May 4, 1983

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

FORTHCOMING VISIT OF THE POPE

LIB

Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel

Liberal

Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):

Madam Speaker, this morning I heard the news on the radio that Pope John Paul II will be visiting Canada in September 1984. The Pope will be in Canada for ten days, and will be staying three days in my own province, the Province of Quebec. I would like to point out how important this visit is, considering the fact that over 25 per cent of the people of this great country of ours are Catholic, and I also wish to say how pleased I am, as a Member of this House, with the news of this visit. I think it is a great honour that is being bestowed on the Catholics of this country by the leader of 500 million Catholics throughout the world.

I hope that on this occasion, the Government of Canada will offer the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops any help they may require in preparing for this important trip which will be the first time the Pope, who is well loved throughout the world, sets foot on Canadian soil.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   FORTHCOMING VISIT OF THE POPE
Sub-subtopic:   RECOMMENDATION THAT GOVERNMENT OFFER ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS
Permalink

INCOME TAX

PC

Donald Alex Blenkarn

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Madam Speaker, in the budget papers the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) filed detail of an Indexed Security Investment Plan, including a detailed ways and means motion, draft amendments to the Income Tax Act, and a full explanation of how the system will work. The Indexed Security Investment Plan is a method whereby those persons who invest in listed securities of public companies can escape paying capital gains tax on the investment where the gain is referrable to inflation.

The scheme proposed is highly bureaucratic and favours only stockbrokers and investors investing in listed securities. It

is small and medium sized businesses that create the new jobs required in the country. This scheme does absolutely nothing for those who invest in small and medium sized businesses to protect them from the unfair gains tax caused by inflation.

The House should form today a special committee to investigate the scheme proposed by the Minister. That committee should determine how it would be possible to provide for small and medium sized businesses the same protection as the Minister proposes to give the big boys in this Indexed Security Investment Plan. Surely if we are to allow those who invest in big businesses to escape tax on inflationary gains, then in the name of all that is fair and all that is decent the same privilege should be extended to those who invest in small and medium sized businesses, businesses that by their very nature cannot be listed on the stock exchange-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   INDEXED SECURITY INVESTMENT PLAN
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order, please.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   INCOME TAX
Sub-subtopic:   INDEXED SECURITY INVESTMENT PLAN
Permalink

DISARMAMENT

NDP

Robert Joseph Ogle

New Democratic Party

Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Catholic Bishops of the United States in a special meeting in Chicago produced a new pastoral letter directed specifically toward world disarmament. It is basically a pastoral statement, it is called "The Challenge of Peace- God's Promise and Our Response". In the statement the Bishops condemned all use of nuclear weapons, they questioned the morality of their possession in any country, and they endorsed the concept of a nuclear freeze in the whole world. Basically the Bishops have clearly said "no". Their statement is definitive and precise. It is based upon the fact that the planet which has been given to us to be used by all peoples is in danger of being totally destroyed.

In their statement they have changed one four letter word to another four letter word. The first such word was "curb" arms build-up. It is now "halt" arms build-up. In that light, I remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that in the month of December, 1982, the leaders of the six major denominations in Canada gave him almost the same approach and material. I want the Government of Canada to rethink seriously its position on testing the Cruise missile in light of the new moral position proposed by the American Bishops.

May 4, 1983

25128___________________________________

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   UNITED STATES BISHOPS' PASTORAL LETTER
Permalink

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

LIB

Maurice Louis Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Madam Speaker, on behalf of many concerned constituents of Kent, I want to join Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have indicated their support for an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend maternity leave benefits to adoptive parents.

This amendment was proposed by the recent Task Force on Unemployment Insurance in the 1980s and is currently receiving intensive evaluation by the federal Government. Unemployment insurance maternity leave benefits are presently extended to employed women during and immediately after their pregnancy not only to allow these individuals the time required to recover and adapt to the physical element of childbirth, but also to give the new parents an opportunity to become acquainted with their new child during his or her first weeks of life.

The requirements are not so different when a child is adopted. All three partners in this new relationship require time and financial assistance to establish a firm base from which the entire family can grow. This assistance and time are unavailable to many working families who have adopted a child, under the current provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A move by the federal Government to change this situation would be of great service to the social fabric of the Canadian community. Therefore I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and his officials to continue their valuable discussions with an eye toward presenting a workable proposal in this regard in the near future.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Sub-subtopic:   SUPPORT FOR EXTENSION OF MATERNITY BENEFITS TO ADOPTIVE PARENTS
Permalink

NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM

PC

John William Thomson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):

Madam Speaker, the oil and gas industry in western Canada is on its knees. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the Deputy Minister of Energy, and most senior officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources all know that the National Energy Program is an unmitigated disaster. But does the Government do anything to remedy the situation? No. It will not make the changes it knows should be made because that would be an admission of error. The Government does not have the guts to admit a mistake.

If the Government truly wants the oil and gas industry to contribute to economic recovery it should create an environment which will encourage the industry. Tinkering will never restore confidence. Investors will not play as long as politicians and bureaucrats want to fine tune.

The changes that must be made to the National Energy Program are straightforward. First, prices for all domestic production should be allowed to move to world levels, whether they be up or down. Second, it should eliminate the grant system. Petroleum incentive payments are costly and discriminatory. We are the only country in the world where the Government pays cash for drilling a dry hole. Replace the grant system with an incentive system that is equitable and non-discriminatory. Third, with the savings from the petroleum incentives program, reduce the front-end tax load and negotiate with the provincial Governments-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Sub-subtopic:   CHANGES SUGGESTED TO AID OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order, please.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Sub-subtopic:   CHANGES SUGGESTED TO AID OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

NDP

Neil Young (Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):

Madam Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is proposing to decentralize its income security branch now located in Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax. The Minister has said that the transfer of some 505 jobs from the present locations would create a similar number of jobs in areas of high unemployment. The Department also estimates it will cost approximately $34 million to create 505 more unemployed in Toronto, Ottawa, and Halifax in order to reduce unemployment elsewhere.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada has made a number of proposals and made concrete suggestions on how this $34 million could be used to create 772 full-time jobs if this decentralization program were cancelled. It also points out that if the $34 million were used for short-term job-creation, fully 2,000 person years of employment could be created.

The PSAC also questions the accuracy of the Department's cost estimates of this move and suggests it will be closer to $100 million rather than $34 million. Given the preaching we have been subjected to from the Minister about fiscal restraint, and the attacks the Government has waged on pension incomes, family allowances, and public service salaries, under its six and five program, the Minister should cancel this proposed decentralization-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Sub-subtopic:   CALL FOR CANCELLATION OF DECENTRALIZATION PROPOSAL
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order, please.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Sub-subtopic:   CALL FOR CANCELLATION OF DECENTRALIZATION PROPOSAL
Permalink

CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION

PC

Stan Darling

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

Madam Speaker, an article appeared in The Globe and Mail of last Saturday which dealt with the fund-raising practices of the Canadian

May 4, 1983

Wildlife Federation, the largest non-profit charitable organization in the country in the field of conservation. This article quoted Mr. Kenneth Brynaert, executive director of the CWF, as saying that the foundation had collected some $343,228 from the public for the purpose of conducting an anti-acid rain campaign in the United States, while at the same time accepting an $80,000 contract from the federal Department of the Environment for the same purpose. In any event, the sum it spent on the project was less than the contract figure, leaving the foundation more than $350,000 in pocket after a public appeal for funds that were not spent for the purpose for which they were solicited.

This is a situation that reflects badly on other groups in the conservation field and, further, leaves the Government open to the accusation that it is allowing charitable status, with all that that implies from a tax standpoint, to an organization whose of that status is questionable.

As a person vitally concerned with the problem of acid rain, these revelations leave me most upset. Surely the Government owes some answers to this House and the public, who have contributed to the CWF fund drives and who have supported this and other foundations in the acid rain battle and on other conservation issues.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Sub-subtopic:   USE OF FUNDS ON CAMPAIGN AGAINST ACID RAIN
Permalink

AIR CANADA

PC

David Kilgour

Progressive Conservative

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):

Madam

Speaker, I would like to comment on the report in this morning's Gazette that secret bonuses of around 4 per cent have been paid to Air Canada executives earning over $45,000 a year. I have three comments only: first, why help only those earning over $45,000? Do other Quebec employees not pay Quebec taxes as well? What is the rationale or principle here?

Second, why pay any bonus when the airline lost $32.6 million last year? Is not the idea of a bonus that it will only be paid in good years?

Third, recently Air Canada laid off 585 ground service workers. I understand they did not get a bonus. They did not get the golden handshake that was given to 600 white collar workers who took early retirement.

At the same time that our airline had a large loss last year, it is arbitrarily selecting a few employees to pay secret bonuses to, selecting other groups to buy into fancy pension plans, and selecting another group to lay off without any such benefit at all.

What sort of management is this? How can such capricious behaviour demand respect anywhere among Canadians? It is as though management feels that the end is nigh and that the privileged classes have to be taken care of before everything goes down the tube.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   AIR CANADA
Sub-subtopic:   REPORT OF BONUSES PAID TO QUEBEC EMPLOYEES
Permalink

May 4, 1983