1981-06-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will meet tomorrow with his Alberta counterpart to try to end the oil pricing impasse, and given that this impasse has crippled the Canadian oil exploration industry and shipped millions of dollars to foreign producers, leaving us ever more dependent on fragile sources of supply, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources bargain in good faith and avoid the temptation to make political points, and thereby bring sanity to the Canadian oil picture.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Treasury Board has made the pay increases for members of the RCMP retroactive to April 1, 1981, rather than to the promised January 1, recognizing this breach of faith by the federal government and recognizing the outstanding service members of the RCMP offer to the Canadian community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House direct the Treasury Board to live up to its commitment to the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by extending the retroactivity of their pay increases to January I, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion. In light of the brutal disregard for human rights displayed by the Iranian government against the Baha'i faith in Iran, and in view of the announced intention of the government of Iran to destroy all traces of the holiest Baha'i shrine and to desecrate its site, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House deplores the decision to desecrate the sacred shrine which three million Baha'i around the world consider the birthplace and the symbol of their faith, and that should the government of Iran continue its persecution, we urge that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights take up once again its investigation of Iranian policy toward the Baha'i community in Iran.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, now that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is here, maybe we can obtain the agreement of hon. members opposite under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In July, 1980, members of the RCMP were promised that pay increases would begin on January 1, 1981, as they do in other Canadian police forces. Because the RCMP has no union to fight for decent wages and working conditions, last week the Treasury Board was able to double-cross and chisel the force, and announced a pay increase retroactive to April 1, rather than January 1, 1981. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):

June 9, 1981
That since this Treasury Board decision has robbed each member of the force of $750 to $1,600 each, the Solicitor General and the President of the Treasury Board immediately make the recent pay award retroactive to January 1,1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) stated yesterday in an article in The Globe and Mail, and again in this House, that he advocates a foreign affairs debate, whereas his House leader in a CP wire report today stated that the official opposition wishes to spend its allotted time on economic issues, and whereas the Conservative party has decided to debate capital punishment this Thursday instead of economic issues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That the Leader of the Opposition and his House leader get their act together and indicate to this House and the country whether they are sincere in their desire to discuss economic questions or whether this is further evidence of the duplicity, disintegrating Tory leadership, and party disloyalty expressed on the other side.


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


OIL PRICING AGREEMENT-NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCE OF ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the February, 1980, general election the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has used, among other things, public confusion over metric conversion to mask an increase of some 52 cents a gallon in gasoline prices, most of it federal tax. This is a clear violation of Liberal election promises. The minister and his colleagues continue to live in a fantasy land where Canadians are paid only $17.75 a barrel for oil-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could the hon. member do away with the props?


Lorne Everett Greenaway: -but foreigners are gladly handed $40 plus a barrel, a ridiculous situation that is incomprehensible to anyone of reasonable intelligence. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tomorrow in Banff act in a realistic, reasonable and responsible manner in negotiating a pricing agreement with his Alberta counterpart, and end this ongoing lunacy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCREASE IN DEFICIT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to introduce a motion. Whereas new statistics show that Canada has registered an outrageous current account deficit in excess of $1 billion during the first quarter of 1981, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That this House condemns the Liberal government and in particular the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who insists on importing high-priced foreign oil, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for his lack of any concern respecting exports, who, even more than the others, must bear the responsibility for this abysmal trading record.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the contract with the RCMP expired December 31, 1980; whereas the RCMP's wages are lagging behind those of city police, such as Vancouver's, who are not subject to transfers necessitating, for example, such items as new mortgages at high interest rates and whereas it is doubtful if any police force in Canada gives so much overtime and free work on days off as does the RCMP, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House urges the Treasury Board and the cabinet to alter the proposed contract by honouring the January 1, 1981, date and by increasing the pay scale.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 9, 1981


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, whereas the major fish processors and offshore vessel owners on Canada's east coast have issued a direct challenge to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1981 fishing plan by catching their total allowable haddock catch in a compressed time-frame, and whereas this practice caused severely depressed prices to inshore fishermen leading to a three week tie up, and is bound to recur in other fisheries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the Department of Fisheries and Oceans investigate the implications of this rushed catch plan by the major companies on fish prices to offshore and inshore fishermen, on incomes to plant workers, and on prices to consumers, with a view to developing a more rational and orderly catch scheme for 1982.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OIL PRICING AGREEMENT-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the Alsands Energy Ltd. consortium which includes 17 per cent ownership by PetroCan has put together a management team which is ready, willing and able to proceed with their project if an oil pricing agreement is reached. Their team will be lost if such an agreement is not reached or significant progress is not made. Since 50 per cent of the major equipment and bulks will come from Ontario and Quebec, and 50 per cent of the supply-erect subcontracts will come from Ontario and Quebec, with a value of some $1.6 billion and the creation of thousands of jobs, it is imperative that both sides come to an agreement quickly. Therefore, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Government of Canada quit creating jobs in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico and start creating jobs in Canada by coming quickly to a fair and realistic agreement on energy pricing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, by invoking closure last night on Bill C-57, the Liberal government has effectively choked adequate debate in the House by members particularly from western Canada who wanted to convince the government to accept amendments, and may also inhibit the June 10 negotiations in Alberta. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)
That the government reconsider and allow for debate on amendments of these regressive oil and gas taxes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Oil prices have increased 12 times since the beginning of 1980, for a total of $12.79 per barrel; 72 per cent of this $12.79 has ended up in the federal government coffers in the form of increased taxes. The Alberta proposal of July, 1980, would have resulted in a price increase of only about half this amount, or about $6.50 per barrel. So all Canadians have today are high energy taxes and low energy development.
What instructions has the government given to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to break the deadlock with Alberta, a deadlock which has been caused directly by Liberal government greed and the broken election promises of the 1980 election?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, in so far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I repeat the figures given to the House by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that because the Clark-Crosbie budget was not applied, consumers in Canada have now saved $1.9 billion over what they would have saved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 9, 1981
Oral Questions


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Not even Pinard will believe that.


Mr. Andre:: And the Americans have $4 billion of our money.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the facts and the figures are easy to establish. One just has to take the Crosbie budget, look at the increase-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -look at the specified price set in that budget, being 85 per cent of world prices, and then the hon. member would find out how we have saved that money of the consumers thus far.
In so far as the instructions given to the minister are concerned, they are quite simple. It is to seek a compromise solution with the government of Alberta. The need for increased prices has been recognized in our own national energy policy; it is still being recognized. It was indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his meeting last month with his Alberta counterpart that we would be recognizing the need for higher energy prices. The big discussion, no doubt, will be on the share of those prices which remains in Alberta and that share which is redistributed through the federal government to Canadian consumers, the taxpayers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Which one, Pierre?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Crosbie budget is not the point. I am talking about what happened after the Crosbie budget, with the Alberta proposal of July, 1980, compared with what has happened since then. The government is a party of high gasoline prices, and it is a party of broken promises.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is a party of high prices, which have been gobbled up by the federal government through increased taxes, and high prices which have done nothing to keep drilling rigs in the country and to encourage energy development.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


SHARING OF TAX REVENUES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is specifically related to this compromise. Is the government prepared to share some of these exorbitant taxes with the producing provinces and the industry, or is it proposing to layer the inevitable price increases which will come from these negotiations on top of the high taxes we have already seen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, once again the hon. member seems to misunderstand the essential difference between the policy of his party and our policy. The essential difference is not on the need for higher
prices. We recognize that; we recognized that during the election.


Mr. Clark:: Except in Allan's ads.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are just ensuring that these higher prices will still be lower over the four-year period than those proposed by the party opposite.
But the essential difference, once again, is not on prices. It is on how the money flowing from that resource will be shared among Canadians. That is the essential difference. Essentially that is the reason why Premier Lougheed's proposal of last summer was not acceptable to the government, and is not acceptable today. It still resulted in Alberta receiving about 45 per cent of the returns from the petroleum industry-


Harvie Andre: Nonsense!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the private sector getting about 45 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the federal government getting about 10 per cent. This is not acceptable to a government whose duty it is to ensure equality of opportunity across the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the point is that we must share. Some 72 per cent has been shared by the federal government since the beginning of 1980. The balance has gone to the others. I am asking whether there will be some better distribution of those funds than has been the case so far to date.


EXCISE TAX ON NATURAL GAS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates to what happened last night. Alberta and British Columbia have consistently opposed the excise tax on natural gas. The legality of this particular tax is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. Last month the Appeal Court of Alberta ruled that this tax was invalid, illegal. Since Alberta has specifically requested that this legislation relating to that tax be deferred until after the negotiations, and until after the Supreme Court decision, how can the Prime Minister justify invoking closure on this particular piece of legislation on the very day that the negotiations with Alberta were to start?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member began his question by pointing out figures which are quite fanciful. But, assuming that they were true and that 75 per cent went to the federal government-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Seventy-two per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -72 per cent went to the federal government, he asked if there could be a better share. I can assure the hon.
June 9, 1981

member that-and I do not accept his figures-the share we are requesting indeed will be considerably better than that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You want more than 72 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We would like the over-all result to be the federal government sharing 23 per cent or 25 per cent of the take, and the provinces and the private sector sharing the rest. Whether it be 25 per cent, 30 per cent or 22 per cent, it certainly is not 72 per cent that we are requesting. We are asking for a fair share for the government which speaks for the people of Canada, which must redistribute equality of opportunity across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is your Mexico first policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is the consumers of Canada who are paying this money to the producing provinces and-


Mr. Beatty:: And to Mexico.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -it is the consumers of Canada who should in some way be benefiting from this resource which belongs to Canada.
The hon. member opposite has a question about Mexico. I will sit down and hear that question.


REQUEST FOR LOWERING OF TAXES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister who should get together with the minister of energy who, on June 3, said that he conceded that the current oil prices Canadians are paying are about even with those projected in the Conservative budget. During the election campaign the Prime Minister, on January 30, 1980, said this in St. John's Newfoundland:
Our price will not be $6 a barrel; it would be under $4 per barrel.
That is 16 cents a gallon translated into gasoline prices at the pump.
To date the Prime Minister's government has raised prices in St. John's 64 cents a gallon for gasoline and some 44 cents a gallon for heating fuels-a 55 per cent increase. Of the 12 increases, nine have been federal tax increases. In order to reach an oil pricing agreement with the producing provinces, in order to treat the Canadian consumers fairly, and to begin to meet his promises and not continue to betray Canadians, is the Prime Minister prepared to lower the federal taxes imposed in the last 15 months by something in the order of 30-odd cents a gallon to give room to increase the price to the primary producers at the wellhead, so that this matter can be settled, and settled quickly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member wants to talk about promises, the least he could do would be to quote them in their entirety. When I talked about $4 a barrel, even the hon. member should realize that it was $4 a barrel for 1980.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said-


Walter David Baker: There's no tomorrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said, specifically, Madam Speaker, that we were talking of 1980, and it could not have been $4 for the whole four-year period that the hon. member's budget had contained. It was $4 for 1980. For 1981, the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it was $4, and it did not have that extra 18-cent excise tax that the hon. member for St. John's West would have brought on. So, we did keep our promise in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So far as the four-year period that was covered by the budget of the hon. member opposite is concerned, we undertook-and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources repeated that undertaking the other day-that we would still be underneath the figure which would have been produced as a result of the hon. member's budget, and that is still our commitment today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INSTRUCTIONS TO MINISTER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has betrayed the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is what the Prime Minister said in Halifax:
Our made-in-Canada (oil) price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed for the next four years-


Walter David Baker: That's what he said.


John Carnell Crosbie: He did not make any promise about one year, and he has raised the price 60 cents a gallon to date. His answer to the people of Canada is that people appear "prepared to pay these higher prices". That is how sanguine he is now. He has managed to get himself into power for another four years without going to the electorate. "Drivers are willing", he said.
Now, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to call the hon. member to order. It seems that every time he asks a question he makes it too long, and I have to get up and call him to order. I am sure that he has noticed by now that his questions are always too long.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are warring like little rabbits over there, Madam Speaker. My supplementary question is to the Prime

June 9, 1981
Oral Questions
Minister. The Prime Minister's biographer, Mr. Gwyn, says that he wants to settle this energy pricing agreement even more than the constitutional question. Will the Prime Minister therefore instruct his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to stop twisting the truth, to stop imposing additional taxes on Canadians such as the 9-cent tax last week, or will he replace that minister with some other negotiator who can be trusted by the people of Canada and trusted by the people he has to negotiate with?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad that the hon. member read that quote from my Halifax statement during the campaign. He read it quite correctly, for once. It stated that we were giving an undertaking covering the next four years.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have violated it already.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Those are the words that he used. Madam Speaker, in the first of those four years, 1980, we were lower than the Tory prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Ask the Canadian consumer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the second of those four years, 1981, as the minister of energy said the other day, and the hon. member quoted him correctly again, we were about even with the Tories. Therefore, as an average over the two years we have kept our promise, and I can repeat that over the four years-


Harvie Andre: Try the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -we will have kept it, in spades.


THE ECONOMY
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Is it going to be in Spanish?


Mr. Hees:: He's going to use his best Spanish.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: The question will not be in Spanish, Madam Speaker, but I do not think the government will like it any better because it is not.
Today 100 Canadians will declare personal bankruptcy, yesterday 100 Canadians declared bankruptcy, and tomorrow an additional 100 Canadians will declare personal bankruptcy. This record is added to the record number who lost their homes because they could not renew their mortgages, to the
record number of farmers who lost their farms, and to the record number of small businessmen who lost their businesses because of the high interest rate policy pursued by the government. How long does the Government of Canada plan to inflict this high interest rate punishment on the people of Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member has been away for some time. I am delighted to see him back. I had hoped that he would improve the quality of the questioning from that corner, but there has not been any improvement. He is rehashing old questions that were asked in his absence. I suggest that he look at Hansard to get the answers.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister is right. I have been away for two weeks, but during those two weeks the economy has become worse, as have the minister's answers. Canadians are going into personal bankruptcies and, as the minister well knows, the banks continue to increase their profits. He also knows that during the past decade bank profits have tripled but their taxes have remained the same. I should like to ask a question with reference to one of these banks in particular. How is it possible that last year the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce managed to double its profits from $100 million to $200 million and at the same time have a drop in its taxes from $70 million to $18 million? How is that possible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would have to examine the situation of that particular bank in detail. One way that its taxes may have dropped occurs to me, and that is as a result of a policy that has been supported by all members of the House, namely, the use of the small business development bond. It is a fact that if banks have tax liability, those liabilities can be reduced by the use of the small business development bond. That is one of the things the hon. member might put in his briefing book for his next trip to El Salvador.


PAYMENT OF TAXES BY BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister may smirk when he answers, but I can assure him that all the Canadians who are going into bankruptcy do not regard this government and its policies as a laughing matter at all. The subject of bank profits is obviously of no great concern to the minister, although their taxes have remained at a constant level in spite of increasing profits. Would the minister confirm that most of the taxes paid by Canadian banks are, in
June 9, 1981

fact, paid outside Canada and not to Canada? Specifically, would he confirm that most of the $228 million paid in taxes by the five major chartered banks last year went outside Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, to refer back to the earlier question, the hon. member asked if I could explain why it was possible that taxes for a particular bank decreased. I said I would have to study the matter in order to know the condition of the bank but that one possible way it could decrease its tax liability would be its use of the small business development bond which extends benefits to small businessmen at about half the commercial rate. That is one possible way, and I would ask the hon. member to consider it seriously.
The hon. member asked several other academic questions about how it is that banks pay their taxes abroad. He knows the answer to that as well as I do. He has probably also had in his briefing book the old saw that you do not ask a question unless you know the answer.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I propose to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question to which, unfortunately, I do know the answer. It deals with a matter in the litany of broken promises made to western Canada by this government, specifically, the Western Development Fund. The minister tabled his estimates for the current fiscal year in the House on February 26. At that time he indicated that $350 million would be spent this year under the Western Development Fund and that the details of the fund were to be tabled in the supplementary estimates later this year.
In view of a report in yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press that the bureaucrats in the federal government are trying to scuttle the Western Development Fund, could the minister tell the House whether any progress has been made toward establishing guidelines for the expenditure of this money? In view of the fact that it seems the money will not be available this year because of the lack of guidelines, can he give a commitment that the moneys that were to be spent this year will accumulate and be carried over until next year?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. As he knows, under the system of expenditure management the expenditure of those funds is addressed by the Economic Development Committee. I tabled the estimates and 1 stand behind them, but as President of the Treasury Board I am not responsible for every item in the blue book.
Oral Questions


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I cannot find any minister who is prepared to take responsibility for this fund. It is one reason why the Liberal party is becoming the laughing stock of western Canada.
Since the Minister of Employment and Immigration does not know anything about this topic, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. There has been a series of broken promises to western Canada, including double tracking, the payment for the Soviet grain embargo, energy policies which are an attack on western resources, and the economic development policy for Indians. I could go on and on. The minister said that there would be consultation with the provinces of western Canada with respect to the expenditure of this fund. When will this consultation take place? When may we expect a conclusion of that consultation, and when may we expect action with respect to the Western Development Fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that there was an indication of consultation with western Canada. That consultation would probably be with the program ministers when any particular project is to be approved or financed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Scandalous.


PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could he outline to the House what projects the government intends to fund with the money that is supposed to be going into the Western Development Fund? From time to time the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated in western Canada that the money from this fund will be available for a particular project in which he is interested. Rail lines, ports, airports and a number of things have been mentioned as possible projects. In fact the amount of money talked about politically is probably higher than the highest estimate of the size of the fund. Could the minister indicate what projects will be funded through the Western Development Fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I already indicated to the hon. member who asked a question earlier that particular projects would have to be put forward in any area by the program ministers. That is something that I am not able to indicate on their behalf this afternoon.


COMPOSITION OF FUND
Jack Burnett Murta: Somebody must be in charge of the fund, Madam Speaker. What has happened to it? It appears that it is another attempt by the Liberal government

June 9, 1981
Oral Questions
to raise the expectations of the people in western Canada, and that that is as far as it goes.
May I put another question to the minister. There has been the suggestion of a great miscalculation in the total amount of money to go into the Western Development Fund based on figures projected by officials in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the minister cannot tell us what projects are being considered, could he at least indicate the size of the fund? How much money will go into this Western Development Fund, and over how many years will it function? Can the minister inform the House on these points?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, both the questions asked by the hon. member were dealt with in the budget and in the National Energy Program.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and it concerns another promise broken by the government. As the minister knows, members of the RCMP across Canada feel betrayed and double-crossed by the failure of the Liberal government to make their pay increase retroactive to January 1 this year as was promised to them last July. This breach of trust, which costs each member at least $750, has shown the minister's div-rep system to be totally inadequate.
In view of the fact that many members of the force are now actively supporting the right to no-strike collective bargaining, will the minister explain his recent threat to end contract policing? Will he also explain his union busting threat to cut the size of the force if there is any movement by mounties to form a union, a threat which his colleague, the Minister of Labour, will recognize as being an unfair labour if such a threat were made by anyone else?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, if a 22,000-man police force, working from one coast of Canada to the other, were ever to have the right to strike, or to move in the direction of having the right to strike, the possibility of such a strike and the damage it might do to the security and order of Canada would have to be taken into account by the government. The mandate of the RCMP can remain as broad as it is, it can serve the Canadian people at three levels of government, in every province and territory, precisely because the force does not have the right to strike, and the Canadian people know they can fall back on it.
In so far as the preamble to the hon. member's question is concerned, I think the force has been served very well by the div-rep system. When the recent pay raise went before Treasury Board, account was taken of the fact that the RCMP does
not have the right to collective bargaining or the right to strike. It was taken into consideration that a group within the public service which does not have that right should be compensated for its forbearance, and that was taken account of when the pay raise was settled.
I have reviewed the record very carefully, and there have been deep misunderstandings. I think these misunderstandings, well intentioned, have been on both sides, on the side of the RCMP and on the side of the Treasury Board. Since then I have had several meetings with the President of the Treasury Board, and I expect to have good news for the force very soon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, no one has ever suggested the right to strike. We are talking about the right to collective bargaining. It is the government's betrayal of its promises that will lead to the action which the minister is suggesting should not take place. His blackmail is resulting in the growth of the association of 17 divisions.


COMMITMENT TO MAKE PAY INCREASES RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1981
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He knows that the Treasury Board minute dated July 23 confirms that the 1981 contracts were supposed to start on January 1 this year. That was the promise that was made. Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm this commitment and explain to the House why he betrayed this commitment to the RCMP, and explain it also to members of the force? Will he explain why this incredible decision, a decision which really represents a shameful double-cross of members of the force, will not be reversed, and reversed very quickly?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe the situation requires a certain amount of clarification for members of the House. First, in the year commencing April 1, 1980, the RCMP received an increase of 12.9 per cent on payroll. That translated to between 13 per cent and 14 per cent altogether in cost. That was set forth in the estimates for 1980-1981 for the year terminating March, 1981.
Last year there was an agreement in principle with respect to a change in the year to a calendar year. Treasury Board ministers felt that with the entire package of items put before them, the RCMP was very generously treated, and that particular change was one which was not in the best interests of the government or the taxpayers of Canada.
I would point out that, for the year ended March 31, the force had received a 12.9 per cent increase in that period. In addition, Treasury board ministers had agreed to a 12.2 per cent increase for the year April 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982, which translates into more than 13 per cent. In addition to that, other measures were taken, for example, reducing by one

year the period of time it takes a first class constable to reach maximum pay.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald James Johnston: There were overtime provisions. In all, and if hon. members will hear me out, since the question has been asked, it was considered to be a very generous package.
As it turns out, a number of members of the force felt they were personally prejudiced by the failure of Treasury Board to make this provision commence on January 1, 1981. This was for a number of reasons-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At a subcommittee meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence last night, the minister indicated that Canada would be willing to take part in a joint U.S.-Mexican economic assistance program to help Caribbean nations. Can the minister say whether details of such assistance have been drawn up by his officials, toward that end?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, Canada has a full and, I believe, effective development program for the Caribbean area. We would certainly be prepared to share objectives with other countries that have the same ends in mind.
We have had no advance notice of the proposal which was made yesterday by the United States and apparently agreed to by Mexico, but we have an open mind on it. The Prime Minister has agreed in principle to meet at some time with the President of Mexico and the President of the United States. This is a matter which could be on the agenda and on which policy could be developed, both before and after.
At the moment, there are no further details nor have we given our assent to the proposal. As far as we know, there is really no exact proposal.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. It is a brief question which will permit him a brief answer. Can the President of the Treasury Board
Oral Questions
tell us whether the government will make the RCMP pay increase effective January 1, 1981?


Mr. Lawrence:: A simple yes or no will do.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have met and I am meeting with my colleague, the Solicitor General, to discuss this problem. There are some misunderstandings, as I indicated in an earlier answer. I want to ensure that members of the force are not prejudiced, but I will obviously have to take the matter before my colleagues in Treasury Board, who arrived at the decision collectively, to grant the RCMP an increase as of April 1, 1981.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, is the minister in a position to give a firm undertaking since a promise was made last week by his colleague that the matter would be studied? He is promising to study it again. Will the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether the government will make a final decision, by which it will abide, this week?


Donald James Johnston: Yes, Madam Speaker, the government will make a firm decision on this issue this week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is a supplementary one and it is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the proposals that have been discussed in the last two days by the President of the United States and the President of Mexico.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although he has not been involved in the discussions, whether or not there have been any discussions with any other members of the government or any officials within his department, with Mr. Tom Enders, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, about this matter? Could he also advise whether such discussions also included any kind of an aid program to Cuba?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there have been no discussions of any kind at any level with the U.S. government or its officials concerning this subject. I might say that, as of some years ago, we cut off our aid program to Cuba entirely and more recently even in indirect forms through NGOs, and we have no intention of reinstating them to Cuba.

June 9, 1981
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


CANADA'S PEACEKEEPING ROLE IN MIDDLE EAST
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. He will remember that last week he said that he thought the question of Canada participating in a peacekeeping force in the Sinai was under very serious consideration by Department of External Affairs. Referring to it, he said:
We will look with sympathy because I do not think Canada wants to refuse to keep the peace in any way we can in any part of the world.
Can the minister tell us whether he has now discussed this with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and whether his remark of last week represented government policy?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that we have continuous dialogue between External Affairs and Defence on matters like this. I said at the time that we looked very closely at the whole situation in the Middle East, and that it was also the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to continue the dialogue and see what decision we will take eventually.


SINAI PEACEKEEPING OPERATION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the minister seems now to be disavowing some of his remarks of last week. I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He told the press that there were several facets of the Sinai peacekeeping operation that were giving him concern, one that it was not under United Nations auspices, and the other that he did not want to become involved in a process over which we have no control and which may not be going anywhere. Obviously there is quite a difference between those remarks and the remarks of the Minister of National Defence last week. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could tell us who is speaking for the government when they diverge like this.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I think the minister and I are both clearly saying the same thing, that no decision has as yet been made by the government on the matter. In fact no request has been made, but what we might call informal soundings have been taken and suggestions have been made that this is a force in which we might participate. The dialogue is going on within the government, and when we make a decision we will be pleased to let the hon. member and other colleagues in the House know.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development knows, the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories has decided to hold a plebiscite on the question of whether or not to divide the territories. It is to take place on December 14 of this year. Will the minister tell the House, and assure the citizens of the Northwest Territories and their elected representatives, that if the decision is a favourable one, that is, if they vote yes, he will do all he can as quickly as possible to have enabling legislation before this House? Will he also work expeditiously on the important question of where the boundary between the new territories would come, again if that is the decision of the citizens of the NWT?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: -I would advise the hon. member that we are studying the boundary question. As far as the plebiscite is concerned, of course the territorial government has the right to hold a plebiscite if it wishes. If it does so I am sure the decision will be taken into account by the government when it studies this fundamental question.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question I would normally have directed to the Minister of Transport, but the Prime Minister may want to respond or refer it to the acting minister.
Yesterday the Air Transport Association of Canada joined a long list of significant and serious objectors to the naming of Walter McLeish, the air administrator, to the special committee set up to review the work of Mr. Justice Dubin. I wonder if the Prime Minister, in responding to the essence of the principle raised by Mr. Justice Dubin in his first report, that of the independence of the investigative aspect of air incidents and the separation of the regulatory agency from the investigative body, will indicate whether his government would in effect accept the principle in essence of Mr. Justice Dubin's first report so that the report and the study of it will not be lost in a maze of doubts and confusion arising out of Mr. McLeish's continued presence on that committee?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the House that last week, within hours of receiving the Dubin report in both languages, the minister very quickly tabled it so that the opposition could not say he was holding it back. He also acted very quickly in establishing an advisory committee
June 9, 1981

to act immediately on the recommendations of the Dubin report, and the practicality of having Mr. McLeish and Mr. Wilkins of the Ministry of Transport is to put the recommendations of that advisory board into immediate, practical adaptation and implementation. The minister is also in favour of an independent aviation safety council. It will take time to set that up. It will require terms of reference and the determination of its authority. This will take time, but it will be done. In the interim, this advisory committee will do it.


POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I directed my question to the Prime Minister in part because the Minister of Transport has had this report in his hands since March 17, 1981, almost three months ago. To this day he has not responded to the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice Dubin, that is to say, that conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest in the investigative process within transport in this country should come to an end. I would repeat my question to the Prime Minister, and I wish he were even remotely interested.
The principle of separation of these two processes, investigative and regulatory, is important to the safety of air travellers. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether it is government policy to accept the essence of the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice Dubin in that report, a principle that should be clear to him because the report has been in the hands of at least the minister since March 17?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I regret to say I have not read the report, but the Minister of Transport has not only read it and tabled it, but is acting on it in the way his able parliamentary secretary just indicated.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications concerns remote northern communities throughout the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and many of the northern parts of the provinces. It concerns the media service they had been getting up until the early 1970s. There was no media service at all available to these communities. Then it improved somewhat with the Anik satellite and CBC North. Then, when the earth satellites, or the receiving stations came along, many of these communities, such as Uranium City, for example, in the northern part of Saskatchewan, built receiving stations and transmitted a ray of programming out to these communities.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.
Oral Questions


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would like to hear from the minister what the policy is now, and have his assurance that these satellite receiving stations will not be closed down in remote northern communities until there is full consultation with these communities and there is some alternative available to them. Can the minister give us that assurance?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the CRTC has held some very extensive hearings over the past few months and has licensed a new Canadian cable operation known as CanCom, which basically will bring a number of television broadcast signals into the remote and underserviced parts of Canada, including CHAN-TV from Vancouver, CITV from Edmonton, and CHCH from Hamilton. It is my hope that, with these services, plus the six radio channels which have also been authorized for delivery by satellite, many of the problems in providing service to these communities will have been resolved.


NECESSITY FOR CONSULTATIONS
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I am wondering what consultation has taken place with these northern communities. Will they be kept posted and informed? Will there be meetings held with these northern communities so they understand what is going on, because many of them fear now that their receiving stations will be closed down and there will not be anything to replace them?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, my department has embarked on a rather extensive campaign to make these communities aware of the new services which have been licensed by the CRTC, and we are encouraging all the communities to apply for licences through the CRTC. I have also indicated to my officials that I want them to make themselves widely available and to be helpful in assisting these communities process applications so that they can obtain licences and receive the types of signals the CRTC has authorized, which will give them a good package of signals originating from Canadian stations.


SUPPLY AND SERVICE INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the very serious economic situation which exists in the oil industry in southern Saskatchewan in particular. Again and again the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has disregarded requests from service and supply people. I understand that there are petitions
10404

June 9, 1981
Oral Questions
from some 10,000 people in that area with respect to the very serious economic situation. Will the Prime Minister look into this situation and give it his personal attention?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the minister is obviously concerned about the various sectors of the oil industry. I can only repeat that over the past many years in Canada the oil industry has been getting 45 per cent of the benefits of the oil and gas produced in Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: These are Canadian companies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We feel that share is too high, and we are trying to reduce it. I hope some of the elements of that industry particularly-as the former minister of energy, mines and resources points out-the Canadian companies-


Charles Joseph Clark: The ones which are leaving.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -will benefit from the energy policy, which is quite clearly slanted toward benefiting Canadians, as the former minister would know.


Charles Joseph Clark: If they want to work in the United States.


SITUATION IN ESTEVAN, SASK.
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that in the Estevan-Weyburn-southern Saskatchewan region we are receiving $17.75 a barrel and that the increase in the price of gasoline at the pump has been 68 cents? There is no energy policy. Economic activity in that area is flat on its back. Our people are desperate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon. member is making a representation.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The minister was asked questions today by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I was here in the House during the time the NDP leader was absent, and it seems to me that in answering questions about bankruptcies and about the financial situation, the minister does not address or will not recognize the crisis nature of the economic situation. I say this particularly in reference to small businesses and farmers. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business-John Bulloch-and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture-Ralph Barrie-if there is not a change by the fall the present numbers will be quadrupled. Does the minister recognize the crisis nature of the problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the House already that I have had and will continue to conduct discussions with the relevant ministers with respect to whatever difficulties are being faced by certain groups in the economy. I am aware of the situation. I am attempting to see whether there is any way this situation can be relieved without adding to the inflationary difficulty we have at the present time. I assure the hon. member that I am fully aware of the situation he is raising.


EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. It is on just one small point in relation to the small business development bond. Just to refresh the minister's memory, the fact is that if bank profits are up there is no way that bond can be used as an excuse for the banks not to pay taxes. I think the minister will admit that that is the mechanism of the bond.
In any event, the minister has received an offer from this side of the House of one day of extended debate. I understand that the minister and the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism are meeting with bankers tomorrow. I know it will take time for deliberations and an understanding of the implications of extending the bond, respecting operating and inventory purposes, to unincorporated businesses and farmers, but when can we expect a decision from the government? Will it be in the next week or in the next month? What time frame does the minister have in terms of giving us a decision on that measure?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the question has been asked several times as to whether the very effective instrument called the small business development bond can be extended to other groups. I have stated that when and if a decision is taken in that respect, it will be announced of course, but there are real difficulties in extending this bond to unincorporated businesses. There are major administrative difficulties, and there are very important cost implications. Undoubtedly, these were some of the considerations which originally influenced the former minister of finance in confining the application of the bond to the present area of the economy.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. WADDELL-ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENT BY MR. MacEACHEN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege respecting the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). On March 2, 1981 I asked a question in this House of the Minister of Finance. I suggested
June 9, 1981

to him that he might obtain an agreement with Alberta if he were prepared to be flexible in relation to the 8 per cent wellhead tax on oil and on the natural gas tax. I said the following to him at the time:
Is the minister prepared to be flexible in dealing with Alberta so that Alberta can be flexible, in order to get away from and resolve this incredible confrontation which we have in Canada at the moment?
The minister replied that obviously he would be flexible. He promised to be flexible, and he used the world "flexible" on four occasions. He gave me his word that he would be flexible. We find now that the minister and his colleagues are bringing in time allocation on Bill C-57.
My question of privilege is that I was misled in the House. The minister never intended to be flexible at all.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member is quite conscious of the fact that he is debating and that this is not a question of privilege.
MR. MacLAREN-USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE BY MR. MCKENZIE


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, during the latter part of our proceedings yesterday evening some of us on this side of the House understood the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) to call the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) a liar.


Mr. Cousineau:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: Maybe he promised cheap gas.


Roy MacLaren: We had hoped we had misunderstood what was said, but today we find in Hansard at page 10382 that indeed the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine is quoted as calling the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a liar. I would be glad if, in the circumstances, Your Honour were to invite the hon. member to withdraw his remark.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I will tell you what prompted my remark. It was this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was rising to withdraw the expression. I am sure he is aware that this expression is considered unparliamentary and cannot be tolerated in this House. I am sure he would want to withdraw the word even though he was quoting. Hon. Members cannot say indirectly what they are not allowed to say directly, and I invite the hon. member to respond to the rules of our House and to withdraw that word.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I was going to do when you cut me off. I will just remove the word "liar" and say that it is impossible to believe this man.
Tabling of Documents


MR. FORRESTALL-REFERENCE OF DUBIN REPORT ON AIR SAFETY TO COMMITTEE
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) has left the chamber. I will be very brief. In response to questions asked just a few moments ago, the parliamentary secretary left the very clear impression in this chamber that the minister had received the report involved and immediately referred it to a committee of his designation. Incidentally, that committee is meeting with some significant opposition from the air industry of Canada.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary would not want an erroneous fact left on the record; nor would the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who continued the impression. The impression was that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) had within the last week or ten days received this report when in fact his Lordship, Mr. Justice Charles L. Dubin, submitted his report to the Minister of Transport on March 17 of this year, just nine days short of three months ago. It leaves the impression, Madam Speaker, that the minister had in fact acted swiftly to refer the report to committee for further study when in fact he had three months to consider carefully the principle of the separation of the investigative body from the regulatory body within the Department of Transport, which in fact lies at the root of the difficulty with respect to this question.


Madam Speaker:: This is not a question of privilege. There might be an interpretation as to what "swiftly" really means and what delays that implies; but it is argument and differences of opinion, not a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, in view of some references made in this House by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and others, I thought they might have taken this occasion today to make some reference to the matter. Inasmuch as they have not, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) 1 am tabling a copy of the statement of abject apology and withdrawal of false and malicious allegations intended to impair my ability to perform my duties as a member of this House and as a minister.
This statement was published in this morning's Toronto Sun, and if hon. members wish for the record that this piece be published as an appendix to today's Hansard, I would have no objection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. minister has taken me a bit by surprise. I am looking at rule 41(2) now, which says that a minister may propose to lay upon the Table:
-any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government, and, thereupon, the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the House.
It seems to me that the document, which I have not seen, does not relate to the administrative responsibilities of a minister of the government. If the House gives its consent, I suppose that this can be done. Does the House agree to have these documents tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called it garbage.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)) moved:: That, in relation to 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, two sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second day allotted for consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted for consideration of the third reading stage, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West. [English]


Mr. Lambert:: Madam Speaker-


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I had the impression, and perhaps you inadvertently failed to notice, that the mover wanted to exercise his right to speak to the motion.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but indeed I was looking at the hon. minister. He did not rise, so the hon. member for Edmonton West sought the floor. If it is the wish of the House, I can
revert to the moment when I put the motion. I could recognize the minister only if the House agrees that we revert back to that stage of our proceedings. But the reason why I did not recognize the minister is this: I did look at him because I know it is normal that the minister speak first, but he had not given any such indication at that moment. He was probably distracted; I can understand that, I do have distractions myself.
Is it the pleasure of the House that we revert to that stage of our proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West. [English]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I have to laugh at that little knot of people sitting behind the government House leader trying to justify the jackboot philosophy of this government. This motion represents precisely that type of thinking. The minister has yet to speak on this bill; he has yet to speak at the report stage. Why? Because the position of the government has been indefensible. It is not the government that has the right to ride roughshod over this House. This minister has the responsibility, which he has not discharged, with regard to this very complex bill. This bill represents the heart and core of the budget of last October with regard to the national energy policy and the imposition of additional taxes, yet this minister, who has inherited the job from a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who does not have the guts to face this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: He does not have the guts of a gnat:


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will say that all the way through. We had a very shortened second reading, and I caught blazes from my colleagues on this, as did the opposition House leader, so that on the basis of the government's proposals we could hear from the public. The public did come in universally condemning the bill, and I recall all sorts of government backbenchers asking questions of a critical nature. Where are they so far? They have been conspicuous by their absence. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) was going to raise blazes with regard to indexation of the excise tax on liquor and the alcohol subgroup. There are other members who were going to raise hell because this measure was picking on the rural press in the province of Quebec. Where are they? They have been conspicuous by their absence. Talk about paper tigers! We have not seen such a bunch in years.
I have made arrangements with the minister. I told him what was happening, that we were into clause by clause consideration, and that there were two main points to consider. The first was indexing the excise tax. I do not care what formula is used, it robs the Canadian public without reference to Parliament. It is the cutest highway robbery there is. Then we would consider Part IV of the bill with regard to the
June 9, 1981

petroleum and natural gas revenue tax. But along the way, I wanted to talk with various hon. members about the tax respecting university equipment, equipment designed for teaching, for flying training, and about a number of other points. After all, my colleagues on the far left have put down some amendments, and the government has put down approximately ten amendments, if not more.
Now the government has the ultimate gall to say that further deliberations at report stage shall be limited to two days and that third reading stage shall be limited to one day. They are perfidious liars, jackbooting their way through Parliament. If the government were serious about its amendments, would it not think that its ten amendments require some intelligent interpretation? Do they take it, as is customary, that because they come from the government they are divinely inspired and that the lackeys shall line up behind and support the government wordlessly, without giving matters any consideration? I know the minister will be the fall guy in this operation. The minister responsible for financial institutions has no responsibility with regard to this bill. It is a concoction of the Minister of Finance and the government House leader.
When the government House leader first came to Parliament, he joined the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I remember he was the one who said, "Oh, it is quite easy; the government should propose that there be a speaker from each party in the opposition, and then we vote on every proposition; that is the way business should be conducted in Parliament". Those were the comments of the present government House leader; he has not changed his philosophy one iota.
The minister, who is strictly a fall guy, does not even understand the bill. When we questioned his desire to put in an amendment, he insisted that the ways and means motion must be changed, simply because the rates were being lowered from quarterly indexing to one year. Also he insisted that there was nothing else. But surely he saw under what shell the bean had gone. The base period was being changed. I showed him ultimately where $18 million of additional revenue was being exacted by the government as a result of its change. The minister does not know his bill. Now he is being made the fall guy. What a predicament this is to me!
Will the minister tell me when he thinks the ten government amendments will be discussed? Will it be during the two remaining days? What about the opposition point of view? There were 135 amendments put forward. Considering the groupings and the duplications, my research shows that there was a potential 49 votes, with a realistic 35 votes if they went a certain way. I can tell the hon. minister, aside from one which I consider to be on division the other night, there will be 35 votes. It will take all blessed night; this is what it will take. If he thinks he can ride with jackboots, he will get jackboot answers.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.
Time Allocation


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a performance we have witnessed before; I am very disturbed that Standing Order 75c is being used again, particularly on report stage of a bill with a large number of amendments before the House which have had hardly any discussion at all. I suppose I feel as warm under the collar about this motion as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert); and even if I speak in a somewhat lower tone of voice, I regard this action today as utterly absurd, thoroughly undemocratic and anti-parliamentary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Edmonton West just pointed out, at report stage there are 135 amendments. Two of them have been debated and the votes thereon deferred. One had a short debate and was defeated on division. Two more are under debate. That leaves 130 amendments which have not been touched at all. Those 130 amendments include a few government amendments. Of course, it will want to get them through, so I suppose that is why we are getting two more days on report stage as well as one at third reading.
Before this two-hour debate is over, I am sure we shall be told, as we always are in these debates, that this is not closure, it is only time allocation. I do not know how one can avoid the use of the word "closure" when the effect of the motion is to close off debate. Also we shall be told, judging by former debates, that the government is only exercising a right found in the rule book. In other words, we will be reminded that Standing Order 75c is in the book.
I remind the House that when it was passed some 12 or 13 years ago, it was passed under closure. It is hardly a rule which represents the will of the Parliament. But granted that it is there now as a rule to which the government can resort, may I also say that there is another rule in the book which gives hon. members the right to put down motions at report stage. I believe this right was established in 1968 when we did away with the old practice of having every bill go into committee of the whole, whether or not it had been sent to a standing committee. It was felt that the committee of the whole process, especially on bills which had had standing committee treatment, was taking too long and that there should be some shortening of the total process. So we established the right to make amendments at the report stage.
In view of the fact that members might put down the same amendments, and in view of the fact that some amendments might overlap others or be out of order, we provided that the Chair was to assess the amendments put down, group them where necessary, rule them out of order if she had to, and so on. But with those conditions it was established as a rule, as a right, that members could put down report stage amendments. Members of this House have done that to the tune of 135 amendments. That is their right. Madam Speaker has assessed the amendments and she has reduced the number of possible debates to something in the order of 50. It is a little difficult to

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
assess her treatment exactly since in some cases whether there is to be a debate or a vote on another amendment depends on what happens to the first one. At any rate, something in the order of 40 or 50 amendments can be debated, and there can be that number of votes. Madam Speaker did a particularly Herculean job when she reduced the last 76 amendments to one, leaving 59 to be debated.
The Speaker did her duty with respect to the matter and yet this democratic right of the members of this House to debate these report stage amendments is just brushed aside, when we have dealt with only five of them, by the government using another rule which says that, so far as the 130 are concerned, boys and girls, forget it.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 75c is no way to run Parliament at all. Standing Order 75c applied to 130 other amendments which have not even been discussed is certainly about the most absurd thing I have seen in this House for a long time. I remind hon. members that these amendments relate to taxation, which is supposed to be a fairly important function of Parliament. I also remind hon. members that there seems to be a new principle in this bill which is before us which has not been around here before, namely, that of indexing taxation. This means that taxes can be increased without a reference back to Parliament itself. It is a pretty significant piece of legislation and yet here we have this proposal that the right accorded to us of a report stage debate, so that we can get at these various clauses and reject them or amend them as we may, is completely taken away.
The only thing the government sees is that the debate is lasting too long, as far as it is concerned, and so it falls back on 75c. To me, this is grossly unfair. It is wrong. It is an insult to Parliament and, as I have said on other occasions, every time the government uses this form of closure it simply puts off the day when we will have some sensible allocation of the time of the whole session and do our business in an orderly fashion instead of doing it at the whim of the government. This is not Parliament, to be dictated to in this way by the government. When the vote comes on this motion after this two-hour debate, we in this party will be voting unanimously and vigorously against it.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot agree with the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) even though he is a well-known authority in interpreting our Standing Orders. I maintain that the procedure which we are using, that is, the limitation of debate on this important bill, is justified. The bill which was referred from the committee with a great number of amendments has been discussed at length, and to plan the business of the House, it became necessary to use the provisions of Standing Order 75c to limit the debate. It might be useful to remind the House that there are two paragraphs in our Standing Orders, paragraphs 75a and 75b, which provide a means to avoid the situation in which we find ourselves when using Standing Order 75c.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to some of the discussions which we have had. However, he knows quite well that these discussions provided no indication as to when we could have third reading of this bill. If we want to plan the business of the House, we must refer to paragraph A and try to come to an agreement to allot time. When that is not possible, we can use paragraph B, which provides for situations where one group of parliamentarians disagrees, and which allows such groups two hours after the motion is tabled to discuss it. Finally, when there is complete disagreement, we follow the procedure outlined in paragraph C, which we are now doing, because it is the responsibility of the government to plan the business of the House.
Are we justified in limiting debates on Bill C-57? Yes, we are, because this bill was studied at length in the standing committee following an agreement which was admittedly contrary to custom, since this review would normally have occurred in a committee of the whole, and every party in the House has found it useful, because of the nature and the complexity of the bill and the diversity of the subjects which it covers, to have it studied in a standing committee rather than in a committee of the whole. The standing committee took 23 sittings to review the bill. Many witnesses were heard, others who could not attend the sittings submitted briefs, and the Minister of Finance himself, contrary to the allegations of the hon. member for Edmonton West, appeared before the committee and explained the principles underlying the various provisions of the bill.
These discussions and this examination must be taken into account when we talk of limiting the debate since the work of a parliamentary committee is in a way an extension of the work of the House itself. At the report stage, during the first three days of debate, 37 members were recognized, namely 29 conservatives and eight New Democrats, and the hon. member for Edmonton West himself criticized the Liberals for not rising to speak. We did it precisely so that more views could be heard. Even if we were dealing specifically with amendments Nos. 1 and 3, the debate covered all the provisions in the legislation so that views divergent from those of the government were extensively stated during the debate on the first and third amendments.
On the fourth day spent on the consideration of motions we were only able to dispose of motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and as the two previous speakers pointed out, the bill contains 135 amendments. I agree with him that by grouping them the Chair has reduced their number to about 50. However, considering our rate of progress since the beginning of the report stage of the bill, we could easily be nearing the next budget and still be discussing the provisions or amendments to the bill under consideration.
Under the circumstances, the government decided to use the provisions of our Standing Orders, these well-known provisions of last resort I will admit, which could have been avoided had
June 9, 1981

all the parties in the House agreed on a reasonable time limit for the debate at the report stage and in third reading. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair to say that this procedure is unparliamentary since it is provided for in the Standing Orders of this House. Indeed, if compliance and use of these rules are considered unparliamentary, that means that the Standing Orders themselves which govern Parliament are unparliamentary. It would be undemocratic if the official opposition had not had the opportunity to express its views on this bill. As I mentioned also, this bill has been under consideration for quite some time and not only has the official opposition been able to express its views but because of the procedure to which all parties in the House agreed, many citizens' groups were able to voice their opinion on this piece of legislation, precisely because members of this House agreed to refer this bill to a standing committee rather than to the committee of the whole.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the three days of debate that will follow, I will have the opportunity to explain the seven amendments proposed by the government, three of which, as members will recall, being of a purely technical nature. I will also be able to explain why indexing as used with regard to excise tax on tobacco and alcohol is justified. It is a means of taxation which is directly related to the ad valorem tax, for example, the 9 per cent tax. This tax does not come under consideration in the House every time the item or goods changes value. The revenues generated by this 9 per cent tax being directly related to the value of the item, the tax increases also. The approach used for tobacco and alcohol therefore resembles the ad valorem tax and allows the percentage of revenues derived from the excise tax on tobacco and alcohol to remain constant. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I will again have the opportunity to explain all the principles underlying the various provisions of Bill C-57 during the two-day debate at the report stage and the one day debate on third reading.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of the philosophy of the government. For example, first, the English Parliament must adopt any dog's breakfast the government sends over to them as a Constitution, and must hold its nose and pass it. Another illustration of that attitude is that we have to hold our noses and pass whatever this government brings to the House, and pass it quickly. This comes from a closure-crazed government, a government which suffers from the crime of parliamentary bestiality. It cannot wait to force these kinds of things through the House.
It is a betrayal of the parliamentary system to add to the betrayal of the people of Canada, who have been betrayed in gasoline prices. They have been betrayed in heating oil prices. They have been betrayed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They have been betrayed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Now they have been betrayed by the House leader of the government. The same
Time Allocation
little group comes in here on every closure motion. The same little group of parliamentary eunuchs, the same group of parliamentary assassins-the House leader, the assistant House leader, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres)- are in here all the time, assassinating this House and removing the good from the House. That is why I call them the parliamentary eunuchs. The good has already been removed from them. This is how they have used closure since we came back here about 15 months ago. They have used closure on the Constitution. Then they used closure on Bill C-30, the borrowing authority bill; Standing Order 75c was used on borrowing.
Should the people of Canada require this House to discuss whether the government should borrow $14 billion? Not at all. The government wants to rush that authority through and use closure. Then the government used it again, twice, in the borrowing contained in Bill C-59. It has used closure once already on Bill C-48, which has now gone to the parliamentary committee. Then it euchred this bill through second reading in the House in only two or three hours of debate. We thought it would have a thorough and complete ventilation in the parliamentary committee and that amendments would be discussed here in plenty of time for debate on third reading and at the report stage. We have 130 amendments left and the government is giving us two days to discuss and vote on these 130 amendments. That is five minutes per amendment.
This is an illustration of what has happened to Canada. Today we have a parliamentary system of government without any checks and balances and without the separation of powers. The Prime Minister has a group of docile sheep in his caucus who keep him in power, no matter what he is doing. They just say, "Baaa, sir, baaa, sir, pass it through the House, sir". As long as they do that, he has absolute power. This Prime Minister has absolute power as long as the majority in his caucus give him that unlimited power. They are so busy with their noses in the patronage trough and the power trough that they neither know nor care what happens to this Parliament, and we can expect nothing from them.
All that we on this side of the House can do is speak. The only right we have left is to speak and to raise our voices. We are going to do that because the parliamentary bullies on the other side of the house are deafened from the snorts that come from the trough that they have their noses in. They cannot hear what is happening in this House. The parliamentary assistant from Ottawa Centre is one of the worst of them, and he is here again, doing this little piece of dirty business.
What does this bill contain? This bill contains an 8 per cent tax on petroleum and gas revenues which the Supreme Court of Alberta, on appeal, has found to be ultra vires, outside the powers of the Government of Canada. Does that stop the government from imposing closure? It does not for one minute. The government whips it through this House, even though the highest court in Alberta has ruled it to be unconstitutional and beyond the powers of this House.
Does the government hesitate to whip it through when it will affect all the Fishermen in the Atlantic provinces? Where is

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons)? Where is that heroic defender of the fishermen? He will be in here like a tame tabby, voting closure. There will be a 9 per cent federal sales tax on fishing equipment in the province of Newfoundland. Hundreds of fishermen will pay more for commercial fishing equipment this year because hon. members opposite did not protect them.
Where is the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Romp-key)? He is busy imposing the personal income tax, dragooning and attaching the earnings of fishermen today in his job as Minister of National Revenue. He is not worried about defending fishermen from a 9 per cent federal sales tax that this bill will impose. Where are the hon. members on the other side who represent manufacturing districts? They will be here, ready to put the tax on the marginal manufacturers to crush them. Where are the Quebecois who are so worried about the manufacturing industry in Quebec? They will be here today to do their dirty work. Yes, the Prime Minister wants to rush this bill through the House, and they will be there saying, "Oui, oui." It will not be "Non, non" from those Quebecois even though it affects all the manufacturing industries in Quebec. They will not be around.
Where are the people with the grapes in their district? Where are the Liberal members from the Niagara Peninsula? They will be there saying, "Yes, yes". They do not care what happens to the grape industry as a result of the indexing of the 9 per cent federal sales tax on the price of wines, beer and liquor. They will not be here defending the grape growers and wine producers. They will be saying, blindly, "Oui, oui-yes, yes."
I have a letter in my hand. I do not have time to deal with it in this speech but I will deal with it later. It states what the government's amendment relating to beer will do. It is a letter from the Brewers Association of Canada. There is a further increase contained in the amendment which the minister moved to this bill. The letter says, in part:
-on top of the original indexing increase, on top of the 29 per cent increase in the basic federal excise rates ... on top of the recent change in Ontario-
And so on. It says that the working man will no longer be able to afford to have a beer. Where are the protectors of the working men in the ranks opposite? They will be here burping out, "Yes, yes, aye, aye". They will burp it out, those defenders of the beer drinkers over in the government benches.
What else is here? Where are the defenders of the universities and educational institutions? Where is the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), who says he will now give more money for research to the universities? He will be here saying "Aye, aye", even though this bill will remove the exemption from the 9 per cent sales tax which universities have enjoyed for the last number of years when they buy equipment for research and teaching purposes. As this bill is worded, they will get very few exemptions in future. It is going to cost the universities and the post-secondary institutions millions and millions of dollars, yet the government says that it is concerned and worried about scientific research and will grant more money.
Where are the great defenders of the press? Do we see defenders of the free press on the other side of the House? All those worthy members who have small town newspapers in their constituency should be concerned because this bill contains a tax on advertising inserts in newspapers. It imposes a tax on the advertising inserts for the small weekly and monthly newspapers in the country. Surely that is an important matter. Surely it should be debated and ventilated in this House and the amendments that we have put forward should be considered.
Where are all the defenders of the people on the other side of the House? They are going to come out of their trough in a few minutes. They will hear the bell and will have to break away from whatever trough they have their noses in at the moment. They will have to come into this House and say "Oink, oink". They will have to say "Aye, aye". They will have to say "Yes" to the stampeding of Parliament, to rushing this bill through the House. They will have to say "Yes" to the gutting of Parliament. They will have to do the dirty work that the parliamentary assistants, assassins and eunuchs have asked them to do.
This is the sixth occasion so far that closure has been crammed down our throats in the House on bills of fantastic importance, such as the borrowing of something in excess of $20 billion. We have already had it once on the national gas tax legislation which is now before committee. We have had closure on the Constitution. We now have closure on this bill which is going to change the system of taxation for the cosmetic industry, which is going to change the system of taxation for the whole manufacturing industry, which is going to index taxation so that from now on taxes will automatically increase every year on beer, on alcohol and on tobacco. All that is contained in this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is an important principle: taxation without representation. That is what the people of Canada are getting from this government; they are getting taxation without representation. How can we represent the people of Canada when the government does not want the amendments that we suggested in committee to come before the House? This is an important principle. Revolutions and riots have been fought on the principle of taxation.
This is the most reprehensible incident since the Boston Tea Party. This government joined King George III, Genghis Khan and Barbarossa in the foul tactics it uses to pass taxation legislation without proper discussion or consideration.
I believe I am coming close to the end of my time as you nod in your inscrutable way, Mr. Speaker. I say to the fishermen of Newfoundland and to the Canadian people that I hope they are watching the performance today to see how the stalwart heroes they elected to form a majority government are treating them again. The government has already taxed the people 12 times. There have been 12 increases in the price of oil and gas and nine of them have been federal tax increases. There will be another tax as a result of this bill. There will also be an automatic indexing of what people pay for their beer, their glass of wine, their little drink of scotch, if they dare to have a
June 9, 1981

drink of scotch. We can hardly afford scotch any longer so it may be rye or rum or something else. That is the dirty business the government is up to today. There is an 8 per cent tax on-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and for cutting off the bombast we have just listened to. If that is the best example of the leadership material of the Tory party, it is in great trouble.


John Carnell Crosbie: Baaa, baaa!


Harvie Andre: Baaa, baaa!


John Leslie Evans: The government has introduced a motion under Standing Order 75c for time allocation at this stage of the bill because there was no agreement among the parties on the limitation of time in a reasonable and responsible way that would bring this debate to a close.


Harvie Andre: We agreed on second reading and at committee stage so do not distort the truth.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57 includes amendments to the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act which date back to 1978. It also includes measures introduced in the budget brought forward in 1979 by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who just sat down after his bombastic attack on the government. It includes measures that were brought forward in the April, 1980, financial statement and it includes measures from the October 1980, budget. Many of these measures have been before the House in one way or another for literally years.
I hope you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, but to my knowledge this is the first measure of supply in the form of a taxation bill that has ever been sent to a standing committee of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


John Leslie Evans: Normally taxation bills go before the Committee of the Whole, but this bill was sent to a standing committee where representations from different groups were heard on specific issues.


Mr. Rae:: What did you change?


John Leslie Evans: The minister presented amendments to the committee. He went before the committee to answer questions on those amendments and on others proposed by members of the opposition.
The hon. member for Edmonton West said that the minister has not spoken on the bill in the House. He appeared before the committee and responded to the hon. member for Edmonton West for literally hours.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Here. The amendments are here.
Time Allocation


John Leslie Evans: We now hear the total and complete misrepresentation of the facts relating to this bill by hon. members opposite with regard to indexation. They say it is a new concept. The tax on liquor and tobacco is a dollar tax, Mr. Speaker. It is in dollar terms. If the price of those products goes up, that dollar amount does not change. This proposal puts that tax on exactly the same basis as the 9 per cent federal excise tax and the sales tax levied by the provinces. It brings it to a percentage rate so that the dollar amount of the tax remains a constant percentage of the tax base.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member is misleading the House by saying that. There is a reference in the CPI annually.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that is a total misrepresentation by the hon. member for Edmonton West. If a product costs a dollar and there is 10 cents tax on it, and then the price goes from $1 to $2 but the tax remains at 10 cents, the tax has been reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. The indexation proposal would provide that the tax should go from 10 cents to 20 cents as the price of the product went from $1 to $2. This would mean that the tax would remain at 10 per cent. It is precisely the same as the manufacturers' excise tax of 9 per cent; there is no difference. The hon. member obviously needs a lesson in basic arithmetic.
Mr. Speaker, 135 amendments have been proposed. Some of them have been put forward not because they might be better or more equitable measures of taxation, but because they feather somebody's nest. That is an honest assessment of a good many of them.
There have been four days of debate at report stage of this bill. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, we have dealt with three amendments out of the 135 and two others are still under debate. That means that in four days we have essentially completed debate on four amendments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that if some of them were combined there would still be 40 or 50 amendments. Imagine, one day per amendment, Mr. Speaker! Are members of the House saying we should spend another 40 or 50 House days of debate on this bill, to the exclusion of all other legislation? That would be intolerable, Mr. Speaker, and the people know it. The government was elected to govern and at some point, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, negotiation or consensus, then it has to take its responsibility and lead. That is what the government has done and I support the motion before the House.

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that in no way do we support this automatic indexing of taxes. Indexing of taxes is like a licence to steal. It is not a simplistic little matter of a few pennies that we are talking about. If we continue with legislation like this, it will just destroy the parliamentary system.
I want to talk about a section of the bill. I do not think the majority of Liberal members understand the bill, nor do they understand the implications of the National Energy Program. I want to refer to Clause 4 which deals with the petroleum and gas revenue energy tax. Liberals have fooled very few people about this because the message is getting out across the country. I refer to a full page advertisement which appeared in a Saturday edition of The Globe and Mail. It refers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). The headline reads "Do you believe this man?" In part the article reads:
Marc Lalonde is very busy these days trying to soft-sell the national energy policy being foisted on Canada. He has an unenviable job because his NEP is one of the greatest disaster scenarios of our time.
That is why we cannot rubber stamp Bill C-57. It is tied in with a disastrous National Energy Program. Hon. members on the other side do not understand what they are doing. Many Ontario Liberals should start doing some research because they are the ones who will be walloped the hardest, much worse than Albertans will be.
I have another article in my hand. Its headline reads "Fed oil policy 'will cost us 60,000 jobs' ". What on earth is the government doing, wanting to proceed with programs such as outlined in Bill C-57 and in its National Energy Program which will cost 60,000 jobs? Yet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is going around the country telling Canadians what a wonderful bill it is. What is wonderful about losing 60,000 jobs? This article reads, in part:
More than 60,000 jobs may be lost by mid-summer due to the increasing number of oil and gas rigs leaving Canada, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors warned yesterday.
Stan Jones, executive director of the association, said the 50 per cent decline in the number of rigs drilling for oil and gas during the past year has surpassed their worst predictions.
And yet we have a government with a policy that wants to pay world prices for imported oil. Why does the government want to pay world prices for oil from countries such as Venezuela, Mexico and OPEC nations when it can get oil for about half the price in Canada? Phased in over a three-year period, the Canadian price will rise to about 75 per cent of the world price. Paying Canadians would make sense; all the money would stay in Canada. Why are hon. members opposite so concerned about OPEC, Mexico and Venezuela? What is it the Liberals have against Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Do they know that $500,000 an hour is leaving this country to buy imported oil? We have oil in every province in Canada.
I want to tell hon. members what this disastrous policy in Bill C-57 and in the National Energy Program is doing to my province. As a result of this 8 per cent tax in Bill C-57, all oil exploration is being closed down in the province of Manitoba, just at a time when we could have had a great economic boom. A number of new discoveries have been made in Manitoba, in the Virden area and in other parts of the province. There is no way anyone will go into oil exploration or bring in rigs when the oil is sold at $17 a barrel. It is impossible to make a profit selling oil at that price. These people have to have a proper cash flow. On the other hand, there is no concern about spending $40 or $50 a barrel on oil from some Arab country, Mexico or Venezuela. It is to heck with Manitoba; do not give that province anything.
The maritimes are being affected too by Bill C-57 and the ridiculous National Energy Program. A headline in the Chronicle-Herald for May 29, 1981, reads: "Europeans cancel out on visit to Nova Scotia." the article commences:
British and European industrialists have cancelled a week-long, oil-related mission to Nova Scotia next month because of Ottawa's national energy policy.
The industrialists say the policy discriminates against foreign companies and artificially forces wellhead oil prices down to unrealistic and uneconomic levels.
The same mission has also cancelled a proposed visit to Alberta.
Here was another opportunity for more production in Canada and for working toward making the nation self-sufficient. But this government is on a program that for the next ten years will spend an additional $182 billion a year to import oil and will see us only about 55 per cent self-sufficient.
I have a document from the Wetaskiwin riding of Alberta. It is a report prepared for the Nisku Businessmen's Association. It contains statistics and names of firms that will be affected by Bill C-57 and this ridiculous National Energy Program. In Alberta, 77 industries are cutting back on any expansion and are laying people off. And I tell members from Ontario, that 55 eastern Canadian industries are named. I suggest that members on the other side get a copy of this document, and if they cannot get a copy they can contact me and I will see that one is sent to them. Companies in Alberta and in eastern Canada are listed. There are probably some companies from ridings of members opposite. Hon. members should look them over and see how their ridings are being affected.
In this excellent document on page 20 we read:
It is an economic principle that when one section of Canada's economy is affected by some event, other areas are also directly affected. This can be seen in the cutbacks in orders to suppliers from the oil and oil related firms in the Nisku Industrial Park. The Federal Budget and NEP have caused slowdowns and loss of sales in these firms, which in turn decreases their expenditures on supplies and inventories.
Through our survey we obtained a list of suppliers in Alberta and Eastern Canada who have been affected by the decrease in spending.
This means more layoffs and cutbacks. Why do we need a program like that? We certainly hope that the two energy ministers reach a conclusion tomorrow. I hope the federal
June 9, 1981

minister will see the light when he meets with the Alberta energy minister tomorrow and that an agreement is reached so as to get production going in Canada. The government should get its mind off OPEC, Venezuela and Mexico. We should be concentrating on the Canadian oil industry and jobs here, never mind worrying about all these other countries and sending billions of dollars to them.
On page 22 of this report prepared for the Nisku Businessmen's Association, we read:
As a result of cutbacks or cancellations of purchases by the 41 companies responding to our survey, $1,470,000 in revenues was lost by Eastern suppliers in the last quarter of 1980.
The article continues, but I see that my time is up. I hope Ontario members will open their eyes and for starters get hold of this document.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am an Ontario member and I have certainly had my eyes opened this afternoon. I have seen the conduct of members opposite and I have listened to their ridiculous comments. As a member who comes from the province of Ontario, I have no hesitation or compunction in supporting Bill C-57; nor do I have any hesitation or compunction in supporting this motion to allocate time for further stages of debate and third reading.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we have used this quite legitimate device to end debate, a device called for in the rules of the House of Commons, a number of times this session. I think the public of Canada wants an efficient government and they want an efficient Parliament. They do not want to see an opposition, which has had its full opportunities to make its views known on a particular measure, continue debate and essentially prevent the government from getting on with the affairs of governing the nation.
Some members opposite have talked about closure. We are not talking about closure this afternoon, we are talking about time allocation. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) when he was House leader in 1979 used this very rule on Bill C-20, the mortgage tax bill. He referred to it as a fair and gentle measure. Any responsible government that wants to get its legislation program through in the face of hostility and filibustering on the part of the opposition must have some means at its disposal to get on with legislation and the governing of the nation. That is what we are engaged in this afternoon.
Time allocation is a legitimate rule. It is used at Westminster. In fact, I was just reading some of the debate which took place previously during this session on this very point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made a couple of good speeches on the matter, one of which I think was on January 13 of this year. He made eminent sense when he said-I am paraphrasing him so I hope I am not too inaccurate-he would like to sit down with the government at the beginning of each session and map out a parliamentary time-
Time Allocation
table. The government wants to change the rules of the House of Commons to make it more efficient, but there is no way we can get our friends on the Conservative benches to ever come to some agreement so we can have organization of the business of this nation.


An hon. Member:: You have no friends over here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: I have a few friends over there.


An hon. Member:: No, you haven't.


David Michael Collenette: Obviously the hon. member does not know his colleagues. That is another example of the wild generalizations we get from the other side. They make allegations unsubstantiated by fact.
In any event, on the whole question of parliamentary reform, I am sure the government would welcome means by which we could legitimately organize the legislative time in the House of Commons as is done in Great Britain, where second reading debates very rarely go beyond two days, with some routine bills being sent to a second reading committee. I am sure the government would be amenable to discussions, but certainly with the attitude we have had expressed by the Conservative party in the official opposition, that will be difficult. Members of the official opposition really want to complain at every turn and are not interested in seeing that this country is governed properly or that good legislation comes forward. So what can we do but use the legitimate rules at our disposal?
The House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), was quoted in a CP wire story yesterday, when talking in terms of the proposed foreign affairs debate-I am sure you will remember this during question period yesterday, Mr. Speaker-as saying that there seems to be a two-day debate on foreign affairs anyway and the Conservatives would rather spend their opposition days debating economic problems. So here we have it with the official opposition wanting an economic debate, yet what are they going to do this coming Thursday when they have an opportunity through an opposition motion to debate economic issues? That party will be bringing forward a mischievous motion dealing with capital punishment, a motion that is going to embarrass their leader and party members more than it will embarrass anybody on this side of the House. This is a party that wants to talk about economic issues, but when it has the opportunity to do so it does not.
I think we are quite justified in using 75c on this bill because the official opposition has shown in the days this bill was under discussion in the House that hon. members opposite are not really interested in talking about the 135 motions on the order paper. What did we have? For two straight days we had a whole litany of grievances and allegations against the government. We did not have a good, specific debate on the amendments before us. Without being too gratuitous, Mr. Speaker, it was you and your colleagues in the Speaker's chair

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
who rightly called the debate to order and said: "Just a minute, this is the report stage debate on certain amendments and remarks must be directed to those amendments". That is called for in our rules and it is backed up by precedents in Erskine May's and Beauchesne's. We have an official opposition that really is not interested in discussing specifics.
This afternoon the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) did not really talk about the specific amendments. Did he talk about specific clauses during the debate in the House? Perhaps he has not participated in the debate, but all the interventions he has made on general economic subjects, whether during opposition days or during question period, have been very short on specifics but very long on innuendo, throwing charges across the floor and making political gain. He and his colleagues are not interested in a legitimate economic debate.
We have before us an official opposition that does not really know what it wants from this Parliament. It is an opposition that has not really decided its own position on many economic questions facing our time, whether they be energy or taxation questions. We have heard two, three or four different versions of party policy. Each time a member makes a speech it seems he says things which are at odds with official opposition party policy. We have seen this during the question period and we have seen it during this debate. The official opposition falls back to making generalized, second reading type speeches at report stage, forcing the Speaker to direct hon. members on that side to speak specifically to the clauses of the bill.
I hope at some point in the next year we can discuss parliamentary reform and, as has been suggested by members on both sides of the House, organize our parliamentary timetable so we can have meaningful debate and this place can become efficient. Until that time and until we streamline Parliament-and we must streamline Parliament or become increasingly irrelevant to the Canadian public-the government has every right and obligation, and would really not be discharging its duty otherwise, to use the legitimate rules in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to move debate forward.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in listening to the comments by members on the other side, I think you should perhaps question whether they are really interested in talking about economic matters, whether they are really interested in legislation going through, or whether the official opposition understands its role in Parliament, which is to criticize and propose alternatives, but not to filibuster and prolong debate, and not to force governments into using these rules.
We would like to deal with the business of the House in a more co-operative and conciliatory manner. I think we have shown during the whole debate on the Constitution how parties can come together when there is a real desire. I implore members of the official opposition to stop this continual barracking, this continual blocking of Parliament, and to work with the government in trying to address the affairs of Canada in order to improve economic policy in this country; and, yes, to criticize where justified rather than continually criticizing
and blocking every legitimate attempt to try to give good government to this country.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, we are under a very strict time limit here with a closure motion involving, in effect, a two-hour debate and members having to contribute what they have to contribute in a period of ten minutes. We will then have the vote. Therefore, it is not really possible for members to reply to all points or really to discuss all the matters for debate in Bill C-57, when debate is being cut off at the pass.
I am not going to get into a personality debate here, but I have sat and listened to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans), and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Col-lenette) particularly, speak so piously about the business of the House, suggesting we should reform procedures and adopt rules that will make this business of Parliament efficient so the Canadian public will get its dollars' worth. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council did not have the guts to say, as he knows full well, that he as the parliamentary secretary having something to do with the order of the business of this House, has not yet even structured the Committee on Procedure and Organization to review the archaic procedures of this House and decide what rules should be changed. He has an incredulous look on his face. We have not yet structured a basic committee. I have been waiting since this Parliament was convened to see changes in some of the rules in this House. There have not even been meetings, and the hon. member talks about reform of the House!
I have been here along enough to know that, regardless of what rules there are in the rule book, without good faith and respect among members of Parliament on both sides, being human as we are, hon. members can pervert or prostitute any rule. There must be good faith and respect. We cannot build good faith with misleading statements. Perhaps the statements to which I refer were not deliberately intended to mislead the audience which looks into this chamber from time to time and tries to figure out what goes on. There is a duty on officials of this House, and on parliamentary secretaries especially, to make sure that when they speak, they state the truth. They should not keep talking inside out when they talk about the truth. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council talks about this opposition not being concerned about the business of this country.


David Michael Collenette: That is true.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Did the hon. member read the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) yesterday? That motion was seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), my House leader, and it reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for again unnecessarily raising petroleum taxes and thereby burdening all consumers, but particularly consum-
June 9, 1981

ers of heating oil, with prices far in excess of those promised without providing relief to those hardest hit and least able to adjust.
What did we do with that motion yesterday? We debated it all day, as the parliamentary secretary knows. But then he did a very dishonest thing. He told the truth inside out, and that is what gets my Irish dander up. Hon. members talk about a filibuster. We are not arguing about the rules of the House just now. There is a motion allocating time, but the government in effect is using the bludgeon of closure, and that determines the atmosphere and the level of respect in this institution.
In the few minutes I have left, and without getting into the guts of this bill, I will come to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who was not quite so extreme with his misinformation. However, how can the opposition be blamed for the incompetence of the government House leader in arranging government business? Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways. They have brought forward an omnibus bill to which there are 135 amendments. If we reduce it to a structure on which the House can vote, there are, in effect, 35 amendments. It will take eight hours if we vote on all of them, and we certainly could. Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they have a bill or they have several bills.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance that Bill C-57 is fantastic in scope. It is one of the two legs of the whole National Energy Program, considering the excise taxes which are involved. The government should be precise with its bills. If it was precise, this House could have definable debates on specific issues. We could have votes without getting into crazy, self-serving, Catch-22 situations in which the government blames us for protesting when it brings in closure.
Let us talk about closure. This bill is fundamentally a tax bill. To the radio audience, the television audience and the public taxpayer, this bill establishes a precedent. I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, but this bill establishes a precedent. If we index excise taxes to the cost of living, the amount compounds and keeps increasing as the cost of living increases. The government has an interest in seeing the cost of living go up because taxes will then go up. If we index excise taxes, why not index the personal income tax? We have indexing at the bottom end to help those caught in the inflationary squeeze. They can deduct the index factor from their taxes. Shall we apply this principle at the top? If we have this principle for the excise tax, should it be applied to the income tax or the corporate tax?
Many years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) uttered the sentiment that members of Parliament are nobodies. Perhaps that sentiment will be borne out. Through modern technology tax increases might be directly defined by the cost of living, and members of Parliament and 23 million or 24 million Canadians-whatever number is determined after the census-can all sit in their homes and push little computer buttons so that the House of Commons will not even have to meet.
Time Allocation
You know the history, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid some of our parliamentary secretaries do not know the history of Parliament. The purpose of Parliament is to control the public purse. That is the reason the first Parliament met 1,000 years ago, but that matter could involve a whole speech.
Let me deal with the alleged filibuster about which the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council speaks. No one has yet mentioned that this whole matter was referred to a committee because of an agreement among members of this House. On Thursday, February 12, there was an order of the House that on Friday, February 13, 1981, all questions respecting the second reading stage would be put at the end of the day and the matter referred directly to the committee. At second reading of a bill there is usually an opportunity for hon. members to ventilate some of the principles of the bill. That right in this case was removed by agreement. The agreement was made on the expectation that the bill would go to committee and that important people would come before the committee, as they did, to submit their briefs. That was done and most of the briefs expressed protest. Out of that committee came 135 amendments. Now we do not have a chance to have a real debate at this stage. That opportunity is being taken away from us.
It will be a month of Sundays or perhaps four years down the road before I will again agree to such a proposition, because we were hoodwinked. What has been demonstrated today by the government House leader is a type of parliamentary larceny. We spent one day at second reading. Perhaps we were too amenable when we entered into the agreement. This important bill went to committee. The government was urging us to get on with it, but the committee was not called until March 19. It was referred at second reading on February 13. The committee was not called until March 19 and, under the terms of the House order, the committee reported on April 16. The last committee hearing was on April 14. There were committee hearings in that month. However, if this is such an urgent, high priority item and the subject of closure today, why did the government wait since April 14, the date of the last sitting of the committee, until this stage?
We all know that at this report stage we have debated the bill on May 26, May 28, June 2 and June 4. There have been four days of debate at the report stage. We can consider a day to be four hours, or stretch it to five hours. We have had either 16 hours or 20 hours of debate at this stage.
We are talking about a tax bill which contains one of the fundamental cornerstones of the National Energy Program. We are also talking about closure. I find it absolutely incredible that on the day before the government tries to settle the energy tax problem it imposes closure on a tax bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate. I say to the hon. member who preceded me that the reason the committee which I have the honour to chair did not meet for that period

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
of time is that we were embarking on new ground, and the people who wanted to make representations indicated to us that they wanted more time so that they could submit better and proper briefs. That was agreed to by the members of the steering committee, and I think the members who served on that committee will agree. We heard some 25 witnesses. I cannot remember the number of briefs which were presented to members of the committee. The matter was aired fully at that stage.


An hon. Member:: Democracy in action.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) indicate-and I wish he had led his party in this particular way-that his party was specifically concerned about two items and part IV of the bill. If hon. members opposite had concentrated on that, I think we could have had a full, honest, serious and constructive debate on that particular subject. The House would have had an excellent debate limited to areas which are very important.
But what do we have? We have the opposition coming down with something in excess of 100 amendments to this bill. And I suggest, with respect, even breaking it down into 30 or 38 votes, whatever it is, that this is going to dilute the power of the debate rather than making it stronger. So if there is an abuse here, Mr. Speaker, it is the abuse of overdoing the amendments to make a point. I am not sure what all the reasons were, but it dilutes the debate. People are confused when they look at all the amendments and wonder why they are there, why they are being grouped together and why two members propose the same amendment. Why was there not agreement among the opposition? If they had things they wanted to concentrate on, why did we not hear from them on those particular subjects and not have all these amendments to the bill?
Now, Mr. Speaker, one area where I do agree with the previous speaker is that the House, in the final analysis, will only operate by agreement on all sides. The House leader and I suspect his parliamentary secretary, the House leaders of the opposition and the NDP, got together in all probability and tried to work out some method whereby we could have a full debate on this subject, where we could use Standing Order 75a and have a time allocation that all parties could agree to. But that did not take place, so 75a could not be used. Obviously Standing Order 75b could not be used because we had to go through that particular procedure in order to get to Standing Order 75c.
Mr. Speaker, 75c is a legitimate rule of Parliament and is meant to be used. And I say, with respect, that there is failure on all sides when we cannot reach agreement. But surely there comes a time when the government has to take its responsibility and move under rule 75c in order to get the business of the House through.
Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe it was not prophetic but some 11 or 12 years ago, in July of 1969, an article in the Sarnia Observer entitled "Weaker by the Week" said this:
The real threat to Parliament isn't the possible danger of cutting off productive and informative debate on a measure, but the steady erosion of prestige by tiresome speeches, lack of decorum, obstructionism and poor attendance in the House. The House of Commons is it own worst enemy and every time it aids its own weaknesses it chips away a little more of its own fabric.
The tragedy of the House of Commons, and why the press and people in the gallery leave this place, is that we bore them with long and tiresome speeches. We do not give them constructive and solid debate so that they can see there are two or three sides to an issue. With 130-odd amendments there is no question; we bore ourselves to death. So if we are doing that to ourselves, what must we be doing to the people out there? It seems to me that that editorial was bang on. When we chip away in this way, we chip away at Parliament itself.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of procedure will result in the same thing that I see happening to rule 43. When I first came here some 13 years ago, rule 43 was not used the way it is today. When you rose on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity, it in fact was just that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I hate to interrupt my friend, but I am sure he will understand that, having a long history in the House of Commons, it is highly improper to question the judgment and decisions of the Speaker, which is precisely what he is doing now in saying that motions under Standing Order 43 are being improperly put. It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is a clear attack on Madam Speaker, who has the role of adjudicating-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a point which I believe should not be resolved at this time. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has the floor.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I always appreciate the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) interjecting. At least I know he is paying attention to what I have to say. Unfortunately, in many of the debates in this House we actually tune ourselves out, so it is nice to know that my friend was at least listening. I was certainly not being critical of the Chair because the Chair on many occasions rises to say that a certain motion is not a proper motion under Standing Order 43. I am saying that, in my view, members of Parliament are ruining that particular rule by trying to use it to fill up the time that is available.
Another area is questions on the Order Paper. I think here again there is an abuse by members, where we have some members putting 120 questions on the Order Paper.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am commenting on the fact that we are using a rule here. But when we abuse the rules, then we chip away at Parliament and what it was meant to do. I think questions on the Order Paper is a good case in point, Mr. Speaker.
I was surprised to hear my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggest that what we
June 9, 1981

are doing is undemocratic. Here is the man who is probably the greatest and most renowned expert on the rules of this House recognizing that we are moving quite legitimately under 75c. I say, with respect, that it is probably a more legitimate move than the kind of filibuster we have heard from the other side, yet we recognize that filibusters are a legitimate parliamentary tool, if you will, to halt legislation, slow it down or filibuster one bill so that you are unable to get on to the next one. However, when the government, in the interest of moving legislation forward, uses a rule passed by this Parliament, I say that is democratic. I think we are operating properly and I commend the government for taking this action on this particular bill, given the fact it could not reach an agreement with the opposition parties and we have this filibuster of in excess of 100 amendments moved by opposition members.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-Human rights-Air Canada policy on early retirement of airplane pilots; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs-(a) Delay in processing pension applications, (b) Request for change in legislation; the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Grain-[DOT] Compensation to farmers for embargo on shipments to Russia.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres:
That in relation to 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, two additional sitting days shall be allotted to the report stage and one additional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill; and that at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second day allotted to the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted if required, for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage then under study shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Time Allocation
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) put his finger on the problem when he said there was no agreement among the parties to restrict debate. Why was there no agreement? I will tell the hon. member and the minister why. It is because there was no move from the government on any one of a number of areas discussed in committee where we had evidence from people affected by the tax changes proposed, and we have not had one single move of substance from the government with respect to the amendments.


Mr. Peterson:: That is nonsense.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who speaks more often from his seat than anywhere else, says that is nonsense. I say to him it is not, because if you look at the areas of substance, on indexation they shifted from quarterly to annual. Big deal! And the fact that they changed the base date means the increase is going to be even more substantial.
However, look at the other proposals that have been put forward, such as the suggestion by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that we give compensation to small businessmen who perform a valuable service for the government with respect to collection of taxes. The government has refused even to discuss that. When it comes to the simple, fundamental distinction between an original print and a mechanical reproduction, the government persists in the point of view that says there is no distinction. So we are going to start taxing artists who up until now have not been taxed. The government has refused to engage in a discussion about this and it is simply the point of view of civil servants that the minister has passively adopted this proposal without ever questioning whether or not that is the position that should be taken. Then he carries that to its logical extension by saying: "We do not have to change, we do not fear what the artistic community thinks, because when election time comes around we will come up with some goodies for them which will outdo all the things we have done during our government".
Then there is the problem of taxation of small community newspapers where the government has shifted scarcely at all.


An hon. Member:: That is not true at all.


Bob Rae: On the question of advertising supplements the government has not moved. On the question of a definition of a newspaper the government has changed the tax by 5 per cent. That is the sum total of the government's move.
On the question of tax exemptions for the handicapped, again the government refused to move. On an exemption for prosthetic and other devices, the government has failed to move. On marginal manufacturing, the government has failed to move. On the concerns expressed by universities with respect to instruments used for scientific research, the government has failed to move. These are all the areas in which the

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
government has failed to move to any degree or in any manner of significance.
The hon. member for Sarnia is the chairman of the finance committee. 1 have a considerable amount of respect for the way in which he has handled that committee. He said that there was no agreement to restrict time. Of course there was no agreement to restrict time. The reason was because the government acted in bad faith. The government restricted debate by an agreement on second reading to send this matter to committee, but on the assumption that it would be discussed in committee and that the reasonable proposals put forward would be considered favourably by the government.
The actions of the government have run completely counter to that. I am not asking the government to abandon its points of principle. We have seen many people who have genuine complaints and problems. The government simply dismisses them by saying, "This is a special interest group". The attitude expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) is typical of the hard, bureaucratic attitude of the department. The only amendments which are coming up here are from people who have nests to feather. That is the attitude of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre toward the average Canadian taxpayer-it is just somebody who has a special beef. I think it is a disgraceful attitude for someone in politics. He should be sensitive to the concerns and the realities of business.


John Leslie Evans: I said "some".


Bob Rae: No, you did not. You said "most". We will look at what you said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Bob Rae: I know perfectly well what the hon. member said. That would have been bad enough, were it not for the final straw. Tomorrow the government will enter into discussions with the government of Alberta with respect to the national energy policy, trying to get an agreement on the questions of oil pricing and revenue sharing, and with respect to the position of the federal government vis-a-vis taxation. I find it extraordinary that, on the eve of this discussion and the discussions with Saskatchewan and British Columbia which will follow, the Liberal government would invoke closure on the petroleum and gas revenue tax.
The federal government is enacting a form of taxation which amounts to a royalty. Whether or not one agrees, one could hardly argue that it is not a direct invasion of a field of taxation which up until now has been the exclusive reserve of the provinces.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What law school did you go to-"exclusive reserve"?


Bob Rae: The government said that it is entering into these discussions in good faith and with some flexibility. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said in committee that
everything is negotiable and that they were prepared to negotiate as long as Alberta was prepared to negotiate. If the federal government is prepared to negotiate, why is it insisting that Parliament pass a bill by Friday which it will have to amend, if the government is in fact to reach an agreement with the province of Alberta this month or next month?
The only conclusion we can draw from the government's determination to ram through the bill is that it is not really interested in being flexible and in reaching an agreement. This is the fundamental contradiction in the position of the government. It is not simply that members of the government are not prepared to listen to those people who have come to them in good faith; they dismiss them all as special pleaders or special interest groups. It does not matter from where they come or about what they talk; they just have their nests to feather. Those are the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. When it comes to a question which strikes at the very heart of the economics of confederation and the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the provinces, the government says it is prepared to be flexible. Yet on the very eve of negotiations, it insists upon forcing through this bill. Those are the two fundamental contradictions in what the government is doing.
The reason the government is closing off debate is that it is afraid to listen to the concerns of Canadians with respect to the effect of this piece of legislation. The government is afraid to enter into negotiations when it must be flexible and demonstrate its good faith. That is why the government is forcing through this legislation. It is for that reason and no other.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to refer again very briefly to the provisions of Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c to understand what is going on now from a procedural point of view. Many members have pointed out that there were abuses of the Standing Orders in several instances; I would not want to dwell on it, everybody agrees. However, perhaps there is one Standing Order which is not unduly abused, and I refer to Standing Order 75a which provides for consultations among the representatives of each party, and for agreement to set the length of a debate on a specific bill. And if there is something which is regrettable at this time in a debate of this nature it is indeed the bad use or the non-use made of Standing Order 75A. It is available to Parliament and it was put there so that this institution can have full debates but also make a minimum of progress.
Now then, we must admit that what has happened in this instance is that a great number of days have already been allotted to the debate on Bill C-57. It is a bill to amend the Excise Act; it has to do with taxes or a form of levy which results from the budget. Everybody knows that when the budget was read in the House last fall, it was followed by a six-day debate during which we dealt with most of the questions that are the subject matter of the bill under study. To
June 9, 1981

begin with, therefore, it can be said that many members had an opportunity to comment on this bill during the budget debate which lasted six days. If we add to those six days the second reading stage, when it was agreed to refer the bill to a standing committee rather than to a committee of the whole, with that day required for second reading we have a total of seven days. Then there was the important committee stage where the clause by clause study took up another seven days. Those seven days are added to the seven others I have just mentioned so that we have had 14 days of debate on this one and only piece of legislation, Bill C-57. Let us add to those 14 days-and this is nothing more than a fact-the four days we have used up so far at the report stage and we get 18 days all told. On top of those 18 days, there will be three more which we are prepared to set aside under the terms of the motion which will be voted on later today-because the debate will not end in a few minutes, after the vote on the motion of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres)-therefore three more days of debate on this bill plus the other 18 make a total of 21 days of debate on one single bill, not to mention the rest of the day today which will be fully allotted to the study of Bill C-57, that is this evening from 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. So we are indeed at 21 and a half days, that is more than 21 days of debate on one single bill. I have therefore no difficulty justifying the use of Standing Order 75c whose provisions enable the government to limit the debate when the parliamentary leaders or the party representatives fail to reach an agreement. So, to get back to the point I raised at the beginning of my remarks-

I insist this is not a misuse or non-use of Standing Order 75a. We should take more opportunities to apply Standing Order 75a in order to allow more bills to be debated in the House. On the one hand I recognized the necessity of having a full and complete debate. I just summarized in French that over 21 days will have been allowed for discussion of this bill in the House of Commons.
On the other hand, I think it would be fair and reasonable that sometimes representatives of each party come to an agreement under 75a to limit the period of time for the conclusion of debate on a specific issue. To my knowledge, this has not happened often in the past. In fact, I do not believe it has ever happened, since I became a member of Parliament in 1974, that representatives of parties in this House have come to an agreement under 75a. With the very heavy agenda which we face, I think it is about time that representatives of the parties consider this tool which is available to us, in the Standing Orders so that we can complete some business in this Parliament and can ask for the respect of the population of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We did it on "O Canada".
Time Allocation


Yvon Pinard: Yes, that is the only time that we did it. That was an important time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminds me that we did this with regard to "O Canada". I remember that occasion. We had no other choice but to do that, and we did it. We should repeat the experience; it was a useful one for this country. Why not repeat it?
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on the Order Paper at this time there are still at least 35 items of legislation which must be dealt with. From now until the end of June, when this House normally breaks for the summer recess, there are only 12 government days left, including today. The rest of the days until that time are allotted to the opposition. Since we have returned from the Easter recess not one bill has been adopted by this House-not a single bill. Only the second reading stage of one bill was adopted in this House, which was the young offenders bill, after two or three days of debate. We have tried to bring forward pieces of legislation on Friday afternoons, when it is normally easier to get legislation through. We have tried to pass non-controversial legislation, yet nothing has been adopted. The opposition has seen fit to delay, to obstruct and to prevent the government from even adopting the second reading stage of bills, except for the young offenders legislation. What I am saying today, Mr. Speaker, is that the opposition should not complain too much about this government sometimes trying to place reasonable time limits on debate on some pieces of legislation.
I think the opposition also has a role to play in this House, a role to collaborate, to allow this Parliament to work. But it is not assuming its role properly. I cannot accept those who are saying that we are trying to force legislation through this institution, taking this bill as an example. On the contrary, this bill will have received more than 21 days of debate either in this House or in committee. This is only one of many bills resulting from the budget. We have tried to come to an agreement as to a reasonable additional length of time, but without success because the opposition is stunned and does not want this House to work.
We have no other choice, if we want to be responsible, but to use a means which is legally at our disposal, a means which is a Standing Order in existence in our Standing Orders under 75c. We cannot use 75c, which is limitation of time for debate, unless we have tried and unless we have given the opposition a chance to make its proposal as to an additional reasonable length of time. They have refused to negotiate properly. They have refused to agree to a reasonable length of time, which is why we have no other choice but to propose the three additional days about which I have been speaking. [Translation]
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this responsible government would be remiss if it allowed the opposition to keep on abusing the time of the House. As I said, I regret that since the Easter recess, the House has been unable to adopt a single piece of legislation. All the opposition would permit the House to do, after two days of a painful and

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
arduous debate, was to give second reading to the bill dealing with-


Mr. Wright:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and I was wondering if he can answer why-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to interrupt the hon. minister to ask his permission to put a question, we should ask him if he is prepared to answer a question.


Yvon Pinard: Gladly, but only after I am finished with my remarks. Since the time allotted to me is about to expire, I will conclude my remarks. Afterwards, if the hon. member wants to ask me a question, I will answer him gladly. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the House has been unable to pass a single piece of legislation since the Easter recess, and the government has never intervened up to now to limit any debate. We have had to wait until today, and I feel the opposition is ill-advised to criticize us and deplore this situation. On the contrary, we have every reason to blame them for their irresponsibility, their lack of co-operation and their tendency to filibuster, which is due evidence of their weakness, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that if they had anything to contribute to a debate, they would come to an agreement and allow debates on several items instead of unduly wasting the time of the House on a single one, thus creating an impression of inefficiency which affects each and every member of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is again playing fast and loose with the truth and with facts. He talks about a 21-day debate on this bill knowing that is an absolute absurdity. He says that there was a six-day budget debate on this bill. It was not, it was on the budget, the projections with regard to unemployment, to inflation, to future growth and energy pricing.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense!


Harvie Andre: Only partially, and in a very minor way, was it on Bill C-57 in terms of detail. He says that the bill was seven days in committee. He knows full well that committee sessions last an hour and a half each. There were seven separate committee meetings with regard to this legislation, which is a long way from seven days of debate. It is absurd to say that there have been 21 days of debate on this bill.
The minister says there has been no agreement. He asks why we could not negotiate. He neglected to mention that there was agreement for a limited second reading debate on
this bill and agreement that the committee would return it in two weeks-another form of closure. He is playing fast and loose with the truth again. He talks about using a legitimate rule, Standing Order 75c. Standing Order 75c was brought in by closure. It will never be legitimate. Anything brought in by closure is not legitimate.


John Leslie Evans: It is legal.


Harvie Andre: It may be legal and perhaps the hon. member, like his leader, believes that anything legal is legitimate and that anything legal is moral. But it is not legitimate.


John Leslie Evans: Why did your House leader use it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we are not a parliamentary democracy here in any real sense of the word. What we have here is a five-year dictatorship.
As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) pointed out, a number of very valid and legitimate recommendations by way of amendments to this bill were brought forward at committee stage. There was no movement from the government on those points. It seems to me that the rule is that once something comes out of cabinet then that is it. Once bureaucrats have placed something on the cabinet table and once cabinet has said that is it, Parliament has no right to expect any changes. It is as if we have no right to expect any modifications. We are not here to legislate, we are here to rubber stamp what the geniuses in the Privy Council office have put forward. That is our role.
The one power which we have had is the power to give speeches and try to affect public opinion, to perhaps influence public opinion in such a way that the bureaucrats will hear about it and suggest changes to the ministers in order that we might see some changes. But even that seems to be too much for this government, which suggests that it is intolerable to have members of Parliament giving speeches here trying to influence the public. The government suggests that we must have efficiency, and what efficiency means is to get in line with the rest of the sheep and rubber stamp everything which comes out of the cabinet. Parliamentary reform coming from any member of this government means to eliminate the minuscule power which we now have to give speeches in the House.
It used to be that if a minister acted arrogantly, would not negotiate, or lacked concern about representations from the opposition, you could hold up supply by holding up the estimates. That was the traditional power of Parliaments; but that was done away by closure, by the Trudeau administration.
The basic view of this group is that, once the election is over, the seats are counted and the leader of the party with the most seats selects his cabinet, that is the end of the matter. Members of Parliament have no authority, no power and no ability to legislate in a way which is in keeping with the traditions of a parliamentary system. Indeed, it is perhaps embarrassing to have to admit it, but I wonder what the heck we are doing here. It perhaps says something about our collective intelli-
June 9, 1981

gence that we are even here, because we are not legislators and we cannot do anything.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) says he wants to negotiate, that he wants to work things out. If that is the case, why not let committees set their own references? Why not, in fact, have ministers negotiate with the House and let us participate in the legislative process? If there is insistence upon the finality of a cabinet decision, and that the ultimate end of any process must be a rubber stamping of what comes from cabinet, then the government has relegated us to a position where our only role is to make speeches and try to influence public opinion. But the government wants to cut that off, too. Incidentally, that is why the premiers and the provinces are as strong as they are. The people know that we cannot do anything to influence government and that we cannot be a check. Therefore, they look to the provincial governments to be a check. If hon. members are interested in making this country work, they should make this Parliament work. Then this country would work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood accurately pointed out the absurdity of talking about flexibility in energy policy negotiations while imposing the PGRT through closure. The petroleum and gas revenue tax has been responsible for the loss of 50,000 jobs. These are jobs in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Brooks, Alberta, and St. John's. They are not jobs in Windsor so maybe they do not count. However, people have been put out of work. Have we had any real discussion of the PGRT here? No. It just affects western Canadians and they do not matter. The loss of 50,000 jobs does not matter.
The excise tax on natural gas has been ruled to be ultra vires by the appellate court of the province of Alberta. We are being asked to vote, through closure, on provisions which have been declared illegal by a superior court of this land. The Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal of the federal government on June 16, I understand. It may change the decision and it may not. However, as matters now stand, the provisions of Bill C-57 are illegal, and yet, through closure, we will be forced to divide on that issue and on those questions. How arrogant and how absurd-


Mr. Malone:: Despicable.


Harvie Andre: -it is to have that kind of behaviour! One wonders why the national government is held in such contempt by the thousands of people who are attending separatist meetings in western Canada, for example. One wonders why the opposition, in anger, shouts out in this House, delays legislation and so on. This is done in frustration over our inability to perform what we were elected to do, namely, to legislate and to help govern this country. However, that is not the way things are run under this regime. The wisdom comes from the cabinet table and the Privy Council office. Once it arises from that sophisticated process in the Privy Council, and the cabinet decides, that is the end of the matter. We who are nobodies in
Time Allocation
this institution should know better than to try to hope for change and attempt to negotiate change. If we try to talk too long to influence public opinion, the government will use closure to cut us off.
It has been called the five-year dictatorship, and that is what it is. However, in our society, one can only get away with that kind of behaviour for so long. Unless that is recognized soon and some real parliamentary reform changes are brought in to give Parliament some authority, when this group eventually departs it will leave a legacy of a greatly weakened country, weakened national government and weakened institution. If they are honest, they will be able to tell their children and grandchildren that they contributed to the demise of a strong central government in this country. Because that will be the exact consequence of this kind of irresponsible behaviour on the part of the government.
In conclusion, I would simply like to say that what the government has done by this action is to guarantee that a National Energy Program reached by agreement with the negotiating provinces will be that much further delayed. More Canadian money, equipment and people will leave the country, and our likelihood of achieving self-sufficiency will be that much more remote.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, today and last week, I listened with a lot of interest to the comments and interventions of members of the opposition from the New Democratic Party, and I would like to recall a few of them because it is very important for the House to understand the problems that they see in our bill. I shall start with the intervention of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He said:
For some time, the government has had a tendency to introduce legislation which would allow it to benefit directly from inflation.
He was talking about the indexing of taxes on alcoholic beverages. However, Mr. Speaker, he completely forgot what we are doing to help individual Canadians. We have indexed personal income tax to make it more equitable and have an income tax system under which all Canadians are treated fairly. The hon. member said nothing about this.
I shall now refer to the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). He told us that we have a problem because we need money, and he said the following:
-I have sympathy... for the philosophy espoused by Premier Lougheed in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the other night... The government is not willing to let the economy take its course, and transmit wealth.
And in his speech, he disagreed completely with what we are now doing to share revenue in Canada.

I now turn to what the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) was just saying. He mentioned that this government will be criticized for having done nothing to help create a strong central government. This is fundamental to what we are attempting to do at this time. We are attempting to reduce the

June 9, 1981
Time Allocation
deficit in a measured and even way. We have undertaken measures by which we will begin to bring about a more reasonable sharing of revenues and a more reasonable sharing of equalization throughout all of Canada.
One of the major problems we face deals directly with revenue. The present equalization formula makes no mention of the revenues derived from natural resources; it mentions them only to the extent of 50 per cent. Resource revenues are included in our equalization formula only to the extent of half.


Bob Rae: It was John Turner's idea.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Only one third of the revenue from any one province can be taken from resources. That is creating an incredible imbalance in our country. This is one of the major problems we are trying to address in order to attain-


Bob Rae: Who devised the formula? I thought you guys were in power then.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has made an intervention. He usually speaks from his chair.


Bob Rae: Not true.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Is the hon. member denying that he does not usually speak from his chair? I do not know. I listened to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and the hon. member for Calgary Centre. They told us that we did not give this House the opportunity to fully and freely debate this measure, but have muzzled it. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) pointed out, there have already been 21 days of debate.
Hon. members opposite claim that they did not know about the 8 per cent tax and that it is unfair to impose it at this time when we are engaged in negotiations with Alberta. When would be the right time to act on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Would it be after we have an agreement? If we do not reach an agreement that is fair to all Canadians by June 16, should we wait until September or until next year?
We have followed a fair and reasonable course of action by bringing in the bill after it has had full debate in committee. If we arrive at another agreement with the province of Alberta, then we can accede to the wishes of the opposition.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood made much of the fact that the government has not listened to the wishes of members, has not listened to the wishes of the public and has not made the changes in the measure that he wanted. I should like to turn to the substance of many of the changes that the government introduced, Mr. Speaker. For beauticians the 9 per cent tax was changed so that it will apply to the acquisition cost to the distributor rather than to the selling price in the salon. In this way we have done something to help control inflation and help small business. We need the co-operation of the private sector for this measure in order to ensure that the
tax saving will be passed on to the beauty salon and the consumer. This is the only way this type of reduction will come to the assistance of those for whom it is intended.
We have helped small business by clearing up the paper burden and allowing businesses to adjust the time at which they filed their returns. We got rid of the tax on goods supplied under warranty. This is fair. We listened to the representations made on the indexation of the tax on alcoholic beverages, wine and beer and have made concession there.
We have made significant changes for advertising publications designed to help the small daily newspapers which need help most. As the minister said, if that does not work he will make other changes. I call that a fair and responsible attitude on the part of the minister.
When hon. members opposite are aware that their position on a bill is weak, when they have shouted their voices dry, they start to attack the process by which legislation is introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I need not gainsay what the President of the Privy Council said, but I should like to add some points. We have taken a unique step to ensure that this bill has the most complete hearing that a tax bill has ever had. It is the only tax bill to be presented to standing committee rather than to committee of the whole. Hon. members had an opportunity to present amendments, and they did-131 amendments. That is not the way to respond to the responsibility shown by the government to the House nor to the evidence that the government is willing to listen to what hon. members opposite want to say.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is getting exercised, Mr. Speaker.


Bob Rae: Excised, not exercised. You are the one who is getting exercised.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I must say that I believe I have as high esteem for the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood as does any other member of this House, but I must confess that right now my esteem is quite mediocre.


Arnold John Malone: Like your speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, nothing could condemn the government more than the necessity for the opposition parties and the government combined to introduce 135 amendments to a faulty bill.
I was brought up in a democratic system where things were caucused and bills were discussed by the backbencher as well as by cabinet. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me whether every member of the backbench on your right knew the condemnatory, punitive nature of this bill and supported it from the

beginning, or were they ordered by the caucus whip to come and vote or they would suffer?
This is an illusory situation, Mr. Speaker. The illusion that the public has after listening to the speeches of members to your right is that the opposition is irresponsible. The illusion is that there is no longer a democratic system in which compromise and discussion, debate-
1 .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 5.17 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following

June 9, 1981
Order Paper Questions
questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,198, 2,576, 2,577, 2,578, 2,579 and 2,580 inclusive.
Turkish	2,484	3,015Ukrainian	23,992	4,029Romanian	1,900	Jewish	52,303	88,292


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the last year and the current year to date, what language groups in Quebec, other than English and French, have received financial assistance from the Minister of State (Multiculturism) and in what amounts?
2.	Have any grants been given to special groups of the English and French language to promote their cultural identity, such as Scottish or Haitian groups?
3.	In the last year for which information is available, what amount was given in Canada, by language, to the ten most spoken languages after English and French?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1.	Please see list below.
2.	The following grants have been given to particular groups of the English and French language in Quebec:
	1979-80	1980-81
Blacks	$ 9,500	$53,193Haitians	32,600	41,088Irish	2,000	Scottish	3,440	3.	The following amounts were given in Canada, in 1979-80, to the following ten most spoken languages after French and English:Italian	$376,025German	148,663Ukrainian	293,171Chinese	217,907Portuguese	108,713Dutch	31,583Polish	69,053Greek	146,822Hungarian	39,424Hebrew-Yiddish Note: Statistics for 1980-81 have not yet been finalized.	476,4691979-80	1980-81Group	Amount	AmountArabic	$ 9,063	$ 3,376Armenian	11,166	2,225Czech	1,000	Chinese	10,728	53,680Croatian	1,163	8,000East Indian	24,995	23,673Estonian	295	260Finnish	650	German	6,133	6,533Greek	69,640	82,873Hispanic	2,505	19,304Hungarian	9,571	41,088Italian	98,265	97,063Japanese	4,188	3,120Korean	9,246	7,520Laotian	563	Latvian	650	3,300Polish	3,252	9,540Portuguese	44,554	38,160Serbian	650Slovak	4,463



HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERSHIP

Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Is an expansion of the membership of the House of Commons scheduled to take place after the population statistics from the 1981 census are compiled1?
2.	Did the government prepare an estimate of all the direct and indirect costs involved in adding each new member of Parliament, such as salary and pension benefits for the member and staff, office accommodation and facilities, and ancillary services and (a) if so, what is the estimated cost per member (b) if not, will such a study be undertaken before the expansion?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Until the census is completed and calculations are made pursuant to Section 51 of the British North America Act, any answer to this question would be speculative.
2. A complete and comprehensive review of all aspects of the representation of the people will be undertaken in the near future.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Do census projections show that approximately thirty new members of Parliament will be added to the House after the 1981 census and, if so, will the government need to acquire another building to add to the Parliament Hill complex?
2.	Are certain buildings being considered and, if so (a) which buildings (b) is the present Justice Building, adjacent to the Confederation Building, under consideration?


David Michael Collenette: 1. See question 2,576, answered this day.
2. (a) The government is considering the recommendations of the Committee on Parliamentary Accommodation, chaired by the hon. Douglas Abbott and has taken steps to acquire all of the property in the area bounded by Elgin Street, Sparks Street, Bank Street and Wellington Street. Some of the buildings in that area are now being used, at least partially, for parliamentary purposes.
(b) Not at the present time.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Have any government plans been made to accommodate an additional 30 Members of Parliament in the chamber?
2.	Is consideration being given to removing the desks and replacing them with benches?
3.	Is consideration being given to knocking out walls and expanding the chamber into the lobbies?


David Michael Collenette: 1. See questions 2,576 and 2,577, answered this day.
2.	This suggestion had been made, but extensive consideration has not been given.
3.	No.
June 9, 1981


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Does the government propose to table a position paper on parliamentary reform and, if so, on what date?
2.	Will the paper deal with the problems created for members of Parliament attempting to participate in House business by an increase in the membership of the chamber of more than 10 per cent?


David Michael Collenette: 1 and 2. This matter is being considered.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Will the government consult members of Parliament before alterations are made to the House of Commons chamber in order to accommodate any new members?


David Michael Collenette: Yes.


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


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) on a point of order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, if I heard the parliamentary secretary correctly, yet another day has gone by without an answer to question No. 1,852. It is now six months to the day since I put the question on the Order Paper, and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) should have been able to give me an answer to it by now. The chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation indicated that he gave the information to the minister some months ago, yet we still do not have an answer. I am wondering whether I can have one.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. Secretary of State.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is taking my name in vain. The estimates of my department have been considered. I was expecting him at the committee to answer his questions, but the hon. member saw fit not to attend that sitting. I have been expecting a question in the House for the past two or three weeks.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the question was put to the parliamentary secretary and the minister is pursuing the discussion.


David Michael Collenette: This question was asked yesterday and I gave an answer yesterday, and I am looking into that.
Excise Tax


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 4, 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. 4 (Mr. Blenkarn) and 5 (Mr. Riis).
Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 4, and a vote on motion No. 4 will dispose of motion No. 5. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to an agreement reached earlier, the vote stands deferred.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved:: Motion No. 6.
That 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, be amended by deleting clause 7.

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 7.
That 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, be amended in clause 7 by striking out lines 11 to 40 at page 9.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless I have missed something, I do not believe the Chair put motion No. 5. The vote will be on motion No. 4. If it is defeated, it defeats motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed by the Clerk-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My point is that the Chair has not put the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Clerk informs me that the vote on motion No. 4 will dispose of motion No. 5. since they are indentical motions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, essentially motion No. 6 is a continuation of a great deal of what we have heard in the last number of days with reference to the pricing of wines in an absolute way, the whole matter of indexing, and then the excise tax being placed on wine. In essence, the motion before us does away with the concept of indexing in terms of the excise tax as it applies to wines, and at this point suggests that an increase in the price of Canadian wines is not the appropriate step to take.
Before I discuss some of the details of this motion, I wish to talk about why this particular motion is before us with so many others. Over the last number of days there have been many references to the fact that we were debating 135 different amendments to this particular bill. Members opposite were criticizing us for putting forward so many amendments for discussion. They were asking us why on earth we had not brought in a fewer number of amendments and dealt with more of the specifics and, perhaps, some of the larger issues in this bill.
I want to make it perfectly clear that that is exactly what we had in mind when we deliberately went through second reading stage very quickly in order to get the bill before the committee. I would like to commend the chairman of the finance committee for calling a number of witnesses and for requesting and receiving a number of written briefs. But there was one very important aspect of that deliberation which was eliminated, and that was the opportunity for members of the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party to come together to discuss what the 23 groups of witnesses presented to us as members of that committee, not to mention countless written breifs which were also presented to us. We eliminated this very crucial step. I suspect that had the government taken that initiative, had it shown that interest, in the next number of days we would not be discussing the vast array of amendments which we are discussing because the matter would have been resolved in committee. Saner heads would have prevailed, in that surely we would have agreed that
the points raised by so many of these delegations and witnesses before the committee were, in fact, legitimate. They expressed legitimate concerns. These were not people trying to avoid paying legitimate taxes to the Government of Canada.
Both opposition parties and members opposite indicated their willingness to ask questions of the witnesses, in terms of finding out what concerns were on their minds. A great many legitimate concerns and criticisms were articulated by the witnesses. Unfortunately, by and large, they were ignored by the government, with the exception of a few cosmetic changes being produced. But the substantive concerns were virtually ignored. That is why members of the Conservative party and ourselves, with a great deal of reluctance, brought in 135 amendments.
We felt the concerns raised by the witnesses were legitimate ones which needed to be addressed. More than ever before I was convinced that this bill is an ad hoc approach to taxation. Attempting to glean a few dollars here and a few dollars there is not the way to approach taxation in Canada in the 1980s. Surely, a reflection of the poor taste and lack of consideration of the government was the document which went to all members of the committee, which attempted to summarize the concerns of the witnesses. Again, as far as the principle is concerned, I commend the chairman of the finance committee for directing his officials to take the time to go through the various briefs, summarize them for us and then provide an appraisal.
Those members who have taken the time to read the appraisal will see that contained therein are comments of the most cynical nature. These were not constructive criticisms, but criticisms designed to make the witnesses appear foolish. These were criticisms designed to make the concerns of the witnesses appear simplistic and almost childish. That is hardly the way to treat serious briefs and presentations in this day and age, particularly when we hear a great deal about the alienation found in certain parts of our country.
When one looks at the various witnesses who appeared before the finance committee, such as representatives of the city of Medicine Hat, representatives of the Hobbema Indian Reserve, the Independent Petroleum Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Federation of Alberta Gas Co-ops, the Energy Services Association of Alberta, and many others, one sees that they were essentially ignored. I do not think there is any question, even from members opposite, about the concerns and points of view which were expressed before the committee being ignored by the government. If that is not a slap in the face to those groups which I have mentioned, in this case westerners, it is little wonder that there exists in our country a cynicism toward the government, an attitude that this government simply does not care. This is why we are being forced to address 135 amendments. The government was not prepared to sit down and discuss ways and means of looking at a few changes to this bill. The government was prepared to simply ignore that process and force the opposition parties into the position of spokesmen for the various witnesses which appeared before the committee.
June 9, 1981

The particular motion before us identifies the problem associated with indexation. I do not feel that it is necessary to go through an elaborate and precise description of the hazards associated with indexing the tax on tobacco and alcohol in Canada. The point has been made by many members already that, in fact, this will be a factor which fuels inflation in our country, as opposed to combating it. This measure will give the government a vested interest in inflation, since it is one small step toward providing more revenues for the government as a reflection of inflationary practices. I am concerned about the effect of tying the excise tax to the CPI and what that means as a true reflection of inflation in the country and, therefore, the resultant increase in taxation. For example, if one province decides to increase significantly the price of wine, beer, tobacco or distilled spirits, then that will result in an increase in price across Canada. In other words, one province could dictate a significant increase in the CPI for that subgroup which would then reflect an across-the-board increase for that particular commodity.
If there is a significant increase in the price of a foreign wine or an imported spirit, for example, then it would fuel the CPI for that subgroup, which would result in a rise in prices across Canada. If the value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the franc, or some other currency, drops, the price, if you like, of that imported commodity will increase. It will increase the CPI in that particular subgroup, which will then result in an increase in the price of alcohol and tobacco across the board for all Canadians.
What is happening in this country is that we are tying our increases in the price of alcohol and tobacco to what is happening in foreign countries and to what may be happening in one province of Canada. Surely this is not the intent of this particular piece of legislation. It is with that in mind that we in the New Democratic Party feel that this is simply not the appropriate step to take at all. If it is true, as the hon. member from Ottawa indicated this afternoon, that the need for this is to combat inflation, surely to goodness there is a better way to combat inflation than to index the prices of alcohol and tobacco.
We suggest, when we start looking at the increase in the prices of wine, beer and distilled spirits, that there is a great deal of discrepancy in the pricing of those commodities in Canada today. That is why we have mentioned in our motion that this would appear to be an inappropriate time to add another increase to the price of wine in Canada. We are not against increasing the price of wine; we are against increasing it in this willy-nilly way of adding a few cents to a gallon of wine or a few cents to beer or a few cents to distilled spirits. Surely the reason we are in this disastrous situation today is the kind of ad hoc approach to obtaining federal government revenues.


Walter David Baker: Nickel and diming.
Excise Tax


Nelson Andrew Riis: Nickel and diming, as the hon. member says. Indeed, it is. What is required, to our way of thinking, is a comprehensive commodity tax review. I realize that was introduced in 1977-actually, it was 1975. It was abandoned or suspended in 1977 at a time when the interest rates and cost of living were not as high as they are today.
We suggest that we are well overdue for a comprehensive commodity tax review in Canada. We should take a look at the taxes we presently place on wines, for example. We should ask ourselves the question: should we be encouraging Canadian wine producers? Should we be using the taxation system to encourage more participation in the vineyard industry, more participation in the Canadian domestic wine industry? Should we be lifting the prices of those Canadian wines to achieve some social benefit? Should we perhaps decrease prices to encourage more people in the agriculture sector? We should ask the same questions in relation to the breweries and the distilled spirits industry?
Another question we should be asking ourselves is: should we be using our taxation system in a more creative way to accomplish certain economic and social ends? We in this party feel, of course, that we should. We should not simply tack on nickels and dimes during these times when our farmers could perhaps use some encouragement and when domestic producers of wine in Canada could also use some encouragement.
It is for that reason that we feel very strongly that this is not the time to increase across the board the tax on spirits, wines and beer, and it is certainly not the time to index these commodities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I think the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) found difficulty with the fact that we were not able to consider the representations which had been made was the insistence by the government House leader that the bill be returned to the House by April 15 or April 16, and also the fact that we heard briefs until almost the eve of those dates. That left only the appearance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) himself, who tried to emulate the Great Sphinx of Egypt by saying absolutely nothing, and then saying that the government would take into consideration the representations which had been made and would declare itself at that time, if at all.
That is why I would say neither the representatives of the New Democratic Party nor myself, when I led our party in this particular consideration, were disposed to put any amendments before the committee. What would be the point? If one amendment were proposed, the government backbenchers would simply chew that amendment away and use up the time. They would have filibustered the one amendment which would have been put forward by either the New Democrats or ourselves, and it would have been a total loss.
I therefore stated quite clearly that it was not my intention to put any amendments in the committee, as we had done under the Bank Act, and we would put them in at the report

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
stage. Neither our party nor Your Honour's is under any obligation whatsoever to consult with one another as to the nature of the amendments which will be proposed. For instance, in part IV of the bill, which is that tax on petroleum and natural gas revenue, every clause is marked for amendment by the New Democrats, and the same amendments appear under the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Etobicoke Centre.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). That is why we had that many amendments. There are, in effect, many duplications; but that was the result of what one could call the nature of the beast under that type of restriction on the committee.
So far as the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Kootenay-Shuswap and-


Walter David Baker: Kamloops-Shuswap.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will get those two ridings straightened out yet. There were also amendments put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
First of all, we are against the increase in the tax on one. I referred to that the other night. We are also against the indexation of tax. Strangely enough, the formula which we wish to eliminate is the quarterly index.
In amendment No. 8, as it appears on the order paper, the government had advanced to six months. It had taken one step. The other night the minister replaced that motion, that amendment, in effect, by an amendment which calls for annual indexing. As I indicated the other night, it is not the question of merely placing a percentage tax, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) suggested. That is nothing. What it is, is a clear indication that there shall be an annual rest and that the tax shall be compounded by the factor of the annual CPI. That is the nature of the increase. This particular subgroup of alcohol and tobacco will pick up influences from all sorts of areas. Of course, the net result is that the excise tax in this particular area will snowball.
It is the snowballing of the excise tax without the consent of Parliament to which I object, and to which my colleagues say, "No, no, a thousand times, no!" That is what is wrong with this principle. In relation to taxation, it is a first attempt to impose the cost of living index on the formula of determination of tax with an annual rest. It will be applied on the alcohol and tobacco subgroup at this time. I suppose that is a popular target for taxation. The next one could be the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. There are many other areas of tax where, by simply changing the formula of calculation, an indexation based on CPI could be imposed and the government would be the chief beneficiary.
I am almost repeating what I said the other day when I said that the government would be very interested in inflation at 100 per cent. The principle is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to put on the record all the evidence given by the commissioners of the Liquor Control Board of Canada, the Distillers Association of Canada, the Brewers Association and the wine growers. I think this is a despicable move as it pertains to wine. Wine should be considered part of the agricultural industry. There is no reason why domestic wines should be taxed any more than milk is taxed.
The minister should take into account where the grapes are grown and what the revenues of the growers amount to. They are agriculturalists. No other country treats them as a source for the taxation of alcohol or puts them in the same category as those who distil alcohol for whisky.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, there is a substantial increase in tax, by formula, from 25 cents to 60 cents. Indexation of the tax will greatly increase the price of domestic wines. Next we will see an excise tax imposed on foreign produced wines. We will experience all the difficulties arising out of the CPI or influences abroad, with regard to the cost of these beverages.
The same thing applies to the price of British tobacco. It will go out of sight. It is high enough as it is but it is a vastly superior product. This does not in any way try to protect the Canadian product which is a hot tongue burner at all times. I have smoked a pipe for over 40 years so I have considerable experience in judging quality and I am not overly impressed with our domestic product. In any event, I think the principle is quite wrong.
I should like to name some hon. members opposite who regularly attended the finance committee and were critical of the government's actions. They thought this was a pernicious principle. I see that the muzzles are on now, however, and they are not going to speak. You might say that they are-

-all puffed out ready to speak because their mouths are full.
Right you are, hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). You know, we can speak French as much as you can.


Mr. Simmons:: French or English, it doesn't matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Right. Their mouths are full, whether it be in English or in French.

I am not suggesting what their mouths are full of, either!
I would hope that these two amendments commend themselves to members of the House and that we could return to a beginning of sanity by adopting motions No. 7 and No. 8.
June 9, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to urge hon. members to reject the amendments. They would cancel outright the provision under which the tax on wines would be adjusted regularly and, as I explained this afternoon, there is no difference between that adjustment and an ad valorem tax. If the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) objects to that process, then he must be against any ad valorem commodity tax, because just as an ad valorem tax goes up when, for instance, the currency fluctuates, so will this process enable the central government to maintain the same income tax margin as the revenue it derived before the commodity increase.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am definitely and violently opposed to this type of taxation. It is a sneaky way to impose a tax.


An hon. Member:: What else do you know?


Gordon Edward Taylor: You know all the sneaky ways. We are learning them but we do not like them.
If you want to put a tax on, why do you not bring it in to the House of Commons and have it debated? When this passes, it need never come to the House again. That is taxation without representation.
A moment or so ago the minister said that it is going to be a definite ratio. If that is so, why does the bill say that it can be adjusted or altered in such a manner as the governor in council may prescribe? You can do it any way you like. You can double it or triple it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, hon. members must address their remarks to the Chair.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. I have to look over to them once in a while to see what reaction I am getting. I might as well be talking to a stone wall, so I will not bother looking at them.
This is not going to be done by a definite ratio or the bill would have said so. It is open to any adjustment or alteration in any manner the governor in council will want to prescribe. That is an unsound principle. It is taxation without representation. If we can do it with wine and beer today, the next time it will be put on bread and meat. Grapes are an agricultural product, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
The people of Canada do not know what to expect from a government that introduces this type of indexation of taxation. It is completely unsound and hon. members know it. They have been hoodwinked into voting whatever way Pierre tells them to vote!
Excise Tax


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, since the government has not really answered the points that have been made with respect to this proposal but has relied upon its majority to put it through, I want to refer to the so-called executive summary and responses. This document was prepared by the minister's department and it refers to some of the criticisms of the government's scheme of indexing ad valorem taxes.
This document tells a great deal about the state of the bureaucratic mind, which is obviously the dominant mind on the other side and the one which controls government policies.
The Brewers Association of Canada points out that taxes on beer now represent 45 per cent of the retail price. It is one of the highest proportions of tax on beer in the world. The answer of the bureaucracy to that criticism was, that what the rest of the world does is not particularly relevant to Canada's social tax policies. That is a good, logical, thorough, well-thought-out, in-depth kind of answer. What the rest of the world does with respect to taxation of any product is of no concern to this government. We will just put our heads in the sand and say that how beer is taxed in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany or in any other country is really of no concern to us. We do not have anything to learn from any other country in the world. We know all the answers here in Ottawa. We have the answers to everybody's problems, and we do not have to rely on what may or may not happen in other countries in order to make up our minds. The government demonstrates that kind of ignorance of systematically putting on the blinkers, of carrying on with the policy regardless of what associations, producers or consumers say and regardless of the effect on them. All we hear is that we will carry on.


Mr. Mayer:: That is not what they say when it comes to interest rates.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) points out correctly that this is not what they say when it comes to interest rates. When it comes to interest rates, those of us who call for a different policy for Canada are regarded as those who want to walk off the end of the world. It is the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) whose department is walking off the end of the world with respect to this proposal. They just say that it does not matter. The Minister of State for Finance is shaking his head. But in the reply we find:
What the rest of the world does is not particularly relevant to Canada's social tax policies.
Elsewhere we can read:
-the burden of tax on beer is extraordinarily heavy in Canada and higher than in most other countries.
But they say the reference to other countries is inappropriate. Why is it inappropriate? It is inappropriate because it is embarrassing to the government to have to recognize that our taxes on alcohol are very high in Canada compared to the rest of the world.

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
Here is another example of the concerns expressed by the Brewers Association:
Adverse social and health costs are more directly related to the misuse of spirits; control measures including taxation should deal more stringently with spirits.
The following is a scientific statement of fact put forward by the Department of Finance, I am sure after a great deal of intensive research, which reads:
Alcohol in any form, be it beer or wine or spirits, is equally intoxicating.
That is a statement of fact for which I do not see any proof, if you will pardon the pun, Mr. Speaker.
There is another statement of fact offered by the Department of Finance as firm proof for which there can be no question at all. The minister gets statements and briefs. Just today the Minister of Finance was talking about briefing books. This briefing book is the bible for the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of State for Finance may have forgotten to read the briefing book today, so I will read from it again for him, as follows:
There are probably as many drunks whose libations are beer or wine as there are drunks whose favourite beverage is spirits.
Is that the scientific factual basis upon which the government will decide the relative burden of taxation? Is that the basis upon which the government is now fixing this year to be the base year on which all rates from now on, forever and ever, will be decided because of the indexation policy? There are probably as many drunks whose libations are beer and wine. Doesn't the minister know? Does he not have a chart which tells us how many drunks are drunk because of beer; how many drunks are drunk because of wine, and how many drunks are drunk because of spirits? I ask that because the government has just put this forward as if it were a solid fact. This is the theory: there is an equal number of beer, wine and spirit drinkers who are drunk. That is the first theoretical base. The second factual basis is that what the rest of the world does is not important to the Department of Finance. That is the way in which our tax policy with respect to indexation is being made, and it is absurd.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 6. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Following the procedure previously outlined, the division on motion No. 6 stands deferred.
Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 7?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than Jive members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Following the procedure previously outlined, the division stands deferred on motion No. 7.
Motion No. 8; shall I dispense?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, please read it. I want to be sure this is the last version put in by the minister. There were three versions, and I want to hear which one it is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point.


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 8.
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 7 by striking out lines 11 to 40 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor: "(2) The excise taxes imposed by subsection (1) shall be adjusted
(a)	on the first day of April, 1981, so that the taxes imposed in the five month period commencing on that day are equal to the amount obtained
(i)	by multiplying
(A)	the taxes set out in subsection (1) by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the governor in council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve-month period ending on December 31, 1980, bears to the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve-month period ending on September 30, 1980, and
(ii)	by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i) to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the product is equidistant from two one-hundredths of a cent, to the greater thereof; and
(b)	on the first day of September each year, commencing on September 1, 1981, so that the taxes imposed in the twelve-month period commencing on the day the taxes are adjusted are equal to the amount obtained
(i)	by multiplying
(A)	the taxes set out in subsection (1) by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the governor in council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve-month period ending on the last day of June in that year bears to the Alcoholic Beverage Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve-month period ending on June 30, 1980, and
(ii)	by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i) to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the product is equidistant from two one-hundredths of a cent, to the greater thereof."
June 9, 1981



He said: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the purpose of this amendment, as it has already been explained, is to make an annual rather than a quarterly adjustment on wines, and also to change the basic period of that adjustment so that it will now end on June 30, 1981. The first quarterly period which had already been established and came into force on April 1 of this year will be maintained until the next basic period comes into effect. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) so aptly put it, that will fulfil the expectations of the industry, while at the same time changing the revenue of the government in that field, since the basic period has been changed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, the House should never be ready for the question on this nefarious amendment because it not only defeats the Chair in its reading ability, which is not inconsiderable, it is so complicated that even Mr. Speaker was stumbling through the reading of it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is no reflection on the Chair, Mr. Speaker; it is illustrative to those hon. gentlemen who have never even looked at the blessed document that they are into the most bureaucratic jargon that could possibly be devised. Even hon. members who sat in at the finance committee from time to time were never exposed to that type of formula, because that which was in the bill was relatively simple. This was changed in order to arrive at this different revenue base, as I pointed out the other night, which creates an increase of $18 million in tax on wine and spirits over and above the $42 million which is proposed in the numerical increase of what shall be paid by measure on either wine or distilled alcohol.


An hon. Member:: So?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In response to the hon. member from Quebec City who thinks this is so funny, perhaps if he came around to these committees and displayed some of the intelligence accredited to him, he might find that this is one of the most pernicious bills that has ever been brought forward by any administration. I hope he is able to explain to his constituents, when the price increases go into place, what happened. He will not even be able to do that. He will just simply say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said he needed more money, so, therefore, you my little citizen-

You, my little friend from Quebec, are going to pay ever more for your beer. I hope he will drink his glass of beer and throw the rest in the face of the hon. member. I am not criticizing anything, but I do take my colleagues opposite to task for finding fault in private and even in public before the
Excise Tax
representatives, saying that the bill was unacceptable and unjustifiable. But when the bill comes back before the House, they cannot even open their mouth. They are behaving like a bunch of sheep. It is very simple, a bunch of sheep knocked down-


Mr. Duquet:: They do not stand still to get fleeced!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member says they do not stand still to get fleeced. I can assure you that the people they represent are being fleeced. My God, Mr. Speaker, if only they knew!
Because if you increase the tax only on imported alcoholic beverages and wine, the Quebec Liquor Board will naturally be affected by this tax and by the increase, and every year from now on, the cost of living index in this subgroup will be added to the 9 per cent tax, which means that it is not simply an ad valorem conversion that we have here, but that the cost of living index must be added also. This is-


An hon. Member:: Not true!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You say; Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member say "hear, hear", or is this a problem for him? For our part, since we have seen that the example of the federal government will soon be followed by a provincial administration, we shall have this problem and add cost of living increases to everything. I wonder whether the results will be satisfactory, but there will be an increase since the price of beer will now be affected by the cost of living index. This increase will affect senior citizens, that is pensioners 65 and over. There will be one for veterans, and the same will apply for taxes on beer. The hon. member should be able to explain that to his constituents.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, people over 65 are not drinkers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not at his seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have other opportunities. 1 would like him to go to his seat and take part in the debate to show how well he understands this bill.


An hon. Member:: You would see-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, because it is by remaining silent that you keep your constituency when you sit on the government side.
Mr. Speaker, we object to this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support the motion I moved following the example of my colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
I object to the formula proposed by the Minister of State, who has himself a lot of trouble understanding what will happen with this bill and especially with this formula.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, with the government's amendment to change indexation from a quarterly to an annual basis, I suppose members opposite expect us to get down on our knees with gratitude; that is, having imposed a quarterly system of taxation, the government has now decided to simply do it on an annual basis. I want to tell the minister that once he has accepted the principle that adjustments should only be made on an annual basis, he has eliminated the need for indexation. All the minister has to do is to simply produce the bill in each and every budget, which, one would hope, would be on an annual basis, in order to provide for the increases in taxation which the minister thinks are justified. 1 find it typical of a government which has made a kind of ideological decision to go for indexation on a quarterly basis, every three months, and wants to increase the taxes which the average Canadian would pay in order to have his pint of beer, glass of wine or, indeed, glass of hard liquor, but which now is only going to index on an annual basis, and expects us to be grateful. In fact, the logic that would lead to quarterly adjustments does not apply to the annual adjustments because we have budgets every year so we do not need the indexation.
The second point that has to be made is that the government is kicking Gerald Bouey in the teeth with this proposal, and I think that is a shame. I know the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) thinks it is a shame too because he is behind Governor Bouey 500 per cent. He is "Mr. High Interest" when it comes to bum to bum, toe to toe, cheek to cheek with old Gerry Bouey XVI.
Let us hear what Governor Bouey had to say in his annual report to the Minister of Finance in 1980. What did he have to say about learning to live with inflation? What did he have to say about the principle of indexation? What did he have to say about the principle of providing a free ride to the government and a free ride to the Canadian public? He said, and I am quoting from his annual report:
It is not at all clear what people have in mind when they talk about "learning to live with inflation".
He went on, and I am quoting from pages 5 and 6 of his annual report:
Is it possible that they think that society could develop some way of indexing all money payments so completely that changes in the purchasing power of money would be neutralized and could therefore be ignored in the formation of public policy? The fatal weakness of this idea-
It is fatal. It could kill the government if it adopted this idea. Upon adopting it, the government could die. That is the wording of Governor Bouey.
The fatal weakness of this idea is that the more vigorously a country applied it the more rapidly would any inflationary impetus cause prices to accelerate. That
system would be much too unstable to be workable. As a practical matter proposals to find ways of ignoring the rate of inflation cannot be taken seriously.
That is the view of the Governor of the Bank of Canada about this proposal to index taxation, and I think it is time the government knew it has now broken its commitment to support the Governor of the Bank of Canada in his single-minded policy to fight inflation in Canada. This government is fuelling the fires of inflation. It has broken faith with Gerald Bouey, and I think that is a disgrace.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Who do you think you are, Ian Deans?


Bob Rae: The second point-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Whoops.


Bob Rae: I want to look at what goes into making a bottle of beer so that we will see that we are not taxing just beer, we are not taxing just the beer industry alone, we are taxing every single worker who produces a component of a bottle of beer. That is what happens when the government increases inflation by indexing taxation on a bottle of beer.
Cereal grain growers on the prairies are weeping because the government is taxing their product. Carbohydrate matter, yeast, hop oil, hop extract, stabilizing agents-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Not stabilizing agents.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think you get the point, but I want to add just a couple of other points. Did Your Honour know that wood shavings derived from oak, beech, hazelnut or cherrywood are also components of a bottle of beer?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That does it; I quit.


Bob Rae: There are many woodworkers across Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Do hon. members realize that the tax on wood shavings which are put into a bottle of beer will now be indexed? That is to say nothing of ammonium persulphate and Nylon 66. How many Nylon 66 workers are there in Canada? A large number.
If I could be serious for just a moment, the point of what the government is doing is that it is on a slippery slope. The government is on the slippery slope of telling itself that it is possible and permissible for the government to take its cut out of inflation.
What the government is doing is significantly different from indexing deductions because the principle behind indexing deductions is that the government does not reap the benefit of inflation but in fact has to cut down its spending as a result of inflation. This provision provides for exactly the opposite because it means that the government takes advantage of inflation. It means that government income will be guaranteed to go up in accordance with inflation, and it means that an inflationary psychology is being built into an inflationary tax system. That is precisely what is wrong with indexation at this time. I hope the minister will attempt to reply in a serious manner to the very real problem which is being created by building inflation into a tax system at a time when all the
June 9, 1981

authorities, including the Governor of the Bank of Canada, for whom the minister has an almost perverse affection when it comes to public policy-


Mr. Skelly:: Details?


Bob Rae: -at a time when all the authorities are saying that indexation and the notion of indexing everyone against inflation is a dangerous policy. That is precisely what the government is doing in this instance, and I think the government should give us an explanation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It would be nice to have a nice quiet speaker for a change.


John Carnell Crosbie: -I know we can hardly expect members of the majority in this House to take seriously the problems this particular amendment is going to cause, for example, for the brewing industry in Canada. I have a brief here from the Brewers Association of Canada representing seven Canadian breweries. They produce and sell 99 per cent of the beer consumed in Canada. We are talking about an industry that is already Canadianized. We do not need any pseudo-Canadiani-zation from the government. We do not need any nationalization in the vein of Petro-Canada. We do not need a "Petro-Beera". We already have a Canadianized-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How about "Beer-Can"?


John Carnell Crosbie: We already have a Canadianized industry. Here we have an industry that is totally Canadian-owned. In fact, it is doing very well down in the United States. The beer from Oland's, I think it is, in New Brunswick, Moosehead or Moose Jaw or some kind of beer like that, is selling ferociously down in the United States of America, and I am delighted that we are able to export that stuff and licence it down there.
In any event, the point I am making is that here is an industry. It is Canadian-owned. It is producing a Canadian brew made from Canadian water with Canadian hops and Canadian constituents. It buys 95 per cent of all its materials and supplies in Canada. Its 41 breweries are found in nine provinces. Let me say this: two of those breweries are in my district, and that gives me a statesmanlike interest in this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The production, distribution and sale of beer give employment directly and indirectly in Canada to 180,000 people. There are 180,000 people working in this brewing industry in Canada. It generates $1.2 billion in tax revenue, so we are dealing with a serious subject. We are dealing with one of the big Canadian industries. We are dealing with 180,000 people working in that industry, and this industry is bitterly shocked and disappointed in the proposals contained in this legislation.
I have to admit they were bitterly disappointed and shocked with the proposals contained in the budget I introduced in
Excise Tax
December of 1979, but I say this: I would have had enough sense to listen to their points, their proposals and their submissions. Had I remained as minister of finance I would have fixed up some of the main objections to the legislation they brought forward. Let me also say that even in my deepest and darkest days as minister of finance in those short few months I had, never in the darkest, deepest, most depressed and most vicious days of my tenure as minister of finance did I think of indexing the tax on beer, wine, liquor and tobacco. Only a labyrinthine mind, only a Calvinist mind, only a mind with the deepest subtlety, only the mind of a bachelor from Cape Breton, could come up with such a concept that these taxes be indexed. That gentleman is not even here in this chamber tonight to defend his own proposals to the 180,000 people that work in our Canadian brewing industry.
Let us look at some of the things that are wrong with this. The minister is proposing an amendment. He is going to change the legislation. Imagine-I think you are the Speaker, not the Chairman.


Walter David Baker: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Good. I am glad to be in the right forum. Mr. Chairman, just look at this, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-if you are going to be sticky about it-Mr. Speaker, look at this: the minister actually proposed originally that he was going to index these taxes, the federal taxes on beer, wine, spirits and tobacco, every quarter. Every three months the tax would go up as the cost of living goes up. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is responsible for the general Canadian economy. He is the gentleman who has to accept the responsibility for the inflation rate. The inflation rate in recent months has been at the rate of 13.9 per cent. For the Minister of Finance to attempt to bring inflation down, if this legislation passes, is to be in a conflict of interest with his own legislation because he gets more revenue if inflation continues to go up under these proposals. Every three months he is going to index and increase the rate of taxes on these products. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bus-sieres)-I wish I had had someone like him when I was minister. I was like a slave to this chamber, Mr. Speaker, when I was the minister. I had to come in here every time there was a finance bill, and every day there was a finance bill. I had to be in this chamber. I will not tell you what I think of it because my thoughts and views on this chamber are too lofty. I did not have a minister of state for finance. I wish I had had a gentleman able to absorb the punishment that the Minister of Finance now has in the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I tell you this, he is the man who is going to make his mark. He is going to be just as quick going down as he was coming up, if he continues to be the stooge for this Minister of Finance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance has made an amendment-he is only going to index taxes on

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
tobacco, beer, wine and spirits every year. A fantastic concession. He is never going to come back to this House. Forever and a day, Canadians who live in the rest of the twentieth century, Canadians who live in the twenty-first and the twenty-second century are going to be paying increased amounts every year for beer, liquor, wine and tobacco because of the legislation the government is forcing through here this week. There is going to be an increase annually based on the cost of living according to the formula in this bill. And this is supposed to be a great concession. Well, I have a letter here from the Brewers Association of Canada. What is the result of this minister's amendment? We all thought there was going to be some relief for the poor devils, that instead of having an increase every three months, it is going to be yearly. This is what their letter, dated June 3, 1981, says:
We have followed the debate in the House on Bill C-57 and noted that unanimous consent was given with respect to an amendment to change indexing the excise levies on alcoholic beverages to annual rather than quarterly adjustments as proposed in the October, 1980, budget.
This will result in an increase in excise levies from those contemplated in the budget-
The annual increase in excise levies on beer will increase a further $1.6 million-
Are you listening, Minister of State for Finance? He has no idea this is the result. Are you listening, sir? I know that the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) has important communications to give you-he is begging for some kind of concession for somebody in his district but just listen to me for a moment and find out what the bill is all about. This is the result:
The annual increase in excise levies on beer will increase a further $1.6 million, an increase of 10 per cent from the $16.5 million originally proposed by the indexing provisions contained in the October, 1980, budget.
With your change, you have taxed the brewing industry $1.6 million more this year. Then it goes on to say that:
The increase in excise levies on distilled spirtis will be approximately $6.0 million, an increase of 17 per cent over the original increase of $36 million, proposed in the budget.
With this amendment, you are raising your taxes on the distilled spirits industry $6 million. The letter goes on:
These increases arise not because of the change from quarterly to annual indexing which would have resulted in a decrease in revenue, not an increase, but because of a change in the timing of the changes and the base for calculating the increases. Further details may be found in exhibits A and B attached.
I am not going to read exhibits A and B but I will tell the minister that his civil servants, in making that change from quarterly to annual indexing, have so arranged it that they have bludgeoned these two industries for more money than proposed in the original bill. That is not good enough. If this is an amendment that is supposed to ameliorate this bill for these industries, you are actually costing them more money this year. I presume a copy of this letter went to the Minister of Finance, and if not, I will supply him with a copy. The letter goes on:
Had the point of indexing on an annual basis been set at October 1, rather than September 1 -
And it goes on with all kinds of technicalities:
-the inequity caused by the method chosen as outlined in the most recent amendment would not have been as great.
And so on. I am not going to give all the details, it is the principle I am interested in. On the last page of the letter they say:
This proposed increase, resulting from the most recent amendment, on top of the original indexing increase, on top of the 29 per cent increase in the basic federal excise rates stemming from the April 21, 1980 announcement of Mr. MacEachen, on top of the recent change in Ontario from a specific or volume tax to a 20 per cent ad valorem tax, will increase the price of beer to the consumer in Ontario to such an extent that the traditional consumer, the working man, may no longer be able to afford it.
Now I do not need any member of this House to say to me that the Ontario government has just indexed their taxation in this area. I know they have. Encouraged by the example set by this Minister of Finance, Ontario has done the same thing and the government in Newfoundland has done the same thing. I tell you now that ministers of finance will always take that attitude if they think they can get away with it. Naturally, the poor devils are looking for more revenue and they care not where they get it from.
So this Minister of Finance introduces this inequity into the tax law, this horror, and when the ministers of finance for Ontario and Newfoundland see that he is getting away with it, that he is still alive, that he is not drummed out, that the public have not erupted and got the rope and noose outside the Parliament Buildings to give him a fit reception for such a suggestion, they go ahead and do it themselves. If this House passes these provisions, Mr. Speaker, we will see the eight other provincial finance ministers do the same thing. Believe me, I have some experience. I was minister of finance in Newfoundland and I was minister of finance here for a few brief months, and I know what ministers of finance are like; they have to be watched every minute of the night and day, believe me. So if we do not want this to go through our own House and if we do not want this to become the law in the ten provinces, we have to stop it now before the rot spreads. The MacEachen rot is infecting ministers of finance all across this great dominion.
Now, let us have another look at this indexing provision. The argument has been made that this is fantastic, this is comparable to indexing the personal income tax. That is one of the arguments of some of the Liberal members. Well, Mr. Speaker, one despairs. We have to remember, of course, that the Minister of Finance plans to de-index the personal income tax. He is going to de-index it if he thinks he can get away with it. But I want to tell him now that when he attempts to de-index personal income tax, that is when he is going to be defenestrated, that is when he is no longer going to get away with any tax measures because the unpopularity of that measure is just fantastic. Recent polls to which I have access show that the most unpopular move you can make in the taxation field today in Canada is to de-index the personal income tax. I am giving you a tip, members of the Liberal caucus: stop the Minister of Finance before he attempts to de-index the personal income tax this fall.
June 9, 1981


An hon. Member:: There is no tax on the water.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a wonder they are not going to index the glass of water I have in my hand tonight to get some revenue for the government.
The indexing of the excise tax is the exact opposite of the automatic indexing of personal income taxes. Indexing of personal income tax protects the taxpayer from undue increases in taxation caused by inflation as compared to real increases in income. As the then minister of finance, Mr. Turner, said, the taxpayer should not be taxed on theoretical, unreal increases in his income caused by inflation. The whole principle of indexing is to make sure that you only pay more income tax if you have more real income, not income caused by inflation. It is to protect the taxpayers. I am hoping that the hon. member for Willowdale will lead a revolt in the caucus.


An hon. Member:: Good luck.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a man who has all the revolting attributes that one could imagine, and I am hoping that he is going to lead this revolt in the Liberal caucus.
Now, Mr. Speaker, indexing the excise tax on alcohol, beer and wine imposes a greater burden on the taxpayer, together with rising inflation. It is not to help the taxpayer; there is greater inflation. The taxpayer is suffering from inflation anyway and the government goes and indexes the beer, wine and spirits which he is going to drink, and impose a greater burden on him. So it is exactly contrary to the whole principle behind the indexing of our personal income tax system and the exemptions and the like that have been in effect now since 1974-1975 when Mr. Turner was the minister of finance until he could stand it no longer, he could no longer hold his nose and stay in the Liberal ranks here in Ottawa. He got out before holding one's nose became popular advice to give to the government of the United Kingdom and others who did not like what the government was doing. The rest of the Liberals here tonight are used to holding their noses and breathing at the same time. One must be an expert at both to be in the Liberal caucus.
The critics are quite right in their claims concerning the index in the income tax. I will not elaborate on this because the hon. member for Greenview-Broadbent, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenbent, the hon. member for Broadview-Green-behind-the-ears, or whatever is his district is-


Bob Rae: Perhaps green behind the ears, but not over the hill.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think it is Broadview-Greenwood. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has spoken and spoken well. We admire the young man. He has not yet had much experience in life, but after he has had 20 or 30 years of roughing it around in Canada in his frilled shirts and all the rest of it-


Bob Rae: Like you have.
Excise Tax


John Carnell Crosbie: -in academic circles and comes back here, he will have a lot to contribute. We will still have this little corner down here for him to sit in with the rest of the rump of the Liberal party.
I do not want to stray from this clause. Might I just say that the liquor industry has already presented-I do not want to be taken as just speaking for the brewery industry alone.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The brewery industry has no friends on the Liberal side of the House; the wine institute has no friends on the government side of the House. Where are the members from the Niagara peninsula who flexed their muscles so mightily during the election campaign of January and February 1980? By golly, I remember how they made the welkin ring down there with their bawls, shouts and screeches about the Labrusca grapes, the grapes on the Niagara peninsula, and how the grapes were being stomped underfoot by me when I was minister of finance and the tax changes I suggested. Where are they now when their own minister suggested a yearly tax increase for the wines produced in Canada? Where are they now? Where is the hon. member for Mackasey-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: -or whatever is his district? Where is the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey)? We do not hear him making the welkin ring in here. Where is the member from-are there any others?


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain).


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent).


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain). He has fallen by the wellside. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) has fallen down the well. They are not here to protect the Labrusca grape growers or the wine growers of Canada or Inniskillin. Where are they now when they are needed?


An hon. Member:: In the "killin''.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are not even around. Now, that is the wine crowd. Where is the tobacco crowd? Well, here is the champion of the wine undustry coming into the chamber! We will see the hon. member for Lincoln cross the floor. I hear the hon. member for Lincoln is going to cross tonight.


Mr. Mackasey:: There is a big party going on.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are waiting to hear the hon. member for Lincoln speak on behalf of the Labrusca grape growers before this whole debate is over. Where are the members from the tobacco growing areas of Canada? They are getting the gears here tonight too; annually the tax on tobacco will go up now. Where are they? I remember where they were during the
10436

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
election. All those Liberal members and Liberal candidates were all-out furious. They were going to battle the world. They were against these increases; they were dead against them. They were going to make sure that it did not go through at all, if they got in power.
Here they are in power, and what has happened? A worse concoction than I could ever dreamed of is being served up to them by the Minister of Finance from Cape Breton. There are no grapes growing in Cape Breton, believe me; there is not one grape. There is some pretty ripe fruit down there, but there are no grapes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The "Grapes of Wrath".


An hon. Member:: What about Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: We do not have too much fruit down in Newfoundland. We have some blueberries. The blueberry wine growers of Newfoundland are protesting against this. Well, they only sell about two or three dozen bottles of blueberry wine a year. We have crab apples and crab apple wine. 1 recommend that to you, if your stomach is ready to drop. But we do have breweries; that is why I am speaking particularly about breweries tonight.
Now, the view of the Minister of Finance is that the demand for beer and alcohol is inelastic. Anyone who is a true drinker knows that the demand for beer and wine is not inelastic; there is always some point at which you have too much. As a matter of fact, 1 have the figures of the alcohol institute somewhere. Well, it is not the alcohol institute; I will get the right name. The Association of Canadian Distillers produced figures showing that in 1980 the growth in sales of spirits actually declined. It is no longer increasing.
That is also the fear of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. I must say that tobacco is a more controverisal area with respect to health and the rest of it. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people working in that industry in Canada. The Brewers Association of Canada has 180,000 working in Canada I do not have the figures here for the Canadian Wine Institute as to how many are employed in the industry, how many are growing grapes for them and are associated with them.
The Association of Canadian Distillers, a lot of people work with those companies. Then there is the Canadian Association of Provincial Liquor-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude because I know there are other hon. members who have contributions to make, particularly the hon. member for Lincoln. There may be others aside from the hon. member for Lincoln over there.
I will conclude by saying that we are treating this matter in a somewhat lighthearted spirit because liquor, beer, wine and tobacco seem to be a subject one can treat with some amount of levity, particularly if one has been tasting the product. By the way, this is water, Mr. Speaker; I have not been tasting the product. Although it sometimes engenders some levity, the brewing industry in particular is totally Canadian-owned. I do not know where it stands in the number of industries in Canada in terms of employment, but 180,000 are employed there.
It is an industry which is now exporting successfully to the United States. I would say to hon. members of the government and to the hon. Minister of State for Finance that the government should consider this. They are going to push this through in any event; it looks like they are. They have the numbers and we cannot stop them in the final analysis. If they do, I think they should have a very serious look at this, particularly with respect to the effect of these proposals on the brewing industry which is wholly and solely Canadian-owned and a tremendous employer of labour in Canada. They should have a look at its impact also on the wine sector of this whole business, because of the Canadian content in agriculture and in the new Canadian industry which is now growing up. There are some very fine wines. I have mentioned Inniskillin. There is another very fine wine in British Columbia. It is not that I drink all that many wines, but there is Colona, C-o-l-o-n-a, which is a very fine wine. There are others, of course, but 1 cannot remember them all.


Bob Rae: C-o-l-o-g-n-e.


John Carnell Crosbie: C-o-l-o-n-a, Colona. B-o-l-o-g-n-a, that is the hon. member who just interjected, baloney.


Bob Rae: It is l'eau de cologne, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to make a serious point. I do not mind the young member from Toronto-Broad-bent-Greenview interrupting me occasionally, but I do not want him interrupting me now.


Bob Rae: I interrupted you once too often.


John Carnell Crosbie: I ask the minister to take a look at its impact on the Canadian brewing industry, because the price of beer through these measures has been made more and more expensive. It will affect the sales of wine and spirits. If we are to impose very heavy taxation in this area, let us favour our own. Everyone always does it because they say that beer, wine and liquor is not an essential, and I suppose it is not. Let us favour an industry which is already 100 per cent Canadian-owned. Let us have a very careful look at the Canadian-owned wine industry as well. The spirits industry is not as much in the spirit of this thing from the point of view of Canadian ownership and employment.
I ask the minister now to have a look at this before the bill passes. If not, he should carefully review this during the year to see what effects it is having on the brewing industry, which we should be helping, not putting the boots to in the House.
June 9, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
According to a decision of Madam Speaker, motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 56, 57, 58 and 59 are grouped together for debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 11.
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 27 by striking out lines 24 to 46 at page 33 and lines 1 to 20 at page 4.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 12.
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 27 by striking out lines 24 to 46 at page 33 and lines 1 to 20 at page 34.


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 13. (New)
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 27 by striking out lines 27 to 46 at page 33 and lines 1 to 20 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"3. The excise tax rates enumerated in section 1 of this Schedule shall be adjusted
(a) on the first day of April, 1981 so that the rates applicable during the five month period commencing on that day are equal to the amount obtained
(i) by multiplying
(A)	the rates so enumerated by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on December 31, 1980, bears to the Tobacco
Excise Tax
Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on September 30, 1980, and (ii) by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i),
(A)	in the case of a rate referred to in paragraph 1(a), to the nearest one-thousandth of a cent or, if the product is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, and
(B)	in the case of a rate referred to in paragraph 1(b), to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the product is equidistant from two one-hundredths of a cent, to the greater thereof; and
(b) on the first day of September each year, commencing on September 1, 1981, so that the rates applicable during the twelve month period commencing on the day the rates are adjusted are equal to the amount obtained
(i)	by multiplying
(A)	the rates so enumerated by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on the last day of June of that year bears to the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on June 30, 1980, and
(ii)	by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i),
(A)	in the case of a rate referred to in paragraph 1(a), to the nearest one-thousandth of a cent or, if the product is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, and
(B)	in the case of a rate referred to in paragraph 1(6), to the nearest one-hundredth of a cent or, if the product is equidistant from two one-hundredths of a cent, to the greater thereof."


Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 56.
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 77 by striking out lines 1 to 46 at page 78 and lines 1 to 39 at page 79.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 57.
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 77 by striking out lines 4 to 46 at page 78 and lines 1 to 16 at page 79.


Pierre Bussières: Motion No. 58. (New)
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 77 by striking out lines 4 to 46 at page 78 and lines 1 to 16 at page 79 and substituting the following therefor:
"1. The duties of excise enumerated in Parts I and III of this schedule, other than subsections 1(2) and 1(3) and section 2 of Part I, shall be adjusted (a) on the first day of April, 1981 so that the duties applicable during the five month period commencing on that day are equal to the amount obtained
(i) by multiplying
(A)	the duties so enumerated by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on December 31, 1980 bears to the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on September 30, 1980, and

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
(ii) by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i) to four significant digits of accuracy; and
(b) on the first day of September each year, commencing on September 1, 1981, so that the duties applicable during the twelve month period commencing on the day the duties are adjusted are equal to the amount obtained
(i)	by multiplying
(A)	the duties enumerated by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on the last day of June in that year bears to the Alcoholic Beverages Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on June 30, 1980, and
(ii)	by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i) to four significant digits of accuracy.
2.	The duties of excise enumerated in Part IV of this schedule shall be adjusted
(a)	on the first day of April, 1981 so that the duties applicable during the five month period commencing on that day are equal to the amount obtained
(i)	by multiplying
(A)	the duties so enumerated by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on December 31, 1980 bears to the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on September 30, 1980, and
(ii)	by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i) to four significant digits of accuracy; and
(b)	on the first day of September each year, commencing on September 1, 1981, so that the duties applicable during the twelve month period commencing on the day the duties are adjusted are equal to the amount obtained
(i)	by multiplying
(A)	the duties so enumerated by
(B)	the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe and rounded to the nearest one-thousandth or, where the ratio is equidistant from two one-thousandths, to the greater thereof, that the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on the last day of June in that year bears to the Tobacco Products and Smokers' Supplies Subgroup of the Consumer Price Index for the twelve month period ending on june 30, 1980, and
(ii)	by rounding the product obtained under subparagraph (i) to four significant digits of accuracy."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Motion No. 59.
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 77 by striking out lines 17 to 39 at page 79.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, are you calling the vote on the whole group of motions? If we examine the rulings of the Chair, we find that
motion No. 11 will be voted on and that an affirmative vote on this motion will dispose of motions Nos. 12 and 13. A negative vote on motion No. 11 would also dispose of motions Nos. 12 and 13. I therefore believe that you should call the vote on motion No. 11, and then proceed differently.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Minister of State for Finance is right. These motions have been grouped for debate and may be voted on as the hon. minister has said.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 11 forms part of clause 27 at page 33 of the bill. First, it removes paragraph 1(b) of Schedule II and substitutes therefor manufactured tobacco, including snuff.

Even tobacco-chewers will not be exempt. But I would like to find the specific section in which I am interested, and then we shall-

Our friends who are in love with the metric system will note that the change in clause 27 is with regard to the unit of tobacco, It says:
Manufactured tobacco, including snuff, but not including cigars and cigarettes ... one dollar and ninety-eight cents per kilogram.
That used to be 90 cents per pound. On a quick run-through, that is about the same amount of tax; there is no increase. But then we come to clause 27(2) of the bill which reads:
Schedule II to the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
This is where the indexation comes in. I see that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) is now in the chamber. I was hoping he would make an appearance at this time in the debate when we are dealing with the indexation of the excise tax on wine, spirits and tobacco, because, as I recall, he was one of the most vocal critics of this measure in the committee.
The minister will be the first to acknowledge that we had little opportunity to discuss this matter. I remember that the hon. member for Lincoln had an exchange of views with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on this particular point. I do not think he received any more satisfaction from the minister than I did, yet I think the hon. member has the same sort of gut reaction to this type of amendment as I have.
Hon. members may feel that I am going to the well rather frequently on this point, but it is an absolutely pernicious principle. Not only shall the tax be increased but it shall be increased annually by the cost of living. When we were considering this measure, it was to be increased quarterly. This is a measure which will impose a fantastic burden upon those who are having to compile the tax and collect it. They will have to satisfy their customers that there was this quarterly increase in the price due to the indexation. Now it would only be annually, but the principle is still the same. The event is taking place-not four times a year-but once a year. I can go through all sorts of events which instead of happening four
June 9, 1981

times a year, happen once but with the same result. I would like to see just what the government backbenchers are prepared to say about this particular matter. As I said before, they are very vocal on this subject. I want to smoke some of them out so that they will take a position. I will not ask the chairman of the committee to do anything about this, since in my view he is not the person to explain the government's position. He is not the government's hatchet man on any committee. Woe betide any member who is that person on any committee on which I serve. I must say that I prefer working with a chairman like the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) who does not become too involved. There were times when he became a little curious, but still, it is better that way. We saw a great many floaters on this particular issue. Had the representations from the public not been so uniformly condemnatory, one might say that it was good. But there was absolute unanimity in this case. The only person who was in favour of this cost of living index formula was the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and I can understand why. As my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has said, this proposition has regularly been placed before him by the minions down in the Department of Finance. Some of the worst inspirations in the world come out of the department at that level. I have seen a great number of them. How they could con a minister is remarkable. There is no doubt about the fact that in many instances the ministers are conned into it simply by the pressure of business. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), has clearly indicated how ministers can be conned by skilled and senior public servants. I am sure that in their own hearts, those ministers who are in the House will agree with me. They get caught at the most inopportune or pressing moments. An idea slips by them, an idea is slid under their noses; and the first thing they know, they are nodding, and then they are really in trouble. This is one of the areas.
The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) will know that there were some very unministerial changes to the Bank Act. These were not changes which had emanated from the ministry or from the committee. They were views and deliberate decisions arrived at after long discussion, negotiation and acceptance of recommendations by the committee; but at the bureaucratic level, the changes remained and then slid under the nose of a busy minister. It is surprising, when he went on to talk to the ministers afterwards, how startled they were that the change had, indeed, been made. They were not aware of it.
We legislators who must determine and set the policy and legislation must be watchful for this. I must say that I come back to this point, that it is not the administration. [Translation]
We are not in a state-controlled country.

-where the administration not only set the formula, but set the policy that determines the formula. This I fight. Tomor-
Excise Tax
row, Mr. Speaker, I will have been an hon. member of this House for 24 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My colleague from South Shore over there is also one of us-


Bob Rae: Happy birthday to you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and my colleague from Colchester Hants. There are others. However, to illustrate the reactions of a young parliamentarian coming in, when one comes in, one does not know the first damn thing about what goes on here at all. As a matter of fact, one must usually ask one's way as to where the conveniences are for the first several weeks. One must also ask where to put a hat. At the door, one addresses the constables with "sir".


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's still a good idea.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: However, when one knows this operation and how it goes on, one is more and more convinced that the government backbenchers are totally impotent so far as legislation is concerned. It is as though they comprised a whole race of eunuchs. They will not even avail themselves of the privilege of criticizing. This is something which can be done over on the opposition side. Through criticism, one is often able to effect certain changes.
This is why hon. members will always find me on the attack, trying to make changes because we are trying to improve legislation. I do not believe in the principle of those who say, "Oh, well, the government toppled the legislation. Let the public stew in the mess which has arisen." That is not the conception I have of my job. Where I have the talent to spot holes and see poor legislation I have the duty to improve it. This is why hon. members find that I am sometimes rather persistent. I really hang on in there and try to get these particular changes made. I think that over the years we have been able to effect changes.
As hon. members gain experience in this House, they get into the position and the frame of mind where they say, "Look, we are the ones who determine what policy is. We shall determine what is good for the public because we are responsible to the public. They are the ones with whom we have our interface." Nameless and faceless administrators have no contact or responsibility to the public. It makes a nonsense out of representative parliament if we do not have that control. There has been more and more of a tendency, from both the administration and cabinet, to try to remove the determination and opportunity for change in legislation from the influence of the elected representative. It seems to me that that is one of the worst characteristics that we have. It is unfortunate. We do get an opportunity, on some bills, to make many changes. No party has a monopoly on good ideas. This bill could be made much better without carving the guts out of it if hon. members would get on with it instead of just riding on the coattails of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Members of the opposition work a lot harder on legislation than do members of the

June 9, 1981
Excise Tax
government. That is because they want to effect change so they try to understand the bill.
I venture to say that there are more members on this side of the House who know more about the bill than all the members opposite put together who have not looked at it. They do not look at bills as a rule but just vote blindly.


Mr. Laniel:: We are consulted.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no consultation, and the parliamentary secretary knows it. They see the bill and that is all. The bill is not gone over clause by clause and explained to them so that they can approve it beforehand. The government backbencher of today is no different than the government backbencher in years past. The first time they really see the legislation is when it is printed in the agenda book.


Gérald Laniel: Oh, no.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They see the detail. It may be that some of the general principles and intentions of the legislation have been discussed with a number of people, but not the detail.
In the legislature of the province that I come from, every bill that comes forward has been gone over clause by clause by the caucus. Many a minister who has been sloppy in his work has come a cropper because of that. But the members feel that they can support a bill if they know what is in it and have contributed to it.
I know very well that with this particular bill, nothing like that was done, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance did not discuss the nature of his budget with any member of the government caucus. I know I am on safe ground with regard to these particular bills, although the situation may be different with some other legislation. No one was consulted about the taxation bills, however. Hon. members opposite do not know what is in a particular bill.


Gérald Laniel: You are talking about the last Conservative budget.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am going to ask hon. members to support the amendment which I put forward in conjunction with my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). We did not have an opportunity to discuss the bill fully in committee because there was a guillotine there as well. The hon. member opposite need not express any astonishment. There was a guillotine in committee, a deadline by which we had to report.
I want to give my friend, the hon. member for Lincoln an opportunity to address himself to the bill and tell us what he thinks about an indexed tax, Mr. Speaker.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that when I entered the chamber this evening, I had little inclination to participate in the debate. The persuasive eloquence of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) left me little choice, however. I would not want anything to spoil his twenty-fourth anniversary tomorrow!
This evening the hon. member discussed, quite profoundly, the whole concept of an excise tax linked to indexing. I wish he had as much influence with the Ontario government as he has in this place. Very recently that Tory government introduced the concept of indexing, not only as applied to wines and tobacco and not only annually but quarterly. If that were not bad enough, it introduced a tax on gasoline which was linked to percentages, not dollars.
I suspect that we will have a little more opportunity tomorrow to compare the enlightened, refreshing, openminded attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) with the attitude which is prevalent in Ontario and which was also the attitude of the former minister of finance. In his nine months in office with his budget and his tax on the wine industry, he did more to destroy that party for the next 25 years than any other single member.
I welcome the prodding of the hon. member for Edmonton West, Mr. Speaker, and the opportunity to speak about the wine industry of Ontario, of Canada, and particularly of Lincoln. This is one of the most important industries in the country. Because of its importance the government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), has done more for it in recent years than has any other minister of agriculture in the last 50 years. That is not my appraisal made of the contribution by the Liberal party to the wine industry; that is the objective assessment of the farmer of Lincoln who recognizes what the government has done.
In a few minutes I will call it ten o'clock Mr. Speaker, and I will get down to the specifics of the tax tomorrow. I do not like the principle of indexing, and I stated that clearly in committee. It would be rather immoral on my part to come to the House now and say that I like the principle.


Bob Rae: Are you going to vote for it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will vote for it because, unlike the previous minister, today's Minister of Finance listened to the representations of members of the committee.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Edmonton West and the official finance critic of the New Democratic Party underestimate their contribution at that committee. The real victory was not a Liberal victory, not a Tory victory, not an NDP victory. The victory of the committee was that it convinced the minister that the advice he was getting from the bureaucrats was bad advice and that imposing an indexed tax every three months would create chaos and confusion, not only in the wine industry but in the tobacco industry. Members of all parties pointed out to the minister the problem of changing prices in the liquor commission every three months. If the tax automatically increased, so would the retail price.
If the minister had remained insensitive to our argument, tonight we would be fighting desperately against indexing every three months. The real representations by the industry were not so much against indexing as against the automatic
June 9, 1981

application of that indexing every three months. The Minister of Finance accepted the recommendations.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, although I have spoken several times on this particular concern of mandatory retirement, that is, discriminating against and replacing thousands of Canadian "on the shelf' so to speak, I will again ask the government and members of this House to take all possible action to eliminate these policies that are denying our people their right to work and to preserve their healthy self-image.
This discussion today has been stimulated by a question I posed in the House on May 20, 1981, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) regarding the "dictating" manner in which an airline pilot, Captain Ross Stevenson, is being forced to retire by Air Canada on September 1, 1981.
The Canadian Human Rights Act clearly states in Section 7, that it is a discriminatory practice to directly or indirectly refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual or, in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee on a prohibited ground of discrimination. Why is Air Canada permitted to use age as a form of discrimination? Is this bureaucratic and mandatory policy not contrary to the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
To further illustrate the point, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the double standards that Air Canada is inflicting. Did you know that numerous Canadian airlines operate with pilots who are over 60 years of age, including Nordair, which is owned by Air Canada? Did you know that Air Jamaica operates with pilots over 60 years of age, all the while being managed and operated by Air Canada?
If this is not discriminatory and a policy that goes directly against the grain of our democratic, free and so-called just society, then I do not know what is. Fortunately, I am not alone in this battle to preserve the rights of Canadians by giving them the power to maintain a healthy self-image that many receive from being actively involved in the work force.
As the chairman of the Special Senate Committee stated in the report on retirement age policy entitled "Retirement Without Tears", Senator David Croll emphasized the following:
Adjournment Debate
1.	Progressive abolition of mandatory retirement based on age should become a general policy of the government.
2.	That there should be an increase in the mandatory age of retirement of one year at a time for five years by amending pension plans for retirement rules and conventions. At the end of five years, the concept of compulsory retirement at a particular age would be dropped.
3.	That there should be a review of all human rights legislation because of employee benefits and similar plans.
4.	That there should be created a policy of flexible retirement as the standard for both public and private enterprise.
5.	That there should be amendments to the rules governing public servants and employees of companies under federal jurisdiction, as well as provincial and municipal public servants.
It is here that I would also like to put an abrupt end to the misconception that compulsory retirement is necessary on medical grounds.
Dr. Stanley Mohler, Chief of Flight Applications for the American Federal Aviation Agency, and the Director of Aerospace Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, in the Journal of Aging and Work, states:
The old concepts of pilot aging as a risk factor in flight no longer can be supported, as demonstrated by hard data. The larger, more densely loaded passenger aircraft are flown by the older, more experienced and capable captains, the major factor in today's low accident rate. The rates show that the present age 60 rule is prematurely removing the safest pilots from the air space. Deleting the age 60 rule would, by extrapolation of the accident rate data, further enhance the level of airline flight safety.
Referring back to the reply of the Minister of Transport to my question of May 20, 1981, he stated that these discriminating policies of Air Canada are based on agreements between Air Canada and the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, CALPA. This is probably correct. However, I do point out that CALPA has at no time conducted a poll or survey of the Air Canada pilots membership to deal specifically with this issue and to determine the wishes of the Air Canada pilots. It is also interesting to note that CALPA has negotiated age 65 retirement for Nordair pilots.
I am not suggesting, as implied by the minister, that government or the Department of Transport go against an agreement reached between an airline and its employees. However, I am advocating that the government, elected by the people, establish the guidelines and laws of this country to eliminate any and all discriminatory practices of mandatory retirement.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my remarks on this subject by saying that 1 understand the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be investigating the case referred to by the hon. member. I would not want anything I say to prejudice that investigation, so I will simply state the facts.
As the minister has declared in the House and in correspondence with the hon. member, Transport Canada rules do not require pilots to retire at a specific age. Pilot licences are revalidated after age 60 if the individual successfully meets medical standards. So departmental rules are not at issue here.

June 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
The retirement age for Air Canada pilots is 60 as a result of an agreement between Air Canada and the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, referred to as CALPA, the certified bargaining unit for airline pilots.
The hon. member points out that this agreement was reached quite recently, whereas his constituent has been objecting to retirement at age 60 for several years. This may be true, but common labour practice dictates that the agreement should apply to all members of the union indiscriminately. In addition, if the hon. member asks CALPA what its position is, he will find that it has understood retirement at 60 to have been a negotiated feature with the airline since the early 1950s.
It has been suggested that the retirement age at other airlines is 65. This is not exactly the case. The international organization, ICAO, recommends retirement at age 60. For Canadian airlines, the age tends to be 60 as well. There is a small exception for a few Nordair pilots who constitute a very special case. It is my understanding that CALPA would like to standardize age 60 as the requirement age for all airlines for which its member pilots fly.
In these circumstances I think it is clear that it would be quite inappropriate for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to intervene in this matter.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
(A) DELAY IN PROCESSING PENSION APPLICATIONS;
(B) REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN LEGISLATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 I directed a question to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. I pointed out to him:
Veterans pension applications, new and appealed, are still not processed and finalized for as long as 62 months, as verified by the Legion. The United States department of veterans affairs takes from 60 to 90 days to finalize an application.
I asked the minister:
What measures is the minister taking to correct this disgraceful situation in his department?
I also had a supplementary question which was:
The chairman of the pension commission told us that he is hamstrung. He cannot correct a situation that is going from bad to worse because of the legislation with which he has to work. I should like to ask the minister if he will give a firm commitment to the House that he will bring in corrective legislation so that these applications can be processed within 90 days, instead of from one to five years.
The minister answered:
-if any correction can be made in order to improve the disposal of these claims, it will be made. We will do our utmost to improve the system, if it is possible at all, according to the law.
I hope the parliamentary secretary tonight will be informing us that they will be bringing in corrective legislation or, if that is going to cause delays, will bring in an immediate order in council to correct this disgraceful situation that has been taking place in Veterans Affairs.
I should like to put on record tonight the excellent manner in which the United States veterans affairs handles its pension applications.
The aim of the United States department of veterans affairs is to process claims in all stages within 90 days. This would include first-time claims as well as claims for increased benefits. Less than 2 per cent of the claims currently before the U.S. department are six months old. The biggest delay is in obtaining service records and booking medical examination or re-examinations. In spite of this problem, they still process claims in these time frames.
The following is a description of the four basic types of pension claims in the United States. There were over 63,000 applications for compensation for injuries incurred in service, and the average number of days for processing was 137. There were over 25,000 applications for death benefits when death was due to service. These applications took an average of 81 days to process. There were over 87,000 applications based on need. These applications took only 97 days. There were over 107,000 veterans' survivors' pension applications. These took only 65 days to process. In Canada it takes from one to five years. That is a national disgrace.
I have statistics here respecting the death rate among veterans in Canada waiting for their pension applications to be processed. There is no reason for such statistics in the United States.
In the May edition of the Legion magazine there is an editorial about this problem. The editorial points out the following:
In November, 1978, the chairman of the pension commission told a meeting of the standing committee on veterans affairs that the average length of time for a first application to reach a decision was six months, an improvement on the 7.8 months taken earlier. It was, said Allan Solomon, "almost back to normal."
We are nowhere near normal today. There is a continuing controversy over the length of time taken to process applications and the number of applications on hand. This Legion editorial also points out the following:
The number of appeals awaiting consideration by the pension review board hovers around 2,000. Now being heard are applications made two years ago. And the number of new appeals is increasing.
The editorial also says:
By June, 1980, the number of cases awaiting decision had risen from about 2,700 in 1978 to about 4,200. A saving feature, said Mr. Solomon, was a reduction in the number of applications received and "... I think it is a fair assumption to say that in a year's time we should be back to normal."
However, Mr. Solomon admitted in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs just ten days ago that he is hamstrung by the present legislation and that he cannot process applications any faster. Along with the other two groups which process applications it takes from one to five years. The Auditor General has done an extensive audit of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the time it has taken to process applications. He came up with a figure of 46 months, which is also an absolute disgrace.
June 9, 1981

When dealing with veterans and their pension applications, the Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion writes to veterans and tells them not to expect any action for at least two years. That is an absolute disgrace.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us some information tonight, and I hope the government will bring forward new legislation or bring forward an order in council so that the chairman of the pension commission will no longer be hamstrung in dealing with these pension applications and so that we can work toward having a time period similar in length to that in the United States.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, in recent days the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has been pressing for a change in the system of processing applications for pensions from veterans and their dependants. I understand his concern about the length of time sometimes taken to adjudicate the applications and, like all of us, I would like to see the adjudication time reduced. However, I would not like to see it reduced at the expense of the veteran. Steps have to be taken to improve the pension system and to curtail the delays in adjudication.
The hon. member has pointed to other countries which provide decisions in less time than is taken by the Canadian system. What he forgets is that the Canadian system was very fully and carefully studied by a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Woods of Saskatchewan, whose report was then fully considered by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, which made many recommendations to the government. As a result, the legislation which was then introduced and passed by Parliament was more concerned with safeguarding the claimant and ensuring fair and careful consideration than it was with speed, regardless of outcome.
As an example, hearings before the pension commission or the pension review board are non-adversarial-no one appears to suggest an award should not be made: The only advocates present at a hearing represent the claimants. The speed with which a decision is made is not a measure of its quality.
The veterans organizations have consistently supported the commission in its view that speed was secondary to good and beneficial decisions. The proof of the wisdom of this attitude is that prior to the Woods committee report upon which much of the current legislation is based, only 20 per cent of all applications were granted at the first level. In the last ten years it has averaged 41 per cent, this despite the fact that the simple claims of gunshot wounds and the like were long since granted and that today's claims, which in the main deal with problems of aging, are much more difficult to relate to a period of military service. If careful research into the background and facts of the claims were not undertaken, there would be many more negative decisions.
In some other countries pension claims are handled with greater speed, but our system is different in both essence and
Adjournment Debate
approach. Our legislation instructs the commission to collect relevant material and to make inquiries into the facts. The thoroughness with which this is done accounts for some of the delay factors. The Auditor General's recent report indicated that in some cases it can take up to 46 months from the time of an original application until a claim is considered at final appeal. The report, however, does acknowledge that much of this delay is outside the control of the pension commission or the pension review board in that there are periods when they may not proceed until such time as they receive agreement of the applicant, which in some cases may take weeks or months or even years.
The pension commission and the pension review board are doing their utmost to reduce the time taken for decisions to be rendered. Although it is easy to give a negative decision, they will not do so for the sake of speed to the detriment of the veterans and their dependants.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Let them die!


GRAIN-COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to participate in the adjournment debate and refer to a question that I had the opportunity to put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on June 2, concerning the long overdue grain compensation payments to Canadian producers as a result of the embargo imposed upon the shipment of grain to Russia after it raided Afghanistan. I do not want to get into why there should or should not be payments forthcoming to grain producers in Canada; I think the principle is well established and well accepted. It was accepted by the Clark government right after the invasion in January of 1980. Subsequent to that, during the election campaign and right after it the Prime Minister promised to abide by the decision of the Clark government to see that grain producers were not left to bear the full burden of foreign policy as it was pursued by the whole country. That was a promise made by this government some 15 or 16 months ago.
There was some concern at that time as to how the level of compensation was to be arrived at. Since that time a study was done by the Parliamentary Library that came up with a figure. As far back as July 22, the University of Saskatchewan released a study, and I quote from the Brandon Sun which says:
Prairie farmers have lost $62.5 million because of Canada's support of the U.S.-led grain embargo against the Soviet Union, agricultural economists at the University of Saskatchewan estimate.
That is July 22, 1980, which is some 11 months ago. Subsequent to that, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that there would be a statement by August 1, 1980, as to what the level of compensation payments would be. Prior to that there were statements made that an amount should be determined before the end of the crop year. Anyone connected with western agriculture knows that the crop year in this country runs from August 1 to July 31. So if we took the

June 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Minister of Agriculture at his word when he said it was going to be by August 1, or by the end of the crop year in 1980, it meant that ten months has gone by since that commitment was made.
Subsequently, the Minister of Agriculture said that payments would be made in November, 1980. Obviously the government is delaying its decision.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) also promised that payments would be made in November, 1980. As far back as October, 1980, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Argue, who does not sit in this place and cannot answer our questions during Question Period, said that payments would be made in January, 1981. Senator Argue cannot really be accountable to those of us who are elected by grain producers in the country. In December 1980, the Minister of Agriculture said that the final report on payments had yet to be submitted to cabinet for a decision but that he hoped this would take place within a few days. Again this was five months ago.
In January, 1981, Senator Argue said that payments would be made in January, 1981. Again the government procrastinated. In February, 1981, the Prime Minister said that officials from various government departments were establishing the damages and would finish their work very soon. In March, 1981, the Minister of Agriculture said he would soon know the amount. Two months ago, in April, 1981, the Minister of Agriculture told Parliament that the payments would be announced in a few days.
I could go on, but the process 1 think, is becoming rather sickening for those of us who represent agricultural communities and agricultural constituencies. It is rather sickening to see how the government has delayed in making this announcement. It has been well over a year-and perhaps closer to 15 months-since the original commitment was made by the government. Since then nothing has happened.
I should like to suggest two things. First, there is no doubt that the principle has been accepted by the government. This was confirmed by the Prime Minister on June 2. If the problem in so far as the government is concerned is the amount, I suggest that it make an initial payment on the compensation so that producers, who are very much in need of funds because of high interest rates and other expenses incurred in putting their crops in the ground, could at least have access to the payment and know that the government was talking in good faith when it said that it would honour the commitment of the Clark government. The government should make an interim payment and then determine what the full amount should be.
Second, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) castigates the opposition for asking for increased government expenditures and at the same time saying that we want to reduce the deficit. If they have any decency, presumably they would have allowed for some expenditures to make payments to farmers as a result of the embargo. They would have allowed
for that in the estimates and that money would have been forthcoming. This would have been one way to alleviate some of the problems associated with high interest rates without adding to the government deficit.
I should like to close by reading part of an editorial which appeared in the Brandon Sun on June 4, 1981. The last paragraph of the article sums up the attitude of many westerners toward the government. It reads:
The Trudeau government has dawdled long enough on the embargo payments. Westerners are not going to forget the debt. More delays will only confirm what many westerners already believe: with the Trudeau government, the needs of the west come last.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) is here tonight. I hope he can make some meaningful announcement after 15 months of intolerable delay. It is a very shameful treatment of a very important sector of the Canadian economy. I hope the parliamentary secretary can do something by making an announcement which would give us some faith in the government keeping its word to Canadian grain producers.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) mentioned a few moments ago, it was after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that the United States announced that they were taking sanctions against the Soviet Union. The American government contacted other exporting countries and it was at that time that Canada agreed to restrict its grain exports to the U.S.S.R. The Canadian government of the day, under Mr. Clark, as the hon. member for Portage-Marquette indicated, agreed to subsidize grain farmers and promised to compensate them for the losses sustained because of the embargo. The present government agreed to live up to those commitments and to compensate grain producers for their losses related to the government's decision to restrict grain shipments to the U.S.S.R. But precisely as a result of this embargo, surpluses have accumulated both in Canada and in the U.S. as well as in other countries, and as a result, prices have dropped. However, this was partly offset by the American government's decision to withdraw from the market part of the grain by instructing the Commodity Credit Corporation to buy grain and by stocking more grain than provided for under the agricultural reserves program. Pursuant to its commitment to grain producers, the Canadian government had instructed an interdepartmental committee to look into the matter and come up with a compensation system and to determine how much was to be paid and how the payments were to be made.
At the same time, a number of organizations and institutions have assessed the losses suffered by our grain producers. The board has taken more time than expected to look into the estimations, and most of the data needed for the analysis were not available. It is a fact that when the prices dropped and the
June 9, 1981

embargo was imposed on Russia, it made quite a difference. Then, there was the increase in interest rates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the motion to adjourn the House is now
Adjournment Debate
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 10, 1981