1981-06-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the last election there have been no less than 12 increases in the price of gasoline, despite the Liberal party's rather empty commitments to the people of Canada. In view of the fact that Canadians are now contributing a total of 56 cents to federal coffers on every gallon of gas consumed, or 33.7 per cent of the $1.66 per gallon now being charged in Ontario, and because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) misled this House yesterday by stating that the federal government received only 10 per cent from petroleum revenues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to tell the whole truth about energy revenues, and further that the government be instructed to redirect these excessive tax revenues into a much needed energy tax rebate program for low and middle-income families.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. When a home owner is forced to give up his or her house because he or she cannot afford the mortgage payments, CMHC simply takes over the house and sells it. When an apartment building owner runs into the same problem the federal government bails out the investor through the assisted rental program. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the government provide an intelligent explanation for the lack of assistance to the 500,000 Canadians renewing their mortgages this year if they can afford the Liberal interest rates.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, the following motion under Standing Order 43 will, I am sure, gain the unanimous consent of all members. In view of the deliberate attempt by fifth columnists within the Tory caucus who are seeking to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) by tying tomorrow's confidence vote to the subject of capital punishment, and in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition needs no further embarrassment other than that caused by his very presence in the House each day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That this House condemn all those in the Conservative party who by their actions are advocating euthanasia for their leader, when it is apparent that he should be allowed to continue his effective stewardship of the official opposition.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESOLUTIONS ON CONSTITUTION FOR NDP CONVENTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Regina West NDP Association condemned the federal NDP for departing from their 1961 policy which calls for provincial agreement on any constitutional change, and the Saskatoon East NDP Riding Association's opposition to the way the federal NDP has conducted itself in the constitutional debate, coupled with the Prince Albert NDP Riding Association's condemnation of the federal NDP for supporting the Liberal government, and the Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain NDP Riding Association's resolution, I

June 10, 1981
move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House urge that delegates at next month's NDP national convention support the resolutions presented by these four federal Saskatchewan NDP constituency associations.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since record high interest rates are having a devastating effect on home owners, and on small business generally, and since many operators of small group homes which provide invaluable community support services to the disabled and handicapped, senior citizens, disturbed children, adolescents and others, are finding it virtually impossible to continue with this work because they do not have the funds at their disposal to meet the interest rates being demanded on renewed mortgages, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to re-examine the government's interest rate policy, and that he immediately bring forward legislation that will place a moratorium on all mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies on group homes until interest rates are returned to an acceptable and humane level.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Liberal government is spending some $2.2 million establishing Government of Canada service bureau offices throughout Canada simply for Liberal propaganda purposes, offices which do nothing more than duplicate the constituency offices of members of Parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the federal government indicate its seriousness in controlling government spending by immediately stopping this waste of Canadian taxpayers' dollars by closing these offices.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-STATEMENTS MADE BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) made inexcusable attacks last week on the integrity of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) based on a slanderous report in The Toronto Sun-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Crosbie:: Read Hansard.


Jesse Philip Flis: -which has since been retracted, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the House insists that the Leader of the Official Opposition rise on a point of order this day to apologize for his callous and injurious attacks on the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) recently stated publicly that there would be no major expenditures for social programs over the next three years. Recognizing that this is the same minister who recently approved the spending of $1.46 billion for the purchase of some gasoline stations in eastern and central Canada, while three quarters of all elderly women in the country are forced to live in desperate poverty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
June 10, 1981

That this House directs the Prime Minister to demand the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance and to appoint someone to the post who can get his or her priorities straight.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), a former Solicitor General, alleged that four former Canadian ambassadors were security risks, but only found the courage to name two persons who are now dead, and produced absolutely no proof to substantiate allegations against any Canadian, living or dead, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland find the courage of his innuendoes and make a public statement outside the House as to which specific individuals serving Canada abroad were a risk to the security of Canada and in what specific circumstances these threats to Canadian security took place, with the necessary names, dates and places.
And that this House further deplores the practice of blanket smears by a former minister of the Crown, which smears compromise the reputation not simply of individuals who cannot defend themselves, but of an entire generation of Canadian public servants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


John Carnell Crosbie: I said no.
That the House instruct the minister responsible for parks to establish a separate desk in his department entitled "The Fundy Park Desk", and require that all his officials be re-educated as to the geography of Atlantic Canada and the fact that Fundy is one of the most beautiful parks in Canada deserving as much attention as Banff or Point Pelee.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-STATEMENTS MADE BY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, The Toronto Sun recognized and unequivocally apologized for its irresponsible Petrofina story by indicating that, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) described the Sun's Petrofina story as garbage, it appears on this particular story that he was not far from the truth.
In view of the fact that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) seized upon these unsubstantiated allegations to raise spurious questions on the conduct of the government's ministry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition put the lid on his garbage can of unsubstantiated allegations, and do the honourable thing and withdraw his unfounded insinuations against Her Majesty's ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in advertising its national parks the government placed New Brunswick's Fundy National Park in Nova Scotia some time ago. Apparently the problem of where Fundy is has plagued hon. members since, and they have finally come up with a solution. In a recent advertisement for national parks in the Reader's Digest, they simply have deleted Fundy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall):


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in its last budget the government removed the tax exemption on a wide range of educational items by employing a very strict interpretation of what constitutes a teaching aid, and in view of the fact that this change will affect the cost of an estimated 95 per cent of all items previously purchased tax-exempt, I move, seconded

June 10,1981
Oral Questions
by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That the Minister of Finance act immediately to have his officials review the interpretation of this change so that school budgets, which are already strained, are not cut back to the point where the quality of education is affected.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that ten days ago when his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, smuggled into this House tax increases without debate under the guise of the petroleum compensation charge, and given the fact that these increases will lean most heavily on the working poor and the unemployed of the country-for example the minister should be aware that low-income families have to spend twice as much of their income on home heating oil as others in this country must spend, and the price of home heating oil will be increased by 6 cents a gallon-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister has refused to give any consideration to a petroleum tax energy credit. What does the minister propose to do to ease the burden on the working poor and the unemployed of this country who are being hardest hit by these tax increases?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that it will be possible for members of the House of Commons to debate these changes since they are amendments to an act. There is no question of smuggling, or not allowing members of the House of Commons the opportunity to debate, at the appropriate time, the particular changes which have been introduced.
As I have stated in reply to questions in the past, all social programs are fully indexed against increases in the cost of living and, undoubtedly, energy price increases will be reflected in the CPI, but these are fully indexed. As I have indicated so frequently in the House, that indexation provides, all together, billions of dollars of additional protection to these groups in the Canadian community.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the indexing the minister talks about in terms of social programs is, as he knows, an annual indexation which will not do anything to offset the extra charges which will have to be paid out for home heating oil this coming year.


GOVERNMENT PLANS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME EARNERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, in June of last year the minister said this:
-whatever tax changes were introduced . .. that they would be equitable and would not attempt to solve the economic problems of the country or the fiscal requirements of the government on the backs of the low-income people of this country.
I am asking the minister to discharge the commitment which he made a year ago, since what he is attempting to do now is nothing short of a massive tax rip-off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is a massive tax rip-off on the backs of low-income earners in this country who are growing by leaps and bounds under the mismanagement of this government- and the minister knows this. What does the minister intend to do to provide compensation to these low-income earners?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands almost completely the nature of the increased charges which were brought before the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The hon. member knows that there is a blended pricing system in operation in Canada by which the Government of Canada is averaging the price of domestic and imported oil in order to maintain a lower general price for the Canadian consumer. He knows that in order to operate that particular pricing regime it is necessary for the treasury of Canada to subsidize the importation of oil. He knows that perfectly well.
All that was done by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was to ensure that these increased costs, for example, occasioned by the production cutbacks by the province of Alberta, would not be reflected in an increased deficit but would maintain the fiscal plan put forward in the budget, namely, that about $360 million would be assigned to this import subsidy program in the current fiscal year.
If we fail to take the action which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources took, then of course we would be doing what the hon. member for St. John's West is always asking us not to do, namely, add to the deficit. There is no simple way. The two hon. members from St. John's ought to get together sometime and talk about what economic policy they follow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance would not want to mislead the House or the country because he knows that 72 per cent of what was brought in here
June 10, 1981

under the guise of petroleum compensation is direct tax revenue to the government. He knows that to be a fact. Speaking of understanding, the low-income earners of this country understand one thing, and one thing only. The minister reneged on his promise to hold the line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question!


James Aloysius McGrath: All they know is that the price of home heating oil has increased under his administration by 60 cents a gallon.


Madam Speaker:: Order!


James Aloysius McGrath: I asked the minister, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That applause ought to have been the cue for the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I ask that if there are going to be Oscars handed out, one should go to the Minister of Finance for the act he put on in the last election.


Mr. Clark:: A great deceit.


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to ask the minister what does he propose to do? He has denied an energy tax credit and he has imposed this unjust tax on the poor of this country.


Madam Speaker:: Order! Order! Order!


James Aloysius McGrath: Home heating oil has gone up by 60 cents a gallon. I ask the Minister of Finance what does he propose to do to offset this unjust tax on the working poor of the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I would appreciate it if hon. members did not force the Speaker to yell "order" out loud. It is extremely vulgar, and I do not like to do it. When I get up it means that the question has been long enough.


Mr. Nielsen:: Turn to your right.


Madam Speaker:: I would appreciate it if hon. members would not force me to yell. I will not yell. However, I would like hon. members to resume their seats when I stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Charles Joseph Clark: No answer to the last question.


EFFECT OF HIGHER MORTGAGE RATES ON SINGLE MOTHERS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who only seems to be able to smile through the increasing number of hardship cases in the country. I would ask the
Oral Questions
minister if he has considered the case of a single mother who is trying to keep her children together, who has two part-time jobs which are only of a temporary nature, and who is suddenly faced with an increase in mortgage payments from $250 to $375 a month, so that she is being forced out of her home by the high mortgage rate policy of this government and the increased home heating costs.
I want to ask, just how many more such women is that minister going to force out of their homes before he takes some action to relieve this situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously it would be a matter of deep concern to the hon. member and to myself, if any particular citizen were forced out of his or her home-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's happening!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -or any family, in present circumstances. That would be a matter of deep concern and ought to be avoided if at all possible.
Yesterday I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of The Canadian Bankers' Association. I received assurances from that particular association that the banking community would bend over backwards to take every possible step in these difficult circumstances to avoid foreclosures such as are indicated by the hon. member, affecting home owners or, indeed, affecting farmers. I believe that that is a very important assurance that we ought to attempt to realize in the case of any citizen in the country.
If the hon. member has a particular person in mind upon whom the question has been based, I should like to have the facts in order to see whether the particular institution would take steps to avoid what the hon. member has described as being forced out of her home. I should like to help and have that avoided if at all possible.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I will give that case to the minister and I would invite everybody in the country who is in the same position to do the same thing.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is not
the banks that have initiated the high interest policy; it is the Minister of Finance. The minister talks about conflicts. I want to ask him about this headline that appeared in the Montreal Gazette on May 21, "Health Minister Proposes Higher Child Tax Credit". She was reported to have wanted to boost the child tax credit in order to help counter the impact of inflation upon the poor. Who speaks for the government in this respect?

June 10, 1981
Oral Questions
Is even that limited means of relief now going down the drain as a result of the actions of the Minister of Finance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is deeply concerned about the plight of Canadian families and the Canadian elderly, will be as sensitive as is the hon. member to the situation. If there are questions to be asked about the statement made by the hon. minister, then I think they can be directed to her.
The hon. member has frequently raised in the House the matter of the virtues of the energy tax credit. If it were in effect at the present time it would have provided for the type of person mentioned by the hon. member, for example recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, in the amount of about $40 or $80 per year. We have provided $420, indexed, this year. That is the type of difference between our performance and the hon. member's rhetoric.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Very important international negotiations are going on concerning the west coast. On May 26 a tuna agreement was signed between the U.S. and Canada without any opportunity for this House to debate it, or any opportunity for the fisheries and forestry committee to investigate it.
In view of the fact that we are constantly and regularly carrying on salmon negotiations which will be very important to the fishing industry and to the public in British Columbia, I should like to ask the minister what assurances we might have in this House that the salmon agreement will come to the House for debate before it is passed?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I do not know if it is the tradition of this House to have a debate and a vote of the type that the U.S. Senate seem to have in their constitution. I am not an expert on these matters. Certainly the issue of international negotiations was the subject of considerable discussion at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. The tuna agreement was interpreted as giving Canadians a number of advantages, including port privileges that fishermen had been seeking for a number of years. It looked as if it was a very good treaty for both sides and we agreed, and signed it. It certainly was open for discussion and for questions from the hon. member, who knew that these negotiations had been going on at the fisheries and forestry committee.


OPPORTUNITY FOR DEBATE
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If there were not so many other crises in the fishing industry as a result of this minister's inaction, we might have been able to deal with the tuna Fishery. I want to pursue this.
The minister has now split the advisory committee which is dealing with the salmon negotiations into a north advisory committee and a south advisory committee. This will further increase the secrecy of those negotiations within the fishing industry. In view of the fact that the United States is upping the ante constantly during those negotiations, would the minister give us his assurance, assurance that the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated last year, that indeed there could be parliamentary debate before any ratification of this treaty?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks about dealing with the tuna issue. We have dealt with it. We have come to an agreement and we have signed it.
As to the question of dividing the committees, it is obvious that those areas in the northern or the southern parts of British Columbia have different points of view. They felt they wanted to be heard in their particular forum and I see nothing secret about that. As the hon. member knows, the negotiations are obviously confidential until such time as proposals are put on the table. I would not want to comment further while negotiations are going on.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, with regard to the past history of negotiations, at one time the east coast and the west coast negotiations were linked together. We have seen the result of what has happened on the east coast. I am tempted to get some commitment from the government that we will not have the same situation occurring with the salmon treaty on the west coast, which may be signed this summer.


MECHANISM TO DELAY APPROVAL OF SALMON TREATY
Edward Allan Miller: My supplementary question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On October 24, 1980, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government was considering some mechanism by which we could have a look at these treaties, in the same way the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee does. At that time the minister indicated that the government had not gone far enough to determine that mechanism.
Could we have some idea today if we have a mechanism, or whether his department has suggested a mechanism by which we can delay the government's approval of a salmon treaty at least until the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee has ratified it at that level?
June 10, 1981


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think it is important to state to the House that at no time, at least not since I have been Secretary of State for External Affairs, have we made any link between east coast and west coast issues of the kind implied by the hon. member.
With respect to the other question which the hon. member raised about consideration before ratification, we can ratify in any way we see fit. It is not the tradition here to have consideration by the House before ratification. We have no proposal of that kind to advance at this time, nor are we bound to act in any certain time frame with reference to the action of the United States Senate.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It touches on the uranium cartel. You will recall that last Thursday in response to a question I put to the Prime Minister, he stated:
I will have to take that question as notice.
That response was given in reply to the following question:
Would the Prime Minister indicate whether all cabinet documents including minutes and memoranda of cabinet were shown to the director-
The director referred to is the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.
In view of the fact that Canadian Press now reports that the director has said that he did not have access to those cabinet documents, would the Prime Minister confirm if that was so, and if it was so, would the Prime Minister try to explain to the House why that information was withheld but similar information was given to the McDonald commission?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am informed that the director of combines investigation had access to all cabinet documents he requested, except cabinet minutes.
I am informed that the combines director reported that he did not have to have access to those minutes, and that he was able to make his report without them. If that is the case, Madam Speaker, I fail to see how the hon. member opposite can allege that the investigation was not complete and was not based on all the documents required.


Erik Nielsen: Make it public.


INFORMATION GIVEN TO DIRECTOR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in his briefing session, was the Prime Minister also informed that the director was perhaps told that he could have access to such cabinet minutes only if he could link possible evidence in those
Oral Questions
minutes with some implication involving cabinet ministers themselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot say if he was told that. I can indicate what the government policy is on cabinet minutes. They are one of the most privileged kinds of documents that exist in government. Minutes have been taken only in the past few decades. It is a procedure followed by cabinet forms of government. The secrecy of discussions between ministers and the frankness of discussions are essential to the very notion and existence of cabinet government.
There was, to my knowledge, one exception, when minutes were shown to a royal commission. It occurred when Commissioner McDonald suggested there might be some reasonable and probable cause to believe that maybe some infringement of the law had taken place. In that instance our government consented to show the McDonald commission that particular minute.
I think that outside of such very exceptional circumstances the convention of secrecy of discussion between ministers, secrecy under the Privy Council oath, which has been established for centuries in parliamentary systems of government, should be preserved.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Even if they are implicated?


OIL PRICING AGREEMENT-INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO MINISTER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows we have historic high interest rates in Canada today. They are in excess of 20 per cent. The Minister of Finance has said this is primarily due to the weak state of the Canadian dollar and that we have to worry about our Canadian dollar and to keep our interest rates in line with U.S. interest rates so as to protect it.
The Prime Minister will also know that most economists say that the only way to change this situation and to bring interest rates down is to have a quick solution to the energy pricing agreement. I can refer him to his own adviser, Doctor Slater, who said:
The first step to a stronger Canadian economy must be a speedy resolution of the energy pricing dispute.
In view of this, has the Prime Minister instructed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make major changes in the new energy policy in order to get an agreement with the oil producing provinces under discussion today? Has the Prime Minister done that and can we expect serious progress? Or is it that today's meeting will be one of just play acting with no serious changes being contemplated by the government? If the minister is not successful today, will the Prime Minister consider changing his chief negotiator to try to get a settlement?

June 10, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I told the House yesterday that the minister was instructed by the government to seek an agreement, and we hope he will achieve one. I do not think the fault is with our negotiator or, for that matter, with the Alberta negotiator. There are two different points of view about the nature of our country. One is that it is a community of communities, and the other is that it is a united nation which must share. We feel that our view of Canada would not change whether we change one negotiator or another. I hope a compromise will be found between these two views of Canada, perhaps a rapprochement of views.


Mr. Andre:: It is hard to share power.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the hon. member, the former minister of finance, is correct in stating that a solution to the energy problem would be beneficial, not only to the Canadian dollar and the Canadian economy, but to Canadians generally, and we ardently hope for that.
I think perhaps he shows his ignorance of the real situation when he seems to say that is the only cause. He knows, or he should know, that countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Japan-


Harvie Andre: What about Switzerland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -are complaining very bitterly about the monetary policy of high interest rates followed in the United States, which has impacted on their own countries, and caused devaluations of their currencies which have been even more severe in relative terms than the Canadian dollar has experienced in recent months. He should know that this problem is not caused in Canada by one effect. It has worldwide effect, regardless of the energy policies of these various countries I have just mentioned.


Charles Joseph Clark: Blame Burma.


POSSIBLE CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT POLICIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. There is another point of view that this country should be treated as France is, with one central government and ten prefects appointed by the central power to govern the country. That is the view the Prime Minister seems to believe in.
The Prime Minister says that he hopes his negotiator will get an agreement. Have the Prime Minister and his government told the negotiator to make some serious changes in the government's posture so that an agreement is attainable? Obviously if the government continues with the policies it has enunciated to date, taking all of the increases in oil and gas prices through federal taxation, leaving nothing for the producer, there will be no agreement. Has the government given the negotiator room to negotiate properly, reasonably and responsibly, or is the government going to continue to be great deceiver it has been ever since January, 1980?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why the hon. member chooses France as an example of a unified state. The United Kingdom is also a unified state. It does not even have ten prefects. I am not quite sure what the hon. member is implying by choosing France as a unified country that we should imitate.


John Carnell Crosbie: What have you got against France?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With regard to his instruction to the minister to make serious changes to his posture, the minister told the House that when he met with his counterpart in Alberta last month he made very considerable and serious changes in many areas, including pricing policy. The meeting held this week was essentially to see if the Alberta government would be equally as flexible and make some changes to its posture.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services in his role as minister responsible for Statistics Canada, an agency which apparently made a commitment to Canadians to protect confidentiality in the taking of the census. In my constituency the census forms were placed by individuals in the mail and addressed to Ottawa. They were removed from the local post office and examined by the census managers and census takers. Individuals in the community were then telephoned and challenged on the veracity of their returns. Will the minister explain under what authority census forms are being removed from the post office, and by what authority local census managers and census takers inspect the forms of their neighbours and challenge their veracity?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the process which is followed is that the forms are mailed in the region where the data is collected. In terms of the specific items the hon. members has alleged, I will be pleased to receive particulars, have them checked out, and provide him with a full report.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF RETURNS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the incidents of-I would hesitate to use the term violations of confidence-are so numerous it would require an enormous list to detail them for the minister. The census manager in the area has acknowledged that these were removed from the post office and screened. I will cite two cases briefly. One person, a foreign guest on a farm, was challenged. The examples are numerous. Will the minister acknowledge that the filling out of those forms is not a confidential undertaking and there are many examples of neighbours and others employed as census takers being privy to the information in those so-called confidential forms?
June 10, 1981


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member and offer him every guarantee that there is complete confidentiality with regard to all information contained in the census form.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: After the forms are completed and submitted, they are reviewed by people within Statistics Canada who are sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act. It is reasonable to expect that the information has to be reviewed in terms of its accuracy in the sense that those who have completed the forms have done so properly and have provided accurate information. Some checks are performed by people who are charged under the Statistics Act with verification of the information contained in them. There is no doubt that the Statistics Act provides that every individual who deals with the census forms must swear that none of the information is to be revealed except in accordance with the process that is followed under the Statistics Act.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The workers in the textile, clothing and footwear industries are increasingly concerned. I would like the minister to say whether he intends to make an early announcement concerning the new Canadian textile, clothing and footwear policies, and when those policies will be made public?
Oral Questions
that crop being put in the ground. This year Senator Argue stated that the initial price would not be announced until the crop was in the ground. I have two questions for the minister. First, why has this policy, which has been in effect for ten years, been changed? Second, if we are to believe Senator Argue, when will the announcement be made as to initial prices, because the prairie crop has virtually been completed as far as seeding is concerned?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the Senator has said in public a number of times that he expects to make the announcement about initial payments before the beginning of the new crop year, that is, before August 1. The reason he has given is that in view of the volatility of prices at this time, he prefers to come up late with a firm commitment rather than earlier with a vague one.


CALL FOR HIGHER INITIAL PRICES
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Can the minister indicate now what he thinks the initial prices will be when they are announced-whether they will be up or down compared to the prices now being paid? I encourage the minister to set the prices as high as possible because the Canadian Wheat Board is able to borrow money at prime minus one quarter. The Minister of Finance continually berates the opposition for, on one hand, calling for increased government expenditures and, on the other, screaming about increased deficits. This is one way of putting money into circulation without increasing the deficit. As I said, the Canadian Wheat Board is in a position to borrow money at a considerably lower rate than the farmers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if I were to indicate the level today, I would be announcing the initial price. I will advise the minister responsible for the Wheat Board of the hon. member's views.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, as a government our priority is to concentrate our efforts on drafting a new policy for the textile and clothing industry. I hope it will be possible for the government to complete that task and make a policy statement within the next few weeks. We are now actively working on our new policy for the footwear industry, and I am confident that it will be possible to take certain decisions well before the expiry date of the current quota system.


INTRODUCTION OF TAX CREDIT PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY CONCERNING INITIAL PRICE FOR WHEAT
Charles James Mayer: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport who answers in this House on matters pertaining to the Canadian Wheat Board. Since 1971 it has been the policy of the government to announce initial prices to be paid by the Wheat Board prior to


George Harris Hees: Quiet, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The price of gasoline has risen by 60 cents a gallon since the election in which the Prime Minister and his party ridiculed the government of the day for increasing the price of gasoline by a mere 18 cents. As contact with the people has told every member of this House that low-income Canadians desperately need an energy tax credit today to help

June 10, 1981
Oral Questions
them meet these steadily rising prices, prices that are going to continue to rise as the weeks and months go by, would the Prime Minister not confer with his cabinet again with the point in mind of introducing an energy tax credit as soon as possible, so that the people who really need the extra money to meet these high energy prices will be able to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that such an experienced politician would say that his government was defeated because of us. Surely it was defeated because of the hon. member and his colleagues, who promised an energy tax credit, which would have been $40 a year in the year succeeding the election and then $80 a year to countervail price increases which were devastating to the Canadian consumer. That was why. It was not because of the high prices proposed by the hon. member's party alone. It was because of the unfairness in the way their 18-cent excise tax and their price increases would have hit the Canadian people. It was just a countervail of $80 a year. That was why, within months of our election, we brought in the increased guaranteed income supplement, which would give the most needy of Canadians something like $420 a year to begin with and, of course, that has escalated, as the hon. member knows.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, as usual the Prime Minister's was no answer at all because he knows perfectly well that the vast numbers of people who need this extra money to meet this extra energy cost are not all old age pensioners who are receiving the supplement. There are a great many other people of a far younger age who need this money, and the Prime Minister knows it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister not honestly think that this business of ridiculing a policy during an election and then, immediately the election is over, introducing that same policy and adding two or three times to it, is liable to backfire on the Prime Minister and his government one of these days, just as the introduction of wage and price controls did when the election of 1979 rolled around?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is looking into the future a few years down the road. I am suggesting that he look at what happened at his own policy convention just two months ago when it supported an increase to 75 per cent of world prices forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Over four years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The resolution was to move quickly to that. I think that kind of mistake would not have been made at the convention-nor, indeed, would the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West have been the way it was-if the
hon. member himself had been in the cabinet to show his wise ways as an experienced politician.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: That is a very unfair reply.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it has to do with the uranium cartel. That is a cartel which may involve activities by members of the government which could be subject to charge.
I assume that to avoid any conflict of interest in the conduct of that inquiry some official of the government, either the combines investigation director or someone else, may have sought independent legal advice on matters relating to the cartel. I wonder if the Minister of Justice can tell the House of Commons whether the director of combines investigation, or anyone else on behalf of the government, did seek independent legal advice and, if so, whether a copy of that advice was communicated to the minister and is in the minister's hands now.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the inquiry it was recommended to the director that he hire some legal advisers from outside, and so he did. These legal advisers worked on this inquiry for many years. They reported to the director, Mr. Bertrand, who in turn transmitted their findings and their recommendations to me. That is the problem I am studying at this time.


NATURE OF LEGAL OPINION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Justice tell the House of Commons whether that independent legal opinion suggests that there is sufficient evidence for any charge to be laid against anyone?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have the report which was transmitted by Mr. Bertrand when he was the director, in front of me, and I am looking into the report. I have to decide if, yes or no, there is evidence against corporations or individuals and decide whether to take action against them. It is a very voluminous file. We are studying it at this time and, of course, when we have reached our conclusion, we will follow the normal course every attorney general of Canada has to take in such circumstances.
JunejlO, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it may be that the minister did not understand my question. We would like to see, naturally, the full report of the Bertrand inquiry, and we would like to know whether the director of combines investigation recommended any kind of legal action. We would like to know that.
My question had to do with the independent legal advice which was sought and secured by the government and is now in the hands of the Minister of Justice. Does that independent legal opinion indicate that there is enough evidence to warrant charges against any individual?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the legal opinion to which I referred is part and parcel of the report of the director which has been transmitted to me for decision.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The minister will know that twice recently this House has unanimously condemned the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. In light of the concern among all hon. members about this extremist group, can the minister confirm and clarify press reports of this morning that the government is implementing a comprehensive national program to combat racism?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, as expressed by all hon. members of this House, I think twice earlier this year, in motions under Standing Order 43, I also am very concerned about and repulsed by racist activity in Canada. I think at least one of those motions indicated the feeling that there is an increase in this activity.
All members of Parliament will be receiving today notice of a three-pronged program which will be an effort to reconsider the criminal law and whether it in any way aids and abets racist activity in its desire to have free speech; to try to provide the government with the capacity to get at the roots of racism; and finally, to provide a public education program to work with the policy and educators.


An hon. Member:: Okay, that's enough.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I hear some protests from the other side. I do not think I have hogged the Question Period lately.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


EXAMINATION OF FIRMS RECEIVING GRANTS UNDER DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTION PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding defence industry production program grants. Does the ministry investigate the managerial practices of the companies which are to be given grants prior to the grants being approved? In particular, is there an investigation to determine whether a company given a grant pays the wage rates which are applicable and prevailing in the area in which the company is located and, second, to determine that the jobs which are created are jobs for which Canadians are given first priority and for which Canadians are trained rather than the company's seeking employees outside the country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the program, for which the federal government has recently increased the base funding by 50 per cent, is to provide support and encouragement for key industries in Canada such as the aerospace industry, the electronics industry, and the telecommunications industry. The aerospace industry, because of this support, has grown so that it now employs some 42,000 people across Canada.
It is expected that companies receiving this support meet requirements relevant to provincial and federal law regarding wage rates and place of origin of employees. I would be happy to check further into any specific case my hon. friend wants to bring to my attention, if he is suggesting this is not the situation.


GRANT TO EBCO INDUSTRIES LTD., VANCOUVER
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am pleased the minister has given me this thumbnail sketch of the program, but that was not what I was seeking. I want to know whether there is an investigation conducted to determine whether the company pays the wage rates which prevail in the area in which it is located, and whether the company provides job opportunities for Canadians rather than seeking persons outside the country for skilled labour jobs.
I would also like to ask the minister if he would investigate the $6.7 million grant given to EBCO Industries Limited of the greater Vancouver area to determine whether the company is in violation of these two very basic principles.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, wage rates are generally matters of provincial law, and questions of whether Canadians are employed are matters of our immigration law enforced by the Department of Employment and Immigration. I would be happy to check with my colleagues in the relevant provincial and federal departments to see that the rules are being followed.

June 10, 1981
Oral Questions
Basically the purpose of DIPP grants is to help companies buy often very expensive capital equipment to engage in advanced technological activity in aerospace and related fields, and to carry out innovative and high technology activities in them. I would be happy to get further information about the points my friend raised.
* *
*


THE MONARCHY
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister what plans his government has made to celebrate in Canada the marriage on July 29 of Prince Charles, heir to the throne of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know if any plans are being made in any of the government departments. I will inquire.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I can tell the Prime Minister that I have already made inquiries with the Secretary of State's office who informs me that no plans for celebrations have been made. It is interesting to note the applause opposite, from a minister of the Crown, Madam Speaker.


DECISION RESPECTING COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
[Stage Direction]
storage project in that country which is to be constructed by an Italian consortium, but a major portion is being financed by CIDA, which portion has been temporarily allotted to a Swiss firm. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether or not he had any success in having this important contract awarded, as it properly should be, to a Canadian firm?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who gave me notice of this question a few weeks ago. I am not sure I recollect every detail of the answer, but I do recollect while 1 was in Algiers discussing this matter with the Canadian businessman who is at the head of the company building the facility. I ascertained that in every CIDA project we have with Algeria and other countries there is a large measure of Canadian content. I cannot give the exact percentages from memory, but I can assure the hon. member that every time there is a CIDA project and that work can be done in Canada, we ensure that the maximum amount possible is done in Canada.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE AWARDED TO CANADIAN FIRM
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary. I have been trying for two weeks to get the question asked so I can appreciate it is difficult for the Prime Minister to remember. Would he give me the assurance of his office that he will put every pressure on to have this particular contract awarded to a Canadian firm as it should be when it is financed by CIDA?


John Carnell Crosbie: Canadianization.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In the
absence of the Postmaster General I direct a question to the Acting Postmaster General. On July 29 the government of Australia will be issuing two commemorative stamps to commemorate the royal wedding. The suggestion had also been made to the Canadian Postmaster General. Why was the decision made not to issue a commemorative stamp in Canada?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that any decision has been made one way or the other-


Charles Joseph Clark: About anything.


Gary Francis McCauley: -but I will take note of the hon. member's representation and find out for him.


EXTERNAL AID
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Prime Minister. Prior to his recent trip to Algeria I asked him to look into a grain


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member realizes, I am sure, that many of our efforts in aid to Third World countries are channelled through tripartite or multipartite agreements, and very frequently it helps Canadian business and workers to get a project if they are combined with funders from other lands. That is why frequently you will see in a particular CIDA project it is a matter of co-operation between Canada and one or two other countries. I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that this will discontinue. If it did, it might result in Canada not getting any of these aid projects under way at all.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I shall be brief. I think that everyone knows that I do not take offence easily. In fact, this is only the second time in 12 years as a parliamentarian that I have risen on a question of privilege. However, if I did not object today to what was said yesterday in the House by another member, my colleagues and the public might accept his version of the facts.

June 10, 1981

Citation 316 of Beauchesne clearly states that, and I quote:
-a Member, while speaking, must not:
e) impute bad motives to another Member-
Yes, this is what happened yesterday, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) stated that I have had in my possession since March 17, which was three months ago, the report known as the Dubin report. If this were true, the House and the public would have very good reasons to believe that I neglected my duty in not drawing this report to the attention of the public and the House as soon as possible and in not taking action to follow up on it. However, such is not the case, Madam Speaker. I wish to emphasize very strongly that while the letter addressed to me by the judge is indeed dated March 17, the report had to be translated, corrected and printed, and I only received it on May 25. I tabled it in the House as soon as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! The question of privilege raised by the hon. minister is based on a difference of opinion concerning the date on which the report was received. This is not a matter of privilege. The hon. minister has set the record straight. I suppose that the House will accept his statement in that spirit.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the minister has accused me of imputing motives to him and I have not done that.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member quoted Beauchesne to the effect that a member should not impute motives. That was exactly the substance of what the minister said. He did not accuse the hon. member of imputing motives, he said that hon. members should not impute motives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the matter is not going to be discharged that lightly.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister has seriously misled this House, or his parliamentary secretary has seriously misled this House, and I am quite prepared to put a motion in this connection.


Madam Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has that feeling, he has his recourse and he can use it. I do not remember whether the hon. member raised this the other day as a point of order or a question of privilege, but I believe I ruled in his case that he did not have either a point of order or a question of privilege. I have now ruled that the minister does not have a question of privilege and those two matters are closed. If there are other matters that hon. members wish to bring to the attention of the House, they are perfectly free to do so under the proper procedure.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,945, 2,330, 2,456 and 2,476.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of anti-semitic literature being mailed from somewhere in the Toronto area to various persons through a post office bearing the postal code M4L 3T0 and, if so, what is the location of the post office?
2.	Has the matter been investigated by the RCMP for possible action under the Criminal Code?
3.	Is the government aware that the material appears to be printed in the United States, mailed in Canada and contains a slander of the most extreme nature to the Jewish people?
4.	Is the government aware that readers are urged to write "Common Sense", Union, New Jersey, to a publication firm known as LIBERTY BELL or to another firm known as WESTERN FRONT, Box 27854, Hollywood, California, for further information and material?
5.	Will the government take steps to put an end to such material being circulated through the Canadian postal service and to lay possible charges under the Criminal Code against those involved?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. The Solicitor General has received complaints that literature of this nature was being mailed from Toronto. The Solicitor General informed the RCMP, who subsequently notified the police authority having jurisdiction, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. Postal code M4L 3T0 is assigned to the Toronto South Mail Processing Plant, 969 Eastern Avenue, Toronto.
2.	No. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. The laying of charges for publishing hate literature requires the approval of a provincial attorney general.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	A determination whether or not such literature constitutes hate propaganda as described by section 281.1 of the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the police force and provincial attorney general having jurisdiction. The Post Office Act provides discretionary power to the Postmaster General to issue a prohibitory order if he believes, on reasonable grounds, that the transmission of such literature through the mails involves the commission or attempted commission of an offence. Literature of a very similar nature has been referred to the Postmaster General for such a determination.

June 10, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Young: 1.	Are government funds used by the Medical Research Council to look into alternative methods of conducting research that do not involve large-scale use of animals?
2.	Is the use of such funds monitored and, if so, by what method?
3.	Are steps taken to alleviate the pain involved in these experiments and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Medical Research Council itself is not carrying out any study of methods of conducting research that do not involve the use of animals.
2.	Any investigator seeking Medical Research Council funds for research must indicate whether or not he proposes to use animals and, if so, he must undertake to follow the guidelines for the care and treatment of experimental animals laid down by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. The use of animals in the laboratory is monitored locally by animal care committees in the universities where the research is carried out, and is subject to on-site inspection by the Canadian Council on Animal Care.
3.	Proposals involving the use of animals submitted to the Medical Research Council are carefully scrutinized by its review committees to ensure that animals will not be subjected to unnecessary pain. Proposals which appear to involve any inhumane or unethical treatment of animals are not funded.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the government's estimate of what the size of the (a) gross (b) net public debt will be at the end of the fiscal year 1981-82?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
forecasts for gross and net public debt consistent with the October 28, 1980 budget are $137 billion and $96 billion at the end of the fiscal year 1981-82.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the present public debt of the government and what is the average percentage interest cost payable on the debt?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, what are the comparable figures for the provinces?


Pierre Bussières: 1. A
preliminary estimate of the gross public debt as of March 31, 1981, is $122 billion. For the fiscal year 1980-81 the average interest cost payable on the debt was roughly 9.1 per cent. The average rate on the interest-bearing portion of debt was about 10.5 per cent.
2. The present debt of the provincial-local-hospital sector is estimated to be about $64 billion. The average interest cost for 1980-81 was roughly 10.2 per cent.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,369 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,369 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cook: 1.	Are goods and services currently being provided by Canadian companies to the Soviet Union and, if so (a) which goods and services (b) what is the dollar value?
2.	In the past five fiscal years, did Canada provide foreign aid to the Soviet Union and, if so, in what amount and in what form?
3.	Which Canadian company sells the most goods and/or services to the Soviet Union and what is the dollar value?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Towers:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would be in a position to answer question No. 1,891 which was put on the Order Paper on December 17. These are questions relating to the conditions which exist in the Post Office; they are very pertinent at the present time. Possibly it would be advantageous to all of us if we could have answers to those questions prior to the proclamation of the new Post Office Act.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 will take this matter up with the Postmaster General.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
June 10, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 9, consideration of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 56, 57, 58 and 59.
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, last evening when we adjourned debate on Bill C-57,1 accepted the invitation of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to comment on the proposed taxes as they affect the Canadian wine industry. This invitation was also extended by my good friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is celebrating his twenty-fourth anniversary today as a member of the House of Commons and, I might say, a very valuable member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As one who has spoken out on innumerable occasions in the House and across the country on the wine industry, my feeling at this moment is one of relief in terms of the taxes proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen). Although no one welcomes taxes, even those imposed upon such traditional areas as wine, spirits, beer and tobacco, my relief stems from my ability to compare the proposals of the Minister of Finance and those of the former minister of finance who invited me to participate.
The plea of the hon. member for St. John's West last night for the workers in the beer and wine industry was strange. It was a very eloquent plea, I might add. One would be hard-pressed to come to the conclusion that he was referring to the same people in the wine and beer industries against which he brought in some Draconian measures.
What were the two main features of the Crosbie budget? I suppose insensitivity was the main one. There was an excise tax on gasoline of 18 cents and, in some cases, 25 cents. I am thinking of the farmers of Lincoln, fruit farmers, grape growers and farmers in general. Also I am thinking of fishermen and the effect of this tax on the transportation of handicapped people. When one couples the tax on the wine industry specifically with the proposals included in the Tory budget, one can understand the anger, frustration and disappointment of the grape growers and fruit farmers of the Niagara peninsula.
Excise Tax


Mr. Lambert:: You are misleading the House, do not forget the rebate.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Minister of Finance is proposing that once a year the tax on wine, beer and spirits be indexed to the cost of living in such a manner that the relationship between the tax and the retail price will be constant. This is nothing unusual. It is precisely the philosophy of the ad valorem tax. It is the reverse of the indexing which is part of our tax system when incomes are calculated for tax purposes and when the cost of living index is used to increase the guaranteed income supplement every three months.
I should like to return to the proposals of the hon. member for St. John's West and why I am relieved our Minister of Finance had an open mind and was sympathetic to the representations which I and others made to him. More important, he agreed that it would be wrong to implement the recommendations of his predecessor, the hon. member for St. John's West.
What did the former minister propose to do? He is the same person who rose last night to castigate my party, particularly myself and others, for not caring about the wine industry. What did he propose in his 1979 budget which defeated the Tory government just in time to give the country a second chance?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Tell the whole story.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The "hon. chorus" has begun already and I have hardly started. Traditionally the wine and beer industry has been considered an extension of the agricultural sector. The hon. member opposite knows that. After all, corn, wheat, grapes, rye, apples and barley are all important to those industries. Without those industries, there is no outlet or very little outlet for our grapes. Thus, it is in the interests of everyone to foster and encourage the growth of those industries.
Thanks to the enlightened approach to the whole problem of the grape growing industry of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in recent years, there has been a transitional period during which some grape growers have been able to convert to different types of vines, fruit and grapes. This has permitted the Canadian industry a greater latitude. Now they are able to produce table wines similar to German wines. This takes time, approximately five, six or seven years.
The former minister of finance decided that wine and beer would no longer be considered an extension of the agricultural industry. He decided that it was to be another source of income. He was totally insensitive to the representations of the farmers of Lincoln and the Niagara Peninsula. It was efficient and effective; it was drawn up by faithful public servants in his department. The basis of the tax on wine and beer henceforth was not to be related to the fact that they were an extension of the agricultural industry; it was to be linked to alcoholic content. These public servants recognized that there are variations in the alcoholic content of wine. So in order to receive every cent in taxation, or to tax it to its ultimate, they

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
categorized wine. They put into one category what is known as fortified wine with an alcoholic content of over 14 per cent.
Of course, the danger was obvious. The grapes which are traditionally used for that category of wine are grown in the Niagara Peninsula. They are known as the Labrusca grapes. To come along and impose a Draconian tax-and I will mention the figures in a few minutes-on that industry, at a time when Canadian tastes were changing from fortified wines with high alcoholic content to table wines, was the straw which broke the camel's back.
This is a serious point; I am not trying to make political hay. Canadians had an opportunity to assess the Crosbie budget and to put that party out of office. I am sure they would do it all over again, because the last election was fought on the commitment of the Conservative party to reintroduce precisely the same budget with all its flaws which I am pointing out.
The impact of the Crosbie budget, as opposed to the budget of the present Minister of Finance, would have been to increase the tax on wines with over a 14 per cent alcoholic content by $2.45. But the budget proposal of the minister of finance of the Conservative government was to raise the excise rate on wine in which the alcoholic content was over 14 per cent from 55 cents to $3, an increase of $2.45-a percentage increase of 445 per cent.
The ex-minister spoke eloquently last night about the beer industry. He said that the workers of Canada traditionally love their beer. He spoke eloquently about their ability to export their product. But how did he treat them when he had the opportunity to put into practice his concerns for the same people? We are talking today about a matter which occurred less than two years ago. He was prepared to raise the excise tax on beer by 29 per cent, which again would have a detrimental effect on the farmers of Canada. At the same time he was limiting the tax on alcoholic spirits to 5 per cent-a 90-cent increase from $16.25 to $17.15.
It is obvious that the ex-minister, who was castigating civil servants last night, was quite prepared to accept their insensitive advice, which was to base taxes on alcoholic content, thereby showing no concern, no recognition or appreciation of the fact that the beer industry and the wine industry of this country are extensions of the agricultural community. He did not recognize that an expanding wine industry is important to the agricultural growers in the Niagara Peninsula, if you do not want them to give up in despair and hand their properties over to developers, or allow cities such as St. Catharines to expand and become more urban than rural.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell us about the wine at Air Canada.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. gentleman knows more about Air Canada than I do-


John Horton McDermid: We all do; the whole House does.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We won't get into that, because my chance will come. You guys were very happy about what you did to me in Air Canada! I can talk about that another day, about the jackals surrounding a wolf.
The point I want to talk about is the impact the proposals of the former minister of finance would have had if the present Minister of Finance had adopted them. For all intents and purposes, if we were voting on the proposals tonight, and they passed, then the possibility of the grape growers continuing in business would be limited. A 300 per cent tax on fortified wine at the very time when there was a movement away from heavy wines would have a devastating effect. It would be the end of the industry. That was the proposal of the ex-minister of finance who last night was indignant because the present minister has suggested that once a year we increase tax according to a formula simply to maintain the real value of that tax, which has fallen significantly over the last ten years.
I am aware of the time, Mr. Speaker. I realize my allotted time is almost up. I would love to go on and talk about the other impacts the ex-minister's budget proposals would have had on the wine industry. I would like to deal with the excise tax on gasoline, something which we said we would never impose and which we have not imposed. That tax, coupled with the tax on wine, caused real concern in the industry. We voiced that concern to the present Minister of Finance. We met daily, weekly in caucus and in private meetings, with farm groups, with the wine institute and with the marketing board. We pleaded with the minister and his officials, telling them that such a tax proposed by the ex-minister of finance, and adopted for a short period of time by the present minister, was not only detrimental but discriminatory to the wine industry and the beer industry.
What was the result of our representations? I have been teased in this House by members opposite-and I should not blow my cool, it is not normal for me-for having made representations at every opportunity, which is why I was called upon last night to participate in this debate. I am glad that I am recognized in this House as the voice of the wine industry. I am pleased that I represent that industry so well and so effectively, the 900 farm families who are involved in the wine industry. I am pleased and proud that I have made that impact on the member for St. John's West. I am pleased that I have had enough influence with the present Minister of Finance and his very able colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres).
In conclusion, I want to point out what we succeeded in doing. We succeeded in having the Minister of Finance depart from that insensitive policy of his predecessor, to restore the traditional relationship between wine, beer and alcohol and to introduce a nominal tax which was more than accepted with good grace by the wine community of this country. If indexing proves to be a problem, I am sure the Minister of Finance will have no hesitation to rescind that policy after he has had an opportunity to test it.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with motion Nos. 11, 12 and 13 with reference to
June 10, 1981

proposed amendments to Bill C-57. These motions relate to the ad valorem tax with respect to alcohol and tobacco. 1 would not have taken this opportunity to rise to speak on this issue had I not had the benefit of hearing the very enlightened discussion which preceded me. The hon. member began his remarks today, adding to the remarks he made yesterday, by saying that he had a feeling of relief when he dealt with this tax problem. His feeling of relief is not to be confused with relief from taxation, because clearly that is not what we have. We have the imposition of taxation in a form which is offensive in a number of ways. I shall come to that in a moment.
First, I would like to refer to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) both yesterday and today. He began his address by indicating that he had, when confronted with this ad valorem tax in committee, spoken in opposition to it, and he found it offensive. Yet he has also indicated to the House that it is his intention to vote for the measure. Mr. Speaker, I have often wondered what the purpose of a speech in this House is. Is it in any way to be an indication of the way a member feels? Is it a written communique, printed in Hansard, which may be dispatched to one's constituents without regard to the fact that a vote, which may be taken days later, will show that there is absolutely no connection between what a member says and how he votes? I have found it startling that this practice has occurred with regularity in the past. I find it startling that the hon. member for Lincoln, who is now leaving the chamber, has recently indicated that that is the way in which he intends to behave. He has indicated that he is a great spokesman for the wine industry.
The hon. member for Lincoln was recently the chairman of the board of Air Canada, an airline which, while the hon. member held that post, never carried a bottle of Canadian wine. Either the hon. member is the representative of the wine industry looking after that industry in Canada, or he does not care for the industry. What he says in the House for the purpose of recording a speech can be sent home, should be dissociated entirely from the way in which he votes on an issue in this House.
He spoke of fostering and encouraging the growth of the farm industry in Canada. He spoke of the relationship between the wine industry and the farming industry. Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lincoln shall be best remembered for fostering and encouraging growth in the unemployment insurance fund when he was in charge of that fund as a minister of the Crown. Indeed, that is the closest the hon. member has come to fostering and encouraging growth.
Most assuredly, the difficulty with respect to the imposition of this form of taxation is that it is doubly offensive, because not only is it an increase in tax, but it is an increase in tax which builds with the passage of time and raises the expectation of the government with regard to inflation. Tax increases alone, regardless of what form they may take, ought to be repugnant to hon. members of this House.
Excise Tax


An hon. Member:: Just like the provincial sales tax.


John Albert Gamble: Hon. members of this House have a responsibility to safeguard the welfare of the public. As best we can, regardless what side of the House we may come from, we must preserve the revenues of our constituencies. We should be concerned about the fact that every time we reach into a taxpayer's pocket, be it a corporation or an individual, we are depriving that taxpayer of an opportunity to use those funds for the purpose of expanding business operations or for necessary expenditures, from the standpoint of consumer spending. That should be our prime purpose.
Historically, Parliament has, indeed, been a place which has preserved and protected the citizenry against the rapacious appetites of government. As the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) honestly disclosed in the House, we know that ministers of finance have been led around by the nose by their deputy ministers and others in the bureaucracy seeking endless ways to dip into the public purse and into the pockets of the citizens of the country. We should be on our guard to protect the public from the appetite of government.
This particular measure has a built-in inflationary advantage. An ad valorem tax will produce either more revenue or less revenue for the treasury, depending upon the price of the item. There has not been a minister of finance known to man who has ever desired to collect less taxes. Therefore, it must be assumed that when a finance minister imposes an ad valorem tax, he intends to get more and not less. Since the tax is raised as a direct consequence of the fixing of the price of the item, we must know that the government expects the price of commodities to increase. If the government telegraphs to the public in Canada that it expects that the price of every item which is subject to tax under this bill will increase, then, in order that the public may, in fact, maintain a level of income which is equivalent to the level of increases in prices, the public should expect that the price of public services and the price of the public's disposition of commodities should increase.
By this measure, the government is therefore inducing the public to expect inflation to continue. It is asking the public to increase the price of goods and services. It is inviting the public to disregard the pleas of the government for restraint and to follow its lead in psychologically anticipating inflationary growth.
We have heard a great deal about the comparison between this measure and one which may have been contained in the budget of December, 1979.


An hon. Member:: It was contained.


John Albert Gamble: The issue is not how to compare measures which were found to be unacceptable to the public in 1980, but, rather, whether this measure is acceptable to the public today. We know what happened to that budget. We know how the public responded. Hon. members on the government benches should consider how the public will respond to these offensive measures. Because that is what they are.

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
It is strange that generally government members and hon. members of the House cannot direct their attention to the simple matter before the House. Is it appropriate that we, as members of Parliament and guardians of the interests of the citizens of this country, should blithely follow the bureaucrats who recommend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that this is the best way to reach deeper into the wallets and purses of Canadians? Our answer with respect to that very simple issue, the ad valorem tax, should be that we do not accept it.
The concept of ad valorem taxes spreads. The government of the province of Ontario, following the vicious lead of this government and followed, I understand, by the government of Newfoundland, are all anxious to participate in an ever-increasing reach into the pockets of Canadians.
It is a curious thing that at the very time this piece of legislation is before the House in its present form, the Minister of Finance should stand in his place during Question Period and, when asked whether it is the intention of the government to remove the indexing under the Income Tax Act, designed to save Canadians from inflationary pressures resulting in the extraction of more revenue without any greater genuine income, that the minister should reply that it is one of the matters which might be considered but that he has not made up his mind and this House will know whenever he is prepared to bring in his budget.
The deputy minister of finance, Ian Stewart, appeared last month before a committee of the Senate dealing with the indexing provisions of the Income Tax Act as they relate to rates and deductions. In answer to some of the questions posed to him, he indicated that the question is whether, by indexing as fully as it does, the government appears to be ratifying the people's right to protection from inflation. It was Mr. Stewart's view that what we had done as a consequence of indexing under the Income Tax Act was to create the false image in the minds of the public that it could be protected from inflation; and that was an error.
This measure is the reverse of the indexing under the Income Tax Act, as far as the taxpayers of Canada are concerned. If we approve this measure, we will catapult the government into a position where it believes that it can benefit from the imposition of inflation. Inflation itself is primarily caused-


Mr. Evans:: That is totally false.


John Albert Gamble: -by the actions which are taken by government, either in the wasteful expenditure of government funds or through the amassing of giant deficits which have a direct effect upon the value of the Canadian dollar, which then has an effect upon increasing interest rates in Canada, which in turn pass through the entire economy, as an additional cost paid for by all Canadians.
It is clearly time that the members of this House sit and examine the legislation, in the discharge of their duties as members of Parliament as opposed to the discharge of their responsibilities to political parties, to determine whether they
believe that it is appropriate for the government to take measures of this nature which are not in the best interests of Canadians under the present circumstances.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words on this particular amendment, primarily to clarify some of the misstatements and misunderstandings which have been put forward by the hon. members opposite.
This particular provision indexes a fixed dollar amount tax, which converts it to exactly the same form as the retail sales tax that has been with us for years, the manufacturers' excise tax or value added taxes or ad valorem taxes. It does not in any way, shape or form allow the federal government to increase the real value of the tax that has been received. Indeed, it does just the opposite; it prevents the erosion of the tax base so that the real value of the tax received stays the same. It prevents the situation where every several years the government must recapture lost ground with a new tax.
As the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) indicated, provincial governments have seen fit to do exactly the same thing and it makes a great deal of sense. Once a logical taxation structure is established for a certain commodity, in this case alcohol and tobacco, then it remains in place. We do not want to alter it and then, at a later date, bring in new legislation to modify it. By taking the steps we have, we ensure that the structure stays the same; the real value of the tax stays the same. It does not increase over time and it does not add real value to the tax base of the federal government, as it has not done to the tax base of provincial governments in the case of the retail sales tax or manufacturers' excise tax.
When talking about a bill as serious as C-57, it is unfortunate that hon. members opposite cannot keep to fair and honest debate regarding the facts, the merits and demerits of the case, instead of creating illusions for the public and accusing the government of motivations that do not exist or of doing things which are not in the public interest. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The facts are there, the explanation is simple and I have tried to provide it to hon. members.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to rise and say a few words in response to the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. Of course, what he sees as facts are not necessarily so. As a matter of fact, facts are simply an interpretation of information.
When the hon. member says that this approach is a totally logical one, then one has to assume that the base for this indexation is logical. 1 recall very vividly that when the various spokespersons for the wine industry, the distilling industry and the breweries met with the finance committee, they made it perfectly clear that they were not convinced that the base of taxation was equitable or realistic or that it was based on any particular strategy, policy or plan but, as so many other
June 10, 1981

members have indicated, that it was rather a willy-nilly or ad hoc tax and added dollars for revenue purposes.
As the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) so aptly put it, the previous minister had an equally ad hoc policy to add to the base rate a few dollars per gallon here or a few cents per litre there.
It is the position of this party that, when it comes to taxing tobacco and alcohol, the matter should be investigated very thoroughly. The hon. member for Lincoln made it clear that we are not only talking about the alcohol and tobacco industry but also the agricultural industry. We are talking about the many hundreds of family-operated businesses, farms and vineyards directly related to the alcohol and tobacco industry. This is the sector that we are concerned with. When the parliamentary secretary indicates that this is a logical approach, that opinion comes as a surprise to many of us on this side of the House.
As a new member of Parliament, I came here with the idea that in debate some members would speak and make points and then members on the opposite side would counter those points. A variety of speakers in this debate have clearly articulated their concerns about indexation. We also heard from spokespersons in the financial community who condemned this approach and we heard from taxation people within and beyond government who questioned this approach as being logical or realistic.
Who are the financial advisers, the tax experts, the economists who claim that this is the correct approach for the government to use in collecting additional revenue? On whose behalf do they speak when suggesting the concept of indexing as set out in this bill? The concept of indexing is insidious in that it puts Canadian consumers at the mercy of foreign exchange differences. As inflation increases in a particular country and the value of that currency relative to ours changes, that fact may have a significant effect on the consumer price subgroup on which this particular index will be based.
If the cost of hops was to increase significantly in one year because of crop failures or the introduction of new equipment or machinery to the industry, for example-and I identify hops as one of the components of the particular consumer index subgroup-that would mean that the price of wines would also increase, the price of tobacco would increase and the price of distilled spirits would increase in this country. Is this what we want to see? Yet it is the situation which hon. members opposite consider to be logical.
When all of us are concerned, to quote the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with "wrestling inflation to the ground", it is important that we realize that indexation is a confirmation of the mind set that inflation is with us for some time to come.
I notice the minister is shaking his head. Then, I would ask him, why bring it in? Why is it necessary? If inflation is not going to be a problem, why are we concerned about it to the extent that we are building it into the revenue collection
Excise Tax
function of the government? It sends a clear signal to everyone that inflation is a reality and that we will likely face an increase in inflation in the near and distant future. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) reminds us on a daily basis that this is precisely what he is attempting to eliminate, but by this very policy he is fuelling the fires of inflation.
I want to close my comments on this set of amendments by asking the backbenchers opposite, those who have not spoken in this debate, how they can justify the concept of indexation that is now before us. What information do they have that indicates it is a good idea? Who has recommended this as an appropriate route to take? We on this side would like to know.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I did not plan to speak again on this point today, but the remarks of the parliamentary secretary lead me to do so. As per usual, the hon. member has given only part of the story. Half-truths have become so prevalent-


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Maybe he did not mean to mislead the House but he said that he did not want to speak again on this motion. If the hon. member has spoken on this motion, he cannot speak again on it. It may be that he meant to say that he did not wish to speak again, that he had spoken earlier on another amendment. However, if he has spoken on the motion, it is my understanding that he cannot speak again on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) is quite correct. The chair has been visually checking with the principal clerk assistant in order to determine whether or not the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has spoken on this group of motions. I take it he has not. Am I correct?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is a very elementary point. Of course I have not spoken on this motion, otherwise I would not be standing up. I spoke on indexing, not on this motion, and the hon. member knows that.
As per usual, the government side gives part of the story. They give half-truths. When the hon. member stands up and tells us this is a very simple ad valorem tax, he is only telling part of the story. It is more than an ad valorem tax, and the hon. members knows it. This tax is tied in with the cost of living index.
If he has not read the first section of the bill, I suggest that he do so. Specifically it is subsection (6) on page 4, and it makes a big difference. Every item that goes into the consumer price index becomes an item for an increase in taxation. It is every item, and it goes even beyond that. If there is an increase in wages, an increase in freight or an increase in the price of the product, all of these are added into the consumer price index.
But the government is not even satisfied with that. On page 4, this subgroup may be:

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
-as the case may be, as published by Statistics Canada under the authority of the Statistics Act, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe-
Why is the hon. parliamentary secretary trying to kid the troops? It is not an ad valorem tax. It has some ad valorem aspects, that is all. At the very least there might be a slight resemblance. This is a simple and devious tax in order to tax the people more without coming to the House of Commons to get the approval of the House of Commons. Consequently, it is taxation without representation.
It might as well be put simply and truthfully. It will be taxation without representation every time the government raises this tax. If the government does that with every tax, we will not need a budget. We will not even need a House of Commons. We will just go back to the old days of fuedalism when King John levied what he wanted.
Why is the government introducing this tax if it does not have some devious scheme in mind? The government objects to these debates, the press carries the story, the people get concerned. The government thought this bill would go through very quickly, smoothly and easily so that people would not know what was going on. Well, we hope by what we are doing that they will know what is going on. This is devious taxation. It is a tax which the government wants to raise and raise, based on a number of factors, without coming to the people's representatives. It is a devious and iniquitous tax.
I hope that some members on the other side will see the light and oppose this bill. I do not know why it is, but if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says yea, everyone says yea.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am afraid that the hon. member has unintentionally misled the House in some of his statements.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Look who is talking.


John Leslie Evans: This tax is not tied to the consumer price index; it is tied to the alcoholic beverages subgroup. In other words, the increase in the price of those products to which the tax applies is not tied to the consumer price index. That is where the hon. member has misled the House, and I am sure what he did was unintentional.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the parliamentary secretary, when he talks about the ad valorem tax and so on, to look at page 10 of the bill. There he will see an increase from 25 cents per gallon to 60 cents per gallon on wine. That is not an ad valorem increase.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is getting difficult for the Chair to follow whether there is a point of order. Perhaps we might return to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal with that particular point. I shall read what is found on page 4 so that we will not mislead anyone. I need to read this part into the record because I do not think hon. members opposite have read it themselves. On page 4 we find:
(a)	aggregating the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup or the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index-
Every item in the consumer price index is applicable. If you raise the price of coal, that does not affect the price of liquor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary rises on a point of order. I hope he will make it clear that it is not debate, that he has a point or order.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to say that the tax is increased by the increase in the consumer price index. That is not the case, and he has just read the section.


Bob Rae: He has not said anything yet. Sit down. You are not in a classroom any more. It is a democracy here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is referring to an argument in law or fact, or both. It is debate and not point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not understand how the consumer price indices are compiled.


Bob Rae: Tell him how it works, Gordon.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You do not take the price of coal, or the price of fish in the Arctic, when you are working in the alcohol subgroup. You do not do that either when you are working on the price of tobacco. You use all of the items in that subgroup. Surely the parliamentary secretary knows that. That becomes a consumer price index of that subgroup. That is exactly what I said before.
If the hon. member is having difficulty, I would draw a picture for him. If I had a blackboard, I could draw a picture which would make it clear. But the point is that the subgroup of tobacco and the subgroup of beverages is the consumer price index in which this increase will be levied. All factors which go into that group will result in an increase. Upon that increase, the tax will be based. This will be done without representation. The government does not want the people to understand it. The government wants to have an increase in the tax every time there is an increase in that subgroup. It may be altered somewhat by the governor in council in any way the governor in council sees fit. They could add a bit more if they do not think it is enough. But it is an iniquitous tax. Whatever way government members try to rationalize this tax to ease their own consciences, it is still an iniquitous tax and any increase in tax will be a tax without representation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to the Speaker's order made earlier, we will group the motions beginning with motion No. 11. That will affect how the House wishes to deal with motions Nos. 12 and 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 11 ?


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 10, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 11. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on motion No. 11 stands deferred.
Pursuant to order made earlier with reference to the grouping of motions, I will now put motion No. 56 to the House.


Bob Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the disposition of motion No. 11 disposes of motion No. 13, since motion No. 13 is a motion of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As I understand it, the Speaker earlier ruled that motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and so forth and so on, would be grouped. Having been grouped, if the question is put on motion No. 11, an affirmative vote on that motion would dispose of motions Nos. 12 and 13. A negative vote on motion No. 11 would dispose of motion No. 12, with the question having to be put on motion No. 13. Since we have deferred the vote on motion No. 11, the impression I have is that I cannot put motions Nos. 12 and 13 to the House until motion No. 11 is first disposed of.
Did I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rise?


Mr. Knowles:: No, but I agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If that satisfies hon. members, we will proceed. We will now move to motion No. 56. That will have an effect on motions Nos. 57, 58 and 59.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Excise Tax


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. As I indicated earlier, that means motions Nos. 57, 58 and 59 will also stand deferred.
The House will now consider motions Nos. 9 and 34.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 16 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 24 the following:
"(H) flying training."
Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 40 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 47 the following:
"(viii) flying training." "
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion has to do with an exemption which interests my colleague from Belleville in particular. He is attending the members' services committee at the present time; therefore, I will discuss the matter without his knowledge. The purport of clause 16(1) and (2) is to repeal Section 47(1) and (2) of the act. The act presently reads:
47. (1) Where gasoline has been purchased by
(a)	Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province or any agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province,
(b)	a municipality,
(c)	a person for commercial or business purposes,
(d)	a farmer for farming purposes,
(e)	a fisherman, hunter or trapper for commercial fishing, hunting or trapping,
(0 a person under conditions for which relief from the consumption or sales tax is provided by virtue of any provision of this act other than subsection 27(2), or
(g) a person of such other class of persons as the Governor in Council may by regulation prescribe-
In our amendment we have added "(H) flying training". The following are provided for in the middle of page 24 of the bill:
(A)	the exploration and development of natural resources,
(B)	aerial spraying, seeding and pest control,
(C)	forestry,
(D)	fish cultivation,
(E)	aerial construction operations using rotating wing aircraft,
(F)	aerial fire control, fire protection and fire fighting, or
(G)	map making operations, or
(iii) engaged in the business of testing aircraft engines.
We have added a paragraph (H) for flying training to provide that exemption. It existed before but has been removed. I want to know why it is being removed. Why should flying training be picked out to be hit by this tax? The operations are much like many of the others, so why is it being singled out? We have received representations from flying
10468

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
clubs across the country and various members have made representations. This is one of the small items, but I would like an answer from the minister. None was provided during the committee hearings.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) cannot see the difference between a farmer and a trainee pilot. I feel we are quite justified in exempting farmers from the excise tax on gasoline, while the need to exempt trainee pilots is much less urgent. I wonder why the hon. member for Edmonton West, for instance, does not realize instinctively the difference between trainee pilots and professional fishermen. It is obvious that there is a basic difference between the general group of trainee pilots who are asking to be totally exempted from the tax on gasoline and farmers or fishermen. I believe that most Canadians can see the difference, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 1 would also like to ask the minister-I refer to page 24, and if one looks at the list, one can see that it does not apply to fishermen and farmers. I respectfully submit that this concerns aviation, aviation fuel used for public air transportation and air services for certain activities including fish cultivation-it is simply fish cultivation-and for fire fighting. There are other things. This list should be read carefully. I therefore wonder if I am not-


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I did not tell the hon. member that he was out of order. 1 would like to remind him with all due respect that clause 16 of the bill, which amends section 47 of the Excise Act, states that a refund will be made when the gasoline was purchased by a municipality, a person for commercial or business purposes, a farmer for farming purposes, a fisherman, a hunter, and so on, and the group to which he referred is mentioned on the next page. Therefore, he is not right and 1 am not wrong.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister does not think there is a contradiction in the fact that the government is allowing an exemption for flying for certain purposes which are outlined in the bill but does not also allow an exemption for those people who are training to carry out those same purposes. I wonder if that does not strike the minister as something of a contradiction. We are saying that there is to be an exemption for those people who provide services for forestry, for fish cultivation, for aerial spraying, for fire control and so forth, but when it comes to training people who are to be providing those same services, the government does not provide a similar exemption. Does the minister not think that a little strange? Let us say one is training for the purpose of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 wonder if the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) wants to make clear the purpose of his rising. I think he is on his feet on a point of order and not to debate.


Bob Rae: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In order to get an answer from the minister, the only way I can allow the minister to answer is if the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is raising a point of order. If he wants an answer, it would be in his interest to say yes, he is on a point of order, in which case 1 think he has made his point and I would recognize the minister.


Bob Rae: All right.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I believe that there is a basic difference between someone who trains to earn his living, in whatever profession, whether as aircraft pilot, train conductor or engineer. The taxes are refunded in certain specific cases so as to reduce the cost to society, and the pilot's salary is not considered in this case, but rather the use made of the fuel, which certainly makes a basic difference in my opinion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motions Nos. 9 and 34, both standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.
June 10, 1981


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping we would have an opportunity to debate motion No. 10, and if I have the permission of the Chair, 1 would like to elaborate the point behind that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I can save the hon. member some thought on the subject, i understand motion No. 10 was found to be out of order by the Speaker earlier this week.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that was the original declaration. However, I think it is clear that that is open to some interpretation and challenge in that there is another route one can take, and that is to request that the government consider the principle of this amendment and bring it in at the appropriate time itself. It was in that spirit that I felt it appropriate that at least some words be said respecting motion No. 10. If I may, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member can do that. In an effort to reach a compromise with the hon. member, I will stand this matter in abeyance for a few minutes so that the matter can perhaps be raised again later. However, it seems to me that once a motion has been ruled out of order by the Speaker, there is no motion on the floor to debate. I do not see how that can be done, but out of courtesy to the hon. member I suggest the Chair take it upon itself to defer this point of order for consideration later on. Is that agreeable?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) magazines and parts thereof; newspapers and parts thereof published
more frequently than twelve times a year, not including".
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 17 to 26 at page 36.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 20 to 26 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"vertising;"


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 44 to 50 at page 36 and lines 1 and 2 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. Articles and materials for use exclusively in the manufacture or
production of tax exempt printed matter mentioned in Section 3 including
Excise Tax
advertising supplements and advertising inserts but excluding taxable catalogues and other taxable material." "


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 44 to 50 at page 36 and lines 1 and 2 at page 37.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out line 3 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Section 3 of Part III of'.
Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29
(a)	by striking out lines 21 to 25 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) magazines and parts thereof; newspapers and parts thereof published
more frequently than twelve times a year; all the foregoing other than:"
(b)	by striking out lines 42 to 44 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iv) programs and taxable advertising material. In this section taxable advertising material shall mean:
(A)	a publication that is a catalogue and
(1)	is bound in any manner including gluing, stitching or stapling;
(2)	contains the equivalent of more than four broadsheet pages; and
(3)	where the prices of the advertised goods are guaranteed for a period
of twenty-one days duration from the date of its publication; and
(B)	advertising cards and coupons."
(c)	by striking out lines 45 to 50 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"(v) albums, biographical, financial or statistical surveys and reports, books for writing or drawing upon, colouring books, directories of all kinds not mentioned in this section, fashion books, guide books, periodic reports, price lists, rate books, timetables, year books, any other similar printed matter and any printed matter or part thereof or class of printed matter referred to herein as may be designated by the Governor in Council;".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 36 to 41 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"vertising;".
Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 45 to 50 at page 37.


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 46 and 47 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"calendar quarter if more than eighty per cent of the space per issue".


Nelson Andrew Riis: June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 1 to 32 at page 38.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 3 to 6 at page 38.
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 38.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, this set of motions incorporates some very important principles. While the motions themselves articulate wording required to alter some of the principles presented in this particular bill, I want to comment first on the general nature of what is incorporated in each of the motions we are debating.
Because closure is upon us, it appears we will not have an opportunity to discuss in the necessary depth all of the assembled motions the Speaker has considered. I suppose in that respect one would want to keep one's comments relatively short so that at least we can have an opportunity to deal as best we are able with all the various motions and have some deliberation in the House on the problems associated with the position of the government.
When we are talking about the small newspapers in Canada, including independent weeklies, community newspapers, the ethnic press and so forth, we are talking about something which touches the very soul of Canada and about a reflection of the real views, attitudes, aspirations and concerns of Canadian citizens. I do not suppose there are many in this House who feel that some of the major newspaper chains really reflect the concerns of the regions, various municipalities, small villages and rural areas of Canada in any real way. Because the major newspaper chains are in fact chains, they reflect only the policies of those corporate entities.
What we are concerned about here are the voices of Canadian citizens. I suppose our free speech is threatened today in a number of ways. The opportunity for individual Canadians, groups and communities to speak out is being hampered. The government should be going a long way to preserving that independent voice for Canadian citizens and communities.
One of the countries I have had an opportunity to study at some length in terms of newspapers is Sweden. Here is a country that a number of years ago found there was general acceptance among all parties that the ability of individual citizens to speak out was being limited and hampered. So the government took it upon itself to introduce a number of measures which encouraged the small weekly, biweekly, triweekly newspapers, the various ethnic papers and trade journals and so on. They felt it was important that each individual citizen, agency and organization had before it a vehicle whereby its point of view and concerns could be expressed in a clear and articulate way.
The government of Sweden saw that this ability was being eroded, that in fact the growing concentration in the newspaper industry was making it more difficult for individuals to speak out, was making it more difficult for the various regions to be reflected in the media, particularly the newspaper media. So they took a number of steps to encourage the introduction of new and small newspapers. They were prepared to give a certain amount of government advertising to the smallest of newspapers, quite contrary to this government's policy where in fact its advertising goes through their media agencies to the large metropolitan dailies, essentially laundered through the national newspaper chains. However, Sweden took a different approach. They felt it was in their vested interests, as a government reflecting the views of its citizens, to ensure that the small independent newspapers were not only revitalized, but that those already in existence were preserved.
What we see there, Mr. Speaker, in this collection of motions is an attempt by the government essentially to undermine the small newspapers of Canada. I do not think for a moment that is a result of some devious mind across the way making an attempt to reduce the number of small independent voices across this country. But I suspect, like so many other aspects of this bill, a bureaucratic oversight, a notion that some bureaucrat in the finance area had which would result in more revenue accruing to the government, without thinking through the social consequences. It is, if you like, beyond the mind set or the terms of reference of the advisers within the finance committee.
Well, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we have gone to some lengths to determine what this particular bill will do to the small newspapers of Canada. Quite frankly, I doubt if there is a member of this House who has not been approached by newspapermen from within their own ridings, small newspaper publishers and printers concerned about what this measure is going to do to their ability to continue in operation, particularly to continue competing with the large national newspaper chains. They are hanging on with some difficulty, and I know that in my own riding of Kamloops-Shuswap I made a point of approaching each of the weekly and biweekly newspapers to ask how this particular legislation was going to influence them. I must say there were not many pleased publishers in my particular riding and beyond, that I contacted. They see this again as one more hurdle to be overcome to enable them to compete in this extremely competitive area, particularly when the competition is unequal. It is difficult for a small newspaper in Clearwater, British Columbia, to compete with the large metropolitan dailies flooding into the area every day. But it is important that the people of that community have the opportunity to voice their concerns over their community's welfare through letters to the editor in their own independent newspaper.
This is a bill that is going to levy a tax on newspaper inserts. Now, we feel that it is important that the consumer is made well aware of price changes, of opportunities that entre-
June 10, 1981

preneurs take to provide a product at lesser cost to the consumer. We feel that the more informed people can be in our communities, particularly during these times, the better it is. Here is a situation where a firm decides to take out a page in a newspaper and advertise a commodity and there will be no tax on that; but if it decides to enclose an insert in that newspaper with perhaps a different colour to make it more attractive, it will be paying a tax on that. We on this side of the House feel that somehow that is not just, that it is not treating everyone equally, and it is encouraging people to reduce perhaps the amount of advertising they do which is going to reflect directly on the income of the small newspaper and their cash flow.
We are also very concerned about the government's decision to attempt to redefine what is a newspaper, to suggest there has to be a certain percentage of editorial comment or news and a certain percentage of advertising. We feel that is something that should be left to the independent newspapers to determine for themselves. If they feel for some weeks it is just as well to go with 90 per cent advertising and 10 per cent news and editorial comment, that would be fine. Other weeks it may perhaps be 50-50. But I think it is very important that we recognize that that decision should be made at the local level, not here in Ottawa by this particular piece of legislation. Let us do what we can to encourage the newspapers of Canada, especially the small, independent community newspapers which reflect the differences in view of the citizens and regions of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there are many amendments dealing with newspaper advertising, one from the minister which shows that instead of 75 per cent, the figure has now become 80 per cent. Well, that makes little difference because what we are concerned with here is a matter of principle, of determining what is a newspaper by the amount of advertising. There are a number of categories in the act.
Now, the section as it originally reads refers to college and school annuals, magazines and literary papers, unbound, regularly issued at stated intervals, not less frequently than four times yearly; newspapers, sheet music, materials used exclusively in the manufacture thereof. What has been done here is to blow up that word "newspapers".
As far as the act is concerned, the sections at pages 35, 36 and 37, there is a great deal to do. We did hear extensive representations.
I am quite staggered by the utter silence of members from the province of Quebec who told me at the outset that they were impressed by the representations of Quebec weekly newspapers. When looking at the list of Quebec newspapers that have made representations, especially the weeklies in all the rural ridings, I wonder why all hon. members are not in the House trying to block this bill, because we all received the
Excise Tax
same representations, from the regional weeklies, Metropolitan Weeklies Ltd., the Select Newspapers of Quebec, the Quebe-cor group, the South Shore weeklies, M ichael Publishing I ncor-porated and Suburban Newspapers.
When they appeared before us, and here I am referring to Issue No. 46 of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for Thursday, March 26, at page 6, Mr. Jean-Paul Cloutier was acting as spokesman for the majority of newspaper owners who made their representations on that day. I want to quote what he said:
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to outline the contents of this particular intervention. If we have made so many presentations concerning Bill C-57, it is because to us it is extremely important. In our opinion, it is the first time that the government, through tax legislation, has gone so far to affect directly our sector, the regional newspapers. We are affected directly by the law in two ways. First, any advertising which is over 75 per cent of the newspaper content-
Let us say in passing that we will change that to 80 per cent.
-is taxable at a rate of 9 per cent. Secondly, the bill provides for a 9 per cent tax on all advertising supplements or inserts in newspapers. Those are the two main features of the bill which affect us somewhat. Mr. Chairman, this morning we would like to tell you how this affects us and offer a few suggestions. We have already made some suggestions. Before the Senate committee particularlyOn that point I would ask the minister to tell us what the Senate committee had to say about that. The senators also made their recommendation, but the Liberal senators were in a majority and I do know that the report did not endorse the measure proposed by the Minister of Finance.
We have realized from the minister's presentation that he does not intend or wish to tax newspapers.
No, he does not want to tax newspapers. However, he wants to eliminate certain abuses, or so he says, so he grabs his sledgehammer to crush a bug. It is very simple. By striking, by using that kind of formula, he is trying to eliminate certain abuses. There may very well be some, but it is not by taxing or by forcing the newspapers, particularly the small weeklies, to measure every inch of their columns on a monthly, or a single, or a quarterly basis.
Mr. Cloutier goes on to say:
Also, in our conversations with politicians and officials, we have noted that the aim of the bill was to correct a certain abuse. However, we cannot agree with the means that the minister and the government have taken in order to reach these objectives, since it affects us quite directly. We are quite aware of, Mr. Chairman, how difficult it is for the government to intervene in the media sector, particularly the written press. We know how touchy is public opinion in this respect, it is evident in that governments, both at the federal and provincial levels, have created commissions of enquiry. The Kent commission is a case in point since it is now receiving briefs and holding hearings. We, indeed, presented a brief to the Kent commission, in which we mention Bill C-57 and the problems it would create for the weekly newspapers. I think the Kent commission is now well aware of this problem.
So as we can see, the culprits are not weeklies from the rural areas and small towns or even the small dailies with a modest circulation; yet this will cost a pretty penny. So, they will have to measure because that is what it is based on; 80 per cent of the newspaper content can be advertising. If it is a little over,

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
bang! The newspaper is taxed. Especially if they include inserts which are not catalogues but advertising supplements prepared by firms like Beaver Lumber, Canadian Tire, Radio Shack and even the large department stores like The Bay, Simpsons-Sears, Eaton and Woodward out west, and many others that include those inserts in the newspapers. That is the way they distribute theirs, and it is certainly the best way.
The post office is not very reliable and in rural communities and small towns, newspapers enjoy the best distribution system. So if this service is provided to the public, then why-1 do not know what is considered improper in this matter, what rubs the minister the wrong way. Is it because these are the same type of flyers that are distributed in shopping centres? Is that the problem? What is the problem? What is improper? It seems that we have to tax and to determine what is a newspaper. The papers said that they were newspapers, period.
They have been called newspapers, unless the advertising content shall exceed a certain amount over a stated period. Then they are no longer newspapers within the true meaning of the term, and they are subject to this special tax on the entire publication.
It is very easy for the big city metropolitan daily, which runs 140 pages to 150 pages in perhaps a couple of editions per week, to have the base from which to spread their excesses from day to day. If they come up to 79.9 per cent over a four-month period, they will be within the law; but they will be able to get away with a great deal more than the small newspapers. I am surprised by the absolute silence- [Translation]
-the stubborn silence of the Quebec members. I remember quite well that when the committee was dealing with that point they were incensed. Were they putting on an act for the benefit of the Quebec organizations' representatives? You could see them beating their wings. That is what they were doing. But when the time comes now to make representations or state openly that the proposed legislation is unfair, they are mute. What sort of people are they? Have they been ordered to keep their trap shut? That is not what they said when their constituents were here. No, sir! They were certainly going to speak up and make strong representations! Representations? Do we hear any? Not a word! You should have heard what they said to the people, in committee and outside the House, but now that the time has come for them to stand up in the House and be counted, it is quite a different story! What is more, they are speechless. They cannot utter a word. How are they going to explain that back home? Could the hon. lady tell us how she is going to get away with it? Personally, I always speak through the Chair. The parliamentary secretary should be the last one to make gestures and try to teach me a lesson.
Mr. Speaker, I still wonder how they are going to explain the situation. Were these newspapers abusing the law? In what way? And if they were not abusing the law, why are they threatened with a 9 per cent tax, as provided under this bill? Precisely. The hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), who is sitting next to the minister-that is quite surprising; we must have a word with the representatives who appeared before the committee. Have a word with Mr. Cloutier. Have you had a word with Mr. Cloutier? Have you had a word with Mr. Cyrenne and the others who were there? We are going to say: we oppose at this time the implementation of these provisions as worded. The minister can indicate exactly what abuses had to be corrected. Then we will be able to determine, as I said earlier, whether he used a sledgehammer to kill a bug or, in a different context, a gun powerful enough to kill an elephant to shoot a mere mouse. That is why I support the motion moved by my colleague the hon. member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I hope, in turn, that they will support our amendments, and there are a whole lot of them. Those are the remarks I wanted to make about the whole thing.


Pierre Bussières: thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I have never heard such a deluge of words so barren of ideas. If, in the eyes of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the Quebec members do not have the strength to speak up. I must say that his own rhetoric is pretty weak.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West wonders why the Quebec members are not here: in fact, the members from Quebec and from Canada are here: to wit, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Veillette), the hon. member for Roberval (Mrs. Beau-champ-Niquet), the hon. member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Savard); all those hon. members-


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister is so lacking in anything to say that he must stand up and name members of his party who are in the House, why does he not just-


Pierre Bussières: Yes, the hon. member can be asked to resume his seat if he has nothing else to say.
All those hon. members, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Edmonton West and the other opposition members were even aware of the problem of Quebec weeklies, had already met the Association des hebdos du Quebec and the Canadian Publishers' Association and expressed their concern about the provisions of the bill now before the House. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) received representations from the caucus, after which, having recognized the fairness of the point made with regard to the percentage of paid advertis-
June 10, 1981

ing in weeklies, and representations having been made to him by the weeklies, he decided to increase the percentage from 75 to 80 per cent, which gives weekly owners quite a lot of leeway.
I should also like to point out to the hon. member for Edmonton West that that 80 per cent is based on 50 per cent of the quarterly publications. So, let him go to Mr. Cloutier, let him go back to him and ask him if that threatens the operations of more than all the weeklies across Canada which are located in Quebec. Mr. Cloutier will tell him that this provides enough room to manoeuvre because he has enough sense to know the difference between an advertisement bulletin and a news bulletin, which is what a weekly is. Quebec weeklies, like Canadian weeklies, endeavour to convey information and not advertisement; that distinction is elementary.
Mr. Speaker, that is the first point dealt with in the tax provisions, that is, the advertising content of a newspaper. Obviously, when the advertising content is so great as to leave no room for information, the paper is no longer a newspaper but a vehicle for advertisement. Some will ask, why 80 per cent, why not 90 or 99.9 per cent? Because, naturally, there comes a time when one must draw the line, and that line is set at some percentage or other. Some may claim that to be arbitrary. When a decision is to be made, one has to assume the responsibility for whatever judgment has been made. A first decision was made setting a certain percentage; then, as a result of the representations made by the industry and hon. members, the Minister of Finance adjusted his decision to take into account the representations made to him. I think that publishers of weeklies now recognize that this gives them sufficient latitude.
The other point is advertising. The member for Edmonton West explained very well why advertising inserts should be taxed. He stated that in such cases, weeklies are only a distribution network. Now if weeklies become a distribution network why should it not be taxed like any other such as postal delivery, private courier or door-to-door delivery which are taxed? We are trying to restore equity. You used the term "distribution network" and stated that postal delivery or delivery by messenger are not taxable. I believe they are taxable and I would like you to check that fact.
Now if we consider the argument, it should be acknowledged that there is some consistency in that tax levy. It is quite obvious that any taxpayer will always find an excellent argument against taxes and some lawyers to defend him. Now those lawyers should begin by looking into the arguments and weighing their validity. I am rather surprised to note how we have been expressing our social concern over the past few days especially with regards to taxation in Canada. Visibly the socialists are more interested in the taxation level on alcohol and tobacco and in the freedom of the press than in saying: "Look, it is no use arguing about the difference between a vehicle of information and a vehicle of advertising". I think that the basis of the argument should be looked into and that
Excise Tax
common sense rather than partisanship should prevail when a decision is made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, after that minister getting exercised, and we are getting excised by the minister's activities-


An hon. Member:: You are not getting "Ian Deansed".


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) said that I am not getting "Ian Deansed". He has not seen me get wound up yet. I am just getting warmed up.
The minister has said that he cannot understand how it is that members of our party are becoming worked up about taxes on alcohol. He cannot understand what our social philosophy is or why we are concerned about the effect of these taxes on the community newspapers. He does not understand what the social philosophy of a party is which is concerned about the effect of these kinds of provisions on the freedom of speech. I will say to the minister that the social philosophy is quite simple. I think we expressed it at some length yesterday with respect to the indexation of taxes on beer, wine and distilled spirits. The fundamental principle, first of all, is that we do not want to see the cost of living and the cost of pleasure of the average Canadian go up without any form of control. In our view, the policies of the federal government are at least partly responsible for the inflationary situation in which we are at the present time. We do not want to see the government becoming the beneficiary of that very inflation.
With respect to the inflation principle, I think the minister is perhaps a little abstract, if not fuzzy-headed, if he is unable to see the philosophy-not a word that I use too often-or the basis of our concerns.
With respect to the amendments which have been put forward today by my colleague, the hon. member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and with respect to the similar amendments which have been put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who is in the Conservative party, I will say to the minister that I think there is a very clear difference between his approach to this problem and ours. The government's approach to this problem is one, if you like, of Cartesian rationality with respect to proposals which come to it. It says, "Ah ha! There is a problem here", when someone has brought to its attention an inequity in the tax system, which tax system is just chock full of absurdities, anomalies and inequities. The government moves back and forth in trying to slap a tax on here, or slap a tax on there. The minister's department has created more loopholes and anomalies than we will ever be able to talk about or discuss in the

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
time which has been so kindly and gracefully allocated to us over the next day and one-half by the government.
However, I do want to say to the minister that our approach is to look at what is really happening in the country and in the communities of this country; it is not to look out from the fifteenth floor of the Bell Canada building down on Elgin Street to determine, from some kind of abstract rational assessment, what the answer to this particular problem will be. Our approach is to see what is actually happening in the community newspapers and in the human economy of this country represented by people in all parts of this House. We will ask what the effect of that tax will be on the lives of those communities. The minister might say that we are just special pleaders and are only pleading for whatever interest comes before this House. I will use the exact words of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) when he said that in a good many of the amendments which we are putting forward we are just trying to feather the nest of some particular interest group which has come before us.
I want to tell the minister that we have been very particular. We have responded not simply to whatever pressure group has happened to put on an effective lobby, but to what we have actually seen happening in communities.
This last Easter I happened to be visiting the south shore of Nova Scotia where I was doing some politicking and some resting. I happened to go into the offices of a community newspaper in the town of Liverpool. This newspaper is owned by one individual. It is not part of any kind of chain, it is not part of some multinational enterprise, nor is it a part of an association of chains in one province or one region of Canada. It is a newspaper which is owned locally and which services an entire area. It provides community news for the entire community of Liverpool and the surrounding area.
As I walked in to say hello to the publisher of that newspaper, the very first questions he asked me were, "What is going on with the excise tax, and what is going on with the taxation of our advertising? Why is the government picking on us?" We went through his costs, we went through his problems, we went through the cost of material which has gone up, we went through the whole range of problems which that newspaper was facing. We looked at what the potential effect would be if the government, willy-nilly, decided to go after all insert and supplementary advertising and taxed them as they have never been taxed in North America since the time of the Stamp Act in the 70s.


Mr. Crosby:: That's what socialists are like.


Bob Rae: It has nothing to do with socialism. The hon. member for Halifax West would not know what socialism was if he ran into it with a truck.
However, I want to say to the minister that socialism has to do with looking at what is actually going on in the human economy and dealing with the problems of people as they really exist. I want to say to the minister that it is when one talks to people in this kind of a situation that the policies of the government make no sense because the definitions are, by their
very nature, arbitrary. When it is 75 per cent, people start complaining and want to make it 80 per cent. One could just as well have said 85 per cent, 95 per cent, 50 per cent or 25 per cent. There is no law that the minister has been following; it is just a rule chosen by a civil servant after pressure here or a knuckle here from a minister, saying, "We are getting a lot of heat on 75. Could you put it up to 80?"
What we have attempted to do with our amendments, and what the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap has attempted to do with our amendments, is to say, "All right. There is a problem." There is a problem, because many of the large commercial chains have used the circulation of newspapers as a cover for the distribution of their catalogues in order to avoid the excise tax that falls on all commercial advertising done outside the context of the newspaper.
We have defined catalogues, Mr. Speaker. We do not think that our definition is necessarily the source of all truth but we think that it is at least an attempt to make this point clear. If the minister is concerned with dealing with an abuse, he should do so and not offer legislation that will have a detrimental effect on the cost, the integrity and, indeed, the very life of hundreds of community newspapers in the country.
The government has never learned the importance of following the politics of experience rather than simply the politics of abstract rationality. If it looked at the politics of experience, which is what our social philosophy is about, and if it looked at the effect of this legislation on the viability of the community newspaper, it would learn something. I see the minister shaking his head. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a study of the community in newspaper industry issued by the Department of Finance which would indicate what the effect of this will be on that industry. We have not been provided with any indication of the effect that this will have on their revenues or on the behaviour of advertisers. The government needs to consider the policies of experience, the politics of fact, the politics of looking at what the actual effect will be.
Yesterday the government was prepared to say that beer and wine have just as deleterious an effect on the health of the consumer as have distilled spirits. Mr. Speaker, one's normal experience does not usually show that a glass of scotch has the same effect on someone as a glass of beer. The experience of the average consumer would show that to be nonsense. The same thing applies to the experience, not of the powerful lobbies or of those seeking to avoid any kind of taxation-and I agree with the minister that we have to be firm when dealing with those people-but to the experience of institutions and people and the effect this legislation could have on them.
The minister asks what our social philosophy is based on. Mr. Speaker, it is based on experience, on what the life of these communities is and on the importance of recognizing the contribution that these newspapers make to the life of a community, and not simply to the profitability of a chain or the growth of a monopoly. The communities are important to
June 10, 1981

us and I am sure the maintenance of life in the community is what has driven many of us into public life.
In effect, the government says "If you are opposed to this tax, then you have to show us why we should not impose it." That is the burden that the minister puts on us. It shows how far this government has gone when it says that we, somehow, have to prove to it why a tax should not be imposed. It has the wrong notion of where the burden lies. If the government wants to change the system of taxation on community newspapers, if it wants to establish a definition of what is a newspaper and what is not, if it wants to tax all supplements produced for two or more newspapers, then it has an obligation to tell us why it wants to do this and the precise effect it will have on the economy and the life of community newspapers.
It is incredible that the minister should suggest to the House that every time that the government imposes a tax, those opposed to it or affected by it have to give the government an explanation of why it should not be imposed.
I should like hon. members opposite to suggest that in the next election campaign. I should like to see them put in their leaflets, "Vote Liberal and tell us why you should not be taxed". I wonder how far the average Canadian would let them go on a platform like that, yet that is the attitude the Liberal government brings to this House.
The reason we are opposed to this particular suggestion is that the definition of a newspaper is arbitrary.


John Leslie Evans: And your definition of a catalogue is not?


Bob Rae: The problem is that the government is using a sledgehammer to attack the fly. If it wants to deal with the issue of supplements and catalogues, I suggest it do so by dealing specifically with the question of catalogue and not by issuing a blanket ukase which will increase the cost of living, the cost of production and, in many cases, will threaten the existence of newspapers which provide an important service.
What will the ultimate effect of this legislation be? It may increase concentration. If the newspapers of Liverpool, the South Shore of Nova Scotia, northern Ontario, the towns and villages of southern Ontario, the towns and villages of Quebec, of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or any province have difficulties, then the chains will come in and take them up. They will say, "We will solve your problems. We will cover the cost. We have the tax accountants and lawyers who can get around the problem. We will buy you out." The effect of the legislation will be to punish the small businessman, the small newspapers and the community newspapers. The tendency will not be to hit the Toronto Star, or the Trudeau Star as some circles call it-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You have to be kidding!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Oh, come on!


Bob Rae: -or the largest newspaper chains in Canada. I touched a chord there, Mr. Speaker. The effect will be to hurt the small community newspapers that are truly independent
Excise Tax
and are providing the social basis for the freedom of speech which we as social democrats are concerned about and which all Canadians should be concerned about.
That is why we are opposed to this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have put forward these amendments today.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) yesterday, it is hard to get the riding straight for the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) because the hon. member for St. John's West fiddled around with it yesterday. It is always interesting to hear from the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. He now seems to be suggesting what we should put in our pamphlets next time. But after listening to what the NDP has suggested on more than one occasion, I wonder whether they would put this slogan in their pamphlets: "Vote for us and we will double the deficit" because that is really what it would amount to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: This is a serious subject and one which has received extensive and comprehensive coverage. Certainly anyone who has a newspaper or a weekly newspaper published in his riding, has been a recipient of lobbies and representations. I use the word lobby in the good sense. Personally I do not think there is anything wrong with that kind of representation. Surely having the opportunity to hear from people who are knowledgeable in the field gives us an opportunity to learn. How we sort it out and how we apply it is something we have to bring to the House to discuss.
In my riding, I have a Thomson newspaper, the Sarnia Observer, which is a daily newspaper. Also there is an independent weekly paper called the Sarnia Gazette. Representatives from both papers made representations to me on this subject. As a result of that, I did a fair amount of studying of the subject matter to determine whether what was being suggested in this legislation was unfair and whether changes should be made or, for that matter, if the provision in this bill should be dropped altogether.
I was surprised to find-maybe I should not have been surprised-that no other advertising appearing in newspapers is in fact taxed. In other words, if a person places an ad in a newspaper, the person is not taxed for that ad. What we have in dispute, however, is not the advertising in the newspaper but the inserts. If an insert goes into a newspaper, whether it is published by that newspaper or whether it is published elsewhere and brought to the newspaper for distribution, that insert at the present time is not taxed.
In endeavouring to get all the information we could bring before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, we had no fewer than three groups from the newspaper industry making representations, the Hebdos from the province of Quebec, the daily newspaper association and the weekly newspaper association outside of Quebec. Having

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
heard all of their representations and having heard the representation of the publisher of the Sarnia Observer, I wanted to determine if what is taking place in this particular instance would be unfair, particularly to weekly papers, and particularly to the smaller papers. It has been my experience in dealing with the larger industries, be they newspapers, petrochemical companies or whatever, that they can usually cope with increases or deal with issues as they see them because they do have, as the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood mentioned, the expertise of the lawyers or the know-how to either get around the problem or to find a way to at least lessen the impact of a particular tax.
When you look at the provision as it is presently constituted, it says that if more than 90 per cent of the space in any single issue of a newspaper is devoted to advertising, it is going to be subject to the tax. I point out, it says more than 90 per cent. It seems to me that any newspaper worth being called by that name will have no difficulty with that particular section.
Looking at the second part-and in this connection the minister's department has moved an amendment-we find that it says that all issues of a newspaper in any calendar quarter will be subject to the tax if more than 75 per cent-that is going to be changed to 80 per cent-of the space per issue in more than 50 per cent of the issues of the newspaper in that calendar quarter is devoted to advertising.
Here again, I do not see that as having a significant impact or causing difficulty for the legitimate newspapers to cope with. It will prevent people who would like to be classified as newspapers but are really nothing more than advertising circulars from abusing the regulation. In other words, people who are trying to classify themselves as newspapers and are not will be subject to this tax.
I have mentioned to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that I intend to watch what impact this will have. I will be following it up with my local daily and with local newspapers to determine whether this tax will have a detrimental impact on them, not only from the standpoint of business, as mentioned by the previous speaker, but also as to how they put their newspapers together.
It has been suggested to me by the publisher of the Sarnia Observer that these changes will have an impact on the way he puts his newspaper together, for instance, what he puts on the front page or how much editorial content he can have. When I read these clauses, however, I am not sure that the point has been made. I am prepared to listen, however. Nor will I let this subject drop if I see that it is having the kind of impact which the publisher of the Sarnia Observer suggests. The publisher of the Observer wrote to me on May 1, 1981. In part, his letter reads:
To say I am quite upset over this would be an understatement, as I feel the effects of this will be a definite threat to the continuing financial success of this newspaper.
That is a bit of hyperbole. I do not think the Sarnia Observer, which serves an area of some 150,000 people and is a member of the Thomson newspaper chain, will be put out of
business or will suffer that significantly. What does concern me is how he feels, and I shall quote again from his letter as follows:
How Mr. MacEachen can say that the tax on inserts is not an interference or infringement on the freedom of the press is beyond me.
What he is suggesting is that these taxes will dictate to him the manner in which he will have to put his newspaper together. Personally I do not see that at this time, given the 90 per cent figure and given the 80 per cent figure per issue in more than 50 per cent of the issues, how it will have that kind of impact.
One of the greater disappointments to me as chairman of the finance committee was the representation made by the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association by Mr. O'Callaghan, I believe with some reputation with the Edmonton Journal. During a committee hearing when questioning Mr. O'Callaghan to find out what his real feelings were on the subject, we asked him whether, if he had a four-page weekly, which is not an unusual thing with newspapers that are starting out, and a Sears catalogue of some 200 pages placed in that four-page weekly, he would still consider that part of the newspaper? Mr. O'Callaghan answered yes. He then wondered why members of the committee were aghast that he would make that kind of representation. Surely if you are making a representation to a committee, you should be honest enough to make a presentation so that members can have some kind of a dialogue. That was an area that concerned me because Mr. O'Callaghan who was representing the daily newspapers association, did not seem to be prepared to compromise. He made the point that he was responsible as a newspaper publisher for what was contained in the ads in the catalogue and, therefore, that was "part of the newspaper". I could not buy that argument.
Another area of concern to me came about as a result of a circular sent out by the Department of National Revenue, and it concerns interpretation. It seems to me, and I think the point was in part being made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, that some other newspapers will be able to get around this definition of an insert. It will not be an insert. Instead, the document will be preprinted and those inserts will contain some editorial comments or comments about travel, perhaps a description of the local community, as well as some editorial comment or newspaper comment. It will be open to them not to call that an insert. They will use numbered pages so that it will look as though it were part of the newspaper. Larger newspapers will be able to do that. I am not so sure that the weeklies will because most of them, I suspect, do not print the matter in their own shops. It is something brought in by the kinds of groups which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was suggesting. Therefore, they will not be in a position to number pages or to put anything on those pages which comes from Canadian Tire or whatever is brought to them. If that works to the disadvantage of the weeklies, it is something we should be looking out for.
As the bill is now drafted, with the amendment from the 75 per cent to the 80 per cent, I do not think it will have the dire
June 10, 1981

consequences suggested to me by the publisher of the Sarnia Observer. It will probably make him a little more conscious of the amount of editorial content that goes into his newspaper. But given these large figures of 90 per cent and 80 per cent, I do not see a restriction being put on him in the way he puts his newspaper together. After he has seen the legislation and heard the debate in the House maybe he will be prepared to agree that it will not have the detrimental effect he suggests.
At one time newspapers had no advertising in them whatsoever. They relied solely on the charge for the newspaper. Moving away from that, and in the interest of supporting newspapers, advertising was allowed to be put into a newspaper without any tax. I do not think anybody objected to that. Some of these inserts now going into the newspapers are a further evolution of the advertising being done in that newspaper. We all agree with Mr. O'Callaghan that some of the inserts might contain editorial comment, and the publisher and editor of that newspaper might very well be held responsible for it.
If this is one more evolution of advertising in the newspaper, maybe we will need to look at this. The Minister of Finance indicated that he is going to bring down a budget in the fall-I believe he said October. If that is the case, this may be another area he will have to look at to see if it is having a detrimental effect or if changes should be made so we do not prevent what I might call legitimate inserts from appearing. I have not defined them by moving an amendment to this clause. If this is something that will hurt newspapers and put weeklies out of business and concentrate newspapers in the hands of too few people, it deserves a second look.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the debate today should indicate to the government that this tax is not necessary, that it will interfere with freedom of the press and will put a number of newspapers out of business. The minister said he had to choose a figure; 75, 80, 85 or 90 per cent. Why did he have to choose a figure? As far as I can determine, this tax has never been levied before in North America; it is a new tax.
I wish to state some reasons why the government is making another error by imposing this type of tax on newspapers. It may think it will just be applied to newspapers, but the tax will be paid by the people of this country, something the government seems to forget. The fact that the figure is raised from 75 to 80 per cent indicates that the members of the committee who raised Cain about it being 75 per cent were bought off by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for 5 per cent. The principle has not changed. The government simply raised it 5 per cent to keep its members quiet. It may have bought off its own members for 5 per cent, but it will not buy off the people of Canada for 5 per cent. Canadians will resent this tax.
We heard a considerable amount from the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and others with regard to the
Excise Tax
effect on the dailies. I have the highest regard for the editor of the Edmonton Journal, Mr. O'Callaghan who was referred to a few moments ago. The statement was attributed to him that if someone wanted to have a catalogue included with a newspaper, it would be considered part of that press.
If it is only a case of trying to stop catalogues from being included as newspaper inserts, why not say that cannot be done? Why not do away with the catalogues? Why penalize everyone?
There are 18 or 20 weeklies in my constituency, some small some big. It is necessary for them to carry advertising. It is their only means of staying in business. Some are so small they are referred to as an advertising sheet. Many newspapers started out as an advertising sheet. I know of one that started as a one page advertising sheet with the odd bit of news. It was welcomed by the people. I have even seen sheets in restaurants which contain some news and very important advertising. It is a service to the people.
If the government is going to put these small weeklies out of business, there will be more bankruptcies.I do not know why the government is so intent on hurting small business. These weeklies carry the advertising for a week, in particular Saturday sales.
If we are not going to allow these inserts, the tax the newspapers will have to pay will be more than they are earning, or they will have to say to some people that they cannot accept their advertising. In what kind of position will that put our newspapers? They will be able to accept the advertising from one store but not another. The government is putting on a limit. The editor will be the scapegoat. He will have to decide what to accept and what not to accept. That is a questionable way of asking the newspapers to do business.
If this part of the bill passes, I hope that at the time of the next election the editors of these newspapers will not accept inserts from Liberal candidates because they voted in favour of this provision. That might teach them a lesson. The only way they learn is if it affects their pocketbook.
I have had newspaper inserts during an election. I felt they were valuable. Whether the people voted for or against me, they found out what I stood for and did not stand for. They were valuable to the newspapers because they were paid for them. Maybe I lost some votes, maybe I gained some, that is immaterial. The newspaper carried that information into every home in the area. It was a service to the community. Other candidates did the same. Often in the week or so before an election, inserts will be placed by three or four candidates.
The editor will be placed in the position of having to choose what to accept and what to reject. The reason is the newspapers will be taxed if it goes beyond the figure the minister pulled out of a hat, the figure that was increased to 80 per cent to buy off the Liberal members. The Liberals would not go for 75 per cent but they are quiet at 80 per cent.
Many of our newspapers are struggling. For many years the Canmore Miner was printed by a man who worked in the bosom of the earth. He printed the paper in his spare time.

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
The mine is now closed and he is trying to make his living from printing the paper. It is a small paper and he needs the advertising and the inserts. The government wants to limit his advertising. It is a good paper and I hope he can stay in business, but that is questionable. Why hurt a small business which provides a service to the community only to provide another pound of flesh for the government? This is the first time such a tax has been levied on the newspapers of this country.
The Drumheller Mail is an excellent weekly. Sometimes it is very thick because there are so many advertising inserts. There are several stores in Drumheller. It is a large business area. The Mail is the only newspaper in that area. Everyone wants to advertise bargains for people shopping on Fridays and Saturdays. If the government proceeds in this way, these inserts will cost a lot of money. Every newspaper is going to experience the same difficulty. There are other newer newspapers, such as the Five Village Weekly at Irricana, which has just started up in the last two or three years. I believe it is doing all right. I do not know how it is doing financially, but I think it is keeping its head above water. Now we are going to make it difficult. That small paper will not be able to carry inserts. The same will be the case with the Nanton News, the Claresholm Local Press and several others I could mention. The percentage they will be taxed is an injustice to consumers as well because consumers have to know what the bargains are, and the newspapers will have to say they cannot carry this advertising because it will cost too much because of increased taxation. They may be put out of business, and consumers will be losers as well. The country will be the loser. When any business goes bankrupt, this country loses. It is a tragedy. This country loses whenever business goes bankrupt, and here we are laying out the cards for a number of our newspapers across the country to join the bankruptcy file which is building up. Consumers will lose because they will lose their opportunity of knowing what all the bargains are. They will not be able to go to the places where they can make their dollars go furthest.
When the minister spoke about taxes on liquor and tobacco, I did not hear one member on this side of the House say we are against taxes on liquor and tobacco. As a matter of fact, I have always said that those taxes are some of the better ones because people have a choice. They do not have to smoke, they do not have to chew and they do not have to drink. What we are saying is that we oppose the indexing of that tax. It is completely unfair. In addition, the government should remember that even in the tobacco business many people make their living by growing tobacco, packaging it and so forth.
Many farmers are earning good money from the malting of barley for beer. The same is the case with grapes used to make wine. These are Canadian industries, and we do not seem to look beyond our noses in relation to what this tax will do to the country, as the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) said a few moments ago.
This taxation will not stop the large dailies of Canada from publishing, but it may very well stop many of our small weeklies from going on. In order to stay in business they have to make profits, and this is just another expense which might well put a number of newspapers into bankruptcy. I wish government members would look at their own weekly newspapers and see what is happening before they are bought off for 5 per cent.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was just saying because it again indicates that he has not read the provision. I do not think he really understands the nature of the amendment brought forward by the government to modify this provision.
As the minister indicated earlier, there are two different and separate provisions with respect to this tax. First, there is the tax as it would apply to newspapers. If, as the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) so correctly pointed out, a newspaper-let us call it a publication-is more than 90 per cent advertising, then it would be in a taxable category. If more than 50 per cent of the issues in any quarter are more than 80 per cent advertising, it would fall into a taxable category. When this was before the committee and then before the Senate committee, Les Hebdos du Quebec came before the Senate committee with the concern that their publications would be taxable, and the Senate committee looked at all the publications which were brought forward. I think ten different newspapers were brought forward. They were selected by Les Hebdos, and none of them would have been taxable under the previous 75 per cent rule, let alone the 80 per cent rule or 90 per cent rule we now propose. It is a red herring. It is highly unlikely that any of those small weekly newspapers will ever fall into a taxable category under this particular provision.
The other part of the tax deals with inserts. There is an important distinction to be made here because the creation of advertising-the printing of advertising-has always been taxable under the manufacturers' excise tax, which is what we are talking about here. It has always been taxable unless it has been distributed by newspapers.
One of the reasons this particular provision was brought forward-and the reason the tax change was considered in the first place-was that a number of independent distributors of advertising brochures are small companies. I heard the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) say he was in favour of small business and that we should look at the effects on small business. This tax change was considered in the first place precisely for that reason.
There were small businesses whose job it was and whose business it was to distribute house to house advertising flyers for other business firms. These business firms were being put into an unfair competitive position vis-a-vis newspapers because if anyone printed material and it was distributed by one of these small, independent distributors, the cost of printing and producing the advertising material was taxable under the manufacturers' excise tax. However, if the company doing
June 10, 1981

the advertising were to take that same thing down the street to a newspaper and have it included in the newspaper for distribution, it was not taxable.
If we are talking about tax equity, it seems to me that surely, if we are going to tax this material when it is distributed by one group of people, then either we should tax it when it is distributed by all groups of people or we should not tax it at all. That is a totally different argument, but what we said was that the tax as it was being applied was putting small business at a competitive disadvantage compared with large newspaper chains as well as with weekly newspapers, and that that should be rectified as there should be equity. So the correction was made. The fact of the matter was that many of the small companies which contacted us with regard to this inequity which was facing them as door to door distributors of material were forced out of business before this change could be made. There are still such companies in existence, but they will not be in existence much longer unless this change is brought forward. So we are talking about equity in the tax system.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said the 80 per cent figure and the 90 per cent are arbitrary figures picked out of a hat, that they have no meaning but that the New Democratic Party has put forward a rational way of responding to this problem. "We are going to define a catalogue". What is a catalogue? Is it 20 pages, is it 10 pages, is it 8V6 by 11, is it 7 by 14 or is it 12 by 20? What is a catalogue? If the definition of a catalogue can be so objectively determined, then why does the hon. member accuse the government of being subjective in the definition of 80 per cent or 90 per cent, or in the definition of what shall, for the purposes of this tax, be a newspaper? That kind of inconsistency is typical of the New Democratic Party. Its definitions are objective; everyone else's are subjective. The concern of members of the New Democratic Party for a certain class of small business is fair and equitable, but our concern for small business is inequitable because we are not looking after the same class they happen to be looking after or at the same time.
The problem is, of course, they did not understand the rationale or logic for the change in the tax in the first place. We tried to explain it in committee but apparently we did not get across. The point is that this tax has been in place for a very long time. It is the manufacturers' excise tax, a tax which applies to printed material, and the question that was put to us was: if a newspaper expands into another field using its tax free status to make additional profits through the distribution system where it can be non-taxable, is that equitable to other non-newspaper firms which compete in the same field? We say, no. That is why we have brought forward the change, to retain equity in the tax system. The overwhelming evidence, Mr. Speaker, is that the weeklies will not be affected by this as a result of the 80-90 per cent definition. The inserts are taxable now in all places except when they are distributed by a newspaper, and we believe they should be taxed.
Excise Tax
If the hon. members want to say all advertising should be tax free, that would be a proposal they could put forward. However, unless they are willing to do that, we say advertising that is printed and taxable in the hands of anybody should be taxable in the hands of everybody. That is equity, that is equality. That is what this party stands for, and that is what is in this particular amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question now is on motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will not need to deal with motion No. 16 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) (for Mr. Blenkarn). That is deferred automatically as a result of previous dispositions of the House.
Now we have to deal with motion Nos. 17 and 18 separately.
The question is on motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
That takes care of motion No. 18 which is also deferred.
The question now is on motion No 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
That takes care of motion No. 22 as well, which now stands deferred.
The question now is on motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We have dealt with motion No. 22 already. We will now deal with motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.
June 10, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is now on motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
That automatically defers motions Nos. 25 and 26.
I would ordinarily move next to motions Nos. 27 and 28, but I have had the opportunity, as I promised the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to examine the Speaker's ruling with respect to motion No. 10 and I find that he is quite correct. Madam Speaker seems to have indicated in her ruling that he should be encouraged, if he sees fit, to make procedural arguments on his motion. It might be more convenient for everyone if the hon. member would give that argument now, if he is prepared to do so, and then, on the next day Bill C-57 is debated, the Chair would be prepared to give a ruling immediately.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) rises on a point of order?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just a question of timing, Mr. Speaker. Even if the hon. member finishes his argument, you would not call motions Nos. 27 or 28 tonight? The reason I ask is that I am 45 minutes late on a very pressing engagement and if I have to wait 15 minutes until six o'clock, it just makes it worse. I am just asking whether we are going to get to motion No. 27. If not, then will we defer it until the following day?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Well, as the House knows, the Speaker has invited all hon. members to attend a party this evening. I cannot make a ruling as to when it is six
Excise Tax
o'clock, but if hon. members want to accommodate the hon. member for Edmonton West, what we can do is to hear the point of order on motion No. 10 and then perhaps the Chair can seek consent of the House to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused because as I understand it, Madam Speaker was talking about the grouping of these amendments and she said that motion No. 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) seeks to import a new proposition and offends the royal recommendation attached to the bill. Then she went on to quote citations 437(1), 773(7) and 516(2) of Beauchesne's fifth edition, and then she went on to say that the hon. member may wish to offer arguments on the acceptability of his motion, and if so, he can do that the next time the bill is before the House.
I seek guidance from the Chair. Is this a ruling? If so, one should not argue about it and the motion should be stricken. Or, is this a suggestion that there are doubts? Certainly the language used seeks to import a new proposition and offends the royal recommendation; that is very clear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have interpreted Madam Speaker's ruling in favour of the wider rights of the hon. member. If I were to disregard the words, "the hon. member may wish to offer argument on the procedural acceptability", then in effect I would make those words useless and deny the hon. member any right he may have had under Madam Speaker's ruling. The fact that these words exist leads me to believe that the hon. member now has a right to make procedural argument.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I recall clearly that the intent of Madam Speaker's ruling was that one would have an opportunity to raise the issue at the appropriate time in the proceedings. In an effort to convince the Chair that in fact it is procedurally appropriate, I will begin by referring to the background which led me to bring forward this motion at the encouragement of my colleagues.
If one were to look at the manner in which the government has supported the Canadian small business sector, it would be anything but impressive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to restrict himself as narrowly as possible to the point of order on the acceptability of the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your point. A number of delegations brought this point to our attention in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that is, that we were asking the business community to collect taxes on behalf of the federal government. We felt we would bring the matter forward on their behalf at this particular time

June 10, 1981
Excise Tax
because they raised it when they appeared before the committee.
If raising this matter as a member of the opposition were inappropriate, surely there would be an opportunity for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to bring forward an amendment worded in a similar manner to reflect the intent of motion No. 10 which is being proposed by our party. Of course the intent was to recognize the work being done by individual entrepreneurs in collecting taxes for the federal government and to recognize the approach of provincial governments, with the exception of the province of Alberta which does not collect a provincial sales tax.
Therefore, I ask the minister to consider the principle behind this particular motion and to bring it forward as a gesture to the small business community of Canada that the government in fact appreciates their valuable service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member has used a considerable amount of his time to make a suggestion as to how to reorganize his motion so that it will be in order. In any event, the Chair appreciates his comments. On the next day Bill C-57 is debated, the Chair will be prepared to give a ruling on it.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I would like to point out to him that he is sending the ball back to the government side. His colleague for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) raised a number of points concerning current distortions in the tax system. What I would like to stress is that he is indeed creating a new disparity, a new inequity, a new distortion by giving someone a tax break or rewarding someone who has to pay tax. Why not reward also the individual who has to file his income tax return? I submit that what he proposes to introduce in the tax system is basically wrong, because while supporting a proposal to create a tax burden, he says in the same breath: on the other hand, I will reward you for being a good Canadian citizen and paying your taxes. I submit his proposal is basically inconsistent. Second, it
would introduce inequity and perversion into the tax system. I therefore suggest he did not fully consider the repercussions of his amendment, because instead of helping one group of individuals or businesses, he would firstly introduce a flaw in our tax system and second he would thwart his colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who expressed the desire to see a tax system without distortion, inequity or inconsistencies.
Therefore, I prefer to support the views of his colleague from Broadview-Greenwood, of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and of members on this side of the House and reject such a proposal in order to maintain greater consistency within our tax system.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as I heard the argument of the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), he seemed to admit that the motion was out of order by making a representation and beseeching the government to bring in the motion. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Madam Speaker outlined the case rather clearly and, with all due respect, the Chair should find it completely out of order on procedural grounds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, I will not do that. The arguments of the hon. member in this case were virtually an admission that the motion might be out of order, and he asked the government to take responsibility for the motion. Once an individual member has acquired for some reason the right to raise a point of order, I still think it is the duty of the Chair to protect the individual member's right.
Certainly I can indicate that my impression right now is that I will probably find it out of order, but I will protect that member's right until such time as I or others have done our homework to ensure that the motion is, in fact, out of order.
There were earlier indications that hon. members might want to call it six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 11, 1981