 17.
Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (barriers to religious remarriage)-Chapter 18.
Bill C-65, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Chapter 19.
Bill S-10, an Act respecting the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Bill S-15, an Act to amend the Act of incorporation of Desjardins Mutual Life Assurance Company.



Mr. Plourde:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Ka-mouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, on a point of order.


André Plourde: Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to suspend the proceedings of the House until the vote at 6 p.m.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until 6 p.m.?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.02 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-69, an Act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Finance for third reading of Bill C-69, an Act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.	
Bill read the third time and passed.
June 12, 1990


Mr. Harb:: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I was delayed at a meeting. Had I been here, I would have voted with my party on this bill.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, I think perhaps you might find unanimous agreement if we were to call it ten o'clock and proceed with the late show.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand that there is unanimous consent to call it ten o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see that none of the members who had requested to participate in this motion are now present.
Accordingly, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 13, 1990