1983-03-01

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the statute law relating to Income Tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a recent poll indicated that the general public is becoming more and more convinced that the present Government has neither the ability nor the will to address effectively the basic problems threatening our economy. The several attempts made by the Government to produce a budget that would deal with our problems have proved to be abject disasters. Rather than bringing new hope and confidence to Canadians, what the Government has done has resulted in ever-deepening frustration and fear.
In November, 1981 the Government introduced one of the most complex and controversial budgets in Canadian history. Even the Government itself was disgusted with it. No less than 162 income tax changes and 56 changes in other tax related statutes were proposed. Subsequent budgets in June and October, 1982 altered parts of the November budget and proposed new measures.
Bill C-139 was not introduced until December 7, 1982, more than a full year after the November, 1981 budget. In December, 1982 it received a one-day debate. In January, 1983 Bill C-139 was debated for one-half day. In spite of the proclaimed importance of the measures contained in Bill C-139, the Government decided to debate Bills to reduce the indexing of Public Service pensions, Family Allowance benefits and Old Age Security pensions. Then to make things even worse the Government brought in the Canagrex Bill for debate.
The Government now insists that Bill C-139 be passed with dispatch because it claims that no income tax refunds can be paid until it has been passed. If this is true, why has the Government insisted on dealing with the other measures to which I have alluded instead of dealing with Bill C-139? Perhaps the Ministry and officials have been as confused and uncertain of the ramifications of the measures proposed as has the general public. Perhaps the Government and the Minister were not prepared to explain those ramifications. Could it be
that the Government delayed it, as it did, so the Government could use the guillotine once again to silence the Opposition? If this Bill must be passed before refunds are paid, how could the Government reduce Family Allowances before the legislation was passed?
There is another question. Why has the Government used other means to delay the issuing of refunds? Interest on refunds is not paid until after April 30, nor is it paid between the date that the refund is processed and the date that it is received and cashed by the taxpayer. Yet another question is, why were tax forms mailed out a month later than usual? Many taxpayers were forced to have special forms not hitherto required, further delaying their file.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stated that early passage of the legislation will help Revenue Canada get on with the job of processing the 1982 returns. He concluded; "I therefore look forward to a speedy debate".
Bill C-139 is 300 pages thick. This House is urged to give it speedy passage after long months of hesitation, delay and confusion on the part of the Government. Bill C-139 will increase the tax burden on many Canadians through its increased taxation of employee benefits, its measures with respect to the income averaging, accrued interest income, the abolition of general averaging provisions and others. Many other taxpayers will be seriously affected by provisions that remove incentives under the guise of closing loopholes. In other words, the Government is so determined to extract every penny possible from the taxpayer that anything goes.
The former Minister of Finance pronounced that the budget was based on equity, justice and renewal. In actual fact, it fails all three tests and many of the tax measures in Bill C-139 are inequitable, unjust and oppressive.
I believe that action is required in several different areas. First, tax laws should be made understandable for the ordinary Canadian, including myself. Presently, no one seems to know, understand or be able to determine the jargon of the Income Tax Act. Second, there is the need to recognize the rights of Canadians to manage their own affairs rather than having the state confiscate the bulk of their income, leaving them only a little pocket money. Third, a review of the tax structure is essential to ensure equity and justice for all. I think back through the years to the many times that we were told there would be a review of the tax structure. Unfortunately, that review always seems to result in higher taxes. I suggest that is not good enough for the people at this time.

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
Time is needed to examine this Bill carefully in order to approve what is good, acceptable and equitable and to delete what is contrary to the best interests of Canada and Canadians. Therefore, I suggest there should be ample time made available to give thorough study to this entire tax Bill and, due to its complexity, it will take a considerable length of time to complete the review and to bring in the changes that will be necessary in order to give justice to the Canadian people.
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate today. Certainly, as the day progresses, I am sure that many other proposals will be made that will further delete the unacceptable portions of the Bill and make it more acceptable to the Canadian people.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks of the distinguished Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson), who is one of the more senior Members of the House.
I cannot think of any Bill, nor do I believe the Hon. Member, considering his long history in the House, could think of a Bill other than the one presently under discussion, Bill C-139, which more graphically represents the mess created by the Government in this country. This is evident in the provisions contained in this massive and almost incomprehensible tax Bill. Never has the Parliament of Canada been so insulted by having to attend to consider, in a comprehensible way, a tax measure which, in effect, amounts to two budgets with three amending financial statements.
I will not refer to all of the budgets because there have been so many. The former Minister of Finance presented a budget in November of 1981, an amendment in December of 1981, and his second real budget in June of 1982. Then the financial statements of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) were announced in October of 1982 and his latest statement was heard just the other day. However, all of their predictions as to estimates of revenues and expenditures have been wrong.
As the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East mentioned, this legislation comes down to a Bill comprising 297 pages, introduced in the House as late as December 7, 1982, taking approximately 380 days for the officials even to write the Bill. Then just before the Christmas recess and after we came back, the Minister of Finance had the temerity and the gall to suggest that Members of Parliament should sweep all these problems aside, without proper understanding of what is involved.
I will point out the many provisions in the Bill in general because there is not enough time in the ten minutes allotted to me under our present rules to go into them in detail. Because Hon. Members are restricted to ten minutes, it is impossible to discuss the Bill meaningfully, even in general. However, to return to the subject, the Government, in its fifteenth year, having come to power in 1968 with a budget of some $10 billion, is now estimating a budget of $90 billion, with a deficit projected by the Minister of Finance of almost $30 billion
before the fiscal year is over. This sum is more than the total budgets-not deficits-of all the Provinces except Ontario and Quebec. In fact, half of their budgets could be added and it would still not amount to $30 billion.
Hon. Members are confronted with this Bill, which is to produce revenue, in the face of the billions of dollars which have been wrongly estimated. It is no wonder that many people in and out of this House are saying that the situation is incomprehensible and must be changed.
In a speech last week in Ottawa, J. Lyman Maclnnis, the senior partner of Touche, Ross and Company, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, said: "The Canadian Income Tax Act is an unmitigated mess". Then he said: "I started out by saying that income tax is an unmitigated mess. The reason I say that is because it is incomprehensible".
I am prepared to agree with him and would venture a guess that only the minority of a minority in the House, not the majority but, rather, those who are really involved in the study of tax law, can even begin to understand the smorgasbord of legislation contained in the Bill which will smother Canadians in increased taxes, not to mention the red tape involved in figuring them out.
There are 24 items covered in the Bill as follows: auto standby charges; life insurance and annuities; Small Business Bonds; soft costs; RRSP interest deductibility; IAACs; work-in-progress; capital gain reserves; metric measures; principal residence provisions; retiring allowance provisions; housing loans; six and five re. tax indexation; forward averaging; small business lower tax limit and loss of cumulative dividend account; corporate surtax; iron ore processing; DPSPs; 12.5 per cent small business distributions tax; 5 per cent reduction on withholding tax rescinded; director's liability; confidentiality; charitable foundations; capital cost allowance reduction.
Another item which is not specifically listed is the fuel compensation tax which would put Canadian shippers and the aviation industry at a disadvantage when competing with our American brothers or neighbours. This tax has to be removed before this Bill can proceed.
Many years ago the then Minister of Transport said one of the most profound things ever said in this House when talking about transportation. He said: "Transport is in a mess". That was not said by the present Minister but by one of his illustrious predecessors. That Minister of Transport was right because transportation was in a mess. Unfortunately, it is still in a mess.
What is in even more of a mess is the income tax provisions which are assaulting and insulting Canadians from coast to coast. We have very little time, Mr. Speaker, to really discuss some of the provisions of this Bill which I have mentioned. I should mention one basic and fundamental thing about these provisions. They provide no incentive to Canadians. They
March 1, 1983

provide no incentive for individual Canadians to participate in the development of the fundamental resources of this land.
At this stage of our parliamentary life I suggest that Members cannot really understand or comprehend the provisions this income tax Bill comprising 297 pages and incorporating two budgets and three financial statements by two Ministers of Finance. I do not think anyone really knows what the implications of this Bill are, not even the tax people, I suggest. Incidentally, it took some 300 days to write this Bill.
I was trying to think of something even more profound to say about this Bill than the fact that it is completely incomprehensible even to the chartered accountants across this land, those chartered accountants who are very careful people. The President of the Chartered Accountants Association was defining what he meant by the Bill being incomprehensible when he said that it runs completely contrary to three fundamental tax legislation measures, the first being that it has to be clear so that taxpayers can understand it.
Taxpayers are the people who assess their own taxes, and if they do not understand the wording-and the average taxpayer cannot understand the wording of this Bill-they cannot intelligently file tax returns. When the individual taxpayer does not understand the wording of tax legislation, or even the income tax return, he does not have a reasonable chance of filing an accurate return. The average Canadian is not in a position to hire a professional for assistance because the cost of hiring that professional is not deductible. The wording of this Bill falls completely short of that fundamental principle.
The President of the Association of Chartered Accountants has suggested that there should be holding legislation while we digest the tax laws which now exist. Quite frankly, I would like to discuss some of the tax laws we now have, but I do not have the time to do so at this stage.
In conclusion, I want to leave the House with this one basic thought which illustrates the mess the Government of Canada has made of the economy of this land. If the Government cannot look after its own business, let alone its tax laws, no wonder there is such a mess and such confusion in Canada. How many Members of this House can tell me today when this session of Parliament started? I would bet not too many Members can tell me. I would bet that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) could not tell me the date on which this Parliament started. We are in our 465th day of this Parliament which started on April 14, 1980. The Hon. Member got some help from someone behind the curtains there, and 1 suggest this is the first time there has been an intelligent comment from behind the curtains over on that side. The length of this Parliament is an insult to Members of Parliament and Canadian taxpayers. This Parliament has been meandering along for 465 days, starting three years ago on April 14, 1980.
1 want to read a little bit of the history of another long Parliament, a long session of the Parliament in England which took place many years ago. Let me quote from "An Encyclopaedia of Parliament", written by co-authors, one of whom
Income Tax
is presently one of our distinguished Table officers, Philip Laundy, who collaborated with Norman Wilding in the writing of this most interesting encyclopaedia of the British Parliament. At page 438 the following is stated:
The fifth and last Parliament to be summoned by Charles I. It met on 3 November 1640, and in 1642 it took up arms against the King.
I could make a speech about what we should do in that vein around here. The paragraph continues as follows:
It is possibly the most historic assembly ever to have sat at Westminster, and it was said of it that many thought it would never have a beginning, and afterwards that it would never have an end.
During its long life, which extended over twenty years, it underwent many changes. In 1648 it was purged of those members who were too favourable to the King;-
Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. 1 am almost through.
-in 1649 it abolished both the Monarchy and the House of Lords;-
We are not sure what will happen in this country.
-it was expelled by Cromwell in 1653; recalled and expelled again in 1659; restored for the last time, with its excluded members later recalled at the end of that year; and finally dissolved on 16 March 1660.
These are the closing two sentences:
It commenced its long existence as a formidable and enthusiastic assembly, bent upon drastic reform, the champion of the liberties of the people against the tyranny of the King. It sank eventually into corruption, ignominy, and discredit, having subverted the Constitution it had set out to uphold, and having lost many of its greatest members through death or exclusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate my time is finished, but I think Members should take heed of the epitaph of that long term Parliament so that we do not fall into the same disfavour.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-139 1 hope you will give me the latitude to dwell on certain aspects of the fiscal regime of the Government because they are all interrelated.
In addressing myself to this Bill, I am reminded of the words of an unknown author who said:
Tell me today what the philosopher thinks, the university professor expounds, the schoolmaster teaches, the scholar publishes in his treatises and textbooks and I shall prophesy the conduct of individuals, the ethics of businessmen, the schemes of political leaders, the plans of economists, the pleading of lawyers, the decisions of judges, the legislation of lawmakers, the treaties of diplomats and the decisions of state a generation hence.
The author of this wisdom is unknown but history bears him out. The foundations of the present Canadian economic crisis were well laid in the sixties and the seventies. What we do economically and politically today will lay the foundations for the latter half of the eighties and the nineties and, indeed, well into the next century.
Like so many other Canadians, I am concerned about three characteristics of the foundations we are now laying in our nation. They are as follows: First, the growth and awesome complexity of the system of laws that govern our Canadian society; second, the growth of governments at all levels in this nation; third, the accumulation of public debt.
23312

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
In Canada the economic distemper of the sixties and seventies has created the instability of the eighties. Our problem is a lack of productivity. We have in the past traded the pride of doing for the enjoyment of loafing. We have bound ourselves with a system of laws so complex and pervasive that initiative, entrepreneurship and collective productivity is stifled.
A very good friend of mine who is the president of a very large Canadian corporation recently told me that we as a society support a system of complex laws in every area of endeavour and particularly in the financial, business and property exchange areas of taxation. Why, he said, there are approximately 40,000 lawyers in Canada and only approximately 15,000 research scientists. 1 looked up the actual figures. There are 40,043 lawyers in Canada and 15,270 research scientists. In the United States there are 320,000 lawyers and 828,000 research scientists. Lawyers produce no goods and little real wealth but lots of paper. They often retard the production of wealth and establish massive, complex and intricate systems for wealth redistribution. He said we need three times as many research scientists and only half as many lawyers.
This Income Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-139 now before this House, is an example of the complexity of the legal system under which we have to perform. This Bill is an abomination. Its 295 pages of incomprehensible gobbledygook are designed to throttle and subdue industrial and personal initiative. What greater example is there of an overly complex law than Bill C-139, the Income Tax Act, literally 295 pages of legal shackling? The Government would be very wise to lay before the Law Reform Commission of Canada a new mandate to simplify the network of laws governing the entire business sector of this country.
The capital gains tax structure must surely be dismantled immediately before it further legally imprisons all who dare to do business or own property in this land. The capital gains taxation scheme will lay upon this nation a system requiring bookkeeping and interpretation of enormous complexity and will stifle business at every opportunity.
Canada and the free world have so concentrated on the public process of wealth redistribution in the last several decades that we have lost sight of the process of wealth production. Even though scientific discoveries have given us enormous capability to produce wealth, the process of public redistribution of this wealth has indeed laid upon the production systems of the free world some terrible "disincentives". My very first speech in this House in 1979, Mr. Speaker, was concerned with the abnormal growth of governments in the free world, including Canada. Taxation to take away the productivity of the people and recycle it through the public process of distribution has gotten out of hand. Governments at all levels grew like mushrooms regardless of their political persuasions.
Canada is a prime example of this growth on all three levels. I do not mind admitting that I was a Member of the Progressive Conservative Government in a Province in which the budget increased by nine times in less than a decade. Indeed,
the Saturday edition of The Globe and Mail of February 19 has a chart showing the growth of governments in Canada as a percentage of the GNP. Since 1964, a mere 18 years ago, provincial and municipal governments have grown from about 16 per cent of the GNP to approximately 28.5 per cent of the GNP. So it is not only the federal Government which has grown like a mushroom. The federal Government has jumped from about 13 per cent of the GNP to 21 per cent in 18 years.
In 1983 the growth of Government is explosive and scary. Indeed, during the current fiscal year, the total expenditures of all three levels of Government are expected to reach almost 50 per cent of the GNP. Part of it, of course, is in connection with Bill C-139. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in Canada this current year the Government will take for redistribution $1 of every $2 earned in the private sector. I believe this will give rise to an unstable situation and a continuing and deepening recession coupled with increasing inflation.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that I have so little time left because I wanted to get into the increasing debt in the provincial and municipal areas as well as in the federal Government, and the awesome load which this increase in debt would lay upon the entrepreneurs in the business sector of Canada in the short term as well as in the long term. Obviously, I do not have time so I thank you for the ten minutes you have given me.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation now being debated by the House of Commons is a mammoth 297-page document designed to implement the far-reaching tax changes brought forward by the federal Government in its infamous budget of November, 1981. From the time that budget was announced in the House by the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), there have been so many revisions that one would need to be a computer to keep track of them all, let alone fully understand the implications of the changes involved. But what is clear is this: the November, 1981 budget sought to revamp the entire tax system without a thorough study of what specific reforms were needed, without an understanding of the impact of such fundamental tax changes on the average citizen, and without prior consultation with those affected.
In a nutshell, sir, the then Minister of Finance sought to close so-called tax loopholes in order to make the tax system more equitable and to raise much needed revenue for the federal Treasury. In the process, however, the Minister's tax changes ended up hurting most severely the very Canadians he had naively intended to assist, namely, the low- and middle-income earners. Clearly, the Minister of Finance of the day did not know what he was doing. As a result, both he and his successor had to devote most of their energies in the following months to trying to undo the damage caused by the budget.
To this very day, Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to patch and fill its tax program to the point where even experts are in the dark as to where matters now stand. Indeed, when asked to provide a list of tax changes since November, 1981,
March 1, 1983

the Department of Finance was forced to admit that no such list exists. Unfortunately, despite the countless flip-flops by the Government, some of the most damaging provisions in the Government's program remain. The net effect will be that the average individual taxpayer and the average small business will be hit with substantially higher taxes if Bill C-139 is passed.
While waiting for Parliament to dispose of the legislation, the Government is delaying the processing of tax returns for the past income tax year because many of the provisions in the Bill apply retroactively to 1982 and the Government covets every extra tax penny it can squeeze out of an already overburdened taxpayer. The federal Government's adamant refusal to process income tax returns speedily is nothing less than scandalous.
Millions of Canadians, sir, are desperately waiting for their tax refunds merely to put bread on the table during the current deepening recession. Each year, as you will know, some 15 million Canadians file income tax returns. On average, after all returns are processed, the Government ends up owing about $3 billion more to taxpayers than taxpayers owe to the Government. The many taxpayers who lost their jobs during part of last year will likely be entitled to even larger refunds this year than in previous years. That is because the Government probably deducted too much tax at source on the assumption that those people who were laid off would be employed during the whole year. If such people are still out of work today, as many of them are, they will need their refunds urgently, especially if their Unemployment Insurance has run out or is running out.
Yet the Government says it wants to wait until Bill C-139 is passed by Parliament before issuing refunds. It is also delaying refunds on the ground that Government computers are having to be reprogrammed to reflect recent changes in income tax laws. Mr. Speaker, in a letter to me dated January 7, 1983, Mr. R. W. Mercer, Director of Taxation in the Charlottetown District Office of Revenue Canada, said that full processing of tax returns will not start before March 24, with the first refunds being issued no sooner than mid-May. That is absolutely shocking. By mid-May of last year, about 6.5 million Canadians had already received their income tax refunds. Many had received them as early as March 26. I hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) saying to me that the same thing will apply this year. I suggest he go back to his officials and look at the information they are sending out to taxpayers. With hundreds of thousands of Canadians desperately in need of their tax refunds this year just to heat their homes, to put food in their mouths, and to keep the bill collector at bay-as I am trying to keep the Minister of National Revenue at bay while I am speaking-the Government's footdragging concerning tax refunds is a national scandal.
The fact that Parliament has not yet passed the Government's income tax Bill, now before the House, should not be
Income Tax
allowed to stall refunds, just as that fact did not prevent the Government from collecting income tax all along. Nor should the Government get away with blaming computers for the delay. The Government has had 14 months to retool its computers since the tax changes in November, 1981, and it has had at least seven months since those changes were modified in June, 1982. Clearly, the Government is using Bill C-139 and computer retooling-I suggest that the Minister of National Revenue examine the information sent out by his officials-as mere excuses to keep people's tax refunds as long as possible because it is broke and this is an easy way for it to get hold of lots of cash at someone else's expense.
The delay by Revenue Canada in mailing 1982 income tax refunds is forcing large numbers of desperate Canadians to pay exorbitant sums to firms that offer on-the-spot cash for refunds before they are actually received from the Government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Government to accelerate the processing of income tax so as to put refund cheques in the hands of Canadians without further delay. In the meantime, the Government should take emergency measures to prevent unscrupulous tax firms from gouging needy taxpayers. The Government should establish mechanisms to process, on a priority basis, the tax returns of Canadians who can establish that they urgently require their refunds because of unemployment or some other factor. And until Bill C-139 becomes law, the Government should tax Canadians on the basis of existing laws, not on the basis of this shoddily drafted and unfair legislation. For the Government to do otherwise would signal that it is more interested in collecting taxes than it is in the welfare of the taxpayers themselves.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, the ten minutes allotted to us barely gives time to go into any detail. 1 look forward to this matter coming to Committee of the Whole when Canadians from one end of the country to the other might receive answers to their questions.
I want to deal with two aspects of the Bill. First of all, along with my colleague from Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) and other Members, I want to express my concern for and fear of the practice being followed by the Government. I still have not received my T-4 slip, Mr. Speaker, and I know that many other Canadians are wondering where theirs are. Usually we have them some time in February. Usually by this time, most Canadians have completed and submitted their income tax returns. Usually by this time, a lot of Canadians have received refunds. That is not the case this year.
The Government has clearly indicated it will not issue income tax refunds for the 1982 tax year until Bill C-139 is passed. That is a form of blackmail. As the Government sees the political process, it may be a useful tool to achieve its ends but it is discriminatory and it is unfair.
Bill C-139 was not introduced until December 7, 1982, more than one year after the November, 1981 budget. Yet the Government asks us to accept its edict, without debate and

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
without argument, that there will be no refunds processed until Bill C-139 is passed.
As the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) explained earlier today in this Chamber, you cannot trample on or play with casually the lives of Canadians. The Bill before us embraces nearly 200 significant changes. It is so complex as to be barely understandable even to chartered accountants and lawyers. Why the Government chooses to blackmail people, to threaten them, to cause them undue hardship, is beyond me.
The Government obviously wants its money and it is entitled to it. We will not discuss the wastage that has gone on. I say the Government is being unfair and is imposing undue hardship on countless thousands of Canadians by deliberately shutting down the computer system for reprogramming. Who programs in the middle of a program? That is done ahead of time. The Government has deliberately shut down the computer system and it will not start up again until late March or, as the Government says, until Bill C-139 is passed.
The Bill demands a thorough examination by all of us and that examination can follow when the Members have put their views and concerns on record.
1 want to deal with a very specific matter because ten minutes does not allow me enough time to cover the whole bill. I want to deal with the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge that was arbitrarily imposed on the air lines and the marine mode by the Government. It was removed later when the air lines threatened international action but was brought in through the back door by a tax measure in order to recover what had been lost in another process. The marine mode tax is in place; the recovery charge is there. There is no indication from the Government that it has any intention of removing it even on the ground of its being discriminatory. It was removed from the air mode but not from the marine mode. Last year one large shipping company lost 12 voyages because of the fuel tax. That does not include the number of jobs lost to Canadian seamen, officers, marine engineers, shore supply staff, merchantment and suppliers. At a time when we have 1.5 million unemployed, surely it is a piddling amount of money. Probably last year it amounted to 35 per cent to 40 per cent of what they collected in the first year of operation, 1981. There is a direct linkage between the tax and the downturn in activity on the Lakes, yet the Minister persists in this action.
I ask the Minister whether he has appealed to his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Has he acted as the advocate he should be for the marine industry in the country? Has he made its views known? When we get to Committee of the Whole consideration of this Bill, these will be questions to which we on this side will want direct answers.
We are coming up to another questionable year in respect of the level of activity on the Great Lakes. This tax is discriminatory in the sense that it is imposed on one mode of transportation, not on any others. As we approach the 1983 season,
surely the principal advocate of the marine industry should make known in a very forceful manner the views of the marine industry to the Minister of Finance and other Treasury officials.
This tax is discriminatory. It raises very little money. We understand that approximately $5.5 million was raised in 1981 and that last year, as I said, probably only 35 per cent to 40 per cent of that figure was raised. We are talking about a very small amount of money, yet in the very narrow field of marine transportation it has an enormous and profound impact. We will have some questions about that when we get to Committee of the Whole. We will want to know why we are losing cargoes. We would like to know why the Minister deliberately, obviously and consciously allows this discriminatory tax to remain, especially when we consider its impact. We know what the Dominion Marine Association has said about it. It has consistently requested the removal of this tax on this mode of transportation.
If they go ahead with it in the area of air transportation, either through the front door or the back door, they will create enormous problems for an industry which does not need them and certainly does not deserve them. Seaway tolls are rising. We appeal to the Minister to take a long, hard, new look at increases in Seaway tolls and pilotage fees. Everything is going up and up. The pilotage fees for seasoned river captains of vessels plying coastal waters, the Great Lakes and other harbours are rising. They do not need pilots. Good Lord, in most cases many of these captains and mates are more familiar with the waters they are plying than the pilots they employ and have to pay.
I re-emphasize that this is just a very narrow issue which has a very profound impact on a small sector of Canadian entrepreneurship. It is discriminatory; it should be removed. It will be an issue which we will want the Minister to address himself to when we get to the point in time that we are dealing with the Bill clause by clause in Committee of the Whole.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me this ten minutes to debate Bill C-139, a 295-page tax Bill, full of amendments to one of the most complicated tax Acts the world has ever seen. Government Members opposite are anxious that we seem to be taking time. Of course we are taking time. All they have done and accomplished in their decade of rule over what was once a free country, that once had a private sector of which we were proud and once was able through a good, solid-


Mr. Fisher:: What is it now, Ron?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is 1.5 million unemployed Canadians who would not have had to be unemployed had you accepted and delivered your mandate properly. You have socialized this country and removed the decision-making process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair, as is the customary parliamentary practice.
March 1, 1983


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I opened my remarks by thanking you for acknowledging me. Of course, my remarks are always through the Chair. Maybe they should make their interruptions through the Chair; then 1 would not get in a straight line as the crow flies in responding to them.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) pointed out how complex was this Bill and the oppressive atmosphere and environment it provided to the job-creating sector of Canada. Also we heard from the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) about the confusion in the marine sector which these amendments and the tax legislation delivered. Complexity is there in spades.
1 was in the House through the budget of a former Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner. I was in the House and could not believe my ears when that man was asked what it was of which he was most proud in his capacity as Minister of Finance. He said: "I guess I am most proud of the one million jobs 1 have created". The people of Canada are paying the price for the creation of those types of jobs. In 1972, when they changed a basically simple tax Act to a complicated monster of paper, intrigue and purest academic thinking, they destroyed the decision-making base of people conducting widely diverse activities across Canada.
It is no longer possible to make a decision, even when one has lawyers and chartered accountants serving one's private sector entity in the boardroom. The amount of energy which is delivered to tax planning and tax management instead of to the essential productivity need of the nation is just a national disaster. It has delivered us the 1.5 million unemployed people we have today.
Our priorities are so screwed up, it does not seem that the Government has any way out. As I said last Friday, it is the result of a deliberate plan to move the state in and over all aspects of our lives and to remove the freedom of choice from the marketplace. If we want to see what they have done to the fundamental, natural law of supply and demand, all we have to do is look at the results delivered on the nation by their great academic, elitist, national energy policy. These elitists, these academics who have had no experience at all in the world of work, think they can plan everything from the centre and project their strategies over our future. They cannot even see three years ahead, so why do they keep hanging on to this mania that they have to allow academics, economists, engineers, socialist planners and national industrial strategists to plan our lives for the future?
The national energy policy just had the dot put on it in the last year and already it is obsolete. It has cost us jobs all across the country. The Government does not build infrastructures which will help create industries that will create jobs and allow us to participate in the marketplace. This Liberal Government keeps trying to interfere with the basic, natural law of supply and demand. Every time this Government does so, up goes the unemployment index in Canada. If you want to get back to a basic, fundamental truce, you have to get back to the basic, fundamental law of supply and demand. Had we stayed with the principle of supply and demand, we would have an energy policy in this country today that would be creating jobs, delivering the results of exploration efficiently and we would
Income Tax
be a landmark of success in comparison to the overview of the world economic down cycle.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Just like Reaganomics.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The Liberals have spent everything we collected in taxes. It was done all through the good times. This Government spends, spends and spends. It does not matter how the money is spent; this Government just likes to spend. It goes for borrowing Bills of $19 billion, $22 billion, $14 billion and $5 billion. Its policy is to spend and create debt. But all the Liberals are doing is lining their own pockets today at the expense of those who follow tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The Government that has to take over this mess has a decade of the hardest work you can imagine, Mr. Speaker. That Government will have to do the most responsible type of work imaginable to pull this country back into some kind of a condition of sanity. The Liberal Party of Canada has a chain and an anchor around its neck for what it has done to this country and for the condition we are now in.
Let me review some of the budgets we have had. We had the Chretien budget. It took us all through our nine months to bring the Chretien budget elements into law because the ways and means were in place. We had a series of national disasters, the three MacEachen budgets. Now we have a very able-I have to say very able-Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who has had to fix up the total chaos which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) delivered on the people of this country. In fixing up this total chaos, do you have any idea of the absolute confusion that exists across this land, Mr. Speaker? Not even the lawyers or the chartered accountants can assist the wealth producers of this nation.
The Government delivers a budget and employs a tax collection system that is totally illegal. It has become a practice to do things without having a law in place. What we have done in this House is to let this Government collect taxes illegally. I have been told that the 1982 tax form has changed unilaterally, without authority from this Parliament, the dividend factor from 25 per cent to 22.66 per cent. I have been told that not only is that formula printed in the new forms, but the computer has been reprogrammed to accept a 22.66 per cent factor. But not a word about this was put out across the nation. Now the chartered accountants are struggling and wondering why their calculations do not work out. They find this subtle, dirty technique of silent change, without the authority of this House, has delivered us into this type of hidden taxation.
The Government moves in with a dividend tax on the small business community. What the Government has done has created absolute chaos. The money being spent across this land to move out of holding companies, which the Chretien budget created, is unbelievable.

March 1, 1983
Income Tax


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Quit while you are ahead, Ron.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I see you are indicating that my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, but let me state that confusion, crisis, chaos, disaster and subtlety is what we have. Nobody can trust this Government. We have taxation on taxation without law.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) certainly made some very worth-while points that we should be pursuing as a Government and as a Parliament. I hope Hon. Members who sit on the Government benches will take heed of what he has said.
It seems to me, as the Hon. Member who preceded me said so eloquently, that this Government is leaving the country in a mess. There is no question that this Government will be leaving office after the next election. 1 am sure if Hon. Members opposite want to be honest with themselves there is no question in their minds either that they will be leaving the Government benches, but 1 hope that between now and election time they will behave as responsibly as they can.
It seems to me there is an attitude prevalent on the Government benches which is getting worse each day. It seems the Government does not care what it does now because the mess it will leave will have to be cleaned up by somebody else. If that is the attitude and it continues like that, Liberal Members will be seen to be totally irresponsible.
Let me talk a little bit about the taxation system. First, a taxation system, if it is going to work at all, has to be fair. It has to be applied equally to everyone who pays tax. Our system is based on voluntary compliance.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Right on.


Charles James Mayer: Everyone who speaks on this Bill says that Bill C-139 consists of 300 pages. But it is substantially larger than that because there are many pages in it numbered, "a". For instance, we have pages 118 and 118a. The Bill is probably closer to having 500 pages than 300 pages. Something like this, so large and so complex, is very difficult for people to understand and to comply with. Their reasons for wanting to comply with it become less and less. If we ever get into a situation in this country when people do not want to comply voluntarily with the Income Tax Act, we will have utter chaos. The more complicated a tax measure becomes, the more discriminatory it becomes. People who can afford to hire the best tax lawyers and accountants will be the ones who will be the best treated under the Act.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) pointed out that in Canada we have more lawyers and accountants than we have research scientists. This just shows what this Government has done. It has not put emphasis on production, which should be the basis for a taxation system. We should have a system that is an incentive to produce rather than a disincentive.
Let me talk about a couple of principles and then 1 will refer specifically to two items in the Bill that I find most disheartening and discouraging. First, and this has been mentioned many times before, is the basic problem in the process we use to pass tax measures. Much uncertainty is created in how one calculates his or her tax. I have been in this House almost four years and there have been several changes within those four years, but none of them has been finalized, as I understand it, and put into law. This is what we will be doing when we finally pass Bill C-139, if in fact that happens. Unless you have some certainty with a tax measure, it is very difficult for people to comply with. That is the basic problem.
As I said, most Canadians voluntarily comply with the Income Tax Act. I think most Canadians feel they have an obligation to their country and an obligation to pay for the services the Government renders to them. But a tax system has to be fair. There has to be some kind of a belief that the redistribution of money which takes place after taxation is done fairly. People do not perceive that to be the case if tax Bills are so complicated and are being changed all the time. This leaves uncertainty and confusion in people's lives. They do not understand.
I have Bill C-143 before me. This is basically a tax Act. It is a method of spending. In it the Government is asking for authority to borrow money. It contains just two pages but it is asking for $19 billion. What you have is a two-page document to borrow $19 billion, and a document in excess of 300 pages to collect money which to me is unfair to the Canadian taxpayer. We have to understand a 300-page, complicated document to collect taxes while the Government produces a two-page document to borrow $19 billion. I question that. The Government has two pages to request authority to borrow and spend $19 billion but a document of more than 300 pages to collect money.
Let me use Section 12.2 as an example which was pointed out to me by the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who is very well acquainted with the Income Tax Act. Section 12.2(1) states:
In computing the income for a taxation year of a corporation, partnership, unit trust or any trust of which a corporation or partnership is a beneficiary that holds-
It goes on to mention those things that a corporation or partnership may hold:
-there shall be included the amount by which the accumulating fund at the end of the calendar year ending in the taxation year, as determined in prescribed manner, in respect of the interest exceeds the adjusted cost basis of the interest to the corporation, partnership, unit trust or trust at the end of that calendar year.
What that essentially means is that we will be taxed on accumulated or accrued income that we do not actually have in our hands. I believe that once the Government implements a measure such as that, it attacks the concept of private ownership in this country. The Government is saying through this Section that it owns everything and therefore has the authority to take money from the taxpayers that they have not even seen.
March 1, 1983

For example, if an individual takes out a life insurance policy that accrues in value over a period of time, that individual will have to pay a tax on that accrued income to the Government even though he has not seen the money. Once a tax like that is implemented-which the Government is attempting to do through this Section of the Bill-it means that the Government is attacking the very principle of private ownership. This Section will require an individual to find the money to pay a tax on the increased value of an instrument such as a life insurance policy. I suggest that a measure such as this has very serious implications for the direction in which this country is headed.
Another concern that I have with regard to the basic principle of income tax is that as the taxation system becomes more complex, the average taxpayer will have to spend more money to hire accountants and tax lawyers instead of concentrating on productively contributing to the country. Let me quote from Section 109 which implements paragraph 151 of the income tax motion. It states:
That a corporation be required to pay a special tax of 12.5 per cent on distributions made by it out of earnings in taxation years commencing after 1982 that were subject to the small business deduction under Subsection 125(1) of the Act and that rules be introduced to counter the avoidance of the tax.
That paragraph is very complicated. I defy any Member in the House to explain what I just read. I am told that it essentially means that the system by which the distribution of dividends will be made will be changed. This is a change from the Department of Revenue's previous proposal of going to an integrated system of tax in which the corporate rate of tax is adjusted to the individual rate of tax so that there can be no double taxation. It is now being changed in midstream with the result that it will be very difficult for people to understand what kind of tax they should pay.
The entire process by which this Bill has been introduced is backwards. As Members of Parliament, we should be using the committee system that is in place to draft these Bills so that they make common sense and can be understood. This procedure should be followed instead of giving the bureaucracy the powers that the House should have in terms of drafting legislation. Once legislation has been drafted by the bureaucrats and has been introduced and supported by the Government, it becomes very difficult to change a Bill. That procedure is exactly opposite to what I and most Canadians envisage as Parliament's function. We should not be reacting to what the civil servants have given us, which is the situation with this Bill. I do not believe the Minister alone is responsible for drafting this Bill; I submit that we are reacting to legislation that was drafted by bureaucrats.
I believe we should make proper use of the committee system. In this case, the Finance Committee should be the body that would review the tax policies in Canada and decide how they should be changed. Through that process, the legislation drafted by the committee can be brought to the House for debate and final approval.
The fact that the taxation system has become a disincentive to production represents another backward step. The taxation
Income Tax
system, rather, should create wealth and generate incentives. At that point the Government can concern itself with how taxes are distributed. Presently, this Government has bankrupt policies that spend us into oblivion. It then tries to determine how much money it can confiscate from Canadians for it to run some of its foolish and nonsensical schemes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oxford.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Paul James Cosgrove: Tory No. 66.


Bruce Halliday: As shown by the Hon. Member opposite, it is clear how concerned Members opposite are about our tax system. We seem to hear very little from them about this entire issue. One must conclude that they agree with this complicated 295-page Bill C-139 which is before us today. Apparently they do not believe they have any responsibility as Government Members to intervene in this debate on behalf of their constituents and all Canadians in an attempt to point out the inadequacies and incomprehensibility of this Bill to the Government. Nor do they seem concerned about the total tax system.
I am disappointed to see that there are that many Members who feel that this Bill is not sufficiently important for them to speak. I am rather proud that there are 66 Members on this side who are concerned about this Bill and are prepared to speak about it in the House. I would venture to say that one of the advantages of parliamentary reform is that there is more opportunity and more responsibility for all of us to speak.
I have not been one to speak frequently in the House in the past because I do not think it is important to repeat what somebody else has said. However, I think it is incumbent upon all of us who represent our respective constituencies to get up and comment when we are faced with a tax Bill that is as inequitable as this one. More Members now have the opportunity to speak about Bills such as this before the Government has a chance to bring in some form of closure.
In the course of the last several months I have had well over 100 letters sent to me complaining about various parts of the three different budgets which have been brought down since the fall of 1981. The majority of complaints were from those who were upset about the provisions regarding the taxation of premiums paid on health and dental plans. Fortunately, because of the reaction from the public the Government has backed down from that provision. The Government should back down from much of what it has proposed in Bill C-139.
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in this Bill which should be addressed. My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), referred to it this morning. It refers to the fact that this Bill is totally incomprehensible. This fact was brought to our attention most effectively in a paper which was sent to us. It was a speech that was given by Mr. Lyman Maclnnis of the Touche, Ross Company. I dare say

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
that Members opposite have received the same document. The speech has been quoted previously in the House but I think it is important that Government Members be reminded of it so that they know what Mr. Maclnnis has said about our present tax system.
It appears that the present Government is not interested in trying to alleviate the difficulties that Mr. Maclnnis has illustrated in his paper about the tax system. He outlined three interesting problems in our tax system as he saw them. One problem related to the fact that, by the very nature of our present income tax system, the onus is upon the taxpayer to assess what tax he must pay. That method is different from most other taxes that we are forced to pay in this society. We have agreed to pay other taxes. For example, we pay sales tax, which is a predetermined amount that is paid with each purchase. We know what the tax is.
The other basic principle that we must acknowledge is that in order to be able to assess tax on our own, since we are not professionals in this area, the tax system must be clear and the language must be unmistakable. It must be possible for the average person to understand it.
Thirdly, now that our tax system is so complicated, many taxpayers must hire professionals to help them with their tax returns. The problem is that the very people who are least able to understand the complicated wording of the tax system are the very ones who need help the most and can least afford to pay for that help.
I think I can afford to devote a couple of minutes to reading what Mr. Maclnnis wrote in his paper with regard to the complexity of the wording in the present Act. Mr. Maclnnis quoted Section 56(1 )(s) as follows:
"Without restricting the generality of Section 3, there shall be included in computing the income of a taxpayer for a taxation year, the amount of any grant received in the year under a prescribed program of the Government of Canada relating to home insulation or energy conversion by the taxpayer, other than a married taxpayer who resided with his spouse at the time the grant was received and whose income for the year is less than his spouse's income for the year, or the spouse of the taxpayer with whom he resided at the time the grant was received, if the spouse's income for the year is less than the taxpayer's income for the year to the extent that the amount is not required by paragraph I2(l)(u) to be included in computing his or his spouse's income for the year or a subsequent year''.
That is but one paragraph, one little part of the Act, and it is completely incomprehensible.
If we look back in history a little to 1962, we find that it was acknowledged then that our tax system was very complicated and some changes were necessary. A Royal Commission was set up, and about ten years later the observations and recommendations with regard to the system translated into changes in the Income Tax which were supposedly to simplify and improve the ability of Canadian taxpayers to understand the Act. What we have before us today is the result of the work of the Royal Commission from 1962 onwards, culminating in the changes the Government introduced in 1971.
The Government has moved to complicate the Act even more and has not fulfilled the role which the Carter Commission was to have fulfilled. We were to have been given something which was more simple. However, this was based entirely on certain concepts and the Government jumped to a certain conclusion, namely, that "ability to pay" was a sound taxation principle. It seems to have entirely forgotten the concept that to be fair, the fact must also be taken into consideration that people are provided certain services under the umbrella of the state. There should therefore be a tax system which takes into account those two principles, the principle involving ability to pay as well as the principle that people should be required to pay something based on the kind of services received under the umbrella of the Government at the time. Of course, one can apply that to the three basic types of taxes: personal tax, business tax and property tax.
I see Your Honour is signalling that my allotted time has just about expired. I will conclude by saying that at a future date it would be well if we addressed the issues involving those three components of our tax system in relation to the concept of ability to pay, which is recognized now, as well as the concept of paying tax based on services received.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, if ever a nation needed a new tax Act and a new Government to administer it, it is this nation, now.
Some Eton. Members: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: We have seen our country abused by the tax system to the point at which the system could not be described in anything but obscene language, to which you, Mr. Speaker, would properly raise objection in the House. Therefore, I will not use the obscene language which is really necessary to describe our tax system. I will just imply that that is what is required.
We see a nation in economic difficulty, faced with an unemployment problem, and a Government which does not understand the difference between its own cash flow and so-called tax expenditures when extending a little privilege to a company. The difference the Government has never been able to understand concerning revenue expenditure versus its net income is that when incentive is not provided, unemployment is created.
That is precisely what the Government has done, budget after budget, with Turner being the apostle of deficit financing, excessive taxation and over-expenditure of public revenue. He started it, and he certainly converted the apostles who followed in the field of Government finance.
We need a new Income Tax Act and we need a new Government that understands where revenue comes from, that understands it comes from profitable companies, from a productively employed work force, from a striving, thriving economy, not one which is choked to death by one taxation structure after another as in this country.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Absolutely right.
March 1, 1983


Fred Alward McCain: And you sit there and grin, my friends?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Fleming.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, do not get worried; I would not waste my breath on him.
I received a call from a gentleman who is involved in the tax structure since he happens to be a chartered accountant. He said: "In my career as an accountant I have never seen people being stripped of their working capital as the Government is presently robbing them, directly and indirectly, of the working capital which is so badly needed".


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Illegal, too.	'


Fred Alward McCain: He said: "I have never seen incentive being stripped along with the working capital as it is being stripped from the private sector in this day's society by the Government, with its successive budgets. I have never seen so many of my clients determined that they shall take whatever tax advantage they can, then take their money and retire very prematurely." He also said: "In my community, unemployment is increasing because people are taking their marbles, quitting the game and going home because of the disincentives resulting from what is happening here".
Concerning cash flow, the Government is prepared to assist Massey-Ferguson financially, but is not prepared to allow farmers to have the capital cost allowance to which they have been accustomed and which enabled them to buy farm equipment. The Government is prepared to back the Chrysler Corporation and the auto industry in general with hundreds of millions of dollars, but does everything possible to constrict the purchase of automobiles by removal of the capital cost allowance, by the change to the expense deductions of travellers, by the change in the opportunity to purchase executive cars. If there was ever an example of someone really trying to take advantage of it, it is myself. In my business and political career, I traded cars not less than every two years. My wife now has the use of one automobile which is five years old, and the one which I prefer to drive is four years old.


Paul James Cosgrove: You are lucky, you have two cars.


Fred Alward McCain: There are at least six automobiles which I have not purchased on the consumer market because of the tax structure which has been imposed on the nation. The idiots can sit and laugh at the economic realities, but it was better for me to take 20 per cent interest on the trading money and keep the old car than it was to trade and have that money tied up in an automobile.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: They laugh while the unemployed autoworkers starve. That may be funny, but they should ask the gentleman from Oshawa what he thinks about that kind of idiocy.
I abhor the idea that we have goons in the National Revenue Department going through files as far back as five, six, eight and ten years to see what a fisherman's income was and
Income Tax
whether he paid his taxes. What did the fisherman use for bait in his lobster traps and what was his expense? These goons go back four years and say to a fisherman that his expenses for lobster bait were excessive, and he cannot satisfactorily substantiate them. Fishermen had 300 lobsters in the water and are allowed depreciation on those traps, but are not allowed anything for the expense of baiting them. The Department of Fisheries established a figure in a particular year. I asked the then Minister what it cost to bait a lobster trap and was told that the cost was estimated at $15 per trap. The fisherman was allowed no cost for baiting his lobster traps on his return so there is $4,500 at an absolute minimum on which he is now being asked to pay back taxes. That is a goon type of collection system.
What is the situation with the farmer or the fellow who is trying to become a farmer in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, working at a job while trying to establish himself on a farm? He is considered as a hobby farmer. The Revenue officials go back four, five, six and eight years and say that this individual never made any money while trying to get into the farming business, so it is a hobby farm and he cannot be allowed any expenses in that regard. This individual is then told he owes taxes for that four, five, six or eight years. This policy is sucking the incentive out of the guy who wants to be a farmer, and there are many in P.E.I. and New Brunswick who do want to be farmers and are working day and night to get there. Yet these goons from the tax Department reassess them and take the incentive from these guys who have saved for years.
Let us suppose one of these individuals wants to appeal. He does not like what has been done. Such an individual in New Brunswick finds that he has been assessed in St. John's, Newfoundland. That is where the assessment or the revision of the tax requirement has been made. The individual appeals and all at once finds that he is addressing his appeal to no one else but the guy who did the reassessment. How is he going to win? He has no reasonable access to the courts and is merely appealing the assessment of one civil servant to another, and they all seem to be covering up their tails very nicely. In this way one will not appear to be making a mistake that can be overruled by another. The success rate of appeals from these reassessments is idiotically lacking. These people are being punished by a greedy Government with this group of people in place. For God's sake, I wonder if they are working on commission. They are certainly working without mercy as they assess or reassess fishermen, farmers and foresters.
We need a new tax Act and all the patches the Government can put on the present Act will never correct the inequities that have been brought about by irresponsible individuals who are described by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) as people who perhaps have never had to work in the open marketplace and seem to be pretty determined that no one else shall thrive in that area.

March I, 1983
Income Tax
A chartered accountant said that we ought to give this Bill the attention it deserves. He said the place for it is the garbage can, and that is the attention it deserves. The Government should be asked to start over and bring in something that is definitive and understandable. This chartered accountant deplores the idea that people should be targeted as groups and that goon squads should go out to investigate the good work people have done. He deplores the fact that it is no longer the concept of the Canadian Government that one should be able to make out his own income tax return.
The initial concept of income tax was that it should be simple, there should be rates and certain deductions spelled out. There should be a single sheet income tax return so that any high school graduate would be competent to assess his own tax liability. In the early days there were very few reassessments.
We now have something which makes it impossible for the individual to file honestly. If he tries to file his return himself he is penalized and eventually has to go to an expert chartered accountant, or some other member of the accounting group, to bail him out of the interpretation that is placed on his return. The individual files the return honestly, but often the return is not acceptable to those who re-inspect, re-evaluate and reassess, and then stand firm on that reassessment without appeal. These people do not understand how to use the courts properly and are victimized in this situation. We need a new Act.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this may be the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you on the appointment to the position you now hold. As a New Brunswicker I take great pride in having the opportunity to do that.
When asked to provide a list of the changes that had been made to budgetary measures since November of 1981, the Department of Finance simply stated it had no such list. No wonder; there have been 47 changes to the November, 1981 budget.
One welcome change is that the Government will not tax employee health and dental benefits as originally planned. Another is that the implementation of the shift in the manufacturers' sales tax to the wholesale level is to be delayed until mid-1984. In the interim, the Government has indicated that it will work with industry to explore ways of modifying the proposals.
Bill C-139 now before us seeks to implement many of the hodge-podge of Government measures, and it is one of the most complex tax Bills since the introduction of the 1971 reforms. The hardest hit by this Bill will be low and middle-income Canadians who will gain little or nothing from the lowering of marginal tax breaks, and who will lose proportionately more from partial deindexation.
The taxation of housing loans will make it hard to recruit employees who must relocate. For those who already have loans, a taxation of this benefit may represent a rude shock that was not anticipated when the employee accepted a housing loan as part of a relocation package.
The restrictions of owner participation in deferred profitsharing plans will discourage the owners of small firms from offering to their employees a plan for which they themselves are not eligible.
In its analysis, issued November 13, 1981, the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand suggested that the most disturbing thing about the November budget was its anti-business bias and its doctrinaire opposition to any form of tax relief and deferral.
The November budget attacked business as if it were a dreaded disease instead of being the principal force for economic growth and job creation. That budget eliminated many incentives for investment. Each of these incentives was originally placed in the Income Tax Act to encourage entrepreneurial activity and investment.
For example, the half-year convention will limit the capital cost allowance depreciation to half the normal rate in the year that an asset is purchased. This will significantly reduce the cash flow of a firm in the year that an asset is purchased. It will discourage capital investment at a time when the economy is in dire need of stimulus. It will hinder the retooling of Canadian manufacturers as they face the challenge of the 1980s.
Until the November budget, companies could make interest-free loans to employees to enable them to purchase shares in the companies for which they work. The taxation of benefits resulting from share purchase loans will reduce the healthy trend toward employee share ownership.
In November, 1981 the budget transformed the Small Business Development Bond from a development vehicle to a bail-out vehicle. Firms seeking financing from the Small Business Bonds are often faced with an interesting catch-22 situation. Financing is only available to firms in financial difficulty, but, as the bonds are not Government-guaranteed, the banks may not lend money to such businesses.
The November, 1981 budget proposed to end the immediate write-off, in full, of soft costs incurred prior to completion of construction. These include such expenses as promotion, legai and accounting fees, mortgage fees and interim interest expenses. These costs must now be capitalized and written off at the same rate as a building. Soft costs such as these are incurred in the construction of new factories, new wings for motels and new warehouses and, as in the case of a multiple unit residential building, they must now be capitalized.
Every time a new job is created, a new taxpayer is also created. If the 1.5 million Canadians who are now unemployed were put to work and over a period of years they paid $10,000 each in income tax, our revenues would swell by $15 billion. Our Unemployment Insurance and social justice payments would diminish radically so that those moneys too could be used for the betterment of all Canadians.
As I come to the conclusion of my short remarks, I would like to leave with the House for consideration two thoughts. At
March 1. 1983

the corporate level, what if small businesses starting up in areas suffering from regional disparities were provided a 150 per cent tax credit to cover capital costs and labour costs for the first three years of operation? I am not talking here about an outright grant. I am speaking rather of allowing a newly-established or expanded firm to apply these expenses against future income tax payable, thus providing the investor with an opportunity to recover his investment plus 50 per cent, and his labour cost for the first three years plus 50 per cent. We would in this way create a new corporate taxpayer and ensure the creation of badly needed jobs, all without taking a cent from the federal Treasury, simply delaying the payment of taxes.
What if the capital gains tax were abolished? The enormous administrative costs which presently attach to the collection of these revenue already considerably offset any perceived fiscal advantage. Even if we accepted at face value the $400 million which the Government presently collects in capital gains tax, I would argue that the advantages of eliminating this tax in terms of potential domestic and foreign investment and the consequent creation both of jobs and of new individual and corporate taxpayers would be overwhelming.
I would urge the Government to study these two proposals and ascertain whether it feels, as 1 do, that they are worth looking at and could be feasible ways of bringing in new taxpayers and increasing our revenues with resultant benefits to all Canadians. This Bill in its present form reminds me of a nest of mosquitoes with a number of annoying bites. It should instead have been used to create a climate attractive to industrial development.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, one thing I can say about Government Members not participating in the debate is that it certainly raises the quality of debate in the House of Commons. Quality of debate is a concern of people in my area. Bill C-139 is also a concern to people in Peace River country because it affects them so dramatically.
Yesterday in the House we spent some time debating the largest borrowing Bill in Canadian history. Today we are speaking about one of the largest economic Bills to come before us, 290 pages long. It makes a person wonder why the Government does not concentrate a little more on quality and less on quantity. This is especially true when one remembers that all 290 pages of this Bill are simply amendments to the tax Act. It is not a new Act, not a better one, but a confusing collection of amendments that I hesitate to call fine tuning.
This is especially true when one remembers that budgets are so crucial to the investment in, and well-being of, Canada. We can see that this Government does not intend to improve the investment climate or allow Canadians to plan for their future. This Government has made little attempt to make the tax Act rational. It has in fact made it harsher. It has adopted forward averaging and now you have to guess where you will be. It is reducing the capital cost allowance and plugging the loopholes. In many cases the Government is in fact creating taxes where there were no previous taxes. For example, if you have a company car, a company loan or a life insurance policy, you
Income Tax
are going to be looking at some taxes. You will in fact pay more tax and pay it more often.
The question that remains is whether the Government is in fact changing its mind about what Canadians should be encouraged to do. In the past, interest on loans to purchase RRSPs was deductible. That is no longer the case. This Bill reduces the dividend tax credit and restricts deductions for tuition fees. What we are finding is that these activities, where promoted in the past, are now not being promoted. We reduced the tax that you would have paid had you participated in the programs previously.
The Bill has made a complicated situation worse. Several of my colleagues have mentioned that fact. Many Canadians will need a good deal of help to do the Government's paper work, to do their own taxes. Payment for this help is not tax deductible for the majority of the Canadian people.
This Government will still insist that it be paid. Bill C-139 provides that the Government may garnishee money owed the taxpayer 90 days in advance of the funds becoming due to the taxpayer; in other words, an advance garnishee. We also find that if taxes are in arrears, Revenue Canada can seize the business and run it for the benefit of the taxes. Revenue Canada will become the bankruptcy initiator of Canada. It makes me shudder to think of Revenue Canada grabbing companies across Canada. Who will do business with these seized companies? How well will the bureaucrats run them? Who will decide when they can be grabbed? That is probably the most fundamental question to be faced. What do we think this will mean in terms of this new power when Canadians are already disenchanted with federal policies and the authoritarian actions of this Government?
This Bill gives with one hand and takes with the other. For example, we have the lower marginal tax rates, but on the other hand we have deindexing for inflation. The next budget will probably end the giving but do nothing about the taking. It is a vicious circle. Maybe they will take a different tack altogether and make it a highly political budget. That will give the Government a chance to play hero by reducing the marginal tax rate every year, something which the inflation index in the tax Act did automatically.
I have to say that this Bill will do some good. First, RRSPs can be divided on marriage breakdown. Second, and this is fairly significant in my area, travelling expenses for medical reasons are given a more reasonable tax deduction. Many people in my area live 300 miles from medical specialists and must incur once or twice a month heavy and dramatic medical travel costs. A man in my riding now cannot write off such medical expenses. Perhaps with this legislation he will. That is an important measure in the Bill.
Why stop there? Why not go the extra step to meet the basic needs of Canadians? The prime reason for having a Government is to look after the Canadian people, not to put stumbling blocks in front of them, as is the case with so much of this Bill. Much more is needed to make the tax system a reasonable system for Canadians.

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
I want to give another example. In my area many farmers now have to hold down two jobs. This is particularly true with new farmers. They want one job because they want to farm, but they need the other one to make ends meet, to allow them to farm. In many instances, the income from the second job goes directly into the farm. They are making an investment in machinery, an investment in land improvement, which is very important in order to bring new land onstream, and an investment in livestock, their future capital base. They are making personal sacrifices to make their farms and their country a better place, yet the Income Tax Act actually penalizes them for their sacrifices.
If their income from the "other" job is greater than 50 per cent of the farm's income, they can only use something which has been called a "restricted farm loss". In fact, they are limited to a maximum deduction of $5,000. We all know that in today's farming business, particularly when you are trying to establish a new farm, $5,000 is peanuts. If the restricted farm loss had been tied to inflation, the figure would be significantly more equitable. In fact, it would be somewhere in the area of $20,000, not the insignificant $5,000 which farmers are given at the moment. Farm costs have risen so dramatically over the last five years that something must be done to encourage both new farmers and established farmers who are forced to seek income from other employment in order to maintain their farm as a viable operation.
Bill C-139 could recognize the inequities of the old Act. The Government could bring this restricted farm loss up to a viable level, it could index it to inflation, or it could even raise the ceiling for income from other sources. If nothing is done this investment in a very important sector of the economy-and it is certainly important in terms of the young farmers of the country-is going to grind to a halt. If we look at the average age of our farmers in Canada today, we find it is very high, around the age of 50. We must start bringing in new young farmers and the only way we are going to accomplish that is by making farming attractive and by encouraging them, rather than coming out with legislation that stifles their incentive and forces them to change their dreams and move from the country into the city.
I would like to remind the Government of three essential matters which fall under its responsibility towards Canadians. First, Canadians should be able to understand the laws which govern them. That is a very simple and basic right which Canadians should be able to expect. Second, Canadians should be encouraged to do the things which would improve their lot, and which in turn would improve the lot of this country. Third, the Government must, in terms of its responsibility towards the citizens of Canada, ensure that it is not too difficult for them to do those things which seem correct, and a simple example of that is my illustration of the farms in my own area.
Bill C-139 does not do any of these things, neither does it improve the present Act. This Government should be a good
Government and not one that reduces Canadians to dependence on their Government.


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the second reading of Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act. Last December 7, this Government finally introduced the income tax legislation necessary to implement the November, 1981 budget. It took 389 days to introduce this Bill, a mammoth 600-page document. It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that if you give enough typewriters to enough monkeys, in time the law of averages will allow them to create a masterpiece. Certainly the Government has enough typewriters. We know they have enough monkeys. I believe they just ran out of time, sir.
At present there are four major revisions of the November, 1981 budget: the original budget itself; the budget as amended in December, 1981; the June, 1982 version; and the October 27, 1982 version. In addition, there have been minor announcements and clarifications on several occasions, such as the January, 1982 announcement of employee benefits. There have been extensive consultations outside this House as well as the debate within this Chamber on the provisions of the ill-conceived budget of November, 1981. On that point, I would like to give credit where credit is due and say I respect the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for going across the country to find out what people really have to say. Only time will tell, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Minister listened.
There are many defects in this budget. I hope the present Minister of Finance will hear what my colleagues have had to say and take corrective measures before the Bill goes to committee. The Government seems to be listening and consulting, but despite the fact that there have been changes, the Government has not yet responded fully. Quite frankly, in reflecting upon all the wasted time and trouble which resulted from the original budget, the former Minister of Finance should have simply recognized the folly of his own budget, scrapped it and started over again from scratch. Neither he nor the present Minister of Finance has chosen to do this, which is precisely why we find ourselves in our present economic mess.
Bill C-139 is one of the most complex tax Bills since the introduction of the 1971 tax reforms. I have had an opportunity to wade through it, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to take this opportunity to address my remarks to specific examples showing which Canadians will be affected. The hardest hit will be low and middle-income Canadians. These are the Canadians who have been hit during the last 15 years of Liberal administration. They will gain little or nothing from the lowering of marginal tax rates and will lose proportionately more from partial deindexation.
The increased taxation of employee benefits will hit hardest those in the lower and middle income brackets. It will encourage employees to seek higher wage settlements at a time when moderation is indeed required. There are many examples in which employees have been receiving wage settlements in
March 1, 1983

excess of the Government's own six and five restraint program. The taxation of housing loans will make it harder to recruit employees who must relocate in order to retain their jobs. For those who already have loans, the taxation of this benefit will represent a rude shock which was not anticipated when the employee accepted a housing loan as part of his relocation offer.
Limitations on retiring allowances, termination benefits, and the $1,000 pension income deduction will make it harder for many Canadians to prepare for their retirement years. The restrictions on owner participation in deferred profit-sharing plans will discourage owners from offering a plan to their employees for which they themselves are not eligible.
The proposed taxation of the work-in-progress of professionals has been withdrawn, as outlined under Section 125 of the Income Tax Act. This will affect doctors, lawyers, accountants, dentists, veterinarians and chiropractors. This measure, however, remains in effect for engineers, architects and management consultants. That indeed, sir, is a discriminatory measure. It will create an administrative and tax burden on those professionals who must not only estimate the value of their work in progress, but pay tax on work which has yet to be billed.
A provision of this Bill which I find particularly disturbing is the removal of some of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act. Revenue Canada will now be able to share tax information with other federal and provincial officials for the enforcement of exploration programs, for compiling statistical information, and for enforcing the Unemployment Insurance Act or other prescribed employment programs. These are only a few of the many changes to the Act which will affect countless Canadians from coast to coast.
f Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, 1 am a little saddened and perplexed by our modern day
pacifists who stand up and protest against any military organization developed by allied countries. If we look at the world today, Madam Speaker, we realize that the free world is shrinking and that the number of countries belonging to that community is diminishing steadily. In an ideal world, we all would prefer to have budgets used for peaceful ends, but who is going to guarantee that our opponents are acting in good faith? If tomorrow, people were to demand that all police forces in Canada be withdrawn, I would be the first to agree, Madam Speaker, provided I have a guarantee that no more crimes will be committed.
How could we expect this kind of guarantee from a system or power that since the beginning of this century has shown no hesitation in torturing and executing, often for no good reason, millions, I repeat millions, of people, brothers, sisters and fellow citizens. When all is said and done, Madam Speaker, I think I would rather die in a nuclear holocaust than live in a country where 1 would not even be allowed to think for myself.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, Canadians were shocked and somewhat angered by the recent United States Government decision to label as "political propaganda" three National Film Board films, two on the subject of acid rain and one on the subject of nuclear arms. This silly and ill-thought-out decision taken by our American friends represents poor judgment on the part of the United States administration, and can serve no useful purpose.
If our two countries have problems, and they do, then surely the way to deal with these problems is by open and direct dialogue. Moves such as labelling films produced by the National Film Board "political propaganda" serve only to dismay those of us who support open and free Government, and invite greater criticism from America's opponents.
The Canadian Government must register its concern with Washington and urge that greater caution and sensitivity be used in the future. To label those films as propaganda is wrong, misleading, and inaccurate. To try to influence Canada's thinking or our decision-making process by this measure, sorely underestimates the Canadian people.

March 1, 1983



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House a recurring northern Ontario problem related to the operations of the CNR. The problem to which I refer is known as the Nakina run-through proposal.
Simply stated, railway companies have determined that frequent crew changes are no longer required as they were in the age of steam. While this may be true in general, there are some exceptions. Northern Ontario, with its more severe weather conditions, the monotony of running a train through a seemingly endless coniferous corridor, and the difficulties associated with track and roadbed maintenance, are all good reasons for the continuation of a crew change at Nakina.
During the early 1970s the CNR got one foot in the door by gaining agreement to run-through one freight train per day. Based on this experience it argues that its point has been proved. This is not so, say railroaders, because this one freight train is being given a priority by train masters.
In 1964 the Nakina run-through proposal led to a wildcat strike and an inquiry which gave us the Freedman Report. Unions are now obliged to negotiate with the company the terms of a run-through on behalf of members who are adversely affected, but the unions remain strongly opposed to the Nakina run-through.
The CNR is widely regarded as northern Ontario's least responsive and responsible corporate citizen. We had hoped that the appointment of a new president and a new chairman of the Board of CN would improve the situation-


Madam Speaker:: Order.
* *
*



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in connection with the grain transportation policy, on February 9 of this year, in his answer to the Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) stated: In Quebec, the Government of Quebec has led a special propaganda program, and 1 feel that by saying this, the Minister misled the public. On February 22, the Minister informed the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse): The Province of Quebec, especially, has taken out huge ads, with movies and side displays et cetera. We are estimating that the total ad program will probably cost around $350,000.
To clarify the issue, I would like to straighten out the facts. I think the Minister was no better informed than his colleague was in a matter that has now become something of a cause celebre. The Quebec coalition includes the FPU, the Federee,
millers, agronomists, the Quebec Departments of Agriculture and Transport and even the Quebec Liberal Party. The coalition's advertising expenditures amounted to $6,089 and that was for invitations to local meetings. The Government of Quebec contributed 25 per cent of that amount and produced a slide display with funds from the Department of Agriculture. The coalition's only other source of income is the sale of buttons.
Instead of saying that a provincial Government has launched an aggresive propaganda campaign, and trying to demonstrate the need for a Canadian program to promote a policy that has been criticized by everyone, perhaps the Minister should check his sources and so be less likely to mislead the House. We all know now what the consequences can be, and the Minister should provide evidence before stating-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.



EDUCATION


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, the Canada Student Loans Program is supposed to give all Canadians a better chance to get a college education or to get the training necessary to find a job in our technologically advanced society. At the present time the Program is failing on both counts.
High interest rates and a 22 per cent youth unemployment rate are very real barriers to kids from working class families who want an education but worry about being saddled with a large debt and no way to pay it back after graduation.
Also, the exclusion of part-time students from eligibility under the plan makes it impossible for many unskilled workers and single parents to improve their training while taking care of their other responsibilities. I therefore call on the Government to take positive action on two counts to call a moratorium on student loan interest charges for recent graduates who are unable to find work, and to review the loans Program to allow part-time students to get federal assistance to attend school and upgrade their skills.
* *
*



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, although Canada has been able to survive the recession better than most other countries, there is no denying that the last few years have been very difficult for the many Canadians who lost their jobs or, in the case of young people, have not been able to get jobs.
March 1, 1983

It is encouraging to see some good news in the latest Statistics Canada figures. Consumer demand is up, and since inventories are down we can expect that laid-off workers will be recalled to start manufacturing the goods that people are again buying. Auto workers have been recalled in Oshawa and in Ste. Therese, Quebec, and lumber mills in B.C. are busy again. House sales are up in Toronto, where January and February sales have continued high; in fact February's sales were the highest for any February on record, except for February, 1981, when Metro Toronto was in the middle of a housing boom.
There are, then, indicators that the Canadian economy is moving toward recovery. As confidence grows, hope for the jobless will increase. It is therefore time that Parliament got back to the business of the House which will enhance the confidence and hope of all Canadians.



BROADCASTING


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian broadcasting industry is heavily regulated by the federal Government. It employs thousands of Canadians, spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and determines what we will be able to see and hear.
Following Question Period the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) will table the Government's broadcasting strategy. Members had a right to expect that, on an issue as important as this, the Minister would make a statement and answer questions from Members. Instead, in order to avoid comments and questions, the Minister will simply take the documents and flee the House to a press conference.
A week ago today, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) had one of the first statements on motions in the House in the past year. That worked very well for all Members on all sides. Last fall Members met with emissaries from the Minister of Communications who asked that the broadcasting strategy and the Applebaum-Hebert Report be dealt with in a non-partisan way. We thought the Minister meant it when he talked about good faith. We find now that the Minister is prepared to do an end run on Parliament in order to avoid allowing Members of Parliament to do their job.
Members on our side regret the Minister would seek to undertake this project by poisoning the atmosphere in which his document will be studied, but his actions confirm that the Liberal Government uses Parliament not as the central institution in Government but as an obstacle.
[ Translation]



INCOME TAX


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, restaurant and hotel workers who obtain a substantial part of their salary through tips are now being harrassed by the Department of National Revenue, which intends to tax the tips received by these workers. Although they do not object to paying their fair share of income tax, they do want a square deal, that is, they are prepared to pay tax on their total income, provided they are given normal employee status and thus social insurance and social benefits calculated on their entire income-on the same terms as other workers-including unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, maternity leave, annual leave, bonuses and statutory holidays, and of course,the pension plan. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to start talks as soon as possible with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bus-sieres), with a view to rationalizing the status of these workers. "No taxation without social benefits".



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Government an anomaly which occurs under the Unemployment Insurance Act when a person who is collecting unemployment insurance benefits is called for jury duty.
This situation arose with a constituent of mine who served jury duty for four days in February and was subsequently denied unemployment insurance benefits for those four days because he was technically not available for work during that time. In effect, my constituent has been penalized for performing his civic duty.
At present, if an individual is called upon for jury selection in the Province of Ontario, for the first ten days he is paid $ 10 per day, plus a travel expense of $2.50, for a total of $12.50 per day. This has been the fee since 1959. Should the trial run 11 or more days, he will then receive $40 per day. This innovation was introduced in 1980. This procedure with some variation is followed by all Provinces.
My constituent had been receiving $42 per day in UIC benefits, money which he urgently needed to provide food and shelter for his family. Given the per day rate of $12.50 for his jury services, he was therefore out $29.50 per day for the four-day period, bringing his total loss to $118, money which he needed.
I would like to suggest two possible courses of action by the Government to remedy situations such as this. First, the

March 1, 1983
Oral Questions
federal Government could make appropriate amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



ST. DAVID'S DAY CELEBRATION OF PATRON SAINT OF WALES

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, today, March 1, is celebrated throughout the world by men and women of Welsh origin in honour of their patron saint, St. David. Today is St. David's Day. In marking this occasion and extending parliamentary greetings to all Canadians of Welsh descent, I think we should extend as well Canada's thanks-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. I do not know what the rest of the statement will contain, but the Hon. Member knows that statements under the provisions of Standing Order 21 must not be used for congratulatory messages.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am merely conveying a message to Canadians through this means. I think we should extend Canada's thanks to the Welsh community of New York City-


Madam Speaker:: No, no, that is not in order; that part of the statement is not in order. Perhaps the Hon. Member has other things in his statement which could be accepted, but now the time has expired and I have to go to Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who will know that today consumers are paying 3.5 cents more per litre, or 11 cents per gallon more at the pumps, than they did yesterday. We Progressive Conservatives were defeated because of an 18-cent excise tax. This Liberal Government has broken an irresponsible election promise, with the result that Canadians are now paying quite a bit more for gasoline than are the Americans, and yet Canadian producers of crude oil are getting less than 75 per cent of what American producers are getting. The difference, of course, is the tax burden imposed by Governments, a massive revenue grab that must be stopped.
Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asked his seatmate, the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to lower some of those taxes in
order to live up to the Liberal election promise and to ease the impact of inflation on consumers?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, obviously, if the Canadian consumer had to pay an additional 18 cents in excise tax, the price of gas in Canada would be even higher.
Fortunately, the Canadian public voted the Progressive Conservatives out of office, and now at least it does not have to pay the extra 18 cents.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, that is a pretty feeble answer. When the Conservative Party gets back into office, we will be treating Canadian consumers and oil producers much more fairly than this Government is doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I am not expert on energy prices, but as a consumer I can say that unless and until the energy pact is renegotiated, everybody loses except the Government.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP CHARGE-REQUEST FOR REMOVAL
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Among the taxes that Canadian consumers have had to pay is the Canadian ownership charge which is used to buy service stations for Petro-Canada. Will the Minister commit to the House that, just as soon as the Petrofina purchase is paid off, the Government will at least remove this tax and give consumers a break? While he is on his feet, will the Minister also introduce in his next budget an energy tax credit to assist people on low incomes, especially the elderly, with oil-heated homes, who have no way of absorbing these price increases?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is not following press releases very closely. It was already announced last year under the arrangement concerning Dome Petroleum that funds would be made available as an investment by the Government of Canada into Dome and that the investment would be financed by the Canadian ownership charge.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Shame.


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South just woke up, Madam Speaker. He has probably been asleep for the last year.
As far as the other question raised by my hon. friend is concerned, obviously he will have to wait for my budget, but I
March 1, 1983

would like to draw to his attention a very important statement which was made this morning on television by the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed. He stressed quite strongly that, under current arrangements, Canadian consumers have benefited from a very large subsidy through the National Energy Program. That was the testimony of the Conservative Premier of Alberta. I suggest that my hon. friend should at least look at the record in that regard.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: When it comes to the taxes that this Government is putting on the price of gasoline, more than 60 cents per gallon is a federal tax on the production of food. I hope the Minister will look at that as well, in terms of reducing the burden on farmers in his next budget.


IMPOSITION OF TAXES BY CONSUMING PROVINCES
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When we go to the pumps, two-thirds of what we pay is taxes and one-eighth is for the price of crude oil. Since the federal Government has agreements with the producing Provinces on the price of crude, why has the Government not initiated talks with the consuming Provinces regarding their tax rate levels, which clearly have a bigger impact upon consumers than the price of crude oil itself?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad that the Hon. Member confirmed that consuming Provinces contribute to the price through provincial taxes, and in some Provinces that is the major component, namely, my own Province of Quebec with its taxe ascenseur. I just say that to confirm that there was an increase today in the price of from 2.7 cents per litre to 3 cents per litre. But the Hon. Member forgot to mention that there was a decrease of 2.5 cents a litre on January 1. Therefore, the net increase since last fall is only one-half a cent per litre.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, Stat-sCan confirmed that 1982 was the worst year for our economy since the Great Depression. But with Government spending estimated to increase next year at 17 per cent and the budget deficit estimated at $29 billion, the Minister has no room to spend on job creation programs. The Government is broke. Can the Minister give any hope to the 1,600,000 Canadians out of work that his forthcoming budget will do anything new to help them find a job?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can certainly give that hope.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that answer in itself would give Canadians no hope. It will leave them with a great empty feeling in the pits of their stomachs.


REQUEST FOR STIMULATION OF SMALL BUSINESS SECTOR
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, StatsCan also said that investment in new plant and equipment this coming year would drop by 14 per cent. That is about the same amount it dropped last year. This huge drop in spending on new investment in plant and equipment means a further loss of jobs in addition to the 1,600,000 people who are out of work today.
Will the Minister commit to this House that the main thrust of any stimulation in the budget will be directed to the small business sector which, in the past, created two-thirds of jobs in Canada and which was so severely attacked by the budget in 1981 brought in by his colleague, the former Minister of Finance?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can understand that, as a good Conservative, my hon. friend would have his eyes set on the past. I invite him to look at the future and to realize that at the present time all economists and analysts from the business sector, as well as the economic community, are concluding that, indeed, the indicators point to a recovery and that the Canadian economy is in a position to grow significantly during the course of 1983. Obviously economists and other people disagree as to the size of the growth, but they all conclude it is positive.
As far as the point raised by my hon. friend concerning the small business sector is concerned, I want to remind him that I have had two meetings with representatives of the small business community, plus a number of other meetings with representatives of the business community at large. The problems of small and medium-sized businesses and the importance of the role played by small and medium-sized businesses have been greatly stressed to me. Frankly, as far as 1 am concerned, I am convinced that sector will be a major factor in any recovery. Certainly in the preparation of my budget I will want to bear in mind very significantly the fate of the small and medium-sized business community in our economy, and I hope the measures which I come up with will have the support of my hon. friend.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On September 18 the former Minister of Energy assured Canadians that the price of

March 1, 1983
Oral Questions
old oil produced in Canada, which is 90 per cent of our production, would never exceed 75 per cent of the international price. Yesterday the Prime Minister met with the Premier of Alberta to discuss the situation. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that the promise made by the Canadian Government in terms of pricing will be maintained so that if world prices continue to go down, Canadian prices will also go down?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Energy and myself when we met with the Premier of Alberta made that very point. As the Hon. Member knows, the Premier holds the contrary view, but we hold that the interpretation of the agreement was to ensure Canadians that our price would be at 75 per cent of world price.


EFFECT OF DROPPING WORLD OIL PRICES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for purposes of clarification, Madam Speaker, considering that jobs in the forest sector, the fishery, the automotive and the steel industry, in fact in every part of the economy, will be affected by changes in energy prices, is the Prime Minister saying unequivocally that the Government of Canada will ensure that, if world oil prices go down, oil prices charged to Canadian consumers will also go down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is the very question we examined yesterday in the meeting with Premier Lougheed. Of course, not only in our discussion yesterday but in the form of a question it is hypothetical. There was no immediate need for action at this time because Canadian consumers are benefitting, thanks to the national energy policy, from a price which is only at 75 per cent of world prices for old oil. But the hypothesis which the Hon. Member examined led us to talk about the future.
1 can only say that the 75 per cent pricing arrangement was contained in an agreement we had with the Province of Alberta. In fairness to the Province of Alberta, I must say that it holds a contrary view. Alberta holds the view that the 75 per cent rule was meant to protect Canadian consumers against ever escalating prices of world energy, that they were not meant to protect the Canadian consumer against the hypothesis of falling energy prices.
It is an honest disagreement on the meaning of the agreement we have with Alberta. The Premier has expressed his views, and we have expressed ours.


COMMITMENT SOUGHT ON GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minsiter for his interpretation of what the accord meant. I am asking him to give a commitment in terms of his Government's policy, not the policy of the Government of Alberta. Will he tell the House unequivocally that, if world prices continue to go down, the commitment made by
his then Minister of Energy, concurred in by the Minister of Energy from Alberta in the communique, on Canadian competitiveness in international markets, will be maintained so we will get badly needed jobs for Canadians who are out of work?


An Hon. Member:: No vacillating.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I hear support for that point of view from the Tory benches. I can assure the House that we will need support from all sides of the House.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You need support from everyone.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly; particularly from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, because I can recall when that Province was led by an NDP Premier, the NDP Members of this House were not as vocal as they are today in imposing unilaterally on the Province our interpretation of the agreement. I just say I can give that commitment in so far as our intentions are concerned and in so far as the policy as we see it. But the Hon. Member has to realize that there was an agreement between the Province of Alberta and the Government of Canada. I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party would be the first to blame me if I gave him the assurance that I will impose my view of that agreement without considerating the view of the Province of Alberta.


John Edward Broadbent: It was Alberta's view on September 18.


APPEARANCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Madam Speaker:: May I welcome Members of the Public Accounts Committee of the Province of Ontario, chaired by Mr. Patrick Reid, who are seated in our gallery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For some time now there has been a critical problem regarding approximately 1,000 Iranian students in Canada whose funding has been cancelled by the Iranian Government. They are unable to return to Iran for fear of repression. Could the Minister tell the House what steps he is now ready to take to assist in this serious problem and allow these Iranian students to stay in Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, since 1979 and the major
March 1, 1983

upheavals in Iran we have not taken any steps to deport or send people back to Iran. It looks quite clear that conditions will not change in the immediate future. We will apply the same special measures to the 2,000-odd Iranians in the country, including the 1,000 students whom the Hon. Member mentioned, as we have applied to the Salvadorans, Lebanese, and Polish groups. That means that if they have families in this country they can apply for landed status or, if they have been here for a 12-month period and can demonstrate some capacity to settle in the country, we will also provide for landing. I hope that this will be a proper response to the difficult situation faced by those groups, particularly the students, and that we will be able to protect their human rights in that circumstance.


THE ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He indicated in his earlier answer to the Hon. Member for Etibocoke Centre that he is waiting for an economic recovery to bail us out of our economic crisis. At the same time, however, the fastest growing envelope for Government spending is not job creation measures or social safety nets; it is the public debt which has grown from 12.6 per cent to 20 per cent of total outlays in just four years. How does the Minister justify his bid to borrow another $19 billion when the Estimates show that no serious attempt has been made to constrain Government spending?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member, who has a background in economics, ought to know that a recession is not the right time to try and balance a budget or have a budget surplus. In a recession like the one we have just experienced, it is perfectly normal that the Canadian Government should have a substantial deficit. That deficit is due to well known cyclical factors, namely a very substantial increase in unemployment and lower government revenues as a result of a drop in the amount of taxes paid by corporations and individuals. So this is a generally known strategy that is supported by economists throughout the world as an anti-recession strategy, and I am surprised that my hon. colleague should be concerned about this.


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. I am glad that he admits that it was the Liberal Government's strategy to take a $10 billion deficit into this recession to start with.
Oral Questions
How does the Minister of Finance justify a 17 per cent increase in Government spending, as shown by his own figures in the Estimates, when the Government has imposed 6 per cent and 5 per cent restraints on old age pensioners, civil servants, and families receiving Family Allowances?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the figures in the Estimates that were tabled last week represent an increase of 9.6 per cent over expenditures for 1982-83. Now I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question. Does she feel that the Government should stop paying interest on Canada Savings Bonds, which were purchased by Canadians. Should the Government refuse to pay its share of medical insurance, health insurance, unemployment insurance and welfare payments which are now helping millions of Canadians who are in need? If that is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, I would understand, but I can assure the Hon. Member that it is not the position of this Government.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. At the opening of Canada's first overland duty-free store the Minister stated that he looked forward to opening a series of these stores across Canada at Canadian-United States border crossings. Since Fort Erie is in my riding and is the largest single vehicular point of entry, when does the Minister plan to open one of these overland duty-free stores in the town of Fort Erie in my riding?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, we, that is, my predecessor and myself, negotiated the establishment of duty-free shops as a pilot project. Most of the provinces negotiated with us in good faith, and we were able to agree on the sale of liquor in those shops. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach an agreement with the Government of Ontario. I suggest that the Hon. Member get in touch with the Government of the Province of Ontario and urge it to follow the example of other provinces and thus negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the Canadian Government with respect to the sale of alcohol in duty-free stores on the border between Ontario and the United States.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, if the Minister receives a favourable response from the Province of Ontario, is

March 1, 1983
Oral Questions
he then committing himself to opening a store in the town of Fort Erie in my riding?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's concern for his own riding. I also imagine that there are many Members from Ontario who are equally interested in having a duty-free store in their ridings. I shall bear the Hon. Member's representation in mind, and I hope that he will manage to persuade the Government of Ontario to reach an agreement with us.


AIR CANADA
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Due to the importance of the issue I have given the Minister notice of the question. I would ask him to explain to the House why Air Canada promoted and sold discount seat sales before it had prior approval from the CAB and, in view of another deadline coming in this mess, what is the present status?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the system that exists now is fairly clear. Carriers can advertise and, when they do, they have to say "subject to the approval of the Government of Canada". They then have to file and then they can subsequently sell. That is the system. It is clear.
The justification for this system is simply the rules of competition, the requirements of marketing. If a company comes out with a sale such as the one Air Canada had, it wants to be first. The need to be first is part of the competition. The system is also predictable.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are you making plans on a predictable basis?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. It is a predictable system because in most instances, 90 per cent or more, these special discounts go through. In this particular instance, the one we are concerned with, it was approved by the CTC as my hon. friend knows. It was also approved in principle by CAB in the United States. If my hon. friend read the documents he will know that they approved it. What they did after was to tie their approval to a condition concerning another company. So, what was unpredictable was the behaviour of the Americans in this particular instance.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TALK TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, in order to bring some certainty and predictability to this very confused situation I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Knowing full well that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States fly from
country to country without CAB or CTC approval, and since it is clearly not competition but the use of innocent Canadian travellers as pawns in a regulatory fight between Canada and the United States, would he pick up the phone, if he has not already done so, and talk to his counterpart in the United States, President Reagan, to see if the CAB prohibition could be eliminated, that Canadians can travel, and that the two countries can work out their differences without using innocent Canadians as pawns?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that on this side of the House I have full confidence in the capabilities of my Ministers, and particularly in this case, of the Minister of Transport.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, yesterday the Metis associations from western Canada walked out of the meeting of the Attorneys General on the Constitution. The position that has been taken by the Metis associations is that they are not represented by Metis at the First Ministers' Conference coming up on March 15 and 16. Will the Prime Minister act to guarantee that there will be seats for the Metis spokesmen at that Conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not been briefed on all the details of what happened yesterday but I can assure the Hon. Member that, when I sent out invitations to that Conference, I sent them out to official groups representing the Inuit, Metis, and Indian population. Therefore, the three aboriginal groups were invited to the Conference.
I know that within the Metis themselves there was a jurisdictional quarrel which, I was informed, had been solved previous to yesterday's meeting. However, if there are further difficulties we will try to assist in solving them. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is up to the Metis themselves to decide first and foremost who should speak for them. It would be quite paternalistic if the Government were to designate the spokesmen for the Metis people as though they could not make their own choice themselves.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I have received U.S. Army documents dealing with the technical
March 1, 1983

co-operation program between Canada, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and Australia. Under this program, chemical biological and radiation weapon systems were tested and developed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and elsewhere. The documents quite clearly show that they were offensive attack purposes and involved tests concerning the spread of yellow fever, botulism, tuberculosis, genetic engineering, anti-crop agents, et cetera. I have passed this information and copies of the documents over to the Minister.
Will the Minister confirm that Canada was involved in the testing of offensive biological, chemical, and radiation weapons of war, and is he prepared to clear the public record by tabling in the blouse or before a parliamentary inquiry all documentation, past and present, relating to Canada's work on these weapons, before we start testing the Cruise missile?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina East is asking a question that deals somewhat with history. The policy of this Government as far as biological or chemical warfare is concerned is very clear. In 1925 we signed an international Convention prohibiting biological and chemical warfare. This policy formed part of the 1972 Geneva protocol. At the moment, in Geneva, we are pursuing the complete prohibition of stockpiling and production of any and all chemical weapons. This is still an issue before the disarmament committee in Geneva. It is true, however, that we as a country, including myself as Minister of National Defence, are burdened with the responsibility of protecting, by all possible means, our own soldiers and our own people against a possible attack of this nature by other peoples.


Miss Jewett:: Chemical warfare?


Mr. Lamontagne:: When we test this weaponry or do in fact make some use of it, we do so strictly on a defensive or protective basis; that is, to protect our own soldiers, just in case something happens.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In light of the discussions now taking place with regard to the First Minister's Conference and the agenda of March 15 and 16, could the Prime Minister indicate whether invitations have been issued to women's groups so that they may be represented at that table, as well? Could he also confirm whether he has sent invitations to the Premiers for an economic First Minister's Conference the day after, namely, March 17, and, if so, will that be an open meeting?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in answer to the first part of the Hon. Member's question, my answer would be similar to the answer I gave with regard to the question of the Metis representation. However, I do not believe it is for the federal Government to designate the members of the delegations of the Provinces, of the Territories, or of the native people. We know that there will be women present on some of the delegations and, indeed, at the table in certain instances. Of course 1 cannot say, because I cannot dictate to the participants who their representatives should be, whether women will be on the delegations or not.
As to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, I did contact the Provinces to suggest that, since we were all in town for a constitutional conference, we should spend a few hours together discussing the economy. The Ministers of Finance of the Provinces and of the federal Government will be meeting next week. They may have some questions they want to refer to us, but they will certainly be considering short-term questions, because discussions will be in the context of the upcoming budgets of the Provinces and of the federal Government. I would hope that the provincial Premiers and myself would have some time to consider medium and longer term questions on the economy. 1 suggested an evening meeting, but 1 am open to counter suggestions by the Premiers with regard to the time.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, there was a dramatic decrease in the Consumer Price Index in January. 1 wonder if she would care to inform the House what effect this will have on the indexing of Old Age Security pensions at the end of the first quarter of this year.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, senior citizens have just received in February, and will receive in March, cheques which were capped, each amounting to $250.62, but I have very good news to announce to all of them. The cheques for April-


Mr. Crosbie:: Surprise.


Mr. Lawrence:: Just read it.


Monique Bégin: -and all of the next quarter, because of the success of the six and five campaign, will be fully indexed for all seniors in Canada. In other words, inflation has dropped so much that they will not even be affected by the six and five campaign.


Miss MacDonald:: Your legislation was not even necessary.

March 1, 1983
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: That is very good news, and the cheques will be approximately $254.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Why did you cap it, then?


INDUSTRY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for regional development. Does the Minister agree that it would make better economic sense for his Department to help keep open the Canada Packers plant in Charlottetown than to spend huge amounts of money trying to attract a replacement plant or to be spending huge amounts of money on unemployment insurance for the employees laid off? If so, what possibilities, if any, are being pursued by the Government to save the plant which, as he knows, is the largest private sector employer on the Island, and which has announced it will close its doors in September?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, our Department has already given, if I am not mistaken, four grants to Canada Packers for its operations on Prince Edward Island. We are obviously very disappointed that the company decided, after all of this assistance, to close this operation. However, we have funded with the Province a federal contribution of 80 per cent of the cost of a consulting study regarding possible options for that operation.


MINISTER'S TALKS WITH COMPANY OFFICIALS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Has he discussed with any senior officials of Canada Packers in Toronto the plans of Canada Packers to close in September? If so, would he be good enough to inform the people of Prince Edward Island, through the House, especially the employees concerned, as to the substance of those discussions?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we have discussions with regard to commercial confidentiality with all businesses across the country and it is very difficult to express those views in the House, but I will say that, yes, I have spoken to the President of Canada Packers with regard to its operations, not only in P.E.l. but also across Canada.


SUGGESTED CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT ON CARE FOR TOURISTS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Every day Canadians on vacation in the U.S. are being denied emergency treatment until they pay deposits. Will the Minister approach her counterpart in the United States and negotiate a reciprocal agreement for delivery of health care to visitors?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, next month, I believe, I will be visiting my new counterpart in the United States, the person replacing Dick Schweiker. I will determine the substance and basis of this suggestion and will eventually place it on the agenda, but 1 am not sure right now of the parameters of the dossier.


TREATMENT OF CANADIANS IN FLORIDA
William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the same Minister. I am sure the Minister is aware of the fact, as described in The Toronto Star a few days ago, that Canadians are being held hostage by doctors and hospitals in Florida. This is causing great concern for Canadians visiting that State.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, we have reciprocity agreements with some countries, even on health matters. However, the main reason for success with other countries is that they also have public health systems with which we can deal on an equal footing. However, I will see what we can possibly do to resolve the problem. We are still recommending that Canadians visiting or staying for a few months in the States purchase personal insurance over and above the free national medicare.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for international trade, and concerns jobs. About two weeks ago General Motors and Toyota signed an agreement to produce Japanese cars in California, providing about 12,000 jobs, directly or indirectly, to American citizens. In light of the fact that we are once again negotiating with respect to Japanese autos, and that past negotiations have failed in terms of Canadian content, I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in order to give himself some more bargaining power, introducing in this House, for first reading, a Canadian content Bill before negotiations continue on a very serious basis, so the Japanese
March 1, 1983

will see that we are serious about Canadian jobs here in Canada.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to know that the Hon. Member is thinking about jobs, because I believe all Canadians are particularly concerned about that. I want to say to him, through you, most seriously that my first responsibility as Minister of Trade is to create Canadian jobs by the export of Canadian goods.
During all our discussions about autos the Hon. Member should keep in mind that we are selling record levels of Canadian goods abroad today, and that Japan is an extremely important and large customer. Our trade with Japan is very much in our favour. Let us keep in mind, first of all, that our negotiations should be carried on in such a way as to protect the Canadian jobs that exist. Having said that, we will be going back to the table with Japan for the remaining portion of this year and for a further time period, in the near future. At that time we will be negotiating the allowed levels of imports. I may say to the Hon. Member that protectionism in respect of auto content or the content of any other product is not in the Canadian interest as a free trade exporting country.


CANADA-JAPAN NEGOTIATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the Minister talks about free trade. I wonder if he really knows what the Japanese are like as negotiators. Japan is a country that now has an unemployment rate of some 2.3 per cent. I want to ask the Minister specifically, if he is interested in creating jobs in this country, would he not consider introducing, for first reading at least, a Canadian content Bill. If he does not want to do that, will he tell us specifically what his goals are in negotiating with the Japanese? What is the bottom line? Is he going to make sure that there will be the development of Japanese cars in this country with at least 85 per cent Canadian content?


Gerald Augustine Regan: First of all. Madam Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that if we start legislating something like auto content or protective measures, then the other countries with which we trade will enact the same sort of legislation. Export markets are immensely important to Canada with our great resources, our products, and our small population. We, of all people, should not be putting up barriers of protectionism. When we are negotiating with the Japanese we will be negotiating on the basis of seeking their investment in this country, yes, but, above all, of determining the number of vehicles that will come in. I might point out to the Hon. Member that some of the area of responsibility with which he is concerned, which is investment in this country, falls within the area of responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Industry. I am dealing primarily with the number of cars that can be-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson).


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the Defence Systems Acquisition Review Council of the United States has approved the FA-18 Hornet aircraft as a light attack plane, and the U.S. Navy will proceed with its plan to buy 1,366 of the planes, will the Minister advise when Canada will begin to receive the $750 million in contracts, and the thousands of promised jobs as part of the $3 billion off-set package negotiated in tandem with Canada's $5 billion purchase of 138 Hornets?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think it would probably be better if this question were directed to the Minister of Supply and Services because he is the one who manages the specifics of the contract. I can assure the Hon. Member that Canada has already received over $900 million in industrial benefits as a result of the purchase of the CF-18, and each Province has benefited according to the shares and the amounts of money projected at the outset of this program.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who last Thursday announced the appointment of Ian Christie Clark as Canada's ambassador and permanent delegate to UNESCO. Will the Prime Minister state whether Mr. Clark is related by marriage to Alastair Gillespie?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could not care less, Madam Speaker.


John William Bosley: Since the Prime Minister does not seem to care that his new ambassador is the brother-in-law of Alastair Gillespie, for the sake of the country perhaps I could ask him if he will put an end to the nepotistic practices of his own Government which bring all of the Government into disrepute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I personally believe that the question is shameful and quite typical of the Hon. Member. I understand Mr. Clark has been a long-standing servant of the Department of External Affairs. He has had a very good career in that Department. He was loaned temporarily to another Department. Now the Department has asked for him back so it can have, for the first time in many years, a perfectly bilingual English-speaking Canadian at UNESCO in Paris,

March I, 1983
Oral Questions
and I would be the last man to say that because he happens to have a relative who was a Minister one day in the distant past he should not be qualified for his job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last weekend, many people wondered why the Prime Minister did not order an inquiry on the Gillespie affair. I told these people that I would put the question to the Prime Minister. Therefore, could the Prime Minister inform the House exactly why he is refusing to order an inquiry that would provide Canadians with the clarification they desire?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, since the Hon. Member wants me to do his work for him, I shall tell him how to answer the people in his riding who expressed this concern. I would tell them to bear in mind that Mr. Gillespie first got in touch with the Government of Nova Scotia-a Conservative Government; that the funds earmarked for the project were to be paid by the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia; that the project will benefit Nova Scotia workers and Canadians in general, because it would make us less dependent on imported oil. I would also tell the Hon. Member's constituents that the project was publicly announced by the Premier of Nova Scotia, who stood on a platform with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. I would add that all this was done in full view, and that only twisted minds could see a scancal in something that was done openly more than two years ago, that was done for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia and was, in fact, done at the requests of the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia. If the Hon. Member does not have enough Conservatives in his riding who trust the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia, perhaps he could go to his Liberal constituents who understand such things.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The Prime Minister ought to know there are a lot of Conservatives in my riding.


Mr. Prud'homme:: A lot of Pequistes too!


Roch La Salle: A majority of 14,000, Madam Speaker, means a lot of Conservatives.
Since the Prime Minister seems to be very good at answering these questions, all the more reason for asking him the following question: Considering the fact that the present Minister of Finance lied to him at first and then retracted, which obliged-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member may wish to rephrase his question, since he used an expression 1 cannot allow in the House.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I probably should have said that the Minister misled the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who in turn misled the House. I should have said all that. In the circumstances, I think the situation is entirely unsatisfactory, and for the public as well, and therefore, on behalf of these people who are very concerned, I would like to ask what the real reason is, and if it is so straight forward, why the Right Hon. Prime Minister does not order an inquiry to clarify this matter for the general public. I think that is important, and the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada realizes this.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know whether you noticed the smile on the Member for Joliette's face when he said there were a lot of Conservatives in his riding. We all remember that when he started his last campaign, he made a special appeal to the Separatists for their support-


Roch La Salle: That is a lie! That is a patent lie!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, twice in two sentences-


Roch La Salle: The Right Hon. Prime Minister does not have the right to lie!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -twice in two sentences, the Hon. Member first accuses the Minister of Energy and then me of lying. He did not withdraw his words in either case. Therefore Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask the Hon. Member not merely to correct his language but to withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has again used the word "lie". Is he prepared to withdraw what he said? The first time I let him rephrase his sentence, but twice is a bit too much. So he will have to withdraw what he said.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw what I said if the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is prepared to withdraw what he said. He lied-


Madam Speaker:: Order. There are no conditions. The Hon. Member must withdraw his words and may not attach any conditions to his doing so. If the Right Hon. Prime Minister were to use unparliamentary language, he would also have to withdraw what he said. The Member for Joliette.
March 1, 1983


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I thought I corrected myself when I said that I thought the Minister had misled the House in a first letter and that in the second letter he corrected that mistake.


Madam Speaker:: No, that is not what I am referring to.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I take back the word "lie".


Madam Speaker:: In both cases. The Hon. Member withdraws what he said in both cases, because just now, he did not have the floor but 1 clearly heard him say from his seat: Does the Right Hon. Prime Minister have the right to lie.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, just one question: Does the Right Hon. Prime Minister have the right to lie? If he does not, I would ask you to ask him to withdraw what he said.


Madam Speaker:: I think or at least I hope the Hon. Member understands the Standing Order. The word "lie" may not be used in the House. It is considered unparliamentary language, and the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the purpose of such rules is to maintain order during debate. I would therefore ask him to withdraw the word "lie" which he applied to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word "lie", but in any case, he was not telling the truth.


Madam Speaker:: That is one opinion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table in the House two documents, one under the French title: Vers une nouvelle politique nationale de la radiotelediffusion and one bearing the English title: Towards a New National Broadcasting Policy.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has just tabled in the House his broadcasting strategy document. Is it the Minister's intention to make a statement on motions, as he should do, that can be responded to by Members on this side of the House and questions asked, or is it his intention simply to go to a press conference at 3.30 and make a statement there, as has been happening since two o'clock with closed briefings by his officials?


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member will find out if the
Minister intends to make a statement when we come to that item.
Pension Reform PETITION


MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE POLICY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents of Burnaby and other Lower Mainland municipalities, pointing out that the federal Government has neglected to implement a Canadian merchant marine policy, although it promised over two years ago to develop such a policy, and calling upon the Government to implement immediately a sensible and effective marine policy that will result in the creation of a Canadian merchant marine and the expansion of Canadian shipbuilding and allied industries. I fully support this call by my constituents and urge the Government to take it very seriously indeed.


PENSION REFORM
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between the three Parties and I believe there is unanimous consent for a motion to be put today, without debate, setting up a Special Committee consisting of nine Members to be named later to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform.
I therefore move:
That a Special Committee consisting of nine members to be named later to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform, be appointed, to examine and report upon the proposals for reform of the Canadian retirement income system contained in the Government of Canada's paper "Better Pensions for Canadians" with particular reference to the following:
(1)	the method of inflation protection proposed for employer-sponsored pension plans;
(2)	the changes proposed in survivor benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans;
(3)	the issue of expanding mandatory pension arrangements, including:
(a)	the size of any expansion of mandatory pension arrangements required to enable Canadians to avoid serious disruption of their living standards upon retirement;
(b)	the nature of any expansion, be it through the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, through compulsory employer-sponsored plans or through some other means; and
(c)	when any recommended expansion of benefits and contributions should come into effect.
(4)	the financing of the Canada Pension Plan;
(5)	the proposals to overcome the special problems facing women, including homemakers, under the current pension system; provided
That changes in membership of the committee be made only pursuant to Standing Order 69(4)(b);

March 1, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
That the provisions of section (9) of Standing Order 69 be suspended in application to the Special Committee;
That the Special Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the Special Committee hold hearings and receive views and representation from interested groups and individuals across Canada and that, for this purpose the Special Committee and its members have the power when the Special Committee deems it necessary, to adjourn from place to place or travel inside Canada provided the estimated expenses for such travel and the locations to be visited are defined in advance and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the Special Committee or its members;
That notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Special Committee is completed, the Special Committee may make the said report public before it is laid before the House; and
That the Special Committee shall report no later than December 31, 1983.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary. Is the House agreed and does it give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday on my question of privilege ir. 'he House, I said as reported at page 23279 of Hansard that as soon as further information became available, I so informed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the House was also informed.
For the completeness of the record and so there will never be any doubt about anything, I have to complete this and say that on Monday afternoon, February 21,1 was advised orally that the Treasury Board submission of April, 1981 had been found, but that it was not clear whether the complete Treasury Board submission had been brought to my attention. I asked that there be further investigation in that regard.
On Tuesday, February 22, 1 was advised in the afternoon that the Treasury Board submission had indeed been submitted to me complete for signature and that, in addition, a January memo to me had been found on the subject. I immediately asked that these facts be consigned to writing by the Deputy Minister of Energy so that there could be a full report to the Prime Minister and the House. 1 received that letter from the Deputy Minister on Wednesday, February 23. I immediately wrote to the Prime Minister and the documents were tabled in the House immediately.
I want this to be quite clear so that there can never be any doubt that as soon as the information was confirmed, I made it available to the House.


Madam Speaker:: Correcting the record, which the Minister, of course, is allowed to do, should be a point of order.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: With respect, Madam Speaker, it is not a point of order. Indeed, the Minister has been allowed to smuggle in information that is now deserving of a response.


Madam Speaker:: No. The Minister should not have said that he was rising on a question of privilege. Immediately from the first sentence it was clear to the Chair that the Minister was correcting the record, something he had said yesterday. That, of course, should be a point of order. As Hon. Members know, Members often get up on a question of privilege which is a point of order. When the Chair realizes it is a point of order, it permits the Member to go on and then at the end indicates that it should have been a point of order. The Chair usually hears that point of order. That is quite in order. A Minister may correct a statement that he made in the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. What the Minister has been allowed to do is to expand well beyond a point of order. My question of privilege has to do with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) misleading this House and with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) by omission misleading this House. The Minister was four seats away during those two days. He could have walked across and informed the Deputy Prime Minister who is in charge in the absence of the Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) knows he cannot begin a debate because the Minister raised a point of order. Furthermore, he is rising on a question of privilege, and he knows that is not a question of privilege. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants more information, he may question the Government again on these questions; but I am very sorry, I cannot allow a debate on this at this present time.


Erik Nielsen: I am rising on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. I do not rise on a point of order; I rise in the same fashion as the Minister rose, on a question of privilege, to deal with the matter of the obligation of the Government to clear up its own misleading of this House of Commons when both Ministers were in the House, and it was the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibility to inform-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. If that is the type of question of privilege the Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to raise-


Erik Nielsen: The Minister did so.


Madam Speaker:: 1 explained to the House that many Hon. Members, not only the Minister but many Hon. Members, rise and say they want to be heard on a question of privilege. From the very outset the Chair realizes they are really on a point of
March 1, 1983

order. Hon. Members do have difficulty in distinguishing between points of order and questions of privilege. When the Chair realizes that they are on a point of order, the Chair allows them to continue; then at the end of their intervention, the Chair usually says; "Well, that was a point of order".
A question of privilege it was not; it was a point of order. Points of order do not require rebuttal in the way the Hon. Member is now doing. If the Hon. Member has a point of order to raise-and it must be a point of order or a question of privilege-he may give me notice of it; but I cannot allow him now to enter into debate because the Hon. Minister has corrected the record. It is perfectly legitimate for any Hon. Member who makes a statement in the House, on subsequent days after reading Hansard and seeing that he has said something which was not quite accurate, to correct the record.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I leave this one question to you on a point of order, a point of privilege which was raised by the Hon. Minister, of which no notice was given the Chair whatsoever, I dare say. How is it that the Minister is allowed to rise on what the Chair describes as a spurious point of privilege, more correctly called a point of order, is allowed to finish, is allowed to resume his seat, yet I am interrupted and not allowed to complete my response?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Minister rose on a question of privilege, that is true. The Chair realized from the very first sentence that the Hon. Minister was on a point of order to correct his statement. Therefore, the Chair allowed the Minister to continue. That is all that happened and that is perfectly in order.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is rising on a point of order, is it?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, could you give some clarification to the House then? Does the point of order not have to be raised when it first comes to the attention of the Hon. Member raising the point of order? We have gone through the Question Period and Routine Proceedings, and we are almost at the point of answering Questions on the Order Paper. The Minister at that point realizes that once again there is a discrepancy in his facts. Does he not have to bring his point of order to your attention when it comes to his attention?


Madam Speaker:: He may do that, but as the Hon. Member knows, the Chair, unless there are absolutely exceptional circumstances, does not hear a point of order in the course of the Question Period.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: But directly afterwards?


Madam Speaker:: It does not matter. A point of order can be raised at any time except during the Question Period, where we have all agreed that unless there is something absolutely extraordinary, no points of order may be raised. A question of privilege, then, must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
Order Paper Questions
Some Hon. Members have delayed their questions of privilege because the Minister to which that question of privilege referred was not in the House, and the Chair has considered that it could accept that delay and that the question of privilege could be heard later. But as the Hon. Member knows, most questions of privilege are not questions of privilege; otherwise the House would not function if they had not been raised at that time.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since the Hon. Minister placed some information on the record, would the Chair agree that he could now fulfil the undertaking which he gave to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) last Friday to ascertain from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when it was that he, the Deputy Prime Minister, first knew about the existence of the Synfuels project and Mr. Gillespie's involvement?


Madam Speaker:: There is another Question Period tomorrow and the Hon. Member may ask his question then.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the point you make about tomorrow's Question Period is, of course, entirely accurate. There is a difficulty, however. The Minister is daily altering, albeit in a small way, the record of events.


Erik Nielsen: Day by day.


Ian Deans: Yes, day by day. I would simply ask that in the interest of trying to come to a satisfactory resolution of what is now a very difficult-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. That is debate, of course.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, in the House last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in response to a question from me, indicated that he would table some documents with respect to this matter. I wonder how long I will have to wait before the documents are tabled.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, with respect to the matter of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) making his statement under a point of privilege, or indeed a point of order, what transpired earlier on was that the Minister of Finance had written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who advised the House as to the exact set and sequence of circumstances. I wonder whether it may not be a solution if the Minister sent a third letter of correction with respect to his knowledge of this-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,463.

March 1, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Since the inception of the Language Training Program, what was the total cost of administration for (a) the Public Service (b) Crown corporations (c) the RCMP (d) the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel have had instruction in (i) French (ii) English?
3.	What percentage of candidates on completion of training were then deemed to be functionally bilingual having (a) French (b) English as a mother tongue?
4.	Since the inception of the bilingual bonus, what was the total amount paid to public servants and others who qualified for the incentive?
5.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel received language instruction in (i) Ottawa (ii) other areas of Canada (iii) outside Canada?
6.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel were brought to Ottawa from other points in Canada to undergo language training?
7.	What is the average (a) length of a language training course (b) cost per pupil?
8.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations (c) RCMP personnel (d) CAF personnel were required to repeat language training because of an unsuccessful first course?
9.	What is the total cost for all departments, all Crown corporations, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces for language training in (i) French (ii) English (iii) other language training?
10.	How many man hours and person years were lost because employees in (a) the Public Service (b) the Canadian Armed Forces (c) the RCMP (d) Crown corporations were on language training and, in each case, what was the total cost of the lost time for (i) French (ii) English (iii) other language training?
11.	What is the total number of man hours and person years lost for the entire Government, including Crown corporations, the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces, and what is the total cost of this lost time?
12.	In the Department of (a) Agriculture (b) Communications (c) Consumer and Corporate Affairs (d) Employment and Immigration (e) Energy, Mines and Resources (0 the Environment (g) External Affairs (h) Finance (/) Fisheries and Oceans (j) Indian Affairs and Northern Development (k) Industry, Trade and Commerce (1) Justice (m) Labour (n) National Defence (o) National Health and Welfare (p) Public Works (q) Regional Economic Expansion (r) National Revenue (s) the Secretary of State (t) the Solicitor General (u) Supply and Services (v) Veterans Affairs (w) the Treasury Board (x) the Ministry of State for Science and Technology (y) the Canada Post Corporation as well as in each Crown corporation, board, agency or commission, the Armed Forces and the RCMP (i) what formula, non-formula payments or special projects are available for Francophones across Canada (ii) what special recruitment, hiring and promotion practices are employed in each case?
13.	What is the cost of each program in part 12 (i) and what is the total cost by Department, by Crown corporation, in the RCMP and in the Canadian Armed Forces?
14.	What is the over-all cost of programs aimed at the francophone population or at fulfilling the government's bilingualism program as espoused by the Official Languages Act or by any other legislation currently in force?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Data is provided centrally from two sources: The Public Service Commission with respect to employees trained at PSC's centres (this includes some members of the RCMP and some employees of the Crown Corporations and National Defence) and Departments and Agencies (Schedules A, B and C of the Financial Administration Act- including the National Defence) that, since 1976, have been providing Treasury Board with information on their own internal training program or recourse to the private sector. The
costs include language training activities, orientation process, research, and specialized assistance.
Responsible for Language Training
(a)	Public Service
Commission (PSC)
(b)	Canadian Armed Forces (CAF)
(c)	Departments/Agencies
2.	French and English language training is mostly provided by the PSC and the Canadian Armed Forces.
Fiscal Years	Costs	
		
1964-1982	$354 million	
1968-1982	$224 million	
1975-1982	$ 30 million	
Responsible for Language Training	Fiscal Years	Clientele	No. of Employees	
			French Course	English Course
(a) PSC	1966 to 1982	Public Servants	50,486	13,609Crown corporations employees trained at PSC	8,105	1,659RCMP members trained at PSC	1,817	423Armed Forces members trained at PSC	1,470	99(b) CAF	1966 to 1982	Members	32,302	27,7153.	The Public Service Commission has at its disposal since 1973 only standardized methods for testing the language proficiency of an employee in terms of the target language proficiency levels. The rate of success for candidates having completed their training as reported in the PSC 1981 Annual Report indicates: (a) 95.9 per cent for the French language course; (b) 99.5 per cent for the English language course, have successfully completed the Language Knowledge Examination (LKE) at the target level. Those who did not take or succeed the Language Knowledge Examination (LKE) represent: (a) employees who withdrew from training for pedogogical reasons; (b) students who withdrew voluntarily; (c) those who were recalled by their departments; (d) students who failed.
As for the Canadian Armed Forces, most of the students on training are considered capable of working in the second language at the level of proficiency required by their profession or classification at the end of the course.
4.	Since the inception of the bilingualism bonus plan, departmental and agency information denotes that close to $204 million have been paid.
5.	The number of employees having received language training is broken down as follows:
Public servants trained by PSC
Crown corporations employees trained by PSC
Number of Employees on Language Training	
1966-1982	
National	
Capital Region	Regions
35,637	28,458
3,883	5,881

rv*f' [DOT] '

7:'/
[DOT]0
ypigl

i i


Number of Employees on Language Training 1966-1982
National
Capital
Region	Regions
RCMP members trained by PSC	820	1,420CAF members trained by PSC	732	837
Canadian Armed Forces members
trained by CAF	6,792	51,401
Between 1966 and 1982, while stationed there, a total of 1,824 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were trained outside Canada by the CAF. According to the information provided by Departments and Agencies, between April, 1980 and now, two public servants were sent on language training to France for three months. In addition, during the same period, three went to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon for a 4-week period, and seven had a month or less of full-time language training abroad while they were posted there, while on a business trip, or travelling at their own expense.
6.	The number of employees brought to the National Capital Region to undergo language training is as follows:
Number of Regional Employees on Language Training in the NCR 1966-1982
Public Servants trained by PSC	7,635
Crown corporations employees trained
by PSC	588
RCMP members trained by PSC	98
CAF members trained by PSC or CAF	572
7.	For the 1981-82 Fiscal year the average length of full-time courses and cost per student were:
Responsible for Training
Average	Cost per
Duration	Student
Public Service Commission
820 hours	$ 10,376
Canadian Armed Forces
1,030


[Stage Direction]
8.	Employees are not required to repeat language training because of an unsuccessful first course. Furthermore, the official language policies revised in 1977, state that an employee cannot undergo language training at government expense to attain the same or a lower level achieved previously through language training at government expense.
9.	For the periods referred to in reply to question 1, the total cost for the Public Service Commission/Departments/Agen-
Order Paper Questions
cies is $384 million. The language training cost in the Public Service have not been split by language of training due to the many diversified courses. Approximately 80 per cent of courses (response to question 2) have been for the study of French as a second language.
The Canadian Armed Forces language training cost is:
(i) French training	$	120.5 million(ii) English training	$	103.7 million(iii) Other language training	$	5.1 millionExternal Affairs and CIDA- Other Language Training 1980-82	$	.5 million10.	It is government policy that training is not considered as a loss of person/years.11.	It is government policy that training is not considered as a loss of person/years.12.	Formula and non-formula payments are federal-provincial programs administered by the Education Support Programs Branch of the Secretary of State. There are no special staffing practices.13.	Formula payments are based on average provincial education costs and enrolments, non-formula programs support specific provincial activities and initiatives. Statistics are available by Province and Territory, not by official language.Formula payments	$1,248 millionNon-Formula	$ 179 million14.	The bilingualism program costs have not been split by population.
*
* *
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,542 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: Only two questions answered.


David P. Smith: Well, we are at 83.7 per cent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not at the Gallup polls, you are not.


Mr. Taylor: 1.	Was a CRTC hearing held in Edmonton, Alberta from October 19 to 21, 1982 and, if so, what was the total cost?

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
2.	What were the names of the Commissioners and the names and positions of ail staff accompanying the Commissioners at the hearing?
3.	What was the total amount paid to each Commissioner and each member of staff for expenses from the time each left their residence to attend the hearing until each returned to their residence?
4.	(a) How did each Commissioner and each member of staff travel to and from Edmonton (b) what was the cost of the transportion for each Commissioner and each member of staff (c) what was the cost of transportation within Alberta from the arrival in Edmonton until the departure from Edmonton at the end of the hearing?
5.	What per diem allowance was paid to each Commissioner and each member of staff and for which days?
6.	What amount did each Commissioner and each member of staff receive as expenses over and above the per diem allowance and what was an itemization of each expense?
7.	(a) What was the total amount paid to the Chateau Lacombe for accommodation for the hearing (b) what was an enumeration of each item and the cost?
8.	(a) What equipment did the Commission bring with it for the hearing (b) what was the cost of each piece of equipment, including transportation to and from Edmonton?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PETITION


Madam Speaker:: i have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the four hundred and third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) on Monday, February 28, 1983, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the statute law relating to Income Tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we engage in this debate, as we do with so many things these days, with a sense of bitterness and frustration. Where did they go, those bright promises of 1980, those bright
promises of the years ahead? The bright hopes and undertakings with which this Government entered office have turned to broken dreams, scuppered promises, unfulfilled projects and benefits forgotten.
As we came into the House today, sir, we had the catastrophic news of a drop in the Gross National Product, the sum total of all the goods and services provided by Canadians. The drop is in the order of 5 per cent. That is the worst showing in domestic production since 1933. In that year, 1933, we were at the height of the Great Depression, with its soup kitchens, its bonus marchers, its farm foreclosures, its bank failures and its general despair. Instead of stimulating the economy, this Government has been hamstringing it. Instead of encouraging investment, this Government has closed the door to investment. Instead of allowing the private sector to do what it does best, which is provide jobs for Canadians, this Government has followed interventionist courses of curtailing, confining and milking the private sector of incentive and, of course, resources.
In the energy field alone this Government dropped 10,000 jobs by default when it fumbled Alsands, when it fumbled the Alaska Highway natural gas pipe line and other megaprojects that would have provided the lifeline that the economy so sorely needed. It dropped the megaprojects but went on with the Gillespie project which had the recommendation that none of the others had-it had that special urgency that comes when Liberals are dealing with Liberals. Day after day our Members have risen in this House to bring to the attention of the Government the attrition brought about in individual ridings by a collapsing economy.
In Ottawa this week, making the rounds of Ministers' offices, there has been a delegation of outstanding citizens from my riding of Yukon. They are seeking some slight sign of interest or initiative with regard to the reopening of the Cyprus-Anvil mine at Faro, a major employer in Yukon that contributes 40 per cent of the economy of that part of the country. The Japanese are waiting for the products of this lead-zinc mine. The workers are represented in this delegation by the head of the Yukon Federation of Labour, ready and eager to go back to work, having done everything that could be expected of labour. But the Government and its protege, Dome Petroleum, which took over the mine only to close it, have yet to make a move.
This is not an ordinary delegation. It represents the White Pass and Yukon Railway, the Yukon Federation of Labour, the territorial member from that riding, the town of Faro by its mayor, the Canadian Labour Congress, and other concerned citizens. From all over Canada groups have presented submissions, petitions, pleas and requests for action and in the face of the storming of the bastille-the Government's indifference-we have had an example of absolutely monumental inertia.
March 1, 1983

1 have mentioned the jobs that have been lost. This is something that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) do not like to hear. It interrupts the even tenor of those plans and schemes which they continually juggle in the air-from schemes to extract oil from coal, to the latest Pitfield exercise in positive thinking, to the newest centralist intervention in the economy. They do not like to be reminded about the hard facts of life, such as the fact that they have frittered away half a million jobs for half a million Canadians since taking office. These are unpleasant facts and they do not like to be reminded of unpleasant facts. When you are riding around in a bullet-proof limousine and handing out $800 per diem jobs to your friends and possible successors, you do not like to be reminded of things that are unpleasant. Presumably the bullet-proof glass in the limousine is to protect the Prime Minister from his own supporters.


David P. Smith: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: He has other problems, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith).


Mr. MacBain:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I hear the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) intervening on behalf of his Party, which is so bereft of talent that he could think of only one name in the entire Liberal Party with the kind of calibre that could stand for leadership of the Party, according to his remarks the other day on national television.
For the first time in a quarter century we have employment declining on a year-by-year basis-400,000 below 1981 in 1982. This is just another first for the Government.
The intolerable tragedy of the situation is that of all those affected by the drying up of jobs, young people have been hardest hit. Job opportunities for young Canadians under this Government have dropped by 14.5 per cent. This is the traumatic side of the tragedy we are undergoing in this country owing to the policies of the Government.
First, it is a Government that has frittered away opportunities and initiatives that would have preserved economic buoyancy in spite of international pressures. It is a Government that was long on schemes-and still is-and short on action. It is a Government that went into seclusion at Meach Lake and came up with bold and imaginative schemes to remake the face of the nation. But sadly, after the remake it was the same old face of Liberal inaction.
We had development programs and make-work programs and new initiatives, announced with all the fanfare of a Government which spends more energy on announcing its putative achievements than it does in carrying them out. Nothing worked. The economy at this moment is being compared to the darkest days of the Depression. Does that dampen the spirits of Members opposite? Not a whit.
The Prime Minister flits to the Caribbean and promises that Canada will grant aid to governments that follow Marxist policies as well as those that choose democracy. That is
Income Tax
statesmanship all right. This lets our friends and allies know where Canada stands.
After three years of the worst Government in the history of this country, Canadians are borne down by a sense of oppression and gloom. They sense dark clouds of disaster folding over a nation that by every standard should enjoy the brightest and most positive progress of any nation in the world. We stand twenty-fourth, at the bottom of the heap-and the Government put us there.
People sense an abdication of leadership, a fear of the future, an uncertainty about on-going prospects. Canadians have an uneasy awareness of a Government that does not care, a Government in isolation, a Government that worries more about permitting its friends to make a living out of the taxpayer-as the Prime Minister said the other day of his friend in Toronto-than in producing good management for the majority of Canadians.
One has the distinct impression in speaking in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is not listening. Member after Member rises, points out the defects in the Government's proposals, and then the trained seals rise in their places, the measure is approved and another fragment of our freedoms is lost.
This is another of those rag-tag, grab-bag Bills which this most incompetent of Governments has brought before this House. This Bill is the relic and remnant of one former Minister and the present Minister. It took two Ministers to get this mess together. The first has gone to his reward in External Affairs. His own changes to this budget would have brought about the resignation of any self-respecting Minister of Finance. The second is still with us, but he should not be after the disclosures of the last several days.
The legislation which we are now facing is a compendium of no less than three budgets. The first was introduced in November of 1981, the second follow-up budget in June of 1982, and the third by the present Minister in October of 1982. None of these budgets went through the House because of the Government's intense preoccupation with buying gas stations, imposing metric conversion on Canadians, cooking up Canagrex, operating its several hundred Crown corporations, and daydreaming about establishing more, totally outside the purview of Parliament. This Government can hardly bring itself together about such mundane things as budgetary measures or unemployment. This Government can hardly bring itself to bother about standard practices of an annual session of Parliament, with a Throne Speech once a year, with a budget once a year, with order and planning to assist in discharging the business of the country. Sir, you cannot operate a country that way; certainly you cannot operate a House of Commons that way. It cannot be done. Parliament is entitled to have budgets delivered and presented at regular intervals, consistent with the fiscal periods in which they apply.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 1, 1983
Income Tax


Erik Nielsen: Instead of that, we are not only asked to deal with budgets representing several past fiscal periods and budgetary measures inextricably intermingled one with the other, but now we are establishing the practice of projecting budgetary requirements into fiscal years not even yet upon us, with no explanation as to how funds will be spent for future requirements. Under the circumstances it is impossible to attempt to deal logically and coherently with matters before the House affecting the livelihoods of thousands upon thousands of Canadians.
In the middle of this frightful disarray the Government comes into the House with a demand for cash requirements for the next fiscal year but with no accompanying budgetary measures or budget at all. This is a further indication of the extent to which the Government has gone totally out of control. Not only can Government Members not enunciate clear and workable policies, not only have they failed to deal with the problems of unemployment and economic disarray, they cannot even look after such elementary housekeeping duties as bringing down budgets at proper times.
Parliament is now confronted with bits and pieces of three budgets, along with a demand for authority to borrow $14 billion, this being the cash requirement for a fourth budget which we have not even seen yet. That is not financial policy; that is total disarray. How can Canadians expect equitable and reasonable tax treatment from a Government which does not know where its next budget is coming from or where its last budget has gone? How can business or industry have confidence in a Government whose national accounts not only will not balance, they cannot even be found? Never has Parliament in my experience been confronted with such a situation.
Here is a session which has been creaking and groaning along for over three years, the longest single session in Canadian Parliamentary history, simply because the Government has neither the wit nor the intelligence to put together a Throne Speech to tell us what it intends to do. The reason is simple: they are the last to know.
No area of Canada has been harder hit by the incompetence of this Government than the area which I have the honour to represent. The people in Yukon are like the people in any other part of Canada. They like to pay their bills and they like to bring up their families with a modicum of security and stability, yet under the policies of the Government that security and stability have disappeared. When I hear the tragic figures of unemployment in the Atlantic Provinces, when I hear the tribulations which confront the forest and other industries in British Columbia and their tragic unemployment figures, Members will excuse me for suggesting that they might gasp a little if I tell them that the unemployment figures in Yukon are 30 per cent and higher. We have witnessed there the closing of our entire mining industry; every single mine in Yukon has been closed. Employment and investment have dried up entirely. We have felt the heavy hand of Government in an area in which the authorities in Ottawa neither understand nor show any great interest.


David P. Smith: Have you ever heard about supply and demand?


Erik Nielsen: The Parliamentary Secretary mentions supply and demand.


David P. Smith: I thought the Tories believed in that.


Erik Nielsen: I will convey that very interesting interjection to my constituents of Yukon. That interjection is typical of the hard-hided, uncaring, insensitive attitude typical of the Government across the way. We have suffered a mass exodus from Yukon as jobs have dried up and as incomes have disappeared.
Members of the House know that people pay extra premiums in oil, gas and electricity, extra premiums in food, clothing, medical care, as well as in transportation and shipping, yet we have had notice that the Government will begin now taxing northern benefits accorded to those people who have chosen to live and work in the North. Benefits which have been free from tax for well over 30 years are now being fallen upon by this insatiable, greedy Government, adding one more nail in the lid of the coffin of northern development.
When the former Conservative Government was in office- and I go back to 1957-there was meaning to the northern vision, there was meaning to northern development. It was a vision that was lit by the Conservative Government of the day in the minds of Canadians who suddenly became aware that 40 per cent of the nation lay above the sixtieth parallel, rich in resources. Programs were brought into play to provide the kind of incentive for people to populate that area of Canada and to bring about a realization of the richness of those resources for the benefit of all Canadians. That policy was carried on in the short seven months of the administration of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), but this Government is doing everything in its power not to encourage people to live in northern Canada but, rather, to totally discourage them. Indeed, there is that mentality among some who would like to create that part of Canada as a huge national park and leave it unsullied.
The budgetary measures in this Bill represent a continuing saga in Liberal incompetence and in Liberal unconcern. They brought in the first budget of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in November, 1981. It was an exercise in futility. The Minister built castles in the air, and they have all come tumbling down. His budget was so remote and so divorced from reality that it sounded like one of the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), those he very rarely delivers in the House of Commons. I believe, in the 15 years he has been Prime Minister, that he has spoken some six times in the debates in the House of Commons. He considers this place a nuisance. He considers all of us nobodies when we are 40 feet off the Hill. In December they tried to put MacEachen's Humpty-Dumpty back together again, back on the wall, and they failed. In June they tried again, practically returning to the status quo. In October the substitute Minister of Finance brought in a new budget-he did not call it that-wiping out the efforts of his predecessor and providing the most emphatic vote of non-confidence in history from one Minister to another in the same Government.
March 1, 1983

What must concern Parliament and all who are committed to this institution is the cavalier disregard by the Government of the rights and privileges of Members. Surely we have a right to expect to have spelled out a coherent financial policy, carefully set forth in budgetary terms so that Parliament and Canadians will know where we are going. We have not had that. They do not care over there. They do not even participate in the debate on this important measure before us. We have had academic exercises, epistemological experiments, casually arrived at, flung before Parliament almost contemptuously sometimes weeks and months out of date, while the Government goes about its business of pillaging, yes, Sir, pillaging, the Treasury of this nation.
What is also disturbing is that while the House is faced with the detritus of three budgets, the wreckage of fiscal and monetary experimentation, there remains enough of the underlying philosophy to cause grave disquiet. The first MacEachen budget was an exercise in unwarranted, unjustified confiscation. It was based on the premise, clearly spelled out, that all income was the property of the Government to do with as it saw fit.
There has been nothing so approaching the divine right of kings since the demise of Charles I. The philosophy enunciated in that budget would find ready acceptance in any totalitarian dictatorship in the world. In fact, the Prime Minister himself, basking in the sunny breezes of St. Lucia two weekends ago, said that, as for him, he could see no difference between states with Marxist governments and those embracing democracy. Those are not my words, they are his.


David P. Smith: They are not his at all.


Erik Nielsen: The Parliamentary Secretary says I am misquoting the Prime Minister. Pray correct me. Let him tell me and Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, in what respect my quote of the Prime Minister's in St. Lucia is incorrect. I challenge him right now. The Parliamentary Secretary does not do so because he knows, Sir, that I quote the Prime Minister correctly. This is something we in the House have been aware of for a long time.
The Prime Minister has to be the focal point of the dry rot in this institution. He and his Government have contributed coldly and deliberately to the deterioration of Parliament by neglecting our procedures, by ignoring our traditions, by undermining the great principles of free expression and free debate, and by treating this institution as an afterthought, as did the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) just today by his refusal to say in the House what he ran to a press conference to say. When you undermine Parliament, Sir, you are striking at the freedom of all Canadians.
We have before us a series of tax measures, some of them contradictory, some of them mutually exclusive, all of them incoherent, disorganized, chronologically out of sync, leftovers, bits and pieces of three or four budgets. How does the Prime Minister and his Government expect Parliament to deal intelligently with what is nothing more than a fiscal dog's
Income Tax
breakfast? This kind of contemptuous disregard for the House of Commons permeates everything that is done on the other side of the House. While the Government asks this House, which has been sitting, as I have said, longer than any session in our history, for approval of this incredible melange of tax measures, most of which have been overtaken by economic shifts and changes, it goes on ladling out goodies to its friends and former colleagues. Here is a total disregard for what Parliament may think or do.
Former Ministers of this Government, with the ink scarcely dry on their discharge papers, are out making up packages with their friends in business, getting those packages approval at the departmental level by their former employees, and then getting approval by their friends in the Cabinet. In each case, they stand to make profits which would provide the ordinary Canadian with a worry-free retirement program for the rest of his or her life. The Prime Minister has produced a new guideline which he does not talk about. He does not want to talk about it. Perhaps it is between the lines. It is called the "belly up to the trough guideline."
In view of the last two weeks, I have spent some time redrawing the guidelines, not as they should be, not on the basis of analysis of what is there, which is enough for any Minister acting in a proper fashion, but on the basis of what the Prime Minister and his Government are doing. It reads something like this:
Any former Minister may have unrestricted access to the goodies of his former Department, providing he obtains the approval of his former colleagues who are now Ministers not earlier than two years after leaving the Government. This does not prevent him from entering negotiations with his former Department immediately, nor does it prevent his using his insider knowledge and contacts to set up cosy little packages with friends in industry so as to become eligible for special treatment denied to other Canadians. This can result in quite considerable profits to those involved, as in the Banff townsite case and the coal liquefaction case. There is no problem in bypassing tiresome departmental regulations which are only there to freeze out the uninitiated, or members of the general public and do not apply to former Ministers. Best of all, the whole procedure is entirely within the guidelines. I promised I would not forget you. Bless you, Pierre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I saw the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) smiling a moment ago because he will recognize the validity of that guideline.
This is the unwritten guideline, so confidential that even Iona has not seen it. This is the perception in the eyes of the Canadian public. And it is this perception, along with the incredible sloppiness of the Government, that is undermining Parliament as an institution of the people of this country. This Government, with the greatest expenditures, with the greatest deficit, with the greatest incompetence in the history of this country, has shown its absolute and utter disdain for Parliament.
In the Coalgate affair-some call it the Lalonde affair, some call it the MacEachen affair and some call it the Gillespie affair-


David P. Smith: What do you call it?
23344

March 1, 1983
Income Tax


Erik Nielsen: I call it the Coalgate affair because it embraces everyone. Rather than admitting error and throwing themselves on the mercy of the House, they have resorted to bitter attacks on those who have dared to question the obviously sleazy activities in which they have been engaged. Day after day, the Prime Minister took refuge in clouds of evasion and obfuscation and, in his own words, misleading statements to the House of Commons. The truth has slowly risen to the surface.
This trail has always led in the same direction-to Gillespie. There were side turns and side branches, carefully hidden in the underbrush, put together by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and his friends. One trail led to the Deputy Prime Minister, who was the Minister of Finance at the time and who also at the time was Vice-President of the Treasury Board, to whom went a couple of submissions concerning this matter. Presumably he acted in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for Nova Scotia. Now he refuses to answer questions, ignores questions or just simply fails to appear. It appears that although he is still Deputy Prime Minister, he cannot, as Minister of External Affairs, give the House an accounting of what he did when he was Minister of Finance.


David P. Smith: Let's get back to the Income Tax Act.


Erik Nielsen: The Parliamentary Secretary asks me what this has to do with the Income Tax Act. This Act asks us to tax Canadians so that the Parliamentary Secretary and the friends in his Party, led by those Ministers, can dole out favours, having a potential of $750,000 in profit in Canadian taxpayers' money, or an up front investment of $25,000 by Gillespie which he had already retrieved in the first year of the transaction. I trust that I have clarified, even for his thick skull, what this matter has to do with taxing Canadians. The Minister of External Affairs cannot give that accounting even though he was then, as now, Deputy Prime Minister.
One begins to see the reason for the sudden and bewildering Cabinet shuffle which took place a few months ago, which I described on that occasion as a shuffling of pallbearers, when the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources were suddenly shuffled to new roles which made it impossible under our rules to question either of them.
It is noteworthy that the present Minister of Finance has accepted his responsibility in this matter. He has made an explanation to the House. I, for one, cannot accept that explanation. I, for one, believe that despite the question of right or wrong, good or evil, he had an obligation under the traditions of this institution to tender his resignation. That he did not do. That obligation, because of the implication of the Deputy Prime Minister, was also upon him, an obligation which he has failed to fulfil. Loquacious enough on other occasions, the Deputy Prime Minister has preserved, in regard to the Gillespie affair, the attitude of Buddha personified. But
then, that is his common attitude whenever he or his Government is in difficulty. We sometimes wonder whether he is contemplating his navel or is lost in meditation, but he has shown no sign of following the lead, as shallow as it might be, of the Minister of Finance in making a clean breast of his participation in this whole shoddy affair. His attitude of noninvolvement is in stark contrast to the position he took in announcing the project when he was front and centre on the platform at Port Hawkesbury with dear Alastair.
If we were not aware of the purity of his intentions, the unblemished devotion shown in his record, it would appear that his present posture is one of a person burdened with guilt. It appears that he is satisfied to sulk in his tent, or his seat, and allow his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to bear the brunt of public inquiry into these activities. When searching for a reason for that kind of conduct on his part, one does not have to look far when one sees how the present Minister of Finance totally destroyed the credibility of the Minister for External Affairs when he was Minister of Finance in the presentation of that financial statement or budget.
I suggest that that is not the kind of attitude that would endear the Deputy Prime Minister to his colleagues on the front benches.
One has the feeling that if he chose, in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister which was the capacity in which he acted at the time, he could elucidate many of the troubling issues in the Gillespie affair. Surely the Prime Minister must see that the time has come for the Deputy Prime Minister to break his silence and take the nation and the House into his confidence, as he once took Alastair Gillespie into his confidence. It is he who holds the key to unriddling the conundrum.
By speaking, he can get the Minister of Finance, who has been carrying the can for him, off the hook. He can relieve the Prime Minister of the burden of public criticism which he has been bearing on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister. He can let the House and the public in on all the little secrets of this matter in an exercise which cannot be but of immense therapeutic value to himself.
Perhaps he could tell us what took place. Who inserted the funds for the synfuels program in the budget under the National Energy Program? It appears that the Deputy Prime Minister's original budget was more artful than it seemed. Perhaps he can elucidate what was in the submission that went to the Treasury Board and which bore the warning of Alastair Gillespie's involvement? He was, after all, Vice-President of the Treasury Board. He was both the Minister of Finance responsible for the budget and, of course, not just a member of the Treasury Board but Vice-President of the Treasury Board. Perhaps he might even go into the methods of persuasion that were used to screw the courage of the Minister of Energy at the time to the sticking point, after he became reluctant to sign the submission.
Everywhere one turns in this affair, one finds evidence of the fine hand of the Deputy Prime Minister.


David P. Smith: This is the Income Tax Act.
March 1, 1983


Erik Nielsen: Again, the Parliamentary Secretary does not really understand the rules of relevance. Yes, I say to him, this is the Income Tax Act. This Government is asking for taxes from the Canadian people so that it can pay off its friends, such as Macdonald, $925 a day, and give lucrative architectural jobs to close friends of the Prime Minister, such as Mr. Erickson, to build an embassy. There is a whole list of them which appeared in the newspaper the other day. 1 am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has not read of them.
The Deputy Prime Minister owes it to himself, to the country and to his Prime Minister to speak.
Therefore, we are brought to today when, under a spurious point of order, the Minister of Finance rises in his place to make yet another correction to his previous statements. He sat there for a week. Even accepting the fact that after the week end's search he knew on February 21 that he had prior knowledge, it was his responsibility then to take half a dozen steps to the Deputy Prime Minister to inform the House immediately that the misleading statements of the Prime Minister were no longer valid. He could have lifted the telephone to do that, it is amazing that all of a sudden Alexander Graham Bell and the technology that he brought to our commerce in this country and to our private discussions went out of style. Ministers started writing letters instead of lifting telephones. The Minister had an obligation to inform us immediately. He did not do that.
1 want to say a word or two before sitting down. 1 have touched on the taxation of northern benefits, and now I want to discuss another Cabinet document which came to my attention a short while ago.


David P. Smith: It relates to the Income Tax Act, I guess.


Erik Nielsen: It was sponsored by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and relates to amending the Northern Inland Waters Act to make certain regulations which, in effect, would entirely lay to rest the Yukon placer mining industry. The Government has killed, has utterly destroyed, the hard rock mining industry in the Yukon, and now it is about to do the same to the placer mining industry. It will not get away with its intended amendments to the Northern Inland Waters Act. It will not get away with its intention to amend or completely revise the Yukon Placer Mining Act, because we intend to fight that kind of change every step of the way.
However, consider the Government's approach. We hear the Liberals self-righteously rising and saying, "We will abide by the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. We will tell Members of Parliament more about Government business. We will inform Canadians more about what we do in Government on their behalf'.
I will read from a Cabinet document under the sponsorship of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning amendments to the Northern Inland Waters Act.
Income Tax


David P. Smith: It is the Income Tax Act we are debating.


Erik Nielsen: "It is not intended"-the Parliamentary Secretary has interjected. I said in my remarks a few moments ago that the Liberals neither understood nor wished to understand northern Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary obviously does not. I am referring to an industry which produces 93 per cent of Canada's placer gold, and the Government's decision with respect to hearings which are now under way in Whitehorse will cost that industry in Yukon $270 million.


David P. Smith: I am sure it is important, but-


Erik Nielsen: Taxes!


David P. Smith: -it does not relate to the Income Tax Act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Who cares?


Erik Nielsen: In keeping with the new bold spirit of the Government in making all this information accessible to Members of Parliament, let me quote from its own Cabinet document, sponsored by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which states, "It is not intended to publicly announce the decision to amend the Act or to convene public meetings to explain the amendments or to obtain reaction and comments". That is the Government's approach.


Mr. Kempling:: That's dictatorship.


Erik Nielsen: It does things in secret, never letting it see the light of day because it might get some good ideas from Members of Parliament as well as public organizations which might like to have some input. This is the Government's idea of participatory democracy. That is why the Government can kiss goodbye any hopes of amending the Northern Inland Waters Act. That is why it can kiss goodbye any attempt to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act without consultation with industry or with Yukoners, whom the Government has effectively frozen out of the public hearings which have been going on in the Yukon for the last two or three days. Industry is not even allowed input into those hearings which are top heavy with Ottawa bureaucrats and departmental Government figures comprising 70 per cent of those making submissions at the hearings.
I am sorry that I have not been able to convince the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith)-


David P. Smith: At least I have listened to you.


Erik Nielsen: -that what I have been saying has any bearing on tax measures. I have failed to convince him because he does not want to understand, or he refuses to understand. He has a closed Liberal mentality. He has the mentality so common among all Liberals today. They think, "We sit here by divine right. This institution is ours. We are the only ones fit to govern the country. This should be a unitary state because there is no one else in the country who is competent to govern". With the example of the standard of the Government, particularly as demonstrated in the last two weeks, if Canadians accept the Liberal party's belief that it is the only one fit to

March !, 1983
Income Tax
govern the country, all I can say is, God help my country. 1 will not believe it. We on this side do not accept it. At the first opportunity we will see those rascals out of the Government so that a fresh new breed can sweep into these halls and govern the country.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is often said that the sins of yesterday are the taxes of today, and that has probably never been more true than it is now. We have before us a document which is 295 pages long, producing for us the results of three budgets. It tells us that Canadians were deceived once again in the last election when they were told that all they must do is to vote Liberal and all their problems will be solved. They were promised cheap energy, cheaper taxes, a universal system of social welfare and total protection from the ravages of inflation and unemployment. All these promises were given by the Liberals to an innocent public.
The question arises, what is the Government's tax philosophy? What has happened to these principles of equity and fairness which we have the right to expect would be embraced in the tax policy of the Government? No one denies the Government the right to use the Income Tax Act as a leverage to regulate, to stimulate and to slow down an overheated economy. However, the Government has managed to produce a tax system which has very extended leverage to it, one which was designed to pursue certain, now clearly identifiable, ideological goals, these goals being total central control and total control of an economy. It is a system which extends leverage to those who are on the inside and which rewards political friends.
What happens to all the principles of equity and fairness? As soon as they were tabled, I reviewed the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act. I did not see anything which would relieve the plight of the truckers from my constituency who write to me. People who travel in that manner are away from home for two or three weeks at a time, travelling up the Alaska Highway. The Income Tax Act and the regulations allowed them to deduct $ 18 a day while away from home for income tax purposes. If Your Honour has ever travelled up and down the Alaska Highway, or between here and Montreal, or travelled anywhere in Canada, you know that you cannot live on S18 a day when you are away from home. Donald Macdonald knows that. He needs a stipend of $800 a day in order to live, while a trucker who is away from home on his job is allowed a sustenance deduction of only $18 a day.
It is not necessary to cite such a dramatic comparison, and no trucker travelling up the Alaska Highway wants to compare himself with Donald Macdonald. However, how about considering the bureaucrat who is dispatched from Ottawa to Kingston or to any place else? He is allowed a per diem of $28 for food, but not the trucker. I looked through these 294 pages and I found no relief in there for the trucker. There is no fairness or equity of any kind.
What has happened to the principle of the ability to pay? What has happened to a tax Act based on principles of equity,
fairness and the redistribution of wealth, as well as the ability to pay, meaning that you pay a higher rate of tax if you are able?
My Leader just told you about some of the discrepancies that exist in the tax Act as it applies to northern residents. The ability of Canadians to pay taxes differs very dramatically in accordance with where one lives. When you have to pay up to $5 per gallon of gasoline, $400 per month to heat your home, and up to 2.5 times the southern rate for essential food for your family, as do people in the North, your ability to pay tax is less, obviously, than the ability of those who live in Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa. Is that fact respected in this tax Bill? The only reference to it is that northern benefits, which we have allowed northern steelworkers and workers in larger companies with the protection of large unions, are to be phased out over a three-year period. These people have traditionally received northern benefits for housing and for trips outside to civilization. We are now told in this 294-page document that those benefits are to be phased out. Does it contain anything to replace those benefits? There is nothing there. It does not respect the principles of equity, fairness and the ability to pay.
What has happened to the principle of the ability to comprehend? Has the Government made an effort to make this tax Act understandable to the average Canadian? Should I read to you, as some of my colleagues have done, some of the paragraphs in this tax Act that are convoluted and totally incomprehensible?
These people in Government do not do anything without a reason. The reason this Bill is so complicated and convoluted is that it is based not on the principles of the ability to pay, comprehend, or equity and fairness, but rather on the mushroom principle which goes something like this: keep people in the dark and cover them with horse manure, and you can do anything you like. That is the principle on which this document is based.
I could not pretend, and I suggest you could not either, to understand fully our tax Act today. There is a whole new cult of bureaucrats, corporate and tax lawyers. One used to be able to fill out one's own tax form. When it got a little more complicated and you had a little income and wanted to deduct money you sent overseas to help your ailing mother or relatives in a distressed country from which you had come, you could go to a tax accountant in April and ask him to help you make out your income tax return. That is not the case any longer. If you want to take advantage of all the things written into this Act today and you do not want to be shafted, you have to hire a tax lawyer. At one time you used to have a family doctor. Now you need a family tax lawyer.
It is also suggested that the crime of taxation is not in the taking but in the way it is being spent. This Government tells us that the reason it has to come to us for $5 billion in additional borrowing authority, and the reason our tax bill is increasing, as Government spending is increasing this year, by
March 1, 1983

17 per cent while everyone else's income increases are limited by the six and five program, is that the locked in social programs to which the Government is committed are growing. Naturally when the economy is in a decline the demand placed on these social programs increases. That is a reasonable argument.
This tax Bill also indicates that measures which have been laid before this House have put a cap on the social program. No longer are Family Allowances indexed to the rate of inflation. No longer are old age pensions indexed to the rate of inflation. The Government has protected itself against any unreasonable increases in the demand on our social contracts and programs.
Let me tell you something and make a comparison. It has been estimated that it would cost this country $2 billion to put in place an actuarially sound pension program that would compare with the best in the world, such as that of Sweden and West Germany. In that way when a worker had completed his productive years he would have 80 per cent of his earned wages as a pension. It is estimated that that would cost this country $2 billion. Imagine that.
This Government spent $6 billion buying service stations throughout the country to put in place a National Energy Program which has invited the scorn of everyone, and created a reputation that we will not live down in the next 25 years. That expenditure has not created one new job or found one new barrel of oil. It has done nothing. The Government spent $6 billion, three times what it would cost to put a universal program in place, to secure totally the future of every person who has ever made a contribution to the work base of this country. That is why I say the crime of taxation is not in the taking but in the way it is being spent.
What this Government is doing is to tax the poor. It has capped Family Allowances and old age pensions and it is phasing out the northern benefits. It has not forgotten to reward its friends. Mr. Gillespie will have no problem in coming to grips with the hardships of the times. The Liberals over there know how to reward their friends. Of the 24 million people in this country only a small number are Liberal friends, and that circle is getting smaller and smaller as the just society is becoming more and more just for Liberals.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell)- Fisheries-Allocation of non-surplus stock to European
Income Tax
Economic Community; the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-Income Tax-Proposal to pay rent according to income-use of tax returns, (b) Landlords' access to information; and the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Energy-Request that oil price be allowed to drop, (b) Price of gasoline.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the Statute law relating to Income Tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, of all the Bills which have come before Parliament during the present session of Parliament, Bill C-139 ranks as one of the most complicated. The bulky Bill to amend the statute law relating to income tax, as previous speakers have mentioned, is some 294 pages in length. Yet our Minister of Finance is asking the House to whip it through because he feels the various tax consultants need this legislation so they can fulfil their obligations to Canadians, and it will delay the return of income tax refunds to taxpayers if it is held up here.
The Minister is particularly justified in asking for a decision on this tax Bill. The tax laws have been so muddied by the process of budgets within recent years and subsequent financial statements which amend this and disallow that, that few Canadians, even tax experts, can claim to understand the income tax laws thoroughly. In that sense this Bill is required to clear the air.
Parliamentarians who have been debating this Bill are deeply concerned because it is too difficult to understand; it is simply too cumbersome a document to be swallowed in one bite. The risk connected with this Bill is that out of frustration, while under the pressure of time limitation on debate, Bill C-139 will get the green light from the House without Members being sure of exactly what is in the legislation. The Government's staff required some 389 days to draft this document. It embraces changes in income tax law introduced in budgets, and budgetary statements issued in November and December of 1981, the June budget of 1982, and the October, 1982, financial statement. It represents the work of two Finance Ministers. We need to have a better schedule of producing and debating these Bills. We need to further expand the parliamentary reform that has been established. We are still considering measures that were introduced in budgetary documents in excess of 15 months ago.

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
As previous speakers have indicated in this debate, I too would ask why the wording in this legislation has to be so complicated. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) and a number of other Members have indicated their concern. I would ask the House to consider this passage referring to taxation to cover an employee being issued a company car. If, Mr. Speaker, you can make sense out of it, you will do a lot better than I. The legislation indicates, and I quote:
An amount that is a reasonable standby charge for the automobile for the aggregate number of days in a taxation year during which it was made available by an employer or by a person related to an employer shall be deemed to be the amount equal to the product obtained when
(a) where the employer or the person related to the employer owned the automobile at any time in the year, an amount in respect of its cost to the employer equal to the percentage thereof obtained when two per cent is multiplied by
the quotient obtained when such of the aggregate number of days hereinbefore referred to as were days during which the employer or the person related to the employer owned the automobile is divided by 30 (except that if the quotient so obtained is not a full number, and exceeds one, it shall be taken to the nearest full number or, if there is no full number, then to the full number next below-
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would be kind enough to explain that phraseology to us. Many individuals are making a great deal of money interpreting tax laws. As the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) indicated earlier, at one time we could fill out our own tax returns, but with complicated legislation such as this, it is impossible.
We oppose the limitation of the indexation factor on personal taxes according to the six and five program. This is nothing more than a sneaky income tax increase. If the Government wishes to increase taxes, let it do so. To slip this through without proper debate and backed up by a massive advertising program supporting the six and five program is pure and simple deceit.
Now is not the time for us as Parliamentarians to increase taxes. The economy is still in decline. Canadians should be encouraged to spend their money. A tax increase to feed the ever-growing appetite of the Government is counter-productive.
If the Government feels so strongly about the size of the deficit, let it cut its own spending. Let it curtail the 50 per cent increase in ministerial travel. Let it cut back on the size of the increase in the Minister's Department, and show it means business. Let it cut back where any businessman would start- on overhead and the administrative costs of running the Government. We have yet to hear why the overhead costs in the 12 largest Departments of this Government will increase by 17.1 per cent. As previous speakers have indicated, what we need is a new tax act, something to which everyday-Canadians can relate and which they can understand. It should be simplified so that tax rules are easily understood. I rather doubt that this will come about with the present administration. Their preoccupation is with the distribution rather than the generation of wealth in this country. They have stifled the growth of every sector in this country.
I wish to share with Hon. Members an article which appeared in The Edmonton Journal relating to farm bankruptcies in Canada. It reads:
Bankruptcies continue to reap a grim harvest across rural Canada as another 33 farmers were forced out of business in January, the Consumer Affairs Department reported Monday.
The figure is 32 percent higher than in January 1982-
I have received, as I am sure all Members have, hundreds of letters relating to the budgetary measures and the legislation before us. Most of it is critical of what this Government is doing. Let me relate the one item on which we receive the most correspondence. It is with regard to the use of company automobiles. The Government did take a step back in this area and withdrew some of the provisions, but it did not go nearly far enough. I would ask the Minister of Finance to give further consideration to this area because this tax is totally unjustified.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate at this time. I am one of millions of Canadians who have come to the conclusion that after a number of budgets and economic statements and other activities of this Government, of the former Minister of Finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), as well as the changes, reversals and hesitations, we should get on with the job and pass something in the House of Commons after so much talk of uncertainty on the part of the Government.
I do not propose to speak at great length. I want to address one or two ideas at second reading stage. This may be of some assistance to the Government in terms of its future activities. In considering future taxation measures, we would like that element of certainty which Canadians require as to the amount of taxes they will be expected to pay. Also, we would like to know the time-frame within which these matters should be considered by Parliament.
When the budgets or economic statements of November, June and October were presented, I am sure Members on both sides of the House had roughly the same experience in their constituency offices. My office was deluged with delegations and representations from a wide spectrum of constituents in every type of occupation, farmers, small-business persons and those in the life insurance industry. God knows we heard from the life insurance industry and those who have life insurance policies. We heard from those who had certain investments which they hoped to use in order to support themselves during their retirement years.
They came into my office to see their Member of Parliament regarding the proposals put forward in the House of Commons. They sought advice as to what they should do in terms of their business and investment as a result of the proposals in the statements and budgets.
It was a preposterous and ridiculous situation. One gentleman who came to my office sought advice on a number of propositions set forth in the budget of the former Minister of Finance. He asked what the proposals meant. 1 could not tell
March 1, 1983

him, and 1 informed him that I could get no clarification either from the Minister on the floor of the House of Commons. I recommended that he ask an accountant what he should do. He said, "I am an accountant". That is the situation in which we find ourselves. Canadians, regardless of their profession, have no idea as to what the Government has in mind.
We cannot get answers from the Government. There is confusion. Business decisions are held up. The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) know this. They receive as many calls from their constituents as I do asking what this proposal means and how to plan their business.
1 wish to relate to the House some of the information which those of us on the Special Committee on Procedure were privy to and were able to obtain on a recent visit to Westminster. We had the opportunity of examining the whole question of accountability and the way in which the United Kingdom, the Parliament of that country, deals with matters such as amendments to the Income Tax Act or taxation matters generally. In that country, Mr. Speaker, the question was raised some years ago as to whether or not taxation measures, once they were introduced in the budget, were effective before the Ways and Means motions and the legislation specifying the exact changes to the Income Tax Act or other legislation of the United Kingdom was passed. That is the same situation which we have now. The question has been raised on different occasions by Hon. Members of the Opposition as to whether or not the people of Canada are expected to pay these taxes which are brought down in the budgets even though we have not yet passed the legislation formally putting into effect the provisions set forth in the budgets.
The matter came to a point of confrontation in the United Kingdom in about 1923. It was challenged by a Member of Parliament there. The matter was to go to the courts for adjudication as to whether or not these taxation measures referred to in budgets were effective as of the date of the budget and were to be applied immediately notwithstanding the fact that Parliament had not yet spoken on these provisions. The resolution on the part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom was to pass an Act which provides for dealing with taxation measures brought down by a budget. And what they do in that country-and maybe it is something we should be looking at in this country as well-is to specify by statute that taxes which are brought into effect by a budget statement become effective on the date specified in the budget. They remain in effect for a certain period of time, within which time it is anticipated that the actual Ways and Means motions, and the amendments to the legislation in question, must be brought before the House and voted upon.
I mention this experience in Britain because of what I believe we have seen over the course of the last two and a half years in terms of the people of Canada, their great confusion and concern over exactly where they stand with respect to the different provisions set forth in the budget, because they were asked to pay taxes which were to be deducted at source with respect to certain benefits, and yet the amendments were not
Income Tax
brought down and passed for various reasons, including indecision on the part of the Government.
We have this unfortunate experience, therefore, Mr. Speaker, which has really, I believe, brought home to us a substantial lesson, that sometimes, even though we may object to a particular tax A, B or C, it is more important to have certainty as to what the changes are going to be than to be concerned about the merits of the actual tax provision itself. The reason is that the damage which is caused to the lives of individual Canadians, to the business sector, the effect it has on our total economy, is owing to the indecision which exists in the minds of the people when investment decisions are held back because of the fact that the Government does not know what it wants to do, or is not certain.
Delays in bringing in its legislation, amendments to the Income Tax Act, cause serious problems, and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) would fully understand that since he has taken over his portfolio. This situation probably has been one of his greatest preoccupations as he receives complaints from Canadians and questions as to what they can expect in terms of actual amendments, when they can expect the amendments to be passed, and when the Government is going to make a decision about which ones they will keep and which ones they will drop from the budget. He knows the consequences this has had on investment in our country.
I simply say, therefore, by way of general advice to the Government and to Members of Parliament, that perhaps the time has come for us to look at some rules governing the time in which these budgetary provisions have to be dealt with by the House of Commons. There should be some opportunity for Members of Parliament to raise legitimate concerns or make constructive suggestions with respect to the advisability of these measures, but in due course it seems to me that what we have to do is to let the people of Canada know, as Parliamentarians in the House of Commons, where they are going so that they can make decisions about business investments, and when they will have the official decision with respect to budgetary matters.
I share that concern of many Canadians who have written to me. This Government has given me and all Members of Parliament more work in responding to letters of complaint and letters of clarification than any other Government that I can remember. That is saying something, because I have received a lot of letters of complaint with respect to the activities and policies of this Government. This budget has brought me more correspondence than any other single matter because of the way in which this Government has mishandled the matter. Unlike the Minister of State for Finance, I do not have a signature machine in my office. I have to sign all those letters, as well as compose and dictate them. I have to speak to my constituents. 1 do not have a phalanx of executive assistants to protect me as the Minister has protecting him from his constituents. I have to speak to my constituents, and 1 am proud and pleased to be able to do so. I do not look for that

March 1, 1983
Income Tax
kind of work. 1 try to be constructive and give the Government the benefit of constructive advice, and that is the policy I bring to Government.
Now I say to the Minister that 1 hope he has learned his lesson in his new responsibility and that he will take my suggestion to his colleagues and bring something before Parliament which would allow us to deal with these matters on a more rational basis.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

Hervieux-Payette	Lefebvre	Portelance(Mrs.)	Loiselle	Prud'hommeHopkins	Lumlcy	ReganHudecki	MacBain	ReidIrwin	MacEachen	(Kenora-RaiJohnston	MacGuigan	RobertsJoyal	Mackasey	RobinsonKaplan	MacLaren	(Etobicoke-1Kelly	MacLellan	RompkeyKillens (Mrs.)	Masse	RossiLachance	Masters	RoyLajoie	McCauley	SavardLalonde	McRae	SchroderLamontagne	Munro	SimmonsLanders	(Hamilton East)	SmithLang	Nicholson (Miss)	TardifLaniel	Olivier	TessierLapicrre	Ouellet	TobinLapointe	Parent	Tousignant(Charlevoix)	Pelletier	TurnerLapointe	Penner	Veillette(Beauce)	Pepin	WatsonLeBlanc	Peterson	WeatherheadLeduc	Pinard	Whelan-127.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I realize that seven minutes is not much time in which to try to put down all my concerns about the question I raised on January 31, 1983. The question concerns the allocation of nonsurplus stocks by the Government for market accessibility in the marketplace. I should like to define the term "nonsurplus".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) has the floor.


Coline M. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if Hansard got everything that has gone on, it has been so noisy.
It used to be that we talked about traditional and nontraditional stocks. Then we talked about under-utilized and utilized species. Now the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is using the term non-surplus and surplus. For the benefit of Hon. Members I shall explain that the allocation of nonsurplus fish stocks is the allocation of stocks that Canadians in the fishing industry can use. It has become the practice over the last year or so to allocate non-surplus stocks for market accessibility.
When I questioned the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), he said he felt it was a perfectly suitable mechanism since the industry appeared to want it, and that we could allocate non-surplus stocks for market accessibility. This one related to the European Economic Community, last year it related to the Portuguese, and I understand that there will be another one shortly with the Portuguese as well that will double for them the amount of non-surplus stock in our fisheries this year.
I do not think it is a good practice for industry to suggest this, or for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or the Department of External Affairs to go out and find new market accessibility by using non-surplus stocks.
1 would ask Hon. Members to recall the days prior to the 200-mile jurisdiction being declared by Canada. At that time, all of the industry-inshore and offshore fishermen, small and big companies-protested against foreigners being in our waters. With the advent of the 200-mile jurisdiction foreign fishing was eliminated, except when they were going after what we considered stocks surplus to our needs. They were given allocations of surplus stock within our waters. I stress "surplus" Mr. Speaker.
1 feel very strongly that to give up fish that we can use for market accessibility is not a good trading mechanism for the Government to be involved in.
Adjournment Debate
1 asked the question prior to the publication of the Kirby Report. I had already spoken to the Kirby Commission about this. 1 realized that one of the main objectives of the Kirby Task Force was that the Atlantic fishing industry should be economically viable on an on-going basis, viable implying an ability to survive downturns with only a normal business failure rate and without Government assistance.
It is very nice to have that type of objective. We find that the Government assistance that will be available as a result of the Kirby Report will be about $198 million. In 1974-75 when the fishing industry was also having problems it was $150 million. Yet the problem that Kirby recognized has not been corrected. On page 49 of his report he quoted from the 1928 Royal Commission on the Maritimes and Quebec Fisheries. I realize that my time is short, but 1 will read it quickly. It reads:
The demands of the consumer must continue to dictate-
This was taken from a 1928 report. It continues:
-the form in which fish are marketed. Consumption always regulates sales, and sales regulate not only production but the particular form of the product.
I say that it is the marketing end on which we are concentrating here. The report further indicated:
The declaration of the 200-mile limit in 1977 served to heighten interest in selling Canadian fish products.
He accepted that. The only disappointing thing was that he did not go further. He did not allow for the fact that what has gone wrong over the last number of years is that although the industry has gone out and established new markets in traditional stocks, there are also gluts in the catching of that fish which serve to depress established markets. Because of the depressed state of the markets, we had to find new and alternative means to find new markets. This brings me back to the point concerning the use of non-surplus stocks for access to markets.
I say that because it is the wrong form of marketing. The Kirby Report recommended close to $50 million for marketing over the next five years. That is not nearly enough money when we are dealing with a natural resource which is food for the world. Yet this recommendation was accepted. Also it was accepted that the Kirby Report recommended over-the-side sales and non-allocation of surplus stocks for new market accessibility, to go along with the $50 million for new markets.
How much more will we trade of a resource which should not be bartered that way? We should have an effective industry and the involvement of Governments, both provincial and federal, so that we can go out and use the capacity we have built up over the 200-mile limit rather than decrease the capacity because Kirby had said that we will do marketing in the old direction rather than going for a new type of marketing. Perhaps this means Governments and industry getting involved with a natural resource. 1 do not think this has been considered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he allowed this non-surplus allocation or in the Kirby Report

March 1, 1983
Adjournment Debate
which came out after the question arose. I am very disappointed. I realize my time is up-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Eton. Member's time has expired,


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had at least equal time to answer the questions of the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). She has raised, in an articulate manner, in a very emotional manner and in a manner to which we in the House have become accustomed, the needs and concerns of her constituents. She referred to many of the questions confronting the Atlantic fisheries. She has gone through the whole scope of very important questions in her seven minutes. I will try to address one or two of the main ones.
She talked about the EEC agreement which Canada signed, and her concern that we have not obtained a good deal. I want to tell her, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) and the Government of Canada, that we are concerned that the EEC has not lived up to the spirit and intent of that agreement.
The deal, which was signed in 1981, provided for a number of areas of co-operation between Canada and the EEC, but primarily, from the Hon. Member's point of view and concern, it provided for the promotion of economic and commercial cooperation. From the Canadian perspective, the supplementary agreement was designed mainly to assist our exporters to diversify and expand sales of their product into Europe. Canada is the world's leading exporter of fish products in terms of value, but we concentrate almost exclusively on the United States market. It was thought that this was a way of breaking into European markets. This is a very important concern for the Government and for Canadian producers.
In order to achieve improved access to EEC markets for Canadian cod and herring products, the cost to Canada would be a limited amount of surplus and non-surplus fish to be caught by European vessels. Regrettably, during 1982, the first year of operation of the agreement, the EEC failed to fulfil its obligations with respect to market access. Canada, on the other hand, honoured its obligations fully in 1982.
Canadian Government representatives have, on a number of occasions, as has the Minister personally, informed the EEC authorities of our strong dissatisfaction with the operation of the long-term agreement. Both the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) have recently discussed the matter with senior EEC representatives.
My time is short. Let me say this. Disagreement will be interpreted by Canada in future in so far as it benefits the Europeans in direct relation to their commitment to live up to the spirit and the intent of the agreement that was signed, that is, to allow Canadian producers access to European markets. Perhaps my few words today will improve the situation.


George Albert Proud: Excellent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble).


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: On February 11,1 asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) a question that directly related to a practice of which the House became aware earlier in the week. That practice concerned the issuance of tax returns by the Department of National Revenue to individual taxpayers, changing the practice that had existed in the past. The return now discloses the income of the taxpayer for the immediately preceding taxation year together with the identified social insurance number of the spouse of the taxpayer. These returns in blank form for the 1982 taxation year had been dispatched by the Department of National Revenue to all taxpayers. They were mailed in the customary fashion enclosing information which had not previously appeared on blank forms. Canada Post Office, since that date, has indicated that approximately 10 per cent to 15 per cent of blank tax forms dispatched to individual taxpayers go astray.
Members of the House are very concerned about the consequences of the practice of including within blank form information that might be material to others. I asked the Minister, having regard to a statement which had been made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBIanc) as repeated to a reporter for The Toronto Star on February 7, and having regard to the comments he made in connection with the amount of rent that tenants should pay to landlords, whether there was not some indication that this practice of including information on blank tax returns might be part and parcel of an arrangement to see a plan which was approved by the Minister of Public Works put into play. If I may just quote from the article which appeared in The Toronto Star on February 7, 1983, it reads:
LeBIanc told The Star he would like to see all tenants pay at least 25 to 30 per cent of their before-tax income for accommodation. This way, he believes, rent controls could be eliminated.
"There are quite a lot of people who are living at quite a bit less than what has been deemed as the norm of 25 to 30 per cent of income for lodging. I think quite a bit less in some cases," he said-
My concern with the issue raised by the Minister is, of course, that the issue of the amount a landlord extracts from a tenant for rent is a matter of provincial rights. Under the Constitution, Section 92 of the British North America Act specifically designates as a power allocated to the Provinces, property and civil rights. Certainly in my Province of Ontario, and I suspect in all other Provinces in Canada, the provincial Government has taken advantage of this unquestioned right granted to provincial Governments and has enacted legislation under the Landlord and Tenant Act which deals with the right of landlords and tenants.
It is completely inappropriate and misguided on the part of the Minister of Public Works to intervene in a matter which is


INCOME TAX-PROPOSAL TO PAY RENT ACCORDING TO INCOME-USE OF TAX RETURNS. (B) LANDLORD'S ACCESS TO INFORMATION B
[Stage Direction]
rM&
m-
[Stage Direction]
March 1, 1983
[Stage Direction]
none of his concern. Indeed, it is not a federal concern at all. It is incredible that a federal Minister of the Crown with so many things which he might direct his attention to, having regard to the economy which is the responsibility of the federal Government and, for instance, the massive unemployment created by this Government's mismanagement, can take his time to deal with matters completely outside of his jurisdiction. That is exactly what the Minister has done in this case.
In any event, there is one further matter which must surely concern us. Who is to indicate what the income before tax of any taxpayer may be for the purpose of affixing the rate of rent that he is to pay? I fear that the Department of National Revenue may well be brought into play to help implement the plan determined to be appropriate by the Minister of Public Works, so that that Department may indicate to landlords the income of individual Canadian taxpayers. How could landlords know of the income of their tenants unless they had some co-operation from the government Department to which I made reference? I fear that the Department of National Revenue may be made a collecting agent for landlords, extracting a commission for their endeavours in order for that money to be handed over in appropriate fashion to the landlords of the nation on behalf of their tenants.
This Government has much to worry about and a lot to deal with. This issue is not one of them, and the Government should recognize that and leave the issue where it belongs, in the hands of the provincial Governments.
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this question arose in the context of other questions regarding information printed on personalized tax returns which were recently mailed for the 1982 taxation year. At that time, the Hon. Member for North York (Mr. Gamble), for reasons which are difficult to fathom, chose to raise questions about rental payments as a percentage of a taxpayer's total income. He appeared to be concerned about the confidentiality of tax information and to be under the illusion that some arrangements had been made to disclose information about taxpayers' income so that it could be used as a basis for determining the appropriate rent for an individual. I do not know if that is a fair statement of his position, but it is all that one can gather from what he said at the time.
Let me assure him and all Hon. Members that the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act remain in place and no amendment is contemplated which would go remotely along the lines that appear to disturb him. Basically, those confidentiality provisions require that information gathered for purposes of administering the Income Tax Act shall be used for that purpose only. Any exception is clearly spelled out in the Act, such as the one that permits the use of income tax information to develop tax policy, which is a perfectly reasonable idea, to be sure.
As the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) indicates, his colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Adjournment Debate
LeBlanc), has expressed a view as to what he thought would be a reasonable share of an individual's income that could be spent on rent. This is a very common sociological concept and it is surprising that the Hon. Member would not be familiar with it. It is certainly a giant leap from these to a belief that there is some kind of plan to make income tax information available to landlords.


ENERGY-REQUEST THAT OIL PRICE BE ALLOWED TO DROP. (B) PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to expand upon this evening relates to the question which was raised in the House today and on numerous other days about the price of crude oil in Canada. What is being questioned at the present time is the issue of an election promise and a commitment made by the federal Government to maintain the price of oil in Canada below the world price.
One of the quotations used from those promises is from the Prime Minister's statement on national television during the election campaign when he indicated that his Party was prepared to keep the price of oil below the world price and that it would not be set by OPEC nations. We find that promise in question today. The unfortunate part of it is that the Government, with its $89 billion in expenditures which it is facing, is in very difficult times. As well, there is an extremely large deficit this year. The fear in Canada is that instead of addressing the economy as a whole, the Government will address only the need for its own revenues as well as again narrowly concentrating on the energy sector. The major concern is that this Government live up to its election promises and commitments under the National Energy Program and allow the Canadian price to remain below the world price and to track downward as that world price moves. If that were to happen, we would find a very large improvement in the fortunes of farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and small businesses. In addition, we would find that Canadian goods were more competitive on the world markets. Beyond that, communities such as the ones I represent would be able to offset generously transportation costs and make general improvements in the quality of life of consumers.
The unfortunate other side of the coin is that if the Government opts to push Canadian prices up to or beyond the world price level, Canadian goods would become non-competitive. As has been predicted by a number of leading organizations and financial analysts, the Canadian economy would continue to recover more slowly than its trading partners. In addition, it would appear that the major and immediate beneficiaries of a move to push up the price of Canadian old oil, or old new oil, depending on how one classifies our present conventional reserves, would be a small number of multi-national oil companies. There would be no direct, beneficial effect on smaller Canadian companies dealing in the frontier areas, holding most of the new oil, which is at world price or higher, and it would certainly do nothing to alleviate the problems of those

March 1, 1983
Adjournment Debate
organizations which the Government strove to put in business under the National Energy Program.
Ultimately, the major problem facing us today is the fact that the National Energy Program, as devised in 1980, is in a state of collapse. There is no doubt that Canadianization has gone ahead, as the Minister correctly pointed out the other day. Nevertheless, in the present economic circumstances, those companies are in the greatest jeopardy, carrying as they do larger debt loads and dealing with areas of the country, especially Canada lands, where the costs of operation are extremely high. Therefore, those companies are in danger of losing their activities while, in fact, the major multinational corporations, the ones that we tried to deal with, are in a much stronger position in relation to Canadian companies.
The conservation effort has certainly moved ahead, and structural changes have occurred in the economy. However, on the other side of the coin, we are confronted with a severe cutback in the use of energy because of the recession, and the recession does not reflect the true need for appropriate sources of energy.
The next problem, of course, concerns Government revenues and the collapse of the National Energy Program. The federal Government moved ahead in an attempt to concentrate on one single industrial sector, which was probably the greatest single failing of the federal Government. It was a quick cash grab. We have seen the projected revenues drop from $65 billion down to approximately $30 billion, and continuing to drop to $20 billion. In fact, the projections for economic growth and for revenue sharing by the federal Government certainly depict a very difficult situation.
The National Energy Program as it related to economic growth between now and the end of the century was based exclusively on megaprojects which have all gone down the drain. Again, there has been a tremendous failing, not only of the national energy policy but also of our economic policy, or lack of one.
The question with which we are dealing is an integral part of the National Energy Program which has gone amok, and a made-in-Canada oil price is what we have basically considered, and it will have to be maintained. It is a fact that Canadians, if given a slightly beneficial price in relation to the world price of oil, would gain the advantage. There would be an acceleration in economic recovery which would improve the entire country.
The last aspect of the collapse of the National Energy Program which we are attempting to address tonight concerns the agreements between the producing and consuming Provinces. We are in a state of absolute turmoil. Recent events between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland have been of tremendous concern to the people of Canada and to the people of Newfoundland. The federal Government's role in that process has been less than honourable, I would suggest. Further, a wedge must not be driven between Alberta and Canada. It is very necessary to resolve the problems arising in an attempt to come to an agreement
with the Province of Newfoundland in a fair and equitable
way.
[DOT]	(1825)
I think that the sixth point is the necessity of reaching agreements that will develop a unity of purpose between the producing Province and the consuming Provinces, with representation from the federal Government, is vitally important, and the fact that it matters not whether the federal Government is able to exercise jurisdiction through the courts. Ultimately the caring and sharing and the fair approach of the National Energy Program which was outlined in that basic document is not being displayed or adhered to by the federal Government. What we see on the part of the federal Government, particularly in the Newfoundland agreement, is a failure to take into account the needs of certain regions in this country for some control over the pacing and nature of development that occurs there, within the greater context of energy security for Canada as a whole.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago today an agreement was signed between the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta which established the basis for our current petroleum pricing policy. This policy is that the world price is paid for oil imported into Canada and for newly discovered oil from domestic sources, while a maximum of 75 per cent of the world price is paid for oil produced in Canada that was discovered several years ago. The pricing mechanism administered by the government provides for a blending of these prices and, consequently, the Canadian price of petroleum products paid by consumers is always lower than the international price.
To encourage greater use of our abundant natural gas resources, our pricing policy includes a provision whereby the price of natural gas in the market is determined at Toronto in a 65 per cent price relationship with oil. The prices of oil and gas also strongly influence the prices of electrical energy and other energy sources and, consequently, our entire energy price structure is established at highly competitive levels in relation to energy prices in other countries.
[DOT]	(1830)
The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) in this House on February 22 stated that the U.S. price of gasoline was only 95 cents a gallon whereas the price in Canada is $2 or more a gallon. Even if one makes the generous assumption that he was expressing the U.S. price in terms of the U.S. dollar and the American gallon, and comparing it with the Canadian price in imperial gallons, his apples and oranges comparison is still in error. The fact is that Canadian and U.S. gasoline prices are not greatly different on an average basis. Where Canadian gasoline prices do exceed those south of the border, it is largely due to higher provincial Government taxes in relation to state taxes in the U.S. Heating oil prices in Canada are considerably lower than U.S. heating
March 1, 1983

oil prices. It should be noted too, that our gasoline prices are very much lower than those in European countries.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) noted in responding to the Hon. Member's question on February 22, the oil pricing policy has not been changed. Under agreements in operation since the latter part of 1981 with the Governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, Canadians are benefiting from lower oil prices than if our prices were set at international levels.
Representations have been made by those who feel that changes are now needed in the 75 per cent relation to the international level and that the domestic price should be raised
Adjournment Debate
immediately, or in steps, to the international ceiling. The Government understands their views but would be extremely reluctant to change the basic policy. In any event, it would be premature at this time of great price uncertainty to take any final decisions. What can be said with certainty is that price and decisions for the future will have careful regard to the interests and concerns of producers and consumers, and to the objectives of regional and economic growth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.34 p.m. the House adjourned, without question, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 2, 1983