1983-12-20

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 19, consideration in committee of Bill C-2, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Mr. Lalonde-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
On clause 2-Taxable income defined
Mr. Oriikow:: Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of Canadians, certainly those living in our cities and towns, receive the bulk of their income, if not all, from wages, or salaries, have no investments and are not able to take advantage of the many tax concessions given to investment income, and pay a fairly substantial part of their gross income in the form of income tax. In order to take advantage of the various clauses in the Income Tax Act which permit people with other forms of income to deduct various expenses, one needs to hire a tax accountant or lawyer.
We find, Mr. Chairman, that people who have large incomes do quite well. In the Montreal Gazette this morning it was reported that there were 239 people with incomes of over $250,000 who paid no income tax at all; there were 1,490 Canadians with incomes of over $100,000 who paid no income tax. Jack MacArthur of the Toronto Star recently reported that there were over 4,000 Canadians with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 who paid no income tax at all. Yet the Government is bringing forth this ISIP proposal which gives another break to the same kind of people who have already done very well.
I would like to quote from a statement made yesterday by the Minister in reply to the Hon. Member for Bow River as to how this program works. He said, as reported at page 333 of Hansard for December 19, 1983:
-in the case of ISIP. If there were a capital gain of $60 in the course of a year, in the current year the investor would have to report one quarter of that, or $15. The taxable portion of that is one-half, that is, $7.50. The tax rate on that taxable portion is 50 per cent. Therefore, the tax payable would be $3.75.
That is a percentage of that income of $60, Mr. Chairman, of less than 6 per cent. Is that the kind of just society in which
the Liberal Government believes, that people with top incomes can get away with paying on only part of their income at a rate of less than 6 per cent, and when many people pay no income tax at all? Would the Minister explain the rationale for this kind of proposal?


Mr. MacLaren:: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member opposite raises a rather broad point about equity in our tax system and a more specific point about the effect of ISIP on those who participate in it. The Hon. Member raised the broader question, that is, that there are some people in Canada with high levels of income who have been able to avoid paying tax in a certain year.
I ask the Hon. Member to bear in mind that the numbers he cited referred to one year. It may be that in any given year there are inviduals or companies who are able to avoid paying tax as a result of certain circumstances in that particular year. But then, of course, in subsequent years much of the income they received in that year may be taxed as circumstances change in the subsequent years. For example, business losses from prior years may contribute to the situation the Hon. Member described. Charitable and medical deductions of a major character may also contribute to a situation where an individual does not pay tax in any one year.
I remind the Hon. Member that we have in Canada, indeed there is in most industrialized countries, a tax system which allows for the deduction of interest expense on money borrowed for investment purposes. Again, it may be that in any given year that deduction could contribute to a situation where the individual does not pay any taxes. The cumulative effect of those three factors, business losses, charitable and medical expenses, and interest paid on money borrowed for investment, could result in an individual not paying taxes in one year. But I think that the Member opposite would agree that the intent behind those three factors is equitable, that of promoting business expansion and investment in Canada, and is not one to be eliminated.
On the more specific question the Hon. Member raised, he cited the example I offered yesterday of how ISIP would shelter the inflationary element of capital gains from taxation. He drew our attention to the fact that I suggested that on $60 of capital gains, only $3.75 in tax would be paid. That is true for the first year only. That is to say, in each of the three subsequent years an additional $3.75 is paid as well, for a total of $1 5 tax on the $60.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the Minister suggests that the illustrations I gave may only apply for a particular year. It

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
seems to me it would be very simple, given the kind of new technology and computers we have, for Revenue Canada to run through some of these cases over a period of three or four years to see what really happens.
It is our belief that many people pay little if any taxes at all, not just for one year but over a period of many years. I remind the Minister that Canadian corporations have some $25 billion in deferred taxes which will probably never be paid. At least one bank, and speaking from memory I think it is the Bank of Montreal, paid no taxes at all in the most recent year.
The Government continues to insist that the Canadian people have to show restraint and tighten their belts. They have told retired people, public servants, families with children and other average Canadians that they have to continue to live with the six and five program to fight inflation. At the same time as ordinary people are being told that the best they can do is to get increases of 5 per cent in their salaries or pensions, the Government has decided that investors should be given a break from inflationary pressures. As I have pointed out, and most people would agree, investors are those best able to withstand these hard times. Under this provision capital gains on publicly traded common shares in Canadian companies will no longer be taxed until after inflation costs are removed. They are guaranteed against inflation.


Mr. Blenkarn:: They are looked after.


David Orlikow: They are looked after, precisely. Mr. Chairman, interest rates are going up. If interest rates are going to continue to go up, the cost of living will go up. Today the announcement was that the cost of living increase is pretty small, but if it goes up over 5 per cent ordinary people's real income will be reduced. Yet under this provision investors will be guaranteed against inflation. They will be taxed only after the inflation costs are removed. The tax would then only be on 50 per cent of the capital gain. There are no limits on the number of ISIPs an investor may have or restrictions on the maximum amount which may be invested in this plan.
I compare that, Mr. Chairman, with the fact that 20 per cent of the people of Canada are living below the poverty line and that 60 per cent of the elderly widows in this country live well below the poverty line. I suggest to the Minister that there is something wrong with the Government's priorities. When the Prime Minister talks about the just society, which he has not done lately, most of us think it is just some kind of sick joke.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member has made a number of comments and suggestions. I do not know that I can respond to all of them. I would like to make one or two comments in answer to his observations. He has referred to the six and five program of the Government which has contributed substantially, along with other factors, to the reduction of inflation in Canada.


David Orlikow: Especially the other factors.


Roy MacLaren: I would think that the Hon. Member would join with me in welcoming the fact that today it is reported that the CPI now stands at 4.2 per cent, which is a substantial reduction over last month. This is an indication of the real way in which inflation has dropped in Canada as a result of the factors which I have noted. I think the Hon. Member will also want to join with me in welcoming the benefits which that reduction in inflation can have for all Canadians, both low and higher income earners.
On the question of equity in the tax system I have attempted to explain to the Hon. Member some of the factors which can lead to a situation in which some individuals pay no taxes during the course of one year. I have cited three such factors. I would like to offer one more factor for his consideration, the dividend tax credit. For those in a higher income level who do not pay tax in any given year, the dividend tax credit may be a major consideration. The Hon. Member opposite will recall that the dividend tax credit is designed to eliminate or at least reduce the double taxation of corporate sourced income. I believe that my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre has a particular interest in the avoidance of double taxation, a subject to which he has given some attention.
We want to avoid a situation in our tax system where there could be such double taxation. Even if individuals do not pay any tax at the personal level, the income still attracts tax at the corporate level. For example, a small business owner may pay a tax of approximately 33 '/6 per cent at the corporate level. When he withdraws the corporate income for personal use as a dividend, he would not pay any further tax at the personal level on incomes of up to approximately the $40,000 to $50,000 level. This lack of tax at the personal level is appropriate, in our view, because the tax has already been paid at the corporate level. There is that additional element that would help to explain to the Hon. Member a situation which sometimes arises where individual taxpayers do not pay any tax in a given year.
The Member opposite also made a comment about the social consciousness of this Government with regard to those who are at the lower income levels in our society. I suppose I could take some time to describe the various programs and instances in which the Government has attempted to assist those at the lower income levels, many of whom do not pay any income tax whatever, but I would only draw his attention to the recent announcement in the Speech from the Throne that the guaranteed income supplement will be increased as it has in recent years by this Government. We will again increase the GIS partly to meet the needs which the Hon. Member cited of widows and single persons in the lower income level of our society.
I would further indicate to the Member opposite that, as I noted a moment ago, a substantial number of our fellow citizens pay no income tax at all. A family of four does not pay any tax on taxable incomes of up to $15,000 annually. One of the factors reducing their tax liability is the child tax credit
December 20, 1983

which is set at S343 for 1983. The Bill that we are now discussing proposes an increase in the value of the credit from $326 to $343 for each child.
I would also remind the Member opposite that senior citizens qualify for special tax exemptions. There is an age exemption which can benefit senior citizens. The $1,000 pension income deduction and the $1,000 interest income deduction can also bring a real benefit to senior citizens. Therefore I think if the Hon. Member opposite considers the matter he will be able to identify a range of benefits which can be utilized by those in the lower income level as well.


The Deputy Chairman:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North has one minute remaining in his time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the Minister's suggestion that the six and five program had a great deal to do with bringing down the cost of living to the 4.2 per cent announced today, I do not think he would find anyone outside the Government who would agree that it was the six and five that brought it down except on that side of the House.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They put everybody out of work.


David Orlikow: What brought down the cost of living was the fact that the world is in a recession. We have 1.25 million officially unemployed and probably another 500,000 who have just stopped looking for work. That is what has brought down the cost of living. I would point out to the Minister that if interest rates are going to go up as they have in the last few weeks, the cost of living will very quickly begin to rise again.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this part of our discussion, other than to note that many people across our country recognize the contribution which the six and five program has made to the reduction of inflation in Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Like Ian Sinclair.


Roy MacLaren: If the Hon. Member consults Hansard, he will see that I said a number of factors have contributed to the reduction in inflation. I did not say merely that the six and five program did; I said there were a number of factors.
Second, with regard to his observation that interest rates in Canada have gone up in the last few weeks, in fact they have not. The corporate lending rate has remained the same. Mortgage rates have been reduced-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They went up today.


Roy MacLaren: -over the past weeks. There has been no increase over the past weeks in major lending rates in Canada.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I want to put forward. I suspect the Minister may feel that we are spending an extraordinary amount of time on this one clause, but a number of Members have indicated that we are dealing
Income Tax Act
with a new concept, almost a first ever concept when you consider that what we are doing today as a result of this particular clause is identify a select group of Canadians. We are saying we are interested in insulating Canadians from the ravages of inflation.


Mr. Evans:: Nonsense!


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not nonsense. It is absolutely not nonsense. As a matter of fact, for the people watching the debate today in the galleries or on television, they must be absolutely disgusted at what they are seeing and hearing. Anybody who can legitimately stand in this House and say this is a good idea, that this is an equitable, just, fair provision, must be living in some fantasy fairyland. 1 do not see how the Government can possibly say that this is a positive step forward in our tax system by saying we have a group of Canadians who we want to insulate from the realities of the inflationary world.
I have two or three questions I want to raise with the Minister. I have been listening very closely to the speakers in the debate. I have yet to hear a single explanation from the Minister that I would feel comfortable taking home to my constituents as an explanation regarding this piece of legislation. I will ask the Minister to assist me. I am a simple country boy from western Canada who has to go back to his constituency in the next few days for a Christmas break and talk to the fallers, the cattlemen, the farmers, the people in the copper mines, the sawmills and the plywood mills and try to explain to them that the Government has introduced a new piece of legislation that will protect those people who purchase stocks, not necessarily for long-term investment but those who buy warrants; in other words, those who use and play the stock market. We have identified that group to protect their investments and their incomes from inflation.
What do I tell all the other folks in my constituency, which I suspect make up the majority, who are not protected in terms of their salaries, incomes and wages? I can explain to those who speculate on the stock market in my constituency how this will benefit them because the Minister said: "We went out and consulted a lot of folks and talked to the investment community, the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada". We even had the Lortie Commission examine this group which reflects a certain cut in society. They all thought it was a good idea. They all said that for all those people who invest in the stock market in all kinds of ways, this is a good move to take to protect their incomes from inflation and therefore it must be a good idea.
To me, Mr. Chairman, that is pretty perverted logic. With all due respect, I say to the Minister that really he is trying to justify what he is doing by using pretty peculiar logic. If I were to go and ask the people in the forest industry in my riding whether they would like to have their wages protected from inflation-


John Leslie Evans: They are. They have COLA clauses.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -I suspect they might say: "Yes, we would; that is a great idea". I hear the Member opposite saying something

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
about COLA clauses. Take a look at some of the contracts. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of the workers in this country are not protected as a result of COLA clauses.


John Leslie Evans: Prove it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Now we have identified a nice group that we will protect. Let me put my question simply, calmly and quietly. On this particular issue one has a difficult time remaining cool and calm because of the boondoggle which the Government is pulling on the people of Canada by protecting such a very small group of people. But it is good for the brokers and it is good for those who speculate-I want to emphasize the word speculate-in the stock market.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The speculators.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This will do very little to help the long-term investors, those people who are prepared to invest in long-term securities in this country. I want to ask the Minister for some help.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We agree.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have this red Tory sitting adjacent to us here to assist us in this endeavour. I want to put this question to the Minister with all due respect because I believe he is a serious Minister. How do I explain this provision, not to those in the investment community in my constituency but to those who are working in the copper mines and the sawmills who are not protected by COLA clauses? What about waitresses in restaurants and clubs? How will this benefit them? Presumably, what we do here is try and introduce legislation that will benefit Canadians, not tiny groups of Canadians. How will this benefit Canadians in my constituency?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I sense that my colleagues, the Hon. Members for Mississauga North and Ottawa Centre, have been stimulated to respond to this observation as well. There may be an opportunity for them to speak, but since I was asked by the Member opposite to comment, I want to take the opportunity first to do so.
I listened with attention to what the Hon. Member said. He described himself as a country boy from the west. I do not know if I can describe myself as a country boy, but I am certainly from the west. I share his interest in those who might not see themselves as having an opportunity to benefit from the 1SIP program which we are discussing. The Hon. Member, however, overlooks that there are a range of programs and practices within the purview of the federal Government which do offer the individual the same sort of shelter from the adverse impact of inflation that the investor in common shares is offered by the ISIP. One could offer the Member opposite a list. I do not intend it to be comprehensive, but income tax, of course, is indexed, income tax brackets are indexed, exemptions are indexed-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Except for children.


Roy MacLaren: -the child tax credit is indexed, family allowance is indexed, Old Age Security is indexed, the guaranteed income supplement is indexed, the Canada Pension Plan is indexed and UI benefits are indexed. In those areas where the national Government has the opportunity, we have moved to provide indexing to the degree possible. We have also been looking, as I mentioned yesterday, at other areas of income and asset growth which can also be sheltered from the adverse impact of inflation.
I suppose there may be a more fundamental problem at work; that is, the Hon. Member opposite may have some difficulty with the purpose and role of the stock market in our economy or society generally.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is not the question.


Roy MacLaren: It may be that he and I have a fundamental difference of view on the benefits to Canada of a dynamic and aggressive stock market with investors participating in it. The basic purpose of ISIP is to encourage Canadians to make equity investments in Canadian public corporations. All Canadians are encouraged to invest in such enterprises through their own ISIP. I cannot help but think that the Hon. Member opposite would agree that infusions of capital are bound to strengthen our corporate structure, our corporate system. A strong corporate sector means a strong economy and ultimately a better life for all Canadians.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What infusions?


Roy MacLaren: We have that broad factor in mind in offering to investors the opportunity, as I said the other day, to immunize themselves from the adverse effects of inflation on capital gains in their investments in common shares. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, my colleague could add a word on this, if you would allow him to do so.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one more comment about the tax system favouring one group instead of another or at the expense of another group. The Minister pointed out very clearly that various individuals in society enjoy different protection from inflation. Perhaps the most universal of that protection would be through the income tax system.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What groups would have their incomes protected?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I hear the Hon. Member. I would say that all Canadians enjoy the benefit of an indexed personal income tax. Of course, that is something which the United States does not have. As the Minister pointed out, senior citizens receive the benefit of indexation through the CPP, OAS and GIS. Families obtain it through family allowance payments. The unemployment insurance benefits are indexed as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about wage earners, salary earners?
December 20, 1983


Douglas Glenn Fisher: All these groups have different types of inflation protection.
The Hon. Member asked a second question concerning the tax system favouring one group at the expense of another group or ignoring another group. I urge him to take a look at the tax system a little more carefully. It does that all over the place. For example, if a farmer in his riding wants to know about protection and favouring, he should remind the farmer that he enjoys the use of the cash basis in the tax system. That is a huge benefit. The Hon. Member's friend from Winnipeg has risen periodically in the House, saying the cash system should be extended to artists. Other Hon. Members have risen and claimed that other groups should have the benefit of the cash basis in the tax system. All kinds of people want that cash basis. The Hon. Member should look at the tax system and see that there are special protections for various groups of people. Small businessmen are not included in ISIP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They have Small Business Bonds.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is right, and they have the small business tax rate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a joke. How can you say that?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: They have special allowances for writing off losses and for share purchases as well as equipment purchases. These different allowances favour that group in a special way. The Hon. Member sits over there and laughs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, I am laughing at you trying to be serious.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: He is laughing because he does not understand the tax system.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I see the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is enjoying the show. I think the part he is enjoying the most is the display of ignorance from the NDP. 1 am sorry to tell the Hon. Member that every tax measure does not fit every group.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You should be sorry.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is not suitable. For example, it is not possible for us to call General Motors a small business. Therefore we do not give General Motors the small business tax rate, special share-purchase allowances or special equipment allowances. We do not go through all that because General Motors is not a small business. Equally, my small business is not listed on the stock market and cannot take advantage of ISIP. I take advantage of different things. The upshot is that I have a program tailored to fit my circumstances. I do not try to fit the circumstances into my particular needs. In other words, the Hon. Member is raising the phoney argument that we are helping one group at the expense of another.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tell that to the miners in my constituency.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We have said for two years that we have searched for an answer which fits a particular circumstance.
Income Tax Act
For two years we have looked at the possibility of including unlisted shares, real estate or other assets in this kind of program. It does not fit; it just does not fit. That is a reasonable comment to make to Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Those who speculate on the stock market will be protected.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: When the Hon. Member makes the small observation that it does not fit and blows it up into a great moral outrage, he is only kidding himself. He is not kidding other people. We are trying to develop a measure which fits the people who buy and sell common shares listed on the stock market.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Whom does it help?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is who it helps, and it helps the companies that are involved.


Some Hon. Members:: How?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: There are other measures in the same Budget which help other companies, farmers and individuals. The Hon. Member is doing a disservice by trying to say that we are distorting the tax system in this fashion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions which are directed to the Minister. A few years back the Government introduced a measure to identify the cost to the federal Treasury of each loophole provided. Would the Minister tell us as precisely as he can what this will cost the federal Treasury on an annual basis? Has he made calculations for 1985 or 1986? Over a five-year period what will the cost be to Canadians for this provision?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, the revenue impact in fiscal year 1983-84 is estimated at zero. The revenue impact in fiscal year 1984-85 is estimated at zero. The revenue impact in fiscal year 1985-86 is estimated at $100 million. In the following year, fiscal year 1986-87, it is estimated at some $300 million.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate that information. Could a similar piece of information be provided by either the Minister or his advisers as to what percentage of tax returns filed last year included provisions of income from people who bought and sold stocks? I would like some idea of what percentage of Canadian filers we are talking about here.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, the number was 330,000.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is a small group, is it not? The Hon. Member wants to make a big thing out of it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not want to make a big thing out of it. Presumably we are here to collect some information. We will have some comments to make about some of these figures when considering subsequent clauses.
I will ask my final question so as to allow other Hon. Members an opportunity to question as well. Returning to a matter raised yesterday, presumably with all these provisions

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
we are trying to ecourage the development of the Canadian economy by protecting certain Canadians from the problems associated with inflation in terms of their own incomes. We will inject new capital into the economy to assist businesses and enable them to expand and so forth.
Of course, one of the reasons we find ourselves in this difficulty is that a number of Canadian corporations over the past number of months, and 1 could use Dome as an example, have made a number of imprudent decisions in terms of their investments and have found themselves over-extended. A lot of people are in trouble as a result of the merger mentality that has developed over the last couple of years. In a sense, we are now bringing in legislation to help those companies get out of the heavy debt position in which they find themselves today. The assumption is that as companies remove themselves from their debt situations, they will expand their operations and thereby create jobs for Canadians and do something to alleviate the very serious unemployment problem in the country. I believe that that is the philosophy underlying provisions such as the ISIP clause.
The information that I have seen over the last few weeks, Mr. Chairman, would suggest that corporations are not expanding. As a matter of fact, corporations' investment plans have certainly been reduced and are less than we had anticipated. More importantly, as many analysts have pointed out, rather than expanding in a job-creation sense, expansion often takes the form of new investment in capital goods and takes advantage of the new technologies. Again, one cannot fault the corporate mentality for pursuing that course. However, as corporations get out of their heavy debt situation and invest in new plant, this usually results in job loss. In other words, there is a reduction in the number of people being employed. A number of analysts have suggested that we might see in Canada as well as in other western nations a decline in the middle classes as a result of this kind of thing and low paying jobs will be created down the line. Does the Minister agree with the analysis, which I believe is becoming relatively common, popular and widely supported, which indicates that by assisting at least certain types of corporations, the result will in fact be a net job loss as opposed to a net job gain?
This brings me to my real question. Has the Department given thought to using the ISIP provisions to assist certain kinds of businesses, perhaps businesses at the smaller end of the scale, through which I believe most people now realize that jobs will be created? Jobs will not be created through the large corporations but in future they will be created through the medium and small businesses in Canada, many of which are not being assisted at all by this legislation. As a matter of fact, a great deal of investment money will be encouraged in those companies that are listed and many of the smaller Canadian firms will not be receiving the venture capital necessary for the creative, innovative and dynamic times that we should be seeing but which we are not seeing.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member opposite has made a thoughtful statement which I hope he and I will have an opportunity on another occasion to discuss at greater length. I do not know if it would be appropriate to take very much time this morning discussing the very broad issues he has raised. The question of capital formulation in our society, the way that it is applied to investment in productive capacity and the impact of high technology capital investment on job creation in our country, are all fundamental questions which are of interest, I am certain, to every Member of the House.
The Hon. Member opposite is, of course, right in identifying ISIP as a program that is intended to bring forward new capital investment in our economy. During the period of recession, many corporations have been heavily in debt. Their debt to equity ratios have suffered. We have seen companies look in vain for equity investment during period of recession. As we emerge from the recession we are offering an additional stimulus for equity investment in Canadian corporations.
The Hon. Member opposite has asked whether the corporations are likely to apply that additional capital to equipment which will have the net effect of putting people out of work and reducing the numbers employed in a company or industry. I would say yes, I think this can happen. We could see particular instances where increased capital investment could lead to some displacement of employment. Equally, however, and I think this is of greater importance, we will also see that increased capital investment can lead to increased productivity and greater international competitiveness and the growth of other industries, parallel industries, support industries and service industries. This will create employment that can offset reductions in employment in some of the more traditional industries.
It is a gross over-simplification to point out to the Hon. Member that Japan, a country which has had a very high rate of capital investment and a very high rate of high technology application, is also the country with one of the lowest rates of unemployment among industrial countries. I say that is a gross over-simplification because there are other factors at work which have restrained unemployment in the Japanese economy. Having said that, I do not think one would want to dismiss the observation that the rate of capital investment and the rate of the application of high technology in Japan has contributed to very high rates of productivity and very substantial international competitiveness, which in turn has created the jobs that the Hon. Member opposite and I both seek for Canada as well.
The Hon. Member also referred to the need for support for small and medium-sized business as that sector is the principal generator of employment in our economy. Indeed, the Hon. Member is entirely correct in pointing out that small businesses provide the major part of employment in our society. Equally, small businesses are often the most innovative elements in our economy. They are companies which not only often take the initiative to apply new forms of technology, but they themselves often develop new technology. As well, they are typically Canadian controlled companies. The rate of
December 20, 1983

Canadian ownership among small and medium-sized companies is higher than it is among major corporations.
We have had in mind all of those factors when we have sought, both in this legislation and in earlier legislation, opportunities to support the small business sector. I am sure it is not the intention of the Hon. Member to overlook the fact that, within this legislation now before us, there are investment tax credits which are of major benefit to the small business sector. We are also offering small businesses the opportunity to flow through their tax credits to investors so as to attract more investment in small and medium-sized business. Finally, I would note that the same approach relates to the research and development incentives which 1 suppose we will touch upon later today. Those incentives can also be flowed out of the small business or out of any corporation so as to attract more capital investment. 1 think there are opportunities in this legislation and indeed in earlier legislation for the promotion of small business which I am sure the Hon. Member opposite does not wish to overlook.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap very kindly said that he was making this his last question, at ten minutes to twelve, but he started at 11.30. 1 should like to point out that his 20 minutes were up anyway. 1 cannot criticize him; the problem is the filibustering on the other side by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. He had five minutes and the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary had 25 minutes. I should like to hear some shorter and succinct answers in this debate.


John Leslie Evans: That is ignorance on the other side.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That it is ignorance on the other side, Mr. Chairman, is a beauty! It is tough to answer a question in abbreviated form.
The Hon. Member of the NDP who spoke last brought up the question of social conscience. I should like to point out to the Liberals and the NDP that wealth creates jobs and the part of the social conscience that the House should address is the creation of jobs. The Government has blown it every time it tried to create jobs with Crown corporations and make-work projects.
The Minister can answer these questions yes or no. Does this apply to stockbrokers who actually work within the exchange?


Roy MacLaren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Scott Fennell: So a stockbroker can buy and sell shares, perhaps 12 a day for 200 days a year; that is 2,400 transactions in and 2,400 transactions out. Can the Minister explain how that is going to be indexed, how it will be dealt with and what kind of bureaucracy will have to be put in place to analyse the situation?


Roy MacLaren: It is done on a computer, Mr. Chairman.
Income Tax Act


Thomas Scott Fennell: It may be done for the Government on a computer but by the time a broker has worked out the forms, tried to analyse putting it through this way, with 4,800 transactions he will just say that it is not worth it. Traders will not be attracted because this is not realistic. The small players can use it. It is like throwing a drop of oil on the water and expecting it to cover the whole sea; it does not solve any problems. It is an extension of the lottery programs where there is no capital gain. Now, the Government is going into risk taking on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Montreal Stock Exchange. There is something wrong with the concept. This country cannot exist by running lotteries, and this provision just extends the lottery business. Would the Minister recommend that his mother invest all her money in ISIPs?


Roy MacLaren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I thought that might be the answer because the Minister would be the ultimate beneficiary, Mr. Chairman. His mother would pay the capital gains every year for 20 years so he would obviously have to answer yes. But what is this doing to his mother? It is reducing her income so that he can feather his own nest.
This is also a great bonanza for trusts because estates have to pay the capital gains tax upon the death of the initial beneficiary, if there is a successor. The trusts can benefit from this but that does not help the little man. This is a bonanza for trust companies as it could help them increase the charge per trust, because they charge per transaction. I can see that what will be gained from the capital gains point of view will be lost through the trust company charge per transaction. This does not help the little guy because it is too complicated; it is a bureaucratic nightmare.
How much does the Minister anticipate the capital gains tax will be reduced through ISIPs?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Hon. Member's solicitude for my mother in Vancouver but I think on ISIPs and the management of estates she has advice of a high quality.


Mr. Hawkes:: She won't take your advice; is that what you are telling us?


Roy MacLaren: I doubt whether she would take the advice of the Hon. Member opposite either.
The Hon. Member for Ontario asks one specific questions which I have already answered by saying that there is no revenue reduction in fiscal 1983-84, none is estimated for 1984-85 and the estimated cost to revenue is $100 million in fiscal 1985-86 and $300 million in 1986-87.


Thomas Scott Fennell: What is the anticipated capital gains tax for those same years when you reduce it by $100 million and $300 million?


Roy MacLaren: It would be something over $1 billion per year but I would be glad to attempt a more precise estimate. That would take a little while, however.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Thomas Scott Fennell: Would the Minister do that and also would he base the answer on the capital gains tax in 1982?
One place has been missed in this program, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to the Liberal dialogue about all that has been done for small business, but the little guy who is trying to get into the market to sell equities has no facilities in this country, as he has in the United States, for selling shares in smaller corporations. I think this is a serious restriction on what is being put in place, with only listed securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange being covered.
If the Minister says we cannot buy American stocks, then what about Canadian stocks? Who analyses the percentage that is Canadian owned or U.S. owned?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Hon. Member opposite is advocating some form of test for what constitutes a Canadian controlled corporation and a foreign controlled corporation. The relevant passage on page 20 of the explanatory notes to the Bill provides that securities eligible for certification include most listed common shares of corporations incorporated and having their head office in Canada, as well as posted rights and warrants to acquire such shares.


Thomas Scott Fennell: If there is a restriction on those only and not on American owned corporations, why would the Government, which is interested in buying American corporations, no extend this in order to encourage people to buy back American corporations through ISIPs so that they would then become Canadian corporations?


Roy MacLaren: This program applies to the shares of corporations incorporated and having their head office in Canada, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Has the Minister any of the other information I asked him for previously?


Roy MacLaren: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the statistics which the Hon. Member sought are still being brought together and we shall offer them to him shortly, or send them to him.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Chairman, he tells us this is all going to be done on computers. 1 would like to ask the Minister if he is going to put in a new computer program, because there have been failures and breakdowns in the existing one which have caused tremendous trouble to people with Revenue Canada. How is this going to be simplified for the taxpayer? That is the question I really want to address. Is it being co-ordinated with brokers, to tie it into a broker's computer, or is it being put separately on its own? I fail to find within this legislation the simplicity which the Minister is trying to state is there.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, one of the areas explored with the Investment Dealers' Association, the stock exchanges, and others who are directly involved in the finance industry, was the question of how the program could be best managed. In welcoming the program, the various dealers and others who
were consulted drew attention to the fact that there was no real difficulty in developing computer models for the program, to be administered by the investment dealers.
I would, for example, draw the attention of the Hon. Member opposite to The Globe and Mail of October 17 of this year which reported that computer models prove that ISIPs could be a rewarding investment for both the conservative- that is the small "c" conservative-and risk-oriented investors. The study shows these findings hold true whether inflation is high or low, and whether stocks are held over the short, medium or long term. I wanted to draw the Hon. Member's attention to that because in fact the investment dealers have found the development of a computer model to manage the program a relatively simple matter. There has been no real difficulty encountered in that regard.
The same holds true for the computer modelling within the Department of National Revenue. I do not anticipate any difficulties, either in the case of the investment dealers or the Department of National Revenue, with regard to the management of the program.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, I have followed the debate on this point at length, yesterday and today, and it really is disheartening to see the lack of understanding of Hon. Members opposite as to what is trying to be done with this particular provision.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Government filibuster!


John Leslie Evans: Here we go again. We are starting with the hecklers in the corner. The Hon. Member says it is a Government filibuster. Let us just say it is an attempt at education.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South indicated, I believe, that he thought there should be no capital gains tax- under certain conditions that would be possible, but the structure of the existing tax system certainly does not allow it-and that the proper thing to do would be to index capital gains across the board.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What advice would you give your mother?


Mr. Neil:: You have promised that for two elections.


John Leslie Evans: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with a basic principle here. I believe this is a major step toward achieving the principle which we tried to establish, and began to establish, back in the 1970s-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: How do you measure inflation when you sell short, John?


John Leslie Evans: -and that principle was that the tax system should tax increases in purchasing power.


Mr. Gamble:: What do you call the income tax? What does it have to do with income?
December 20, 1983


John Leslie Evans: To achieve that particular objective with regard to the income tax system, Mr. Chairman, the Government moved to index the tax brackets, to index deductions-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You have a question for the Minister?


John Leslie Evans: -and on the other side to index expenditures, certain basic expenditures which certain Canadians have come to depend on for their sustenance, the OAS, the GIS, the CPP, the family allowance-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Ask a question.


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member says ask a question, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe there is any requirement that an Hon. Member standing in Committee of the Whole must ask a question. We each have 20 minutes and I can say what I please in my 20 minutes. Not only should the Hon. Member understand something about the tax system, he should understand-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


John Albert Gamble: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. One thing which the Hon. Member must do is be relevant. We are now dealing with ISIPs and Clause 2. If the Hon. Member who just spoke had been in the House, he would know the respective clauses we are supposed to be concerned with. Accordingly, I would ask that he direct his attention to those matters and not to a general, rambling debate.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, the point of ISIP is to index capital gains on certain types of assets against inflation. I am relating the basic principle which it tries to establish, or to continue, in tax legislation. The Income Tax Act was changed to try to institute protection against inflation so that taxation would apply to increases in purchasing power. Through the ISIP, we are taking the first step toward the indexation of capital gains such that the tax system-the capital gains tax in this case-applies only to the increase in purchasing power.
There is nothing difficult about that concept. It has been around in the Canadian tax law since the early 1970s on the income tax side. It has been there with regard to expenditure programs since that same period of time in order to ensure that the purchasing power of the expenditure programs is maintained at a level which Parliament thought was appropriate when those programs were put in place. It is exactly the same thing here.
It does not seem to make sense to me and I cannot understand why Hon. Members opposite object to the notion that if a person is asked to pay tax, it should be tax on the real gain, not on inflationary gains.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Why do you not put forward legislation to bring that about?


John Leslie Evans: Hon. Members opposite are complaining that business expansion is being held back by this Government. This particular measure will act to enhance the ability of business to expand and develop. How will it do that, Mr. Income Tax Act
Chairman? 1 will explain it to Hon. Members opposite who need the explanation badly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Deemed income to tax.


John Leslie Evans: Taxing only the real gains, not the entire gain, not the inflationary portion, just the real part, is going to mean that the return to investors is going to increase after tax. After all, the most important aspect of the return is what is left to the investor, to individuals after they pay tax. If the individual investor is able to have a higher return after tax as a result of this measure, it should result in an increase in the value of shares in the marketplace. That would be the Toronto Stock Exchange. That would be the Vancouver Stock Exchange, where there is a lot of mining, which the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap should be interested in. Many of the mines which are developed in his riding are financed by share issues on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Therefore, this particular provision should certainly have some direct benefit to him. The increased value of the shares, then, Mr. Chairman, for a given level of corporate earnings, is going to mean that firms will be encouraged to raise equity capital.
One of the reasons we had such a difficult time in the recent recession was that businesses had relied heavily on debt. Debt was cheaper to raise than equity. As a result, firms got too much debt in their capital structure. They over-levelled themselves.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: How does the rollover contribute to equity?


John Leslie Evans: This provision is going to make equity a more attractive capital source for small businesses, for other businesses, medium-sized, large businesses. That is going to mean it will be easier for those corporations to balance their capital structure. If they can put better balance in their capital structure, they will be less susceptible to failure and to having to crunch down during a recession. Jobs will be more secure if the corporation has a better balanced capital base. It is relatively straightforward, Mr. Speaker.
The other problem we have had for many years has been the lack of depth of our equity markets. It has been difficult for small to medium businesses to raise capital.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: But they cannot use ISIP.


John Leslie Evans: Equity markets have not been used because they have not existed, and one of the reasons is the way we have taxed equity returns, not only here but in the U.S.; it has been cheaper for the corporation to raise debt. Not using the equity market to raise capital means you have the inequity market. But this provision means the return to owning equity will be enhanced, Canadians will be encouraged to invest in equities, and it will broaden and deepen the equity market. That will mean it will be easier for small firms who are growing and expanding to put out new issues on the stock market and not use debt which puts them at great risk.
350

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Pay tax on deemed income is what it is all about.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, those are the effects which will flow from measures which shift the balance between debt and equity in the return to the investor. The ISIP provision enhances-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Enhances rollovers.


John Leslie Evans: -the return to equity which means Canadians will be more encouraged to put their money in the equity market as opposed to term certificates in trust companies or banks. John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said in his submission to the royal commission that one of the things we have to do is to find ways to encourage Canadians to take their money out of saving deposits and put it into business.


John Albert Gamble: Why not abolish capital gains?


John Leslie Evans: Increasing the after tax return on equity is the kind of encouragement Mr. Bulloch was talking about. That comes from ISIP, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What a crock.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, Members on this side and that side would like to see the indexation of capital gains expanded to a wider range of assets.


John Albert Gamble: You will not be around long enough to see it.


John Leslie Evans: Certainly if this provision is as successful as I think it is going to be, that will be the kind of evidence we need to see if we can expand. But progress is made in steps and this is a good first step. Hon. Members want to go further, good; let us put the first step through, see if it works, and then we can move on to other areas.
We have heard Members talk about the merger mentality in the 1970s, Mr. Chairman. What was one of the reasons for that? Because their share prices were depressed, it was cheaper to buy existing assets than it was to invest in new assets. This provision will bolster the value of shares and it will be less attractive to merge as opposed to investing directly.
We have heard some Members saying that foreign ownership is bad. If you make equity investment more attractive to Canadians, they will compete for the shares and you will have more Canadian ownership.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Why not buy out the foreign-owned companies?


John Leslie Evans: That is the rational way to work against foreign ownership. It seems to me this provision gives Canadians a benefit from investment in equity, a benefit Americans do not enjoy. Therefore, it will be more attractive for Canadians vis-a-vis the Americans to buy the shares of Canadian corporations; qed, we have less foreign ownership of our economy over
a period of time. These are the kinds of things this provision is trying to bring about.
What we have heard from the other side is a very misguided presentation which indicates a total lack of understanding of what these provisions are all about. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, if we are concerned about the basic principle of a system which taxes only increases in purchasing power, which we have instituted to a very large extent in the income tax system, then we should take the logical step and say that same principle should apply to all forms of taxation, certainly to capital gains, a large part of which is capital gains on equity shares. This provision moves us in that direction. It seems to me we should welcome the introduction of a provision which moves us toward full recognition and realization of the principle we tried to establish in Mr. Turner's Budget of 1974, which indexed the personal tax system.
We have been concerned about small business investment, Mr. Chairman, the ability of small businesses to raise equity capital and expand. If they cannot raise equity, banks will not loan them additional money in the form of debt and they will not expand. Then we will have large corporations dominating the system if we do not give small business access to the equity market. The only way we will do that is to make equity investment more attractive. One way to do that is certainly to move with the kind of provision we have here, the ISIP.
I realize Hon. Members opposite have not been listening, they have been talking. But if they had been listening I think we could probably vote right now, because the kinds of misrepresentations they have been putting forward have been very quickly dispelled in the few words I said.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable discussion of ISIP and it is not my intention to prolong that discussion. I believe there is agreement that we might proceed to a vote on Clause 2, which attracts a number of other clauses relating to ISIP and which would be therefore voted on at the same time.
The discussion we have had on ISIP underlines the positive features of the program which have been welcomed by not only the industry but investors generally. I could refer to the many statements from investment dealers which have not only drawn attention to the benefits of the program but also its practicality and ease of management. I would only add that one accounting firm concluded that we should bear in mind that "ISIP will not turn a bad investment into a good one. However, for most investors ISIP will usually make a good investment better and a poor one not quite as bad".
It would be my intention, Mr. Chairman, after we voted on this and the related clauses, to introduce an amendment to subclause 98(1). I think you will find there is agreement among all Parties to support that amendment and I would be glad to have the floor following the vote.


Roderick Blaker: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 31; Nays, 18.
December 20, 1983

Clauses 4, 9(2), 9(4), 13, 14(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 33(1), 33(2), 34, 35, 38, 46(2), 46(3), 46(4), 46(10), 47, 48, 57, 58, 75, 78, 81(1), 81(3), 102, 105(1), (3), (4), (6) and (7) agreed to.
On Clause 3-Employment Expense Deduction


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, the clause is a clause that does two things. It advances the $500 deduction. We are in favour of that, it does create great complications with respect to foreign earnings. There are many easier ways of handling that matter. In view of our desire to move this Bill ahead and be co-operative with the Government, we are prepared to allow Clause 3 to go on division.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, so that I can understand the procedure you intend to follow, I believe the Member opposite has suggested that Clause 3 pass on division. That is, of course, acceptable to us.
I had asked whether I might have the occasion to introduce an amendment to a clause which we have not yet reached, sub-clause 98(1). I believe there has been some consultation with our friends opposite. This amendment is of a technical character and, if our understanding is correct that this amendment gives no problems, I would ask whether I might move it at this stage and we could-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have discussed this with my colleague for York North and he would like to go into the matter and have a very good look at it personally. I think we could have that done immediately after Question Period this afternoon. We certainly want to accommodate the Government, as far as I can see, on that clause. I think it is only fair if the Member for York North wants to look at the clause again that the Government leave that alone. Let us carry on at this point with regular progress through the Bill.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 6-Election


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity that I have had to deal specifically in any fashion with the amendments to the Income Tax Act which are presently before the House. 1 would have hoped that this Committee might have carried out the function of examining in detail the individual clauses of the Bill, which are numerous and voluminous in kind and content, so that we might better understand it, other than from a harangue of the kind which we have just had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.
This gives us an opportunity to deal with the difficulty which ensues when the House rushes through legislation without ever examining it. We have heard what the explanatory notes on the bill may say. We hear that regularly. Nobody
Income Tax Act
here seems to read the sections or the clauses. The reason we are dealing with Clause 6 in this Bill is that when we dealt with its predecessor in Bill C-139 we did not bother to exercise care. Now we are back here because allegedly it should be corrected.
Let me ask the Minister whether indeed that is the case. When we are dealing with Clause 6, are we not going back and trying to rectify something which was overlooked when Bill C-139 was last before this House? Would the Minister deliver a response to some of these questions succinctly so that we can carry on with what I consider to be an essential examination of the provisions of this paragraph?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, insofar as the clause arises from Bill C-139. It is a clarification of the intention in that Bill.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, that is the problem with this whole process. There is a great stampede to pass taxing legislation. We refer to this Act which is being amended as the Income Tax Act. There are a lot of things that are not income that are taxed. Over the years we have seen a gradual erosion of the general principles of the taxation of income. Originally you taxed something that was income, that had come in, that you had physically in your hand and could accordingly appropriately share a portion thereof with the tax collector. That is not the case any more. You are taxed before the fund ever comes in.
When we looked at the extensions under C-139 we saw that not only were you taxed when you send an account which hopefully would give rise to something coming in, but you were to be taxed on the work you had done before you ever rendered the account. When we deal with the taxation of the benefits that accrue under annuities and the alleged benefits that accrue under insurance policies, which are now part of the alleged Income Tax Act, we find that there is an assumption that an annual taxable accrual will result in the event that, under the section to be amended, which is subsection 12.4(4), once an election had been made to pay the alleged income on an annual basis that election could not be changed.
We are now told, if we read the explanatory notes with respect to Clause 6, that that will all be changed. Indeed, once an election has been made on an annual basis to treat an amount which is not income as income, a change may take place in the future. 1 would like the Minister to explain to me how that has happened. If he looks at the words in Clause 6 he will find that where in a taxation year a taxpayer who holds an interest in a number of things has in a year or a preceeding taxation year elected, in respect of that interest, by notifying the insurer, then an amount must be included in the computation of his income for that year. That follows ad infinitum. As long as one election has been made, then a preceding taxation year is the year in which it was made and in all subsequent years the election shall be deemed to have been made.
How is that any substantive change from the wording of the Act now which provides that once the election has been made it shall be deemed to apply to all subsequent taxation years? In

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
my submission, there is absolutely no difference. I wonder why the Minister cannot direct his attention to the drafting of the piece of legislation that at least accomplishes the alleged purpose.
1 know none of this will transpire. We will not have an amendment of this clause so we will only have the clauses that are designed by the Minister or his officials. It is probably his officials since the Minister, no doubt following the example of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, never bothers to read the words but reads the explanatory notes. It is because of that fact that we now have the suggestion of a further amendment that the Minister wishes to introduce with respect to a subsequent clause of the Bill that we will be discussing. It is because of that fact that we have so many amendments to the Income Tax Act that we are dealing with under this Bill that require examination.
This same Parliament, in its haste, has brought about the inequities from which all Canadians suffer. It now goes back in an endeavour to change them. The House does not bother to examine in detail the specific provisions that give rise to the problems with which the complaints of the future will doubtless confront us.
If one reads the explanatory notes, one will find that one of the other mistakes that the Government made in Bill C-139 was to grant this alleged right of annual election to all taxpayers. Of course, if one examines Clause 6, one will find that all taxpayers other than corporations, partnerships, unit trusts or any trust in which a corporation or partnership is the beneficiary, are excluded.
Since the operative words of this clause are no different in bringing about a result from the operative words of the section of the Act designed to be amended, I believe the real purpose of this entire clause is contrary to the remarks that we find in the explanatory notes to deprive taxpayers who are corporations, partnerships and trusts from taking advantage of this section of the Act to be amended. It is that kind of selective, preferential treatment-selective, preferential punishment- that characterizes the entire provisions of this statute.
When I think of the alleged undertaking of the Minister of Finance and the praise that has been heaped upon him by those in the tax profession who have said that his undertaking of a task to simplify the Income Tax Act is commendable, I wonder how the provisions of this Bill fit the undertaking of the Minister of Finance. How can the approximately 120 pages of this Bill, with complexity built upon complexity, ever hope to simplify, make easier and better understood the provisions of this Act? There is absolutely no doubt that the volume alone in this monster that we refer to as an alleged Income Tax Act-since it does not tax only income but a number of other things-will not make it easier to understand.
We must ask ourselves whether we as parliamentarians have discharged our duty in passing laws which we anticipate will be enforced without regard to the fact that the general public is not in a position to in fact understand the law that affects
them. It affects them in the sense that it takes property from them that is otherwise theirs. It affects them in the sense that if they disobey this law they are obliged, after trial, to spend some time in incarceration.
It is this kind of an approach to a very serious piece of legislation that I find most shocking. This legislation does not in fact remedy in any fashion some of the obligations placed upon the House in making it easier for the public to understand. It is a clear illustration and demonstration of the fact that in the past the House failed to discharge its duty and examine in detail and depth what it was doing to the taxpayers of Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Question.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: Is the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West rising on a point of order?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Chairman, I am a little premature in my point of order.


Roderick Blaker: All those in favour please rise. All those opposed please rise.
[During the taking of the vote:]


Mr. McRae:: I rise on a point of order.


Roderick Blaker: I cannot accept a point of order during a vote.
Clause 6 negatived: Yeas, 28; Nays, 67.


Roderick Blaker: Accordingly I declare Clause 6 lost.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have not had a chance just yet-and I would like the Speaker's advice on this matter-to consult fully Beauchesne and Erskine May. I am in the process with my colleague of having a look.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: But even without the benefit of having a very close look, it is obvious to me-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is making an argument related to the proceedings, but I cannot hear him. I am calling for order so that if there is a procedural argument on a point of order which the Parliamentary Secretary wants to make, I would like to be able to hear him.
December 20, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to address the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is rising on a point of order?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. May I first congratulate the Opposition. 1 know members of the insurance industry who have been trying to get this motion are not going to thank them for this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is clear that the braying hounds on the other side-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to come to his point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. Does the Parliamentary Secretary have a point of order that he wishes to make?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 apologize for not hearing you earlier, Mr. Chairman. I could not hear you over the uproar from our colleagues. They are the ones always urging civility. I would ask them to follow their own preaching now.
All of us in the House clearly saw that when the question was put there were approximately ten members of the Progressive Conservative Party in the House. There are now in excess of that number, in considerable excess.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: All of them, as you can tell, Mr. Chairman, are gleefully happy about defeating the insurance industry on this relieving measure. However, I would put to you-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 am sorry, I cannot hear you, Mr. Chairman. You seem to be giving me a signal. These people seem to be causing some sort of an uproar. I would put to you that the people who entered the House following the question being put should not be allowed to vote on this issue.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry on the same point of order.
Income Tax Act
[ Translation]


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Chairman, I may refer you to S.O. 59(1), which says, and I quote:
The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committees of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.
Mr. Chairman, this Standing Order provides that except for those indicated, all Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committee of the Whole, and I may refer you to S.O. 15(2), on page 10, which says, and I quote:
When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
Mr. Chairman, surely you must have noticed that at least thirty or forty Members on the other side entered the House while we were counting votes on this side. Mr. Chairman, I think you must reject the decision which seem to have been taken and which is merely a ploy being used by the Opposition to satisfy its petty political aspirations.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, 1 clearly heard the Chair state, and I believe I can recall the words verbatim: "I declare Clause 6 lost."


Some Hon. Members:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: That, Sir, is a decision of the Chair. What we have heard in the last two interventions is a direct reflection upon a ruling of the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: Such is not our practice in the House of Commons. 1 would suggest, with respect, that you should hear no further submissions on a point of order which reflects on a decision of the Chair.
In the meantime, 1 suggest to the Chair that we call it one o'clock so that the Chair might consider the consequences of what has just happened. I intend to make a submission to you, Sir, or should the Committee of the Whole prefer to report in an interim way to the Chair what has occurred here, I intend to make a submission to you after the luncheon break, that what has happened here has effectively terminated the term of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Erik Nielsen: The Government has. Sir, been defeated on a money measure. It has been defeated on a taxation measure. I intend to make a submission preferably to the Chair, but if we are still in this mode, it shall be done in this mode, that there are precedents which require under our traditional practices and under the Constitution that the only alternative now available to this Government is to pay a visit to the Governor General.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: In the interim, and I only have a few seconds left before one o'clock, the Chair will undoubtedly want to go back to the debates of 1968-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are wasting time.


Erik Nielsen: We are not wasting time of the House, that is obvious. We are here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Chair will want to consult the debates of February, 1968 where a similar situation arose.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It is hot air.


Erik Nielsen: While it arose when the House was sitting and not while the Committee of the Whole was sitting, the parallels, I intend to submit, are the same and the consequences are the same. I will be making a submission that the solution which was sought and applied in February, 1968 cannot be sought and applied in a situation such as that which has just occurred.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, so that I might be heard further on this matter, either in this mode or, if it be the preference of the House to present an interim report to the Chair, while the House is sitting, it now being one o'clock I call it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I wonder if Hon. Members would do the Chair the courtesy of allowing me a word. I think the most important point to be dealt with by the Chair at this moment is that it has been argued by the Hon. Member for Yukon that, in my words, the clause having been lost constitutes a complete closing of the subject and that other points of order are not legitimate, if I may put it that way. I want to say that at the moment I do not share that concept. I will over the lunch hour examine it. I would not want to deny other Hon. Members an opportunity to enter into the issue of whether the vote was correct or not correct. I think Hon. Members should understand before the lunch hour that the Chair and the Table officers will research the matter carefully to determine whether or not the rights of all Hon. Members to enter into this point of order can be protected. With that, I call it one o'clock.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being after one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I would be willing to entertain the Hon. Member's point of order later. Standing Orders quite clearly indicate that points of order may not be raised during Question Period or Statements under Standing Order 21.1 will certainly hear the Hon. Member's point of order later on.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a statement then.


Madam Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member on a statement. I did not call Statements yet. Statements by Hon. Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, since it is our view that, constitutionally, this Parliament has ceased to exist-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -despite the jeers of those who think they own it, since we feel that we have a constitutional right to be heard on our point of order in this very extraordinarily unique situation, and since the Chair will not hear that point of order now, 1 move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: In other circumstances the motion of the Hon. Member might be in order, but I am sorry to have to declare that it is not in order since the House is operating under an order which stipulates that all votes pertaining to certain questions should be put at six o'clock. Therefore, dilatory motions are not in order under those circumstances. I would tell the Hon. Member that Standing Order 8(3) reads as follows:
When it is provided in any Standing or Special Order of this House that any business specified by such Order shall be continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.
I am sorry, but I have to declare that the Hon. Member's motion is not in order.
December 20, 1983


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I regret very much that that ruling was made without calling upon me for submissions to the Chair with respect to it.


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, today, the Progressive Conservatives played-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Points of order or questions of privilege, by practice of this House, may be entertained at three o'clock, but not at this particular time.


Gaston Gourde: Madam Speaker, today the Progressive Conservatives played what I would call a rather childish game. Since they do not have the confidence of the Canadian people and are unable to win votes, they are trying-


Harvie Andre: Just a minute. What rule is that?


Erik Nielsen: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Crosbie:: The House is dissolved.


An Hon. Member:: There is no such rule.


Mr. Beatty:: Privilege-


Mr. Lawrence:: I beg of you to hear us on a question of privilege affecting the constitutional usages and traditions of this House.


Madam Speaker:: I have just reminded Hon. Members of the practice of the House. The practice of the House is that points of order and questions of privilege are delayed until after statements by Members and Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: There are innumerable precedents to that effect, and my only guide-


Henry Perrin Beatty: The procedure is unconstitutional.


Madam Speaker:: -under these circumstances is the Standing Orders which tell me that at this time I must hear statements by Members. Hon. Members are asking me to rule on a constitutional matter. It is not up to the Chair to rule on
constitutional matters. The Chair can only rule on procedural matters. Therefore, 1 recognize the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde).


Gaston Gourde: Madam Speaker, 1 am incredibly lucky in being able to make the longest S.O. 21 statement of my short career. Lacking the confidence of the Canadian people and the ability to win votes, the Progressive Conservatives are using all kinds of ploys to-


Harvie Andre: Point of order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Point of order!


Erik Nielsen: Point of order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]
The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) has the floor for a Member's statement, and that is the only subject the Chair may entertain at this time. The Hon. Member for Levis.


Gaston Gourde: Madam Speaker, hardly an hour ago, the Progressive Conservatives tried to give the impression they had won a vote. I was here myself, however, and I saw fifty Progressive Conservative Members enter the House after a vote was called and the count had started. I am referring to the Progressive Conservative Members who were hiding behind the curtains and in the Opposition lobby. Madam Speaker, this attitude is intolerable.


Mr. Mulroney:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr. Andre: Point of order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, may I be heard on a statement?


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Levis has the floor. I have recognized the Hon. Member for Levis. As soon as he finishes his statement-


Erik Nielsen: The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) wishes to make a statement.


Madam Speaker:: Exactly, but the Hon. Member for Levis already has the floor. I would be very happy to listen to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a statement once I have heard the Hon. Member for Levis.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 20, 1983


Gaston Gourde: Madam Speaker, this kind of attitude on the part of the Progressive Conservatives is intolerable to the Canadian people. It is against the rules of the House, and it proves the Progressive Conservatives want to stay in the Opposition for a long time yet. The Canadian people preferred, and they still prefer a party that has sound principles and does not try all kinds of tricks which, in any case, do not fool anyone.

[DOT] (MIO)


CALL FOR DISSOLUTION
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, a most fundamental principle of British parliamentary democracy is that a Government that is defeated on a tax or money Bill, is a Government that must leave this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Resign!


Harvie Andre: Out!


Some Hon. Members:: Out; out!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, there is only one honourable course, not two, for the Government to follow, and that is for the Prime Minister to see the Governor General immediately to say that this House no longer exists.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on!


Martin Brian Mulroney: A very fundamental principle of British parliamentary democracy is at stake and, to ensure the maintenance of its integrity, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will now leave the House to come back at such time as it is able to make its case as enunciated by the House Leader of this Party.
[Editor's Note: All Progressive Conservative Members thereupon left the Chamber.]


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


RULES OF ASSEMBLY
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am rising mainly to support your decision to follow the rules of this place. There is a principle of justice which antecedes that stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). It is, first, that there should be civility in the exchange of politics; second, that the rules of the assembly
should be followed as interpreted by the Speaker of that assembly and, third, that when a ruling of a subordinate of the Chair, as has been the case here, has been asked to be discussed and has been raised as a question of privilege, as was the case on this side of the House, the Deputy Speaker having deferred to you, Madam Speaker, I think the basic principle of all principles is that you must hear the other side.
The Chair has heard from the House Leader of the Conservative Party. There is a principle which antecedes even British parliamentary justice and goes back to the laws of Rome. It is stated as audi alteram partem.
The Opposition do not want the other side to be heard, and I say in that they are flouting justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have a statement. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has cynically used a press conference in the holiday season to draw attention to his own public relations campaign on the issue of drunk driving. If the Minister thought that the measures he was proposing would actually reduce highway deaths due to drunk driving, he ought to have introduced legislation and have had it in place before this holiday season. The problem is that the measures he has proposed will not have that effect. All they will do is fill the prisons after the fact.
Certainly drunk drivers who cause death and injury deserve serious sentences, but merely to fill the prisons after the fact will not do what Canadians want, and that is to reduce the number of deaths. A realistic program to deal with this problem would have to involve the provincial Attorneys General, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) would have to deal with the whole issue of consumption, including advertising policy and taxation, as well as merely changing the Criminal Code. When so many lives are lost, it is not the time for press conferences, but for action.


PROCEDURE DURING DIVISION IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, when a political Party in this country aspires to be the Government, one would expect that at least it would be honest and civil. During the proceedings earlier today in Committee of the Whole it was patently obvious that, when a division was being taken in Committee of the Whole, the Opposition held numerous Members in the lobby, and behind
December 20, 1983

the curtains, who, after the division had proceeded, came into the House. The count had already started, Madam Speaker, and it was allowed to continue. That, however, is clearly in violation of Citation 472 of the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne, paragraph 3, which states that divisions shall be treated in Committee of the Whole the same as when the House is in full session.
We all know that means that Hon. Members who are not in their place when a division begins cannot participate in that division. That has been argued in the House many times. There are many precedents, even in the relatively short time that I have been here. For the Opposition to leave the House now and try to put the Speaker in the position in which they have tried to put Your Honour, will, I hope, illustrate to the Canadian people how hungry that Party is for power and how unprepared it is to govern.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who has stated on many occasions to the people of Canada that, if they were prepared to make some sacrifices, to moderate their wage and salary demands, to moderate their price increases if they are small business people, the rate of inflation would drop and with that would come a drop in interest rates. He has said that this would result in an increase in business investment, which in turn would result in jobs being created in all regions of the country. Actually, the opposite has occurred. Inflation has come down, interest rates have gone up, business investment has gone down, and unemployment has stayed up.
Will the Minister of Finance explain to the people of Canada why his basic assumption has gone wrong, and why what he said was going to happen, has not happened?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member will rejoice today with all Canadians in the fact that in November we achieved a rate of inflation of 4.2 per cent, which is the lowest rate of inflation achieved in this country since June, 1972. This is bound to have beneficial effects for senior citizens, for families, for workers who will see their real income preserved by a lower rate of inflation. All Canadians are benefiting from this development, and I think all Canadians should be congratulated for having worked together during the last couple of years to try to reduce inflation.
As far as the specific question of the Hon. Member is concerned, I should like to draw to his attention the fact that
Oral Questions
interest rates did come down as inflation came down. He will remember that we had a period of interest rates of about 20 per cent; today those interest rates are more in the range of 11 per cent. At the same time, in those days we had inflation of 12 per cent of 13 per cent; today inflation is 4.2 per cent. Obviously the rate of interest, like the rate of inflation, will fluctuate. It is not assured that for every single drop in inflation there will be a drop in interest rates and vice versa. What is important to note is that, as time has gone by and as we have been able to bring inflation down, we have also been able to bring interest rates down. I hope that as the weeks and months go by we will still be able to achieve a lower rate of inflation and further reductions in interest rates.


LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker,
I want to clarify a point for the Minister who has so aptly dodged the question and has hidden behind a number of faceless statistics. The reality is that the inflation rate in our country has been coming down for many, many months, and it is lower today than it has been for years. The reality, however, is that interest rates this week broke through the 10 per cent barrier and are now back into double digit figures. Real interest rates, the ones which are really important for the investment community, are approaching near record levels, and that fact is inescapable, Madam Speaker. Those are the facts. The Minister can stand up and say that inflation rates are coming down all he wants, but the reality is that real interest rates are higher than they have been for years and years.
Knowing that interest rates are the critical factor when it comes to increased investment and economic expansion in our country, is it not time for the Minister of Finance to sit down with his colleague, Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada, and meet with the chief executive officers of the major Canadian banking establishments, to put an end to these increasing interest rates and bring some stability back into the interest rate situation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to my hon. friend's attention the fact that the prime rate in this country, which is a rate of great importance to business and to individual citizens, has been stable at 11 per cent. The prime rate at which Canadians can borrow from the banks has been stable at 11 per cent for the last several weeks-as a matter of fact, for the last couple of months. This rate is at exactly the same level as in the United States. I would also remind my hon. friend that the consumer loan rate is at as low a rate as it has been in the last 25 years. These are facts which are there for everyone to see.
Obviously, I and everyone else would like to see even lower rates, particularly even lower real interest rates. This is an issue which we have raised with the United States Government at the last Williamsburg summit. It was not only Canada

December 20, 1983
Oral Questions
which raised the issue but all the other industrialized countries which were present. This issue has also been raised at the OECD meeting at which industrialized countries, other than the United States, have requested the U.S. administration to take steps to reduce its own real interest rates, which would help other industrialized countries such as Canada to allow their rates to come down.
I am afraid, however, that as long as interest rates in the United States are going to remain as high as they are, it is going to be very difficult for Canada to bring our rates significantly below those of the United States for an extended period.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SET UNEMPLOYMENT TARGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, during the last few days it has been made clear to parliamentarians that a record number of Canadian families this year are being forced to seek help from charitable organizations during the depths of winter. We are also informed that literally thousands and thousands of children in this country will wake up on Christmas morning to find few, if any, Christmas presents. That is the reality of a million plus Canadians who are jobless today.
The Minister of Finance has been almost preoccupied with fighting inflation, and for a variety of reasons the inflation rate has come down, mainly a reflection of the depression-like conditions in many parts of the country. Will the Minister give Canadians, in the sense of a New Year's resolution, some hope for 1984 by setting a target for the unemployment level of say, 7 per cent, which was the unemployment level in Canada prior to the recession back in 1981? Will the Minister set a target, as he did to fight inflation, so we could have something to work toward, something to attempt to accomplish in the months ahead, as opposed to some vague notion that we will try to get the unemployment level down? If the Minister could set a target to fight inflation, why could he not set a similar target to fight unemployment?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's concern, and I can assure him that we share his desire to try and bring the unemployment rate in this country down to the lowest possible level, as soon as possible.
However, 1 must say that the kind of questions he is raising would be more appropriate in a debate on the Budget. In fact, the Hon. Member will have to wait until the Budget is brought down to find out whether the announcements I intend to make live up to his expectations. I may remind him, however, that even his objective of 7 per cent would still leave hundreds of thousands of Canadians unemployed. Therefore, there is no perfect answer to the question raised by the Hon. Member. All I can say is that if he looks at the Government's record, he will realize that during the past year, proportionally we in Canada have created more jobs than any other industrialized country
in the world, and that the Government is determined to focus all its efforts on reducing the present rate of unemployment as quickly as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. One of the many disasters of his Department is in habitat protection, where there has been steady loss through pollution from other industries and from urbanization. The Minister has now brought out a discussion paper with a controversial policy of habitat trade-offs and sell-outs, under the name "No net loss". When the policy is still open for discussion until December 31, why has the Minister used the "No net loss" concept to give up additional acreage for log booming in the Cowichan estuary? Is the "No net loss" already adopted as government policy? Or is it just simply a convenient phrase to mask the sell-out of the Cowichan estuary?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is distorting the policy of the Department. As he knows, Dr. Pearse has dealt with that question of the fish habitat. I thought that, in order to have all the views, it would be good policy that the Department bring forward a discussion paper, and that is the title of the document. I would be very grateful if the Hon. Member would put forward his views. Mine are well known.
The responsibility of the Department is, of course, to protect the fish habitat, but that does not mean the Department is against every economic development, whether in the lumber or mining industry, or in any other sector. I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that the real challenge is to draw the proper balance between these different economic activities.


APPLICATION OF POLICY
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The fact is that additional acreage has been signed away from the Cowichan estuary for log booming. The people there are very much concerned about what the "No net loss" concept might mean in practice. Would the Minister at least guarantee that the "No net loss" policy he accepts will be site specific, that is, it will not be used to trade off habitat in one area for enhancement in another? Will the Minister ensure that the policy is open, so that the public will know in advance what it is getting and what it is losing under any specific proposal? Will the Minister further guarantee that the public will be able to suggest changes in proposals before they are adopted as final?
December 20, 1983

Finally, will the Minister establish objective criteria for determining fair exchange? We want to know what the "No net loss" policy will really mean in practice. We have seen one example in the Cowichan estuary, and we are very suspicious.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, 1 would say that 1 agree with many of the suggestions made by the Hon. Member. 1 have myself expressed those suggestions in the past. All I would like to tell the Hon. Member is that it would be very easy to say that the Minister of Fisheries should be against any economic development, whether the building of roads or any other economic activity. The point I would like to stress is that every time there is an economic project which could have significant impact on the fishery, I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be a public process whereby all sectors will have the opportunity to put forward their views.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Minister is no doubt aware that at the present time, in the Quebec National Assembly, the Government is considering Bill 38, which will put all Quebec municipalities under trusteeship as far as receiving federal funds is concerned. Could the Minister inform the House of the status of negotiations with the Quebec Government on federal funds? Is there any hope that an agreement will be signed within the next few days or weeks with respect to funds earmarked for job creation by the federal Government?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question.
Yesterday, I sent a telegram to my Quebec counterpart, Mr. Leonard, saying that I was prepared to meet him in order to reach a solution to this problem. However, 1 still think that if we are to have useful negotiations, the Government of Quebec must indicate its good faith by accepting the basis for negotiations previously established at meetings of our officials. I sent this telegram to Mr. Leonard yesterday. I have not yet received a reply, but I realize he may want to think it over.
Although I certainly hope to be able to reach an agreement with my Quebec counterpart, 1 cannot be very optimistic, considering the status of negotiations in recent weeks. Many times, when we thought an agreement was imminent, the Government of Quebec decided to withdraw an agreement that had been negotiated by our officials. I believe that for the time
Oral Questions
being, we shall wait until we get a positive reply from the Government of Quebec before starting negotiations once more.


THE SENATE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the upcoming festive season. I realize he may feel he has had his present from the Conservatives today already. As he knows, the average Senator costs the taxpayers of Canada about $1.5 million in salary and benefits over the period of his or her employment and retirement. 1 was wondering if the Prime Minister intended to give any Christmas presents to future Senators in the next little while?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe the Tory Party has handed the NDP a Christmas present today. I am glad they are sharing it with us.
1 thank the Hon. Member for drawing to the attention of the House that, by leaving 20 Senate vacancies, I have saved the taxpayer a lot of money thus far.


REQUEST THAT NO APPOINTMENTS BE MADE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, we congratulate the Prime Minister on that. What we want is an assurance that he will not spend the time between now and Christmas, or Ukrainian Christmas, to give out Senatorships to fill the 21 vacancies. I think that is a waste of money. People are hungry and looking for jobs. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, pointed out that many kids will not have Christmas presents this year. We do not want to see a bunch of Tory bagmen and Liberal hacks getting Christmas presents at that price.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, at least I can be reassuring on part of the suggestion. I can assure him there will be no Tory bagmen in my packages.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last week his Department released some startling figures on the amount of dioxin leaching into the environment, particularly into the Niagara River from dump sites on the U.S. side. While the Minister tried to minimize the threat that dioxin creates in Niagara communities, the president of Operation Clean Air

December 20, 1983
Oral Questions
Niagara, Marguerita Howe, expressed grave concern on behalf of the residents of that area and asked, and 1 repeat, whether the Minister would press within Cabinet to have a complete health study undertaken of the residents of those communities to determine just what kind of dangers exist, whether residual or factual?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that the dioxin issue is an important one which needs to be watched by this Government as well as the U.S. Government. This is why I have pursued this matter on three occasions with my counterpart in Washington. We have come to agreements in determining better working relationships in studying the matter locally, and we want to intensify the studies as to the degree of leaching of toxic substances in the waters of the Niagara River.
As far as the statement made by Mrs. Howe is concerned, it is very legitimate, and this is why the people of Niagara-on-the-Lake had to resort to water from St. Catharines, as a result of these developments.

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In fact, I gave notice of my question this morning at his office. Could the Minister inform the House whether he intends to start an investigation at the Leclerc institution, a medium-security detention centre, where a teacher, Miss Linda Bureau, was fired for reasons which 1 find entirely unjustified and clearly discriminatory?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I have not yet had an opportunity to study the information provided by the Hon. Member, and I would like to ask him for more time, to see whether there is a case for starting an investigation. I do wish to thank him for his interest in the well-being of guards and employees in the Correctional Service.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the passing reference in the Throne Speech to a proposed Canada-Japan auto agreement, can he tell the House today, not in exact terms but in general terms, if that agreement would be similar to the Canada-U.S. auto pact
in that Japan would be forced to invest in plant, machinery, and jobs in this country, up to approximately their sales in this country?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Madam Speaker, since there is no agreement in place it is very difficult for me to be able to anticipate what we would be able to negotiate with the Japanese. As the Hon. Member indicated, there major component parts we would like to negotiate are, one, more Japanese investment in assembly operations and parts facilities here in Canada; two, more procurement of parts from domestic manufacturers; and three, hopefully we will have some joint ventures between Canadian and Japanese businessmen. That is in essence what we will be talking about. We would like to see that in an agreement with the Government of Japan, the Japanese automotive industry, or both. However, since we have not started detailed negotiations it is very difficult for me to detail to the Hon. Member the facts he has requested.


INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is related not only to the auto industry but to all manufacturing in Canada. As the Minister knows, industry in this country, whether the foreign-owned branch plants or Canadian owned, is now beginning to move out of Canada and the U.S. to places like Taiwan, South Korea, and Mexico. Has the Minister's Department done a study on how may manufacturing plants are relocating in so-called Third World countries where wages are extremely cheap, and how many are planning to move in the immediate future? Many industralists have told me in recent days and weeks that this country could become an industrial wasteland unless some protective measures are taken to stop the outflow of investment capital and jobs.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that roughly 30 per cent of the Gross National Product of this country is dependent on what we export. People in other countries have the same goals, aspirations, and desires as Canadians do in trying to create jobs in their own countries. So countries like Canada obviously cannot take overt protectionist measures because we would only hurt ourselves in the long run.
With respect to his question concerning the number of companies leaving, we do not see any more companies switching their branch plants into some of these countries today than we did previously. As a matter of fact we happen to have about 25 per cent more applications now from other countries wanting to invest in this country to create more jobs and more investment, than we had over a year ago. On the contrary, Madam Speaker, I think the signs are on the positive side
December 20, 1983

rather than the negative side to which the Hon. Member alludes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of External Affairs. It was reported today that the CIA funded Contra troops have launched a new concentrated attack into Nicaragua from Honduras in order to capture a major centre and to establish an alternative Government before the signing of the new Contadora peace agreements. For the good of peace in the hemisphere, will the Minister make clear to Honduras and the United States that Canada opposes as does the United States House of Representatives, the funding of these Contra troops which constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter? Will the Minister request the United States to cease funding the Contras at least until the Contadora process has had a chance to do something about peace?
Would the Minister at the same time withdraw all foreign aid to Honduras until it stops permitting the Contras to use its territory for attacking a neighbour, which is contrary to the U.N. Charter and to the OAS agreements?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member can be assured that Canada has opposed the militarization of Central America. We have expressed those views to the Government of the United States on a number of occasions, and expressed very clearly the Canadian attitude with respect to military and armed forces as a way of seeking a solution. In addition to that, Madam Speaker, we have given very strong support to the efforts of the Contadora group in a number of discussions, because we believe that support for its efforts offers the best solution to the very painful situation which presently prevails.
The Hon. Member has made reference to our support for Honduras. We have reduced our support for a number of Central American countries. We have not yet reached a conclusion with that object in mind with respect to Honduras.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Mr. McGrath of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers telexed the Minister on November 18 requesting the Minister to investigate how far CN Marine is putting profit ahead of safety, service, and efficient manning on its four ships
Ora! Questions
on the East Coast. The Minister's office acknowledged the telex on November 21, and never answered it. On December 9 Mr. McGrath telexed the Minister again requesting a meeting with the Minister, which telex has not been answered. Has the Minister investigated CN's intention for lay-offs on February 1, 1984? If so, what action has he taken in order to persuade CN not to proceed with that kind of action?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the response has not gotten back to the member from the union. We have been holding a number of consultations with railway based unions in the last two or three months. I will certainly look into this particular incident.
I would like to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that three weeks ago I wrote to the chairman of the board of each of the Crown corporations under my responsibility, indicating to them that I wanted to establish more clear cut policy guidelines relating to labour adjustment and community adjustment problems where there were to be lay-offs due to productivity or technology changes. I would be requiring them to build into their business plan, which they submit to the Government every year, a much clearer expression of the measures that they will take, both in relation to earlier warnings and details of proposed lay-offs, as well as the kind of adjustment measures that would be applied in communities that are affected, as well as in cases of individual workers. I have met with the boards, subject to the rules.
I have not yet met with the CN board to go through this policy. That is scheduled to take place in the new year.
I have established a specific person in my office to work with them to outline in much greater elaboration the kind of policy expectations I would have in order to ensure that any lay-offs would be undertaken with proper notice, care, and adjustment.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the most important issue facing my constituents. The latest official unemployment figures from my riding of Burnaby show that there are over 5,000 people collecting unemployment insurance, and many more whose unemployment insurance has run out and are on social assistance, or are young people who are living at home. Over one half of the people affected by this desperate situation are young people under 25, many graduates of SFU, UBC, BCIT, Douglas College, or PVI. How can the Prime Minister justify the shameful failure of the Liberal Government to take immediate, concrete steps to create meaningful, permanent jobs for all Canadians who want work, not welfare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been listening earlier in

December 20, 1983
Oral Questions
Question Period he would have heard the Minister of Finance indicate that there have been a record number of jobs created in this country in the past year, and that the upcoming year looks just as good, if you take into account the fact that the inflation rate has dropped to an 11 year low. The Hon. Member knows too that the Government has set forth dozens of programs. In the April Budget the Government allocated $2.4 billion to job creation for infrastructure building, and another $2.4 billion by way of incentives to the private sector. The Hon. Member should perhaps consult with government officials. There may be many job projects in his particular riding that he has not attended to, and perhaps he could help some of these unemployed people find work if he were a diligent Member.

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. A number of months ago, there was a labour dispute in the communications industry in Montreal, at CFTM. The Minister looked into the problem and, at the request of both parties, appointed a special mediator. Is the Minister prepared to report to the House whether an agreement is immiment and whether the parties are willing to negotiate at this time?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker,
I can inform the House that since the appointment of Mr. Raymond Leboeuf as special mediator, the parties have met several times under the guidance of Mr. Leboeuf. I cannot give the House any further information at this time, because negotiations are continuing privately, and all I know is that the Hon. Member may have read the announcement in the paper this morning that 174 technicians at Tele-Metropole were invited this evening to a general meeting where they would probably be asked to vote on a settlement proposal, but I did not get this information from my officials or from Mr. Leboeuf. It is just a bit of news I read this morning in the Journal de Montreal. I hope it is true, and I hope that both parties will be able to settle their differences as soon as possible and put an end to a dispute that has been going on for thirteen months.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour responsible for Canada Post. Last week the Toronto Globe and Mail reported on a study conducted by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers which showed that 98 per cent of mail posted with insufficient postage beat the system. In other words, 98 per cent of mail handled by Canada Post which had insufficient postage was not caught by the Post Office. There have been loud screams from the Government, from some sections of the media, and others, about the millions of dollars that would have been lost if Canada Post had proceeded with what it was prevented from doing by the Canada Labour Relations Board. The Union immediately agreed to that.
[DOT] (U50)
In view of the millions of dollars that that would cost Canada Post, what is the Minister prepared to do to draw to the attention of Michael Warren and Canada Post the problems outlined in this report, and ensure that Canada Post has enough manpower, and enough proper procedures in place to ensure that we not only not lose $20 million but perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars through the failure of Canada Post to enforce the law as it now stands?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker,
I am convinced that the vast majority of Canadians obey the law and that all citizens of this country who use our postal services frank their mail according to the official rates. There has been an attempt by representatives of one of the postal unions to send incorrectly franked mail, and I think this initiative was not well received, either by the Canada Relations Board or by the population as a whole. I am convinced that this procedure will not be pursued by the representatives of this union, nor will it be emulated by the public. Consequently, there is no real reason for concern. The plan was doomed to failure from the outset, and I think we should not blow up this incident into something more serious than it really is.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns a winter road into the Athabasca Basin region. Since Eldorado Nuclear closed the Beaver Lodge mine at Uranium City, the provincial Government has not seen fit this year to build a winter road into the Athabasca Basin to service the people who are left in Uranium City, as well as the people from Camsell Portage, Black Lake, Fond du Lac, and Stoney Rapids.
I met with the people from that community and representatives of Transport Canada late in the summer. At that time they told us that there was a Treasury Board submission being put in place to enable the federal Government to participate with the provincial Government to build a road into the Athabasca Basin, which would be the only road link for these people. The only other link during the wintertime is air
December 20, 1983

transportation. What is the status of the Treasury Board submission? Can we expect a winter road to be built this year, to be the vital link to those people in those communities? Does the Minister personally support a winter road being built into the Athabasca Basin?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, with respect to that particular issue, I would remind the Hon. Member that the reason for the negotiations now taking place between ourselves and the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Alberta, and the Indian bands in the Athabasca Basin is the close down of the mine which substantially reduced the traffic that we would carry through the Northern Transportation Company Limited.
Whatever savings may accrue from a reduction of that service, we will be reallocating those into that area to make sure there is a constant transportation route. However, it does involve two provincial Governments, Indian bands, and some companies which are involved that will reinstate the actual barge service.
I would indicate that we are committed to preserving and maintaining the transportation linkage. It has not yet been resolved as to what the exact nature of that will be.


ALLEGATIONS OF MISUSE OF FUNDS BY PETRO-CANADA IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On the TV program Question Period last weekend, the Leader of the Official Opposition claimed that Petro-Canada was wasting money or had its priorities wrong when it engaged in drilling on the ocean floor in developing countries. In other words, Petro-Canada is wasting its time helping developing countries find oil resources within their territorial waters.
Could the Minister explain to the House in which countries Canada is operating at the present time and why we are carrying out oil exploration in developing countries?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada International was given a mandate by Parliament to help developing countries find oil. One of the greatest problems facing developing countries is their lack of oil self-sufficiency. That is why we are helping these countries, through our foreign aid programs and with Canadian technology and Canadian experts, to become self-sufficient in oil. The countries that are benefiting from Canadian Government aid are very poor countries such as Haiti and Senegal. I think it is intolerable that when we want to help poorer countries find oil and natural gas people
Oral Questions
should say we are doing the wrong thing. 1 think this is an entirely intolerable attitude on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in the House.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will know that our favourite flying white elephant has developed yet another problem. This time it is with the onboard computer system. Can he tell us what he is doing to ensure that this seemingly minor problem is not indicative of greater computer problems? Will he also guarantee to the House that the manufacturer, McDonnell Douglas, will pick up the cost of any repairs?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I can provide him with a positive response on both counts. He is quite right in highlighting the fact that the problem is a minor one.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence, who is the chairman of the interdepartmental committee on search and rescue. As the Minister is aware, we on the northern B.C. coast have been working for a number of years to try to get the Minister and his colleagues to agree to place either military helicopters in Masset and Prince Rupert, or massively upgrade other helicopters to make them available for search and rescue work. Would the Minister advise the House whether a decision has been made to place military helicopters on the north coast in 1984? Would he also give us the date of delivery of the two coast guard cutters, one to be placed in Prince Rupert and one to be placed in Queen Charlotte City?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for his interest in search and rescue on the West Coast. Of course he understands that there has been a report, styled "The Cross Report", that has dealt with the question of helicopter services for search and rescue in the Prince Rupert area. That report indicated that there was a requirement for some strengthening of the helicopter capacity. We are addressing that quite within the ICSAR context, as he has indicated. A decision has not been made. I would hope that we would be in a position to make such a decision very early on in the new year.
In terms of the delivery of the two search and rescue cutters, I will inform myself and advise the hon. gentleman.

December 20, 1983
Oral Questions HUMAN RIGHTS


U.S.S.R.-PLIGHT OF DR. OLGA MEDVEDKOVA
Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If we are to avoid a nuclear war it is extremely important that pressure be kept on both superpowers to reduce the tensions, which is precisely what the Prime Minister is very busy doing. There is a great deal of concern about a Dr. Olga Medvedkova who has been charged by the Soviet Government for pursuing peacekeeping matters, and who is a very close friend to groups in our country such as the Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Since it is so important that pressure be kept on both superpowers, is the Government in the process of taking some action to make representations to the Soviet Government to prevent Dr. Medvedkova from being put in prison, or from being sentenced?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs) Mr. Speaker, I have some information on this particular case. I understand that the person is not in prison but is under arrest. I will make further inquiries to see if some assistance can be rendered.
And the Progressive Conservative Members having returned to the Chamber:


RAILWAYS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to welcome the late Tories, and to put my question to the Minister of Transport. As he knows, there have been some 18 hearings of the Canadian Transport Commission in Manitoba. All of the 18 hearings have been decided in favour of the railways. Can the Minister give me the assurance that he will review specifically the Winnipegosis and the Oakland subdivisions, with the idea of making sure those particular subdivisions are put into the permanent network until the year 2000, like some other subdivisions have been?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there are several appeals of CTC rulings on branch lines. I am now reviewing those decisions. I hope to be able to make decisions on each of those before the end of the new year. I would certainly be prepared to make sure the Hon. Member for Dauphin is one of the first ones to know what happens in Winnipegosis. I know it is a matter very close and dear to his heart.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, December 19, 1983 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker indicated at two o'clock, the Chair intended to hear a point of order about which I notified the Chair at that time. This notice which I sent to Madam Speaker was received by one of Madam Speaker's aides at 1.57 p.m. today. The letter is dated December 20, 1983 and reads:
At 12.50 p.m. today while Bill C-2 was being cosidered in Committee of the Whole, the Government was defeated on Clause 6 of the said Bill with the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole after the count had been taken stating-


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult recognizing another Member on a point of order when the first Member is making a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will hear the President of the Privy Council immediately-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A question of privilege? The President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege, because the most sacred privilege we have in the House is freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and that is the only Member's privilege that can be the subject of a question of privilege, and I submit that on this side of the House, before the Hon. Member started arguing the issue, we were deprived of our right to speak, and that we had the privilege and the right to make our points in Committee of the Whole. In fact, when at one o'clock the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole adjourned the House, he clearly indicated that he wished to hear further representations before making a final decision, and now the rule audi alteram partem mentioned earlier by the Prime Minister must apply. In the circumstances, I submit that our privileges were affected by the fact that the Chair heard the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on
December 20, 1983

a point of order dealing with procedure, and a point of order he should have raised in Committee of the Whole. We intend to argue this point in Committee of the Whole before he continues his fun at the expense of low-income taxpayers with insurance policies, and prevents the House from proceeding normally with its business-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must hear the argument. So far the Chair has heard very little from the Hon. Member for Yukon. It is perfectly true that there may well be a point of order that has to be resolved in the Committee of the Whole. There may be matters that have to be resolved in Committee of the Whole, but the Chair must hear the argument of the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: Quit trying to run the place, Pinard.


Erik Nielsen: If I might continue, Mr. Speaker, I will commence reading my letter again:
At 12.50 p.m. today while Bill C-2 was being considered in Committee of the Wholle, the Government was defeated on Clause 6 of the said Bill with the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole after the count had been taken stating "I declare Clause 6 lost."
I will get back to Clause 6 in a moment and an explanation as to why we believe this is a point of order that must be resolved while the House is sitting:
1 went on in my letter:
The Committee of the Whole recessed at 1.00 p.m. while I was making a submission to the Chairman with respect to the constitutional legality of any further proceedings taking place in view of the fact that the Government had been defeated on a significant taxation measure.
It is the view of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the House has no further constitutional right to sit and that this Parliament be dissolved-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The laughter-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is genuine.


Erik Nielsen: -opposite indicates the level of regard which those Hon. Members have-


John Carnell Crosbie: They are afraid of the electorate.


Mr. Lapointe:: No regard whatsoever.


Erik Nielsen: -for the constitutional tradition and the practices.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not quitters anyway.


Erik Nielsen: Let me start at the beginning of the paragraph:
It is the view of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the House has no further constitutional right to sit and that this Parliament be dissolved followed by the Prime Minister pursuing such constitutional options as are available to him.
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is prepared to resume discussion on the Point of Order concerning which I had the floor in Committee of the Whole at 1.00
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
p.m. but we are not prepared to entertain any other proceedings in the House which we conceive to be without further constitutional existence in so far as this Parliament is concerned. Thank you for your consideration.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just walk out.


Yvon Pinard: Why did you come back?


Erik Nielsen: The Government House Leader asks me why we came back. We came back because the Speaker indicated that she would at 3 p.m. this afternoon hear the very serious point of order which I have read to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pepin:: You knew that when you left.


Erik Nielsen: It is essential the Chair have a clear understanding of the events that occured in the Committee of the Whole so that the Chair will be in a position to make a value judgment. The steps become vitally important.
First, let me establish the significance of the defeat of the Government on the vote that was taken in Committee of the Whole, the report of which is now in the possession of this House, for at one o'clock the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole rose and reported progress to the Chair. The Chair put the question as to when the report should be received. It had the unanimous consent of the House that it be received and was, in fact, received at that time. That is to be found in the "blues" at page V-2 where report of progress is clearly indicated.
In Committee of the Whole the clause of Bill C-2 that was under discussion was Clause 6. That clause would have imposed a tax on corporations and partnerships with respect of receipt of dividends by those corporations and partnerships in similar manner as the said tax is imposed on individuals. The question was called and I have read the decision of the Chair which was taken after a count.
I am not asking the Chair for any consideration of any backtracking on that procedure because in my submission it is closed. The vote has been taken and the Chair has ruled. The clause has been lost to the Government.
The significance of Clause 6 which was lost is that it relates to Bill C-139 which flowed from the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Clause 6 was intended as a clean up, a proposal by the Government to impose that tax with respect to the Budget. In essence, what happened here was that the Committee of the Whole rejected a portion of the Budget of the Minister of Finance.
Nothing can be more fundamental than that a defeat on a money measure constitutionally requires the Government to dissolve, which for all intents and purposes it has anyway, and proceed to seek a writ from the Governor General to call a general election. This House, indeed this Parliament, has no constitutional right to continue to function after the defeat of the Government this afternoon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 20, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: There can be no doubt that a defeat on a money matter, on a taxation measure, is a defeat on a matter of confidence. The Committee of the Whole is an arm of this House. It is a creature of this House. It cannot be argued, I submit, that a defeat in Committee of the Whole is not a defeat in the House. Indeed, the argument that it is a defeat on a taxation measure in Committee of the Whole is fortified by the fact that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reported progress, which included the defeat on Clause 6, to the Chair; the Chair put the question to the House as to whether the report should be accepted now; and the House unanimously agreed to accept that report which included a report that Clause 6 was lost to the Government. The Government was thereby defeated on a taxation measure which was a matter of confidence. There could be no question of the House not only being seized of the matter but of the House accepting unanimously that defeat, and that defeat related directly to a very significant matter of confidence in the tax Bill.
Only the Government has the initiative to generate measures relating to taxes and this one was defeated. Surely that is central to the authority of the Government to continue to act. We all know that it has lost the confidence of the country. The steps I have outlined-the report of progress, the acceptance by the House of that report and included in that report the defeat on Clause 6, a matter of confidence-go to the authority of this Government in a constitutional sense in continuing to sit where it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: As to the general importance of Bill C-2, the measure which was before the Committee of the Whole when the defeat took place, the Government itself attaches vital importance to it, such vital importance that it considered it required delaying consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and measures such as the Canada Health Act. There can be no doubt about the importance of the legislation before us.
It was a defeat, as I reminded the Chair before it rose at one o'clock, which resembles the defeat of the Government in 1968 on a tax measure which caused the House to be faced by a motion of confidence put to the Prime Minister. That option might be open to the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was then Minister of Justice. I can well remember his argument that the defeat of the Government on a money matter, on a taxation measure, does not necessarily mean that the Government must resign. That argument was made on a Thursday and on the Friday the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. Pearson, brought in a motion to cure that defeat on a confidence matter, which motion is to be found in Hansard for Friday, February 23, 1968, reported as follows under "Government notices of motion":
February 21-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193-


Yvon Pinard: Was it second or third reading?


Erik Nielsen: That was the taxation measure then before the House. It continued:
-which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
The Government of that day considered a defeat on a taxation measure of such vital importance to its authority to continue to sit as a Government that it felt compelled to bring in a motion to erase any question of non-confidence. The Prime Minister today, I am sure, was very much involved in bringing about that process. That precedent having been established, it may well be that the Chair might consider that as an out for the predicament in which Government members find themselves now, but they cannot without something attempt to continue to sit in light of the defeat which they suffered this afternoon on a taxation measure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I hope that there would be no attempt to review what has happened in Committee of the Whole.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: In anticipation that that attempt might be made by members of the Government who will no doubt be making submissions, as will my other colleagues, with respect to this point of order, I intend in anticipation to cover one or two of those matters. They would like to revise what happened in Committee of the Whole. That vote, as counted and reported, was 28 Government members for the yeas and 66 members on this side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Then the Hon. Member for Fevis (Mr. Gourde) in his statement, which he managed to get off before he should have, indicated that 15-


An Hon. Member:: Fifty.


Erik Nielsen: "Fifteen", he said-look at the blues-"were smuggled into the House". Even if he were correct, and he is not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is going to hear the Hon. Member for Yukon out, but it is very difficult for the Chair to entertain matters of fact concerning what took place in Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole has not reported the Bill and has not reported a point of order. The Chair at this point is hearing the argument of the Hon. Member for Yukon and proposes to rule after the Hon. Member has completed his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the vote was 67-28. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you are not precluding further submissions from Hon. Members on this very important point of
December 20, 1983

order respecting, as it does, the constitutional right of this Parliament to continue to sit, because some of my colleagues have been allotted specific points to raise with the Chair with respect to this matter. I am certain Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party will want to take part in this discussion with respect to the constitutional right of this Parliament to continue to sit; It would be interesting to hear what they have to say.
With great respect, Sir, this House is seized of a progress report from the Committee of the Whole. That was done at one o'clock today and the question was put by the Speaker in the chair as to whether that report and the evidence that went with it should be accepted by the House now. The decision of the House was made at one o'clock that that report, accompanied by the evidence, including Clause 6, was received by this House. The House is now in possession of that report and of the evidence up to and including the proceedings from the Committee of the Whole on Clause 6.
i respectfully submit that reports in Committee of the Whole are received in the stage in which they are reported and that it is not left to the end, Sir, when the final progress report is made reporting the Bill out of Committee of the Whole. There would be no question, in my submission, that that report and the evidence accompanying it has been received. Therefore, Sir, the arguments that are going to be made about the count and about Members who it may be alleged were not here, in my view are proper arguments to be made.
With respect to revising a decision of the House made in Committee of the Whole, a decision, I have submitted, has been made. The question was put and the vote was held. To review that decision now, Sir, would be to offend the principle contained in our practices and in our Orders that a question having been decided, no fundamentally similar motion may be put before the House on the same question. There is a citation to that effect to be found in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 150 under the heading "The Question Being Once Made". Citation 416(1) reads as follows:
An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session. Sir John Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada (4th ed., 1916), p. 328.
The second paragraph reads:
This rule also applies to decisions taken by the House on amendments to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to the Budget Motion.
There can be no doubt, in my submission, Sir, that the motions relating to a budget cannot be questioned again once they are made. Moreover, the Standing Orders support the view that the contents of the Budget are matters of confidence. The nature of the motion of the Minister of Finance in presenting a budget is "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government". That is taken from Standing Order 64(3). It follows that a defeat during debate
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
on a budget would require the resignation of the Government; there can be no question of that. This is a measure, the one that was defeated today, Clause 6, of which the Chair is seized, flowing from the November, 1983 Budget.
Now, Sir, it might be argued that some Members entered the House after the count had commenced. It might be argued on that side, although I very much doubt it with the very poor showing that was made by Government members and that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair does not intend at this point to hear argument concerning what took place in the Committee of the Whole. Procedure in the Committee of the Whole is not decided by the Chair but is decided by the Committee of the Whole and reported to the Chair. The Chair has not had a report from the Committee with regard to any point of order in Committee of the Whole. I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. Member's argument; I will hear him to the end, but I caution him on that point.


Erik Nielsen: If we get back to Committee of the Whole, in the event that my submissions are not impressing the Chair sufficiently to rule in our favour, then I will certainly raise them there. But I do make the point, Sir, that the House is seized of the evidence of the Committee. It is seized of the evidence on all clauses up to and including Clause 6 which was disposed of at ten minutes to one this afternoon, that by virtue of the fact that the Committee has reported with accompanying evidence to the Chair, and that report and that defeat has been accepted by the House unanimously. There is no question of that. The question was put by the Chair: "When shall the said report be received by the House?"; it was embraced to its bosom, and the Speaker's words were "Now" and the House agreed to it. So it seems to me, Sir, that the House has accepted that defeat.
There are three other specific areas which are going to be submitted to you which cover different areas of my submission and which are going to be made by three of my colleagues on this very vital constitutional point of order. They intend to make them following what I presume will be a submission by the Government House Leader. You seem to be becoming agitated, Mr. Speaker, about that suggestion. If there is any question in your mind about the right of Members to be heard, then despite my hoarseness, which is becoming obvious, I would be compelled to continue speaking to those other areas as well.
I would hope, Sir, to cite the sentiments expressed by the Government House Leader that the Chair, the occupant of which is, after all, a servant of the House and not a ruler of the House, would be disposed on a very important constitutional issue such as this to obtain as wide a body of opinion, as long as it is not repetitive, so as to allow the Chair to come to a value judgment regarding the importance of the matter now before the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair would like to make some observations at this point. There are two matters before

December 20, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
the House at this point. The first is whether or not a report has been received from Committee of the Whole. It is normal in the course of events that at one o'clock, the Committee interrupts its proceedings for a lunch hour. The Committee reported progress and requested leave to sit again. That Committee has not reported the Bill with or without amendments. No report has been received concerning amendments at this stage and the matter has to be decided within the Committee with the report from the Committee concerning the Bill with or without amendments.
In regard to the constitutional matter raised by the Hon. Member, the Chair in no way wishes to detract from the seriousness of the point, but the only point the Chair wants to make at this point is that the Chair cannot decide constitutional questions. I quote from a decision of Mr. Speaker Lamou-reux on July 8, 1969:
I have had occasion in the past to indicate that it is not the responsibility of the Chair to rule on questions of law or on constitutional questions.
The precedents in Beauchesne and the rest are ample. The Chair cannot decide a constitutional question.
The argument is clearly constitutional. At this point, it is the decision of the Chair that the House should resolve its matters within Committee of the Whole, which still leaves the basic question the Hon. Member is raising. However, at this point the procedure of Committee of the Whole should be resolved. The Hon. Member for Yukon himself said that he was arguing a point of order in Committee of the Whole at one o'clock. In the view of the Chair this matter should be concluded in Committee of the Whole and the Committee of the Whole should report, not progress, but should report to the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that we fully agree with your ruling and that we, on this side, do not make a habit of challenging you in any way whatever. Your ruling confirms my earlier remarks. You have heard the Hon. Member for Yukon and we will now debate the issue in Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports of special and standing committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has a new point of order that has not been ruled on, the Chair will listen.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I must admit to you that I was not aware that you were making a definitive ruling in the absence of hearing other-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot reflect on a decision of the Chair.


An Hon. Member:: He is not.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I certainly do not intend to reflect on any ruling of the Chair. I was in the House at one o'clock when the Speaker was in the chair. I must say to you. Sir, having the hindsight of being here at that time-and I know it must be confusing for those who were not here at that time to understand what went on-may I make these points?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not going to give a recital of events. If the Hon. Member has a point of order, will he state his point of order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My point of order, very briefly put, is that when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House reported progress to the Speaker at one o'clock, that in effect validated the procedural-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is dealing with a matter that the Chair has resolved and the Chair has ruled on. The Hon. Member knows very well that he cannot reflect on a decision of the Chair. The Chair at this point is calling reports of standing and special committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I must insist. I am not reflecting on Madam Speaker, I am bringing forward to you new evidence, and surely if there is new evidence-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


An Hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports of standing and special committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Surely I can bring forward a new point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been given an opportunity to state a point of order. He has simply gone back to a matter that has previously been decided by the Chair. If he has a new point of order, this is his last opportunity to make a new point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Just listen! This is Parliament.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that whatever has gone on in the proceedings of the Committee-if there was going to be an overturning of those procedures, that could have been accomplished in only two ways: number one, an immediate appeal of the decision of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House either at one o'clock or at two o'clock. That did not happen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Chair has made it quite clear that what was received was-the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole rose to report progress as is normally done at meal time. The House gave leave for the Committee to sit again. There has not been a report from the Committee of the Whole on the Bill, on amendment thereof, nor has there been a report
December 20, 1983

from the Committee of the Whole concerning any points of order. It is the decision of the Chair that the Committee of the Whole has to resolve its own points of order or its own report. It cannot be decided by the Chair under these circumstances.
The Hon. Member has twice come back to the same thing. The Chair is not going to recognize him to repeat the same matter.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have another point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports of standing and special committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I not present to you another point that has not been presented to you?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member-once before the Chair invited the Hon. Member to present a new point. He repeated exactly the same point.


An Hon. Member:: No, he did not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the view of the Chair he repeated it. This is the last opportunity; what is his point?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The second point of order, Sir, is that if the Government again-the other alternative-wanted to overrule what had transpired and been approved by the House at one o'clock, then-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not raising a point of order; he is arguing. The Hon. Member is arguing.
Presenting reports from standing and special committees.
[ Translation]


Mr.   La Salle@: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on a point of order.


Mr.   La Salle@: If 1 heard correctly, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that the Committee of the Whole had not reported to the Chair. 1 therefore conclude that you do not know what happened at one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has already ruled on that question. No report has yet been received from the Committee. It was simply-

The Chairman of the Committee reported progress, and that is not a report. Reporting progress at one o'clock, the normal adjournment for the meal, is not a report from the Committee. The Committee requested permission to sit again, and permission was given.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
The Hon. Member can repeat himself if he wishes. It is the same point as that made by the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland and the same thing as was said by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but at this point the House should resolve back into Committee of the Whole, deal with the point of order and report in the course of events, which is the normal parliamentary way of proceeding.
Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, 1 raise a new point of order arising out of your bringing to the attention of the House the decision of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Jerome, respecting the authority of the Chair. Mr. Speaker Jerome, as have other Speakers in my memory, quite accurately stated that it is not within the prerogative of the Chair to make decisions respecting law; be it written law, common law, or constitutional law; that is the role of the courts. That is very well understood and appreciated, even by an engineer like myself. However, what we are talking about is the authority of this House to continue, and that surely is within the authority of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, no. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre-with all due respect, the Chair is not in the position to decide constitutional questions which are fundamental matters of the kind raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon. The precedents are clear. The Chair has stated that it is not capable, nor does it have any authority in practice, in Beauchesne, or in the Standing Orders, to decide constitutional matters. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre is covering ground that the Chair has already decided.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to distinguish between constitutional questions and allowed to be-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have dealt with the matter. The Chair has dealt with the matter raised by the-


An Hon. Member:: How do you know?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the chance to make my argument. How do you know? How does the Chair know? I have not been allowed to make my argument.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Tabling of documents.


Harvie Andre: How does the Chair know?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Statements by Ministers.


Harvie Andre: Apparently the Chair can read minds.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Petitions. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).

December 20, 1983
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the people of Gillam, Manitoba, in their petition to the House of Commons of Canada and Parliament assembled. The petitioners point out that they do not want the Government to tax them again on their northern and isolated post allowances; that they believe that the cost of living in the North should allow them some benefits in terms of housing allowances, travel allowances, and northern allowances that would not be taxed by the Government of Canada. They recognize the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should not make an argument, just summarize.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is old alliance with the NDP supporting the Liberals again.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I should like to point out that this is a very serious matter to people in northern Manitoba and other parts of northern Canada. I hope that the Government will take this concern very seriously.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from the residents of Grand Rapids, Manitoba, in my constituency. It is on the same subject as that just presented with regard to northern benefits. The petitioners humbly pray and urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to review the legislation and exclude housing and travel benefits from taxable income fully realizing that it is temporarily under suspension but hoping that it will become a permanent situation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why don't you go over and sit with the Government?

[ Translation]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, to amend the Criminal Code (Greyhound races).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Raymond Dupont: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend Section 188 of the Criminal Code.


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

John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-2, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Mr. Lalonde-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I wonder if the Committee would permit me to indicate what I believe is an appropriate procedure, given the problems which arose earlier today? The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry raised a point of order as to whether or not certain Hon. Members had entered the House after the call-


Erik Nielsen: Point of order.


Roderick Blaker: I will recognize the Hon. Member in a moment, if I may. The question was whether certain Hon. Members had entered the House after the question was put to the Committee. The Hon. Member for Yukon raised-


Erik Nielsen: Point of order.


Roderick Blaker: I would appreciate it, if I may-


Erik Nielsen: Point of order.


Roderick Blaker: It is usually the case that the Chair is accorded the courtesy of being permitted to complete his remarks. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Yukon would allow me to do that. I do not intend to make any ruling-


Erik Nielsen: I wish to be recognized on a very brief point of order.


Roderick Blaker: I do not intend to make a ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Point of order.


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for Yukon on a point of order.
December 20, 1983


Erik Nielsen: My point of order, very briefly, Sir, is to request that you hear submissions before making any ruling. If you are simply commenting, fine.


Roderick Blaker: 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's concern.
I wanted to point out-


An Hon. Member:: What he just went through was rather necessary.


Roderick Blaker: -that logically, the Chair cannot entertain the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry until the other point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon is cleared up, because his point of order was to the effect that when I declared Clause 6 to have been lost, that meant the matter was finally closed, and that points of order could not be further heard on that issue. I suggest, therefore, that the Committee deal with the more basic point of order first, that raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon. That raises the question as to whether or not it is feasible for an Hon. Member to raise a point of order as to the validity of the voting procedure; in this case, the question being whether or not one or more Hon. Members voted but did so improperly under the rules of our House. I will obviously hear Hon. Members who wish to pursue the point.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to refer you to Citation 471(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads as follows:
The Chairman maintains order in the Committee of the Whole, deciding all question of order subject to an appeal to the Speaker. No debate is permitted on any decision.
I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that Members who were in the House at the time heard you declare the clause lost, the clause defeated. What we have had from Hon. Members on the other side since that time is an attempt to reopen the question and to indicate that the decision you made was wrong, that it was procedurally improper. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Beauchesne's Citation 471(1) would rule out the possibility of debate as to the procedural acceptability of the decision which you made. It is not open to debate.
Second, if Hon. Members on the other side allege that there has been an inaccuracy or that an improper decision was made by the Chair, their sole appeal is to the Speaker of the House, and that, Mr. Chairman, is an option which they did not exercise. We have been back to Routine Proceedings and the Hon. Members on the other side have not availed themselves of the opportunity to make an appeal to the Speaker. Nor had there, up until the time we adjourned for lunch, been any attempt by any Hon. Member of this Committee to indicate an intention to'appeal to the Speaker of the House. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read Citation 471(2) which says:
In cases of an appeal to the Speaker, it is the duty of the Chairman to leave the Chair immediately and report the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then rule upon the matter. No discussion is allowed on the appeal. Should the Speaker be absent, the Chairman takes the Chair of the House and another Member makes the report of appeal to the acting Speaker who will at once rule upon the question.
Income Tax Act
Further, Mr. Chairman, Citation 471(3) reads:
If a Member wishes at any time to call in question the conduct of the Chairman in the execution of his duties, his proper course is to give notice of a motion to that effect.
There has been no notice of motion, Mr. Chairman, to that effect given to the Committee. There has been no intention indicated by any Hon. Member of this Committee to appeal the decision you had made, and which is recorded in the "blues", and which Hon. Members from all sides of the Chamber heard, namely, that the clause was defeated. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any such action by any Hon. Member in this Chamber, I would suggest that it is impossible now to turn back the clock and to undo what has been done, because Beauchesne makes it very clear that no debate is allowed on a decision of the Chair. The matter has been resolved. The Government was defeated on a clause of a tax Bill. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the Government having been defeated on a tax matter, it has no constitutional right to continue. Certainly there is no ability to reopen the decision which was made by the Chair.


Roderick Blaker: I will recognize Hon. Members in due course, if I may have a moment. I believe the procedural issue on which Hon. Members are asked to focus their minds, and their procedural arguments, is the question of whether or not an Hon. Member may, by way of a point of order, question the validity of a vote. That seems to be the point raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon. I would remind Hon. Members that all of us are familiar with the situation where some Hon. Member does rise and indicates he feels another Hon. Member arrived in the Chamber after the process had started. The practice has then been for the Speaker or person in the Chair to ask that Hon. Member whether or not he or she indeed voted properly and within the regulations and precedents of the House. I believe that is the issue which Hon. Members would like to, and I hope would want to, focus on. May I recognize Hon. Members in that regard?
In that case, I will recognize the President of the Priy Council.


Yvon Pinard: To get straight to the point, Mr. Chairman, 1 simply want to draw your attention to a citation in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which literally answers the first question you have asked, namely, having announced the result of the vote in Committee of the Whole, is it absolutely irrevocable? In answer to your question, it is not absolutely irrevocable because, as you have just implied, parliamentary practice is quite clear on that subject and we have citation 225 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
I do not know whether it is the same in English. Yes, Citation 225 of Beauchesne on page 76 says:
When his attention has been called to a breach of order in the course of a division-

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
That was the case.
-the Speaker has directed that the division should proceed, and has dealt with the matter when the division was completed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, given past practices and given that quote from Beauchesne, you have no other choice but to complete the proceeding of voting, and "complete" means to say what the numbers were at the end of the count. That is what you did. But also, according to past practices and that very clear quotation from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, it is very clear that while the vote was counted at least one Hon. Member shouted to be heard on a point of order and you, Mr. Chairman, said "I have to complete the proceedings first and I will hear you after the vote is completed".
Those are matters of fact which are very simple and clear. In so far as the law, rules, practices or doctrine are concerned, only one short, clear, evident quote makes it very easy for you to say that, "No, the final count is not irrevocable. I can still decide that Clause 6 has not been defeated", because of what I have just said.
If I had wanted to score political points and so on, I could have used many examples of what happened this morning, but I am pleading merely in law based on the rules and quotations. We think this is a procedural argument at this stage, and that is what I am presenting. If you agree with the facts I have just summarized, that you were interrupted during the counting of the vote, and that you yourself said that you were to hear arguments on a point of order on the voting proceedings once the proceedings had been completed, then that is what you are doing now and it has to mean that you can decide that, no, the vote is not final. After having heard arguments and looked at the rules and at Beauchesne and our practices, you may conclude differently, it is acceptable that you do that under the rules of this House and past practice.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you have said something with which I do not agree. You did not make a ruling, you asked for comments. One can respectfully express an opinion which is slightly different from the one you seemed to be voicing. You have said that, according to practice, when a point of order has been raised about the voting procedure, the Chair asks Hon. Members whether or not they entered the House during the vote, and it takes their word for it. Naturally, that makes me somewhat nervous because we are now dealing with people who cheated this morning; we are dealing with people who abused the procedure this morning, like children, and who rushed into the lobby of the Official Opposition. That is an important point of fact which must be considered before you make a ruling. Mr. Chairman, several Members on this side were present, they will speak to the point of order, and they will give you their word that they saw at least 40 Conservative Members rushing-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.

Order, please. In an effort to keep the room temperature satisfactory to everyone I wonder if we could focus on the issue. The question is whether an Hon. Member may rise in his place and claim that a vote has been carried out improperly or that certain other Hon. Members have improperly voted. I will continue again with the President of the Privy Council, but 1 ask that he stay within that field.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what 1 am trying to do. You have yourself indicated that whenever there were complaints about irregularities in the voting process the practice was for you to ask the Hon. Members involved to rise and state whether they had arrived late during the holding of a vote. If you do not intend to do that, fine, I shall make no other remarks; on the other hand, if you are about to so decide, I have arguments to put forward which duly establish that this practice is not always adhered to, and should not be especially when some 40 Hon. Members and not only a couple are involved because there is no possible control, as the names of Hon. Members voting within a Committee of the Whole are not recorded. Only numbers are recorded. Then, if you decide to avail yourself of this precedent in respect of a couple of Hon. Members and say to each of them: "Tell me, young man, can you give me your word that you were here when the vote started, or did you arrive while the vote was already in progress?"; you may take this approach when dealing with a couple of Hon. Members, but not 40 or 50 as was the case this morning.
At this stage of the argument, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that Beauchesne's Citation No. 225 eliminates the problem. I feel that to your question whether or not the decision is final on the vote, the answer is no. It is not final, because an Hon. Member having risen on a point of order during the vote, you allowed these arguments to be heard once the procedure had been completed.
We must now tell you the reason for this point of order, and we are ready to submit our arguments on this. In case you do not wish to hear them now, we could rise later on. I should appreciate your views on this, because a reference to what happened this morning is essential if we wish to explain why we interfered with your voting procedure. May I speak now under our Standing Orders, or will you hear me later on?


Roderick Blaker: It is my view that the point of order on the floor now is that raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon, and it deals only with the issue as to whether an Hon. Member may or may not question the propriety of some other Hon. Members taking part in a vote.


Erik Nielsen: There is another half to it.


Roderick Blaker: I do not want to try to restrict Members. If Hon. Members feel that that is appropriate logic,
December 20, 1983

then we can follow that. If not, I suppose we will have to allow expansion of the point of order.


Yvon Pinard: If you allow us to deal with these events, I should like to have at least the opportunity to describe them without constant interference. So far, the Opposition has had enough time to debate the issue, but we have not had enough time to express our views. If you agree to hear me out, I am ready to speak, but I would appreciate being able to refer to this morning's events and other Hon. Members from this side will confirm what I am about to tell you.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, some time between half past twelve and 1 p.m., a vote was held on one of the clauses of the Bill, a vote which was won by the Government.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council sees my difficulty. The point of order made by the Hon. Member for Yukon is that it is not feasible for an Hon. Member to comment on or reopen the issue of a vote, in this particular case the vote this morning and which the Hon. President of the Privy Council indicates he has dealt with. Does it not appear illogical to hear arguments now on whether the vote was proper or improper by some members before we have decided whether or not the Hon. President of the Privy Council has the right to raise that point of order? That, I think, is where we are at, and I would like to next recognize the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, you narrowed my point and we are going to get off on the wrong track here. My point was not only the half that you stated but it goes a step further, that is, whether any submission can be heard not only once the vote has been taken but once the Chair declares that the clause has been lost. That was the declaration of the Chair. There are two dimensions to the point of order.


Roderick Blaker: I agree. The choice of the word "dimensions" is quite appropriate. That may bring to the mind of some Hon. Members just what constitutes a vote. What are the elements of that thing we call a vote. That, I think, will have to come into consideration when a conclusion is reached.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I say, Sir, that I do appreciate your hearing submissions and arguments even though-


Erik Nielsen: It is refreshing.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -in your case I did not give you written notice before you made your ruling that I wanted to make a submission, as I did when the House was sitting and the Speaker was in the chair. Nevertheless, we were denied that before a ruling was made.
Obviously this is a very important matter. You recognized the seriousness of the matter, especially in view of the rather heated remarks of the President of the Privy Council. The
Income Tax Act
Government is very clearly embarrassed here because when a vote was taken in the House it did not have enough Members present. It is an important point, especially when one considers that it is a tax and money Bill which is before the House. To get to the point of the actual procedure, may I point out to you that the practice has been for Members to come into the House during a vote and to be counted at a time when the vote is taking place, as happened yesterday in the House in Committee of the Whole when I believe you were chairing the Committee on Clause 1.


Roderick Blaker: The difficulty here is that the Chair does not wish to attempt to limit Hon. Members in their exploration of their views as to the dimensions of the point of order. However, 1 thought we were proceeding fairly well. Perhaps we could continue debate on the point of order on the issue of whether or not an Hon. Member has the right to rise, as one Hon. Member did, and question whether or not one or some Hon. Members voted improperly. If the House could remain on that issue, including the definition of what constitutes a vote and the ruling this morning that Clause 6 was lost, that would help.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am getting to that very point but I did want to point out the inherent unfairness of permitting government Members to come in on Clause 1 and now attempt, on Clause 6, to prevent the opposition Members from perhaps doing the same thing. I merely point out to you that what is sauce for the government goose yesterday certainly should be the same sauce for the opposition gander today.
I will get back to the point of the timing of when an objection can be made in respect of a vote, which I think is the essential point to which you are asking us to direct our attention. My submission is that an appeal of the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House should have been made immediately at the time progress was reported to the House. That happened at one o'clock today. You were sitting as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. You then got up from the chair. The Mace was taken from where it now is and put on the Table. You accepted your own report as Deputy Speaker. That is the point of time, I suggest to you, and no other time, at which an appeal could have or should have been made in respect of the validity of any vote. Consequent upon that, at that time, or perhaps at two o'clock, a government Member could have brought a motion to attempt to reverse the vote that took place in the Committee. Thanks to your ruling in reporting progress to the whole House, and thanks to the ruling of the Speaker at two o'clock when the House reconvened, in denying any argument, discussion or vote at that time, the matter is now functus, it is closed, and there can be no appeal at all in any way on the validity of that vote which was confirmed by your reporting to yourself when you assumed the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: It is evident that the Chair will be hearing many Members. I would like to clear up one or two

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
details. I think Eton. Members will recognize that the person in the chair, whether this chair or the Speaker's chair, could never physically be able individually to pick out as many as 282 Members of Parliament to see whether or not they enter the Chamber at the right split second in time. It is physically impossible.
The second point I would like to make is with respect to the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland. He raises the matter of appeal, and I would like to clear this up. If there had been any Hon. Member who wished to make an appeal of a ruling, that is always possible. Our Standing Orders provide that the occupant, in this case myself, would then call for Madam Speaker and we would proceed to deal with an apeal on a ruling. But no ruling was given. We are still on a point of order and no ruling on a point of order was given. Hon. Members will recall that the Hon. Member for Yukon wanted very strongly to call it one o'clock. At that time I indicated to the House that his was the crucial, essential and seminal point of order on the floor and that I would not want Members to leave for the lunch hour feeling that simply because it had become one o'clock somehow their right to progress to points of order on his argument had been closed. Consequently, the opposite of a ruling was made. I indicated to Hon. Members that I would not rule and would not accept the calling of one o'clock as an implied ruling, but that the matter would be researched over the noon hour and Members would be able to proceed in due course with their points or order. I want to be clear. There was no ruling on that point of order. It was not closed by me or anyone else and it is on the floor now. May 1 recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, and perhaps I could come back to the Hon. Member for Yukon?


Erik Nielsen: It is on a question of privilege with respect to what you said-


Roderick Blaker: It is a problem to the Chair that I try to be fair to all Hon. Members. I twice recognized the Hon. Member for Yukon. May 1 now recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain?


Erik Nielsen: It is with respect to the accuracy of what I said. It is a question of privilege with respect to the words you have attributed to me. The point of order that I was on at one o'clock was the constitutional one that was decided by the Chair today. It had nothing to do with the point of order raised with respect to the ruling you made where you declare Clause 6 lost. There is a distinction to be made there. I was not on that point of order at one o'clock. The record will disclose that my point was on the right of this Parliament to continue and of this House to sit. That now has been resolved.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the question which you put before us of whether a Member can rise on a point of order at the conclusion of a vote and question the validity of the vote. The answer, quite clearly, is yes. There is no other time that a Member can rise. The question of whether the Speaker or the Chairman of a Committee recognizes a Member immediately when a Member says, "Point of order",
or whether or not the Speaker or the officers of the Table have announced the vote itself, is immaterial in my judgment as long as the Member signifies his or her intention to raise a technical question with regard to the appropriateness of the vote that has been taken. I would argue that to rule otherwise would be to deny Members the opportunity to raise legitimate points of order when they rise.
The question before us, however, is a much broader question as you yourself, Mr. Chairman, have mentioned. It is going to be difficult, I suspect, to come to a reasonable conclusion about the question. Quite clearly the vote taken this afternoon just prior to one o'clock indicated that the clause before the House in Committee of the Whole had been defeated. I am assuming that that vote now registered will stand. The question that has been raised by Members of the governing Party with regard to the appropriateness of each and every vote that was cast is, on the one hand, a question that cannot be resolved by the chair directly inasmuch as the practice in the House, as I have viewed it over almost the last four years, has been that during deliberations in Committee of the Whole, Members have in fact arrived after the vote commenced and their vote has been counted. In fact, I have questioned that practice to no avail. Therefore, the practice, as I have seen it personally, has been that Members have entered the Chamber after the vote began, unlike on division. Members have entered the Chamber and thereafter have voted in the affirmative or negative on a number of different occasions.
Since it is not necessary in Committee of the Whole for a Member to be in his or her individual seat, it is virtually impossible for who ever happens to be the occupant of the chair to determine with any degree of validity who was in fact in the House and who was not at the beginning of the vote. In my judgment, the only thing left open to the Chair is to accept that the only time a question can be raised as to the validity of a vote is after the vote has been taken. If that question cannot be resolved by the Chair directly from the rules, the Chair must then seek to find out from the Members who voted whether or not they voted in the appropriate way, not whether they were here at the start of the vote, but just simply whether they were satisfied that the vote had been cast appropriately.
In actual fact the vote, as I see it, is now finished. No one appears to be questioning whether the vote was proper when it started. No one seems to be questioning whether the numbers as they were announced were indeed the numbers that were present in the House when the vote was completed.
Therefore, I urge upon you that you find: first, that at the conclusion of any vote a Member is entitled to rise on a point of order, and whether that Member's point of order is sustained or not will be determined subsequently; second, that it is irrelevant in the Committee of the Whole whether a member is here at the beginning of the vote provided he is here prior to the end of the vote. That is all that is required; and finally, that the vote this morning should be allowed to stand exactly as it was recorded.
December 20, 1983


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, without going over the points raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), especially his mention of your comment as Chairman of the Committee when you said that you could not entertain any points of order during the taking of the vote, after which he referred you to citation 225 in the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne which deals with this matter, going over all this, I would like you, as Chairman of the Committee, to enlighten the Committee as to what you meant when you said that you would be prepared to entertain points or order once the vote had been taken. Did this mean that the Chairman of the Committee then intended to accept the decision and the result of the vote, whatever it may be, without taking into consideration the point of order dealing directly with this vote?
Second, you are now asking us to debate a point of order, to which you have given priority, which point of order was raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and followed another point of order which had already been raised. It may be the first that you heard, but on the Government side, we had seen the 50 Members who came in. For our part, we noticed the irregularity which occurred on the other side. I do not wish to argue this point, but what I want to know is whether I am wasting my time by discussing this point of order when you have not yet told the Committee what you meant by saying that you would be prepared to hear points of order later. At the time, you knew the reason for these points of order since the Clerk of the House was already standing counting the liberal votes. This is when you made this comment. Did this qualify in some way the vote then being taken and its results? If so, this means that the arguments raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) are completely irrelevant and the vote should be taken again since it occurred under the cloud of a conservative stratagem aiming at embarrassing the government just before Christmas to make headlines.


Roderick Blaker: I see quite a number of Hon. Members standing. I wonder if we might inch toward a decision. I would let Hon. Members to comment as they see fit. This is not a ruling, it is a proposal that a vote be defined as the time beginning when the qustion is put to Hon. Members and ending when the person in the Chair declares the results. If we can agree on that, possibly we can agree-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Blaker: -at least to put part of this decision away.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise on this point of order that is now under consideration to tell you that I find it rather a novel proposition in the House of Commons that the House Leader of the New Democratic Party would stand up and make the proposition that all those who have ostensibly voted on this issue should take some kind of litmus test, that
Income Tax Act
they should come back and swear or say that they in fact were properly here during the course of the vote.


Neil Young: He never said that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The question, as it is before you, is that the Government has got itself into an awful pickle. It is in an awful mess because it has fouled up a vote and has been defeated properly and clearly by the Opposition. There is no subterfuge involved in this particular matter.
I want to address the narrow issue with respect to the exact circumstances of how a point of order is dealt with. If I rose on a point of order concerning whether or not certain people were here, I could tell you that the President of the Privy Council was not here when the vote was put and was not here during the time the vote was commencing. I could say that and make that specific accusation, but all we have had here from the Government side is vague references to 20 Conservatives coming in behind the curtains. What cowardice on the part of the government side!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I thought matters were proceeding reasonably well in that Hon. Members seemed to be agreeable to facing the narrow issue. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West would assist the Chair. Can an Hon. Member call into question the validity of some other Hon. Member's vote?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points which I think are directly involved in this whole matter. You have to understand the circumstances. I was here, the President of the Privy Council was not here. He can only talk on the basis of hearsay.
I can say one thing: that if the government Members are prepared to name names and stand on a point of order to say that a certain Member-the Member for Hamilton West, for example-came in after the time, then I understand that as a point of order which may be sustainable. There is a tradition and practice of naming the constituencies of people who come in, but not this idea about something being wrong, that there is a bunch of people here who should not be here.
The second point on this particular question is that there has been absolutely no precedent or tradition. Once you made the count-you will recall that what happened in the exact circumstances was that there were two or three government Members who got up on points of order. Any one of them could have raised the point of order that I, for example, was not here properly. Of course they could not do that because I was here right from the beginning.
They could have also used the device under the terms of the rules and followed that precedent. They could have appealed your ruling if they were not satisfied with it, unless they were prepared to name names of constituencies of Members who were not here at the time.


Ian Deans: A question of privilege.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Roderick Blaker: I wonder if I can assist the Hon. Member. There was no ruling. I will recognize the question of privilege.
There was no ruling-


Erik Nielsen: Yes, there was.


Roderick Blaker: If the Hon. Member for Yukon is referring to my declaration that Clause 6 was lost, I am not using the word "ruling" in the same way as he is. 1 am sure the Hon. Member realizes that when we refer to rulings in the House we are referring to procedural rulings.
If that is a new argument which he wishes to raise, of course I will listen to it. But I find it difficult to think that the declaration by the Chair as to whether or not a clause is lost constitutes a ruling. It is a declaration of a vote. It simply records what is happening.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman-


Roderick Blaker: I apologize. I must always recognize a question of privilege before a point of order. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a question of privilege.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, for some reason about which I am not at all clear, attempted to leave the impression that somehow or other in my submission I had been in support of the position taken by the Government. He either knows better and was attempting to cloud the issue, or he was, for crass and obviously political reasons, trying to misrepresent my position. It is quite clear that I said at the beginning and the end that we agreed that the vote taken this morning should stand, that the clause had been defeated. For the Hon. Member to imply otherwise is dishonest.


Roderick Blaker: There are many Hon. Members rising. I want to hear the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, but I wonder if those Hon. Members rising might give some thought to the suggestion that the Chair is beginning to feel ready to make a decision.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, I want to make two brief comments. I am so surprised at the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. What sensitivity members of the NDP have with respect to their support of the Government. The fact is the NDP came in and continued on. Members of the NDP have no interest in defeating the Government because that is the last thing they want to do.
On this particular point, Mr. Chairman, if we are not to take your declaration of a vote being carried or lost, where is the end to this? Where is the end? Are we to say that now we are able to go back to every vote and, with some fuzzy allegation made by any Member that members of the Liberal Government came in from behind the curtains during the course of every vote that was taking place in Committee of the
Whole, that this somehow was going to be the basis of your being able to reconsider a decision and a count that you took? Are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that you are not able to identify whether or not people are coming in from behind the curtains? One thing you could have done is to have made the observation before you made your decision that there were people coming into the Chamber improperly. You did not do that. I think that is significant. You do not have to identify anybody. But you have very good vision, Mr. Chairman. That is one thing about you that is well known in this Parliament, your vision is perfect. If you saw people coming into this Chamber improperly, you would have observed it. You are a Speaker who knows the rules, and I support you on that. I am saying to you, Mr. Chairman, that if that were the case, you would not have carried on with the vote. You would have stopped the vote and said, "I think there are people coming in from behind the curtain. This is improper."
Second, the President of the Privy Council said there was a point of order raised with respect to the validity of the vote. Somebody yelled, "Point of order". The individual did not say what it was about. You said, "I cannot entertain points of order with respect to a matter while a vote is being taken.
Finally, I ask you to consider whether or not, if you are going to rule now that we can, in retrospect, on a point of order based upon the general and nebulous accusation that people came into the Chamber improperly, reconsider a vote, you will open the prospect of every vote being subject to reconsideration by a Member standing up and saying, "In my estimation." I am prepared now to say that on another day-


Miss MacDonald:: Yesterday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -Liberal Members came in from behind the curtains. That was observed and that is a fact. If you want to open that up, Sir, you are setting a very dangerous precedent.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. Would Hon. Members examine Standing Order 15(2) which reads:
(2) When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
The Chair has an obvious problem. If this is a rule of the House, how does one remedy it? Do we have a remedy for it?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Chairman, directly relating to the point that you wish to raise, it has been the practice of this House in the past at a time when divisions are taken and when a Member has come into the House during the time that a division has been taken, that at the end of a division a Member may raise a point of order with the Speaker-and the same should apply in Committee of the Whole-that a Member came into the Chamber improperly. The Speaker has then in the past asked that Member to rise if indeed that Member was not here at the proper time. The Hon. Member will rise and say, "Yes, on my honour I did come in after the vote commenced".


Mr. Epp:: What are you talking about?
December 20, 1983


John Leslie Evans: In fact, the recorded division is then revised and the numbers are revised. If the numbers are 128 to 115, the number will be revised when a Member says that he came into the Chamber improperly and was counted improperly. That has happened on a number of occasions in this House and Members know it.
Second, let me refer to Citation 235 of Beauchesne which reads:
235. Any Member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House. The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred. A point of order may be taken after a debate is concluded and the Speaker is about to put the question to a vote or after the vote has been taken-in fact, at any time, but not so as to interrupt the Speaker when he is addressing the House. Even the provisions in Standing Orders that action must be taken "forthwith" or "forthwith without debate" with respect to certain proceedings do not bar a Member from raising a point of order when a serious irregularity occurs.
Then we go on to Citation 236, which the President of the Privy Council raised, as to whether or not a Member can bring a point of order after a vote. In this case the vote was taken and an announcement was made by yourself. The Hon. member for the Yukon raised a point of order. People on this side of the House were yelling, "point of order". The point of order raised by the Hon. Member of the Yukon seized the House, and one cannot raise another point of order when there is a point of order already on the floor. We took that point of order under consideration. Members on this side of the House were calling points of order, and I distinctly remember hearing you say, "I will deal with you after we have finished the point of order of the Hon. Member for Yukon". The point of order those Members wanted to raise was that Members on the other side of the House came in after the division had commenced.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: The House apparently does not want to hear a ruling on this issue. The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 15(2) and the words of the Member for Ottawa Centre who has just resumed his seat, I submit that if the question is whether or not a Member, subsequent to a vote being recorded and the decision being rendered, should be able to question the validity of that vote, that that must be examined carefully in light of the fact that voting practices in this House when we are sitting formally with the Speaker in the chair are quite different from voting practices in this House during Committee of the Whole. I want to point out that in three respects while this House sits in Committee of the Whole our rules and practices are somewhat more relaxed.
First, it is not the practice of reporting Members names by their constituencies during votes in Committee of the Whole. That in itself lends itself to some confusion because it makes it virtually impossible for Members on the other side to identify
Income Tax Act
subsequently a Member by his constituency, which is further complicated by the fact that Members do not sit in their own designated seats. Members may sit in any seat they choose, as the President of the Privy Council is now doing. He is sitting in a seat that does not have his name on it, the seat from which he spoke just a few moments ago.
I submit that Members in any place in this House would be hard pressed to identify whether or not another Member had properly voted because one could not tell whether that Member was properly seated or whether or not indeed the Member was in the House.
1 would further point out, Mr. Chairman, that some Members I know of were questioning, prior to your putting the question to the House on Motion No. 6, whether they should or should not be in their own seat. Some were moving from the places where they were sitting to their own seats.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Chairman, that would also contribute to the confusion. However, I think the fact that you did not question these events in the House at that time is a recognition on your part that it would be virtually impossible to identify a particular Member by his place, indeed contrary to the long-established practices of the House during Committee of the Whole when indeed you merely do a head count and Hansard does not record which Members voted from which row. Therefore, I submit that it would not be in order to accept an intervention from any other Member subsequent to the vote being accepted or rejected, unless it was formalized by way of an appeal and the offending Members were so named and designated in the text of the appeal.


Roderick Blaker: There are many Hon. Members who wish to raise points of order. However, may I point out to them, so far as I am able to sense the mood of the Committee of the Whole, that there are a considerable number of Hon. Members who would appreciate getting on with the decision. Would there be any wish on the part of Hon. Members that I indicate the direction which I feel the Chair will take without making a ruling? That would perhaps set up a basis upon which Hon. Members might wish to argue some point or other. Would an indication of where the Chair would like to go be useful?


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. I am supposed to rise at the earliest possible moment. For fear that we will leave this question, I want to point out that I have a point of privilege to make as a result of the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. I have asked for the "blues" but I have not received them as yet. It is clear in my mind, upon listening to it in French, that the President of the Privy Council called into question the integrity particularly of those Members who voted in committee today. I want to reserve my right to raise that matter when I have the "blues" in my possession.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member will not lose any right of his in that regard in any terms related to our progress on this point of order. May I do a resume and then recognize other Hon. Members.
I think we have cleared up some issues. The first is that we seem to have a general agreement that we can refer to a vote, as I identified earlier. The second issue is that there was at one point a question as to whether or not the Chair's declaration that Clause 6 was lost constituted a formal ruling in the procedural sense, and I believe that has been disposed of. The third issue-and I felt there was a sense of agreement-is that the person in the Chair cannot possibly be, even if he or she wanted to be, a policeman attempting to watch 282 Members of Parliament coming and going. The fourth issue, which I think we may be able to dispose of, is that if there was some issue as to the right of appeal by Members, I would remind them that no ruling was made, which is why we are debating the very point of order right now.
If we turn to the procedures, I have already referred Hon. Members to Standing Order 15(2), which reads:
When the Speaker is putting the question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
That is complemented by Standing Order 59(1), which simply says that the Standing Orders of the House shall apply in Committee of the Whole. I have already indicated to the House that there may be a lacuna or a gap in that if the Standing Orders provide that a Member shall not enter, walk out of or across the House, what is the remedy if that happens? The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council raised references in Beauchesne's. I believe he referred to Citation 235 on page 78.1 do not want to discourage Hon. Members by reading at great length. I simply refer them to Citation 235 which I thought was on point. I also have Citation 223 of Beauchesne's to which I think some Hon. Member referred. It reads:
A Member must be within the House and hear the question put in its entirety, in one of the official languages, or his vote cannot be recorded. It is not sufficient for him to hear it while he is in a gallery or behind the curtains.
When 1 have Citation 472(3) which reads:
As in the House during a recorded division, no Member may enter the Committee of the Whole while a division is in progress.
My mind goes to the practice as I recall as a Member of the House. 1 think every Member here can recall an incident where Members on one side or another of the House has pointed out that some Hon. Member had entered after the vote had commenced. The practice followed has been that the Chair then asked that Hon. Member if he or she was within the limits of a proper definition of a vote. I think the proper way to go, particularly given Standing Order 59(1), is to apply those rules which apply to a recorded division to a vote in Committee of the Whole. The inclination of the Chair is to go in that direction. Perhaps we can progress on that basis. Those Hon. Members who wanted to make arguments of that nature may now feel that it is unnecessary to do so, but of course the Chair will continue to hear Hon. Members. I see several Hon. Members seeking the floor.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, just for the purposes of clarification, you referred to Standing Order 15(2) and Standing Order 59(1). Then you referred to Citation 472(3) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads:
As in the House during a recorded division, no Member may enter the Committee of the Whole while a division is in progress.
It cannot be clearer.


Roderick Blaker: I have just read exactly the same paragraph.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I just want to address myself to one narrow point that you raised indicating the direction in which you intend to go. You cited Standing Order 59(1) and that Standing Order, if it is read with precision, stipulates:
The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committees of the Whole-
And I underline the next words.
-so far as may be applicable-
Then it goes on with the remainder of the Standing Order which is irrelevant to the argument I want to make now. You coupled that, Sir, with Citation 223 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
(1) A Member must be within the House-
And I presume you are substituting Committee of the Whole for House when you read that. It continues:
-and hear the question put in its entirety, in one of the official languages, or his vote cannot be recorded. It is not sufficient-
And so on. If we read Citation 223(2)-


Mr. Smith:: Finish reading Citation 223( 1).


Erik Nielsen: I know what the remainder says.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Say it out loud.


Erik Nielsen: I was trying to save some time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: "Or behind the curtains".


Douglas Glenn Fisher: "Or behind the curtains".


David P. Smith: It is on page 75.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You would make a great editor; you would just take out everything you like. Keep thinking. We know it is hard, but keep trying.


Harvie Andre: How would you know?


Erik Nielsen: I sat here without heckling once and listened courteously to every presentation that was made on the government side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 20, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I simply request that they extend to me that same courtesy that hon. gentlemen should extend when listening to a matter having such serious consequences as this one.
May 1 now draw the Chair's attention to paragraph (2) of Citation 223, which reads as follows:
A Member must be in his own seat should he wish to vote and should remain in his seat until the division is complete and the result announced.
Obviously, that is not intended to apply in Committee of the Whole because that is not our practice.
May I also draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to paragraph (4), which reads as follows:
Any five Members may require a recorded division.
Again, that is obviously not intended to apply in Committee of the Whole. Paragraph (5) sets forth a method whereby a Member can have his name properly recorded. This is obviously referring to a House practice and not to a practice in Committee of the Whole because there is no recording of names in Committee of the Whole.
In three instances, it is quite obvious that Citation 223 does not apply to proceedings in Committee of the Whole. My submission for your consideration, Sir, is that by reason of the obvious intention to have this Citation apply to proceedings in the House, it cannot be presumed to apply to proceedings in Committee of the Whole and so fall within the purview of Standing Order 59(1) because that Standing Order is quite clear and stipulates that the Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committee of the Whole so far as they may be applicable. I think the very obvious differences in this citation deserve serious consideration regarding the point as to whether or not the citation applies to proceedings in Committee of the Whole. From a very cursory reading, it seems clear to me, Sir, that the citation was never intended to apply to Committee of the Whole.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to listen to the nuances and the whirls and tangles that we hear from the Hon. Member for Yukon. Let me say officially that he would make a great editor because he blue-pencils out everything that he does not want to hear, does not want to read or does not want to acknowledge.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I refer you to the reference you made yourself earlier, Citation 472(3), which avoids the whole problem that the Hon. Member raised. So that we can be perfectly clear, 1 will be happy to read that citation. It reads as follows:
As in the House during a recorded division, no Member may enter the Committee of the Whole while a division is in progress.
That could not be clearer. If the Hon. Member has any problems with the citation with which he has worked, then let him go to this one and tell us how he gets around such unequivocal language. It says that no Member may enter and what we had today was a planned, clear-cut assault against
Income Tax Act
that procedure. We had 50 people walk in here in the space of a few seconds in deliberate violation of this House practice. That came, Mr. Chairman, from the very people who have the audacity to stand up and quote precedent, quote civility and quote parliamentary procedure as if those things, could not violated, when they themselves, by their very actions, violated such procedures and provoked this time-wasting debate.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, since the Hon. Member who just spoke raised the question of how many people came into the House and since-


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. Apparently I am having some difficulty hearing, but I believe the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is on his feet on a question of privilege?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Chairman, I shout loud enough but perhaps we are not hearing in this House today. I rise on a question of privilege because I was certainly one person who stood and called a point of order. It has been mentioned several times that I called a point of order when the vote was being taken and while these people were coming in. There were not one or two people whom I could identify but 30 or 40 people, a mass of people-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. Order. Would the Hon. Member address his question of privilege?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Chairman, the question of privilege is that I am trying to show that I as a Member of this House was outraged and my voting privileges were being taken away. All of us in this House began a vote. My privileges were being denied because during this vote there were 30 or 40 people coming in. You, Mr. Chairman, rose to say that I had no point of order at that particular time because a vote was in progress and there were 30 or 40 Members coming in when you said that.
I believe that my privileges as a Member voting in this situation were breached because the procedure itself was improper, and I rose to present the point that this was an improper procedure. I have had great difficulty in understanding how 30 or 40 people can enter at such a time. One cannot even tell who they are because they are coming in in a mass and a great wave. I cannot understand how they can claim that they were in their seats as a Party when this action was well planned in advance.
I as a Member of this House believe that if this procedure is allowed to continue, it will be virtually impossible to govern the situation in terms of Committee of the Whole. This Party, which would like to assume power, will find it almost impossible to run this kind of Bill through the House if these things happen. I admit that one or two Members may come in and not be seen, but when 30 or 40 Members come in and everyone here is howling, it is impossible for me to feel that my privileges are being looked after in this particular situation.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Roderick Blaker: 1 gave some thought to this issue over the lunch hour. The question is whether or not the privileges of all Members are breached if one or more Members cast their votes improperly. I did not have the time to review it.
I believe the Hon. Member has the beginnings of an issue, and I think the best way to pursue it at the moment is to point out, however, that in order to make his argument, he has to succeed in making an argument that some Members voted improperly or invalidly. We have not yet reached the stage of proceedings which would determine whether or not that is the case. Perhaps I might possibly, therefore, ask the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan to keep his question of privilege in hand, so to speak, and let us return to the point of order to determine whether or not one Hon. Member can raise the issue that he has raised.
So far, this question has been raised as points of order. It may well be that the Hon. Member has an argument on a question of privilege but with his permission, I would prefer not to rule on the matter of privilege because the House has been debating a point of order all afternoon. I would prefer it if we could stay on the point of order. Would that be agreeable to the Hon. Member?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Chairman, I gather that you are asking me to make the same point as a point of order, and I would be glad to do so at this particular time.


Roderick Blaker: I do not know if the Hon. Member and I have understood each other. 1 will be clear. I do not want to rule on this question of privilege. I have indicated that the Hon. Member may have good grounds for a question of privilege, but I have asked whether, with his permission, we might put the question of privilege aside only for the moment because the House has been dealing with a point of order. That is the agreement I need.


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes, you have it.


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member has a right to a ruling on privilege if he wants it. Is the Hon. Member for Calgary West rising on a point of order? It is getting tiring here. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that in trying to narrow down the debate and bring it along, you have ruled on certain things. I was prepared to address myself to those issues because I appreciate the seriousness of the Government losing a vote on a tax Bill. I can understand that it is concerned about going to the electorate.
What I should like to raise now is that, whether this is a point of order or a question of privilege, I suggest to the Chair that the charge that people came into the House late-which is one that the Chair did not pick up in the vote-is a very serious charge. I do not think it can be made in generalities. If Hon. Members opposite wish to lay that charge, surely they must lay it specifically. If they want to lay that charge and
contest the validity of the vote, I submit to the Chair that they have to name names. They are not prepared to do that.
I also make this point to the Chair, that time and time again in the House the Chair has ruled that the Opposition has been too late in making a submission. I submit to the Chair that in this case the Government has been too late. It was too late in not having enough Members in the House; it was too late in not naming the names of the people it suggests were not in the House when the vote started; it was too late in not raising the point of order at one o'clock; it was too late in not raising the point of order at two o'clock; and it was too late in not raising the point of order at three o'clock.
The Prime Minister said that the appeal should be made to a higher authority. The Government was too late and did not make that appeal to the higher authority. I submit to the Chair that it is too late now; the vote has been cast and the vote has been declared by the Chair. I appreciate that the Chair wants to suggest that that is not a ruling, but is a declaration. I submit that the Chair might want to take another look at that. Either way the Government lost the vote, and that is the issue before the House now; it lost the vote. It is too late to argue that the people who voted were not in the House. If you want to take that argument, you are going to have to look at both sides.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman-


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to add a few words to this point of order as well. I find it very strange that we sit here as Members of the House debating this issue for some time and we have not had-and I will come to my point-one single, clear denial of the fact that 50 people came storming in like Attila the Hun-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: The Hon. Member for Yukon was the last one to come in.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, what we have had instead-


Roderick Blaker: Order, order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You sit down.


Brian Vincent Tobin: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Roderick Blaker: Order. I think it is desirable to avoid inflammatory remarks. I think it would be preferable to stay on the point of order. Procedure has so little by way of natural inflammation that perhaps we can keep it at its usual level.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall take your advice. I just find it passing strange how the truth can become inflammatory when matched against an abuse of the rules of the House.
The question that has been put by Members opposite is, how do you know how many there were and how do you know who
December 20, 1983

it was and what riding they were from, because we did not sit in our seats? Therefore, if you did not see me with my hand in the cookie jar, it was not there.
Mr. Chairman, I was here all of this morning. I was one of the Members, as the Chairman will know, who yelled, "Point of Order" with my squeaky little voice that shot through to your ear drums. You looked up and said, "I must complete the vote first". I was not yelling "Point of Order" because I love to yell. I was yelling because I saw-


Harvie Andre: That stretches the truth.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is Attila the Hun inflammatory? Anyway, I saw the troops come charging. The reality was that at 12.28 we had a vote; at that time 18 members of the Opposition were in the House.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Including the NDP.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Eighteen Members at the time of the vote. At the time of beginning the vote there were 18 Members; at the end of the vote there were 65 Members. Mr. Chairman-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Order. Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Chairman, may I finish my submission?


Roderick Blaker: The only authority the Chair has in trying to keep Members on a point is by drawing to their attention that their comments are not related to the point of order. This will be the third occasion. Could we please have the Hon. Members' thoughts on the point at issue?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to say that under Citation 472(3) of Beauchesne, it is very obvious that as Members sit here and see a very large number-I would submit given the facts I have just put before the House-I would submit 46 Members came. Hon. members opposite have asked how many. I am telling you, 46-


Henry Perrin Beatty: You said 50 a minute ago.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I am going to rule. I think the Members of the House-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.


Mr. Flis:: A question of privilege.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Will you recognize me, Mr. Chairman?


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of privilege.
Income Tax Act


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. I have two questions of privilege now on the floor. I will recognize them.
I want to put to Hon. Members what I think is the mood of the House. It is my understanding that the mood of the House is that Members expect a ruling from the Chair. Of course, it is understood that my ruling is appealable. It requires only one Hon. Member to indicate that he or she wishes to appeal my ruling to Madam Speaker. There is no difficulty there.
My feeling is that a number of Members would like a ruling. Those who are rising on points of order want to consider the matter of their colleagues who may, on the other hand, want a ruling. That is what I am here for-to give you that assistance.
I have two Hon. Members who rose on questions of privilege and I will recognize them in the order of their appearance.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a question of privilege.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise on a question of privilege because I sincerely believe that my rights as the Member for Parkdale-High Park have been breached because of improper voting procedures prior to one o'clock this afternoon.
Many people have related in the House what happened yesterday. I was here all day yesterday and all day today, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, Members were coming and going. This was a continual process, but any Members who came, came in prior to the commencement of the vote.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Taylor:: Tell the truth.


Jesse Philip Flis: That is very important, Mr. Chairman. There was another clause that we voted on.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. It is my understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to pursue an argument similar to that offered by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay. If that is the case, I will listen to him. I do not know if he was here at the time but I would point out that I had asked that the question of privilege in this matter be delayed until we could dispose of the point of order. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay agreed to that.


Jesse Philip Flis: I believe my case is a bit different, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South, when the vote was counted, did not get up in his seat. Why-because that was the honourable thing to do. He arrived after the commencement of the vote but did not rise in his seat. He can vouch for that. That is what the 49 Members should have done today when they walked in.


An Hon. Member:: Who are they, Jesse?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They were here.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. Order, please. The logic that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is using does not lead to a question of privilege.
382

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte on a question of privilege.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, I find that my traditional privileges as a Member are somewhat in jeopardy as a result of any ruling which may be made by the Government. I find that-[DOT]


Mr.   Gimai@: Who?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Like many others, Mr. Chairman, I have not uttered a word, syllable or sound of objection to anyone else who chose to speak in this House on this subject matter, and I feel I deserve the same respect. The subject, as it has been addressed by the Government, indicates that all the rules which apply to the House apply in all the committees-this and all the other committees. That, Mr. Chairman, has not been my experience in committees. I have been advised many times by the chairman, through the clerk of that committee, that the rules of the House did not necessarily apply, that what 1 could do in the House I could not do in committee, that a subject matter which might be discussed in the House could not be discussed in committee. I submit to you that the consequence of any ruling which is made in this regard, which may have that broad, sweeping coverage, may very well on a traditional basis impinge upon the privileges which I have experienced as a Member of this House.
If, in fact, the representations made by the Government are the basis for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, the privileges of government Members, as well as those of opposition Members, are going to be equally constrained. As my point of privilege as a Member of this House, I submit to you that discretion in the time frame in which you do make your decision, is going to constrain every Hon. Member of this House with respect to certain privileges which he or she has enjoyed. That tradition is the basis for the privilege which I have and the privileges which I have enjoyed in this House, and if in fact we are to continue to establish that this House shall be conducted on the letter of the law, as is outlined by the rules-which were merely intended to be guides within the traditional basis-then I submit to you that my privilege and the privileges of Hon. Members of all Parties in this House in the future may be seriously constrained by a hasty ruling in this situation.


Roderick Blaker: I am not sure that a procedural ruling in the House of Commons can be called the basis of a point of privilege which affects all Hon. Members. However, I do not have to face that yet because the ruling has not been made. Of one thing I am sure, that is, that the privileges of Hon. Members cannot yet be affected. May 1 give a ruling? May I rule?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Jesse Philip Flis: I have a question of privilege.


Roderick Blaker: The mood of the committee is clearly that there be a ruling on the point of order but, of course, I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary if he insists on putting a question of privilege.


Jesse Philip Flis: Twice yesterday I tried to register my objection; first, by shouting, "Out, out out." Second, by yelling, "On a point of order".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. What is the point of privilege?


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out, out!


Roderick Blaker: There is not a point of privilege so far. On the issue raised by-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman-


Roderick Blaker: I am about to give a ruling. I will recognize an Hon. Member on a matter of privilege. I must do so.


George Albert Proud: It is not privilege.


Roderick Blaker: In that case the Chair has decided it is time to make a ruling.
I refer Hon. Members to Standing Order 15(2) and Standing Order 59(1). I also refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne, Citation 472(3) and Citation 233. There is another reference which was raised, as I indicated earlier, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, that is, Beauchesne's Citation 235. I also refer Hon. Members to two precedents. The first is in Hansard for April 17, 1962 at page 3080, and it reads as follows:


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment on the point of order and in respect of what the Postmaster General has just said. On previous votes in committee, on two separate occasions I have raised a similar point of order without naming the hon. Members who came in late. On each occasion the chairman of the committee at that time agreed that my point of order was well taken and that hon. members should not enter the chamber when a vote was being taken in committee.
The Chairman refers to Standing Order 12(2) of the previous issue of the Standing Orders. Today it is Standing Order 15(2), and it reads:
When Mr. Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
The Chairman goes on to say:
There is no doubt that by analogy the same rule will apply in committee. Therefore I believe that one vote should be deducted from the count made.
The other ruling to which I would like to refer is by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, as reported in Hansard on December 2, 1971, at page 10,076. It reads:


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly I think we must take into account the fact that the Hon. Member for Peace River has brought this situation to the attention of the House and the Chair. It is always a very touchy and delicate situation when the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole-a position I occupied for a few years so I know how difficult it is when the question has to be put by the Chair-has to try to convince Hon. Members who were behind the curtains or in the lobby or
December 20, 1983

who perhaps came down from their offices that they ought not to come into the chamber, that they have no right to enter and should not stand or move about the chamber during a vote.
This principle, as the Hon. Member for Peace River emphasized very well, has been recognized for a long time. I would therefore hope that the incident which took place yesterday and which we all deplore will remind us that we should not forget the provisions of the Standing order-
Even when-and this is the point of the reference:
-when the House is in Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, it is open to an Hon. Member to question whether or not some other Hon. Member voted within or without the Standing Orders and their interpretations. At ten minutes before one o'clock, 1 declared that Clause 6 was lost, after a count of the Hon. Members present and voting. The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry then stood on a point of order. I recognized that particular Hon. Member because he did manage to attract the attention of the Chairman. I do recognize that other Hon. Members were also rising on points of order, both during and after the vote.
The issue before the Committee now is that raised by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry. That questions an allegation on his part that several Members entered the Chamber after the vote, as defined, had begun. The practice of the House has been when that is done in the case of a recorded division, that the Chair then indicates that the Hon. Member of whom it is said entered the House too late to vote, is asked to determine, himself or herself, whether or not he or she entered the House at the appropriate time to-and I will use that odd expression-"fit the rules of our House".
It would be the height of-if I may use this word-a farce if the Chair were to attempt at this point to ask each and every Hon. Member, first whether or not he or she was here for the vote at ten minutes before one o'clock, and second, whether or not he or she entered the House at the appropriate time in order to qualify him or her to vote.
I am grateful for the advice of the Table officers who indicate to me that a simple routine can be followed, which is perfectly analogous to that of the one case of the individual Hon. Member who may or may not have come late to a vote. It is proposed-and I believe this is the way we should proceed-that I will now hear from the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry so that the Committee is clear on his point of order. I will then indicate to all Hon. Members that they have the option of rising and indicating, wherever they may be in the Chamber, that they did vote this morning but they feel, in accordance with our rules, they voted improperly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. 1 have suggested a procedure; perhaps there is a better way. I hope no Hon. Member will ask me to ask each individual Member of this House whether or not he voted within the rules. We will approach that in due course. I think, because much time has gone by, we might hear very briefly from the Hon. Member
Income Tax Act
for Beauharnois-Salaberry on his point of order, and then the House will proceed as it sees fit.
[ Translation]


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to raise the same arguments as this morning, arguments which were taken up again by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and others among my colleagues, and dealing with Standing Orders 15(2) and 59(1). However, I would like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to citation 64(1) in the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne, where in the last sentence we find the following:
When the Question is put, a member must be in the House or else his vote cannot be recorded.
Which means that those Members who were not in the House this morning have no right to have their vote recorded. Whatever the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) may suggest, it does not say that their name cannot be taken down. It says that their vote cannot be recorded. In this context, 1 quite understand that it is not easy for the Chairman of the Committee to determine which of the 50 Members came in after the question was put and were not in the House before that.
In an effort to help the Chair, in view of the fact that Hon. Members opposite do not seem prepared to stand up and recognize they were late coming in, even the Hon. Member for Yukon, because I tend to believe that he is not prepared to admit with a big smile on his face that he came in last after the question was put, and also to simplify the task of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, I want to give you notice of a motion I intend to put before the Committee if I may once you have given your ruling. I believe that it would contribute to solve our problem. In view of what occurred this morning, and of the difficulty in which this Committee finds itself, and in view of the fact that Members acted in good faith but must follow Standing Orders which are unclear, I intend to put before the Committee the following motion which I wrote myself in English so that everyone could understand it. [English]
I move:
That the vote taken on Clause 6 just before one o'clock today be rescinded.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Herb, how in God's name can you applaud that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Remember 1955, when we had a little dispute?


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member has not completed his remarks.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, Hon. Members laugh.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We would like to have the election over again too.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Gérald Laniel: 1 want them to use their best judgment and show their confidence in this institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: This motion is based on Citation 313 of Beau-chesne's which reads as follows:
A member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the House, unless he intends to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.
1 say the vote taken this morning was irregular, Mr. Chairman, and I want to move this motion to rescind that vote, which was taken irregularly with the entry of 50 or more Members after the vote was called.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: There is a feeling here at the Table that the Hon. Member is out of order, that he cannot make such a motion while standing on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: 1 did not move it; I gave notice, Mr. Chairman.


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member corrects me. He did not move the motion, he gave notice that he would want to move a motion. We are now on his point of order, and I recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, to deal first with what the Hon. Member who has just resumed his seat has put before the House, it is my conviction that-


Gérald Laniel: My riding is Beauharnois-Salaberry and I have been here for 22 years.


Erik Nielsen: We are still playing the numbers game. The Hon. Member has been here for 22 years; I have been here for 26.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: That proves you are a has-been.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, if 1 could have the attention of the Chair to deal first with the suggestion made by the Hon. Member, in my submission it is out of order, regardless of whether or not he has given notice. It is out of order by virtue of the existence of Citation 416(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which says:
An old rule of Parliement reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House/'
Mr. Chairman, I have a constructive suggestion to make with respect to how we proceed now that we know the general disposition of the Chair and the ruling toward which we have inched. You have, Sir, placed on the record yourself a precedent with respect to the manner in which this matter or condition has been treated in the past. An Hon. Member on one or other side of the House will stand and make an allegation with respect to any other Hon. Member whom the Member making the allegation feels voted improperly, and that Member is named. For instance, if I wanted to say that
the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry was not present in the House at the time the vote was taken-


Some Hon. Members:: You were not.


Erik Nielsen: -but rather was having lunch with the Hon. Member for Joliette and the Speaker at the time, then he would be requested by the Speaker to state whether he voted and, if so, properly, on his word as a Member. That is the way the process went. The Hon. Member usually rises and says whether or not he was here when the question was put. If he was not, then the vote is revised. That is the way it has been done, but on an individual basis. If the Chair wishes to proceed in that fashion, it seems to me that that is in accord with past practices of the House and the precedents.
We have no precedent, in my submission, where the Chair has ever come to a conclusion that the allegation of one Hon. Member triggers a process in which every single Hon. Member on the Opposition or the other side must rise and declare himself or herself. If that process is going to be followed, I suggest to the Chair that it be followed in accordance with past practices where individual allegations were made with respect to individual Members, and each will, of course, follow the past practice, rise in his place and make the declaration which has been made in the past.
There is one other danger that I would like to point out with respect to following that process. I was not here during the committee vote but entered the Chamber immediately thereafter. I have been informed by others that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, for instance, was in fact here and did cast her vote in Committee. She is not now here. How can that confrontative practice in accordance with our precedents be brought about, because how many other Members who were here and voted in Committee are not now here to defend themselves? It seems to me that the dilemma is still with us and it seems to me that the vote will have to stand. That is my submission. In no case would I suggest that we embark on an entirely new process of one allegation triggering off a whole series of confessions, as it were.


Roderick Blaker: Obviously I will be hearing other Hon. Members in a moment and I will be hearing the Hon. President of the Privy Council. In response to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Yukon, I would like to observe that we now have two mechanisms which have been put on the floor. One is a suggestion, as he calls it, of a single allegation which in some measure triggers a request for all Members who may have voted irregularly, if there were any, to stand. I understand the dilemma every bit as well as the Hon. Member for Yukon does. The other proposal is the one made by himself. That is, if an Hon. Member anywhere in the House wishes to stand and make the allegation that some other Hon. Member voted irregularly, then that matter would be dealt with immediately. I do point out that the Hon. Member for Yukon has raised a very real issue, which is, that some Members who were here for the vote at ten minutes to one
December 20, 1983

may not be in the House at the moment. One does not know how to go about obtaining their views.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: That is precisely why you have no other alternative but to cancel the vote on the point of order. No motion is needed since the point of order is based on irregularities. The irregularity having occurred under Standing Orders 15(2) and 59(1), as you said, as well as under citation 423(3), everything is crystal clear. You have properly shown, in our opinion, that one is not entitled to vote in the Committee of the Whole if one enters the House after the vote has begun.
Apparently, my colleague still thinks that he is in the Small Claims Court. I would like to state my case without being interrupted by someone who is used to pleading before the courts. The Hon. Member should have the decency of letting me state my point of view.
Mr. Speaker, numerous allegations have been made by sworn and duly elected Members on this side of the House, formal allegations that they have seen some 40 or 50 Progressive Conservative Members appear from behind the curtains once the vote had begun. It is a fact which cannot be ignored and such allegations are made, as I said earlier, by Members you, as Speaker, should believe are telling the truth. You said yourself that it was impossible to identify at once 50 Members coming into this chamber. Now how can we on this side readily say that such and such a Member came in late, including the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), if such was the case, but I do not know that since I was not here?
Of course the recording of the debates is available. Of course the journalists will go to each and every Tory Member who voted-there are only 60 of them-and will ask them: On your honour, did you enter the House before or after the vote? However, this is not a matter to be resolved in this House. It must be resolved publicly. And we will see whether that party has a sense of honour. But the fact of the procedure, Mr. Chairman, is that you are facing a situation where several Hon. Members on this side of the House are making serious allegations. There are 40 to 50 Progressive Conservative Members who entered the House after the vote had begun; they were coming from behind the curtains.
Another vital aspect is that throughout the debate on this matter, there was not a single Progressive Conservative Member of this House who had the guts to rise and to tell you in the course of his argumentation: Mr. Chairman, the Liberals who are accusing us of entering the House from behind the curtains are wrong. It is not true, we did not play this childish game, we are not guilty of cheating, we did not abuse the rules of this House, we did not indulge in this childish prank to try and take the Government by surprise. Nobody denied this.
So you are in a situation where, on the one hand, you have very serious allegations from several Hon. Members who contend that Tory Members have violated the Standing Orders
Income Tax Act
you referred us to a moment ago, and on the other hand, you are in a situation where not a single Tory Member, including the Hon. Member from Nova Scotia who was here, dares to rise and admit or deny these allegations. The evidence is there, Mr. Chairman. Theoretically, in such a situation, given the past practice, one could say: We will watch the film recording of the debates, we will see who are the 60 Tory Members who voted and we will ask them one by one, on their honour: Were you part of that plot? Did you indulge in this little schoolboy game or were you in the House when the vote began? This is one way of dealing with the matter, and I suggest it would be quite as childish as the petty game played by the Hon. Member from Nova Scotia.
However, since a substantial number of Members is involved, forty or fifty, 1 don't think the Chair is bound by the practice applied in the case of one or two Members, who are then asked by the Chair to say whether or not they infringed the Standing Orders. I think that here, since the Chair has a number of allegations that have not been challenged, namely that forty or fifty Progressive Conservative Members infringed the Standing Orders, it is clear there were irregularities and the Standing Orders were infringed. The Chair ruled that the point of order was made at the appropriate time; the Chair had no choice but to hear the point of order once the voting procedures were completed, and what the Chair indicated as not being a final ruling was pronounced, and now the Chair should repeat the vote. It is as simple as that.
If I am wrong, 1 would ask the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), on his honour, some people seem to think it is funny to refer to honour, civility, civic duties, good behaviour and appropriate behaviour in the running of the affairs of State. The Leader of the Official Opposition is smiling, but he had a golden opportunity to practice what he calls honour and courage, and he ought to ask his Members who infringed the Standing Orders to identify themselves and to have their names withdrawn from the vote that was taken, and if he does not have the courage to do so, if he does not have the requisite sense of honour to make that statement, which he is under no obligation to do, I realize that, he can discreetly fade back into the crowd. The Chair has no alternative but to start the proceedings all over again, because it is clear there are allegations, unchallenged by Hon. Members, that forty or fifty Members infringed the Standing Orders and sabotaged parliamentary procedure and the vote, consequently making it necessary to conduct the vote again, in good faith, without the fun and games we witnessed this morning.
Mr. Chairman, our conclusion, which we submit with all due respect, is that the Chair cannot, as you said yourself, ask every single Member to have the honour and the courage to rise. This could very easily be done by the Leader of the Official Opposition, if he wants to; if he wants to practice what he preaches, he could say: I checked with my Parliamentary

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
House Leader, I was wrong to listen to him, he got me involved in some silly game, and I think there are fifty Progressive Conservative Members who were not entitled to vote, according to an item of parliamentary procedure of which I was not aware, and on the subject of which the Member for Yukon misled me. Or the Chair could simply review the recorded vote in Hansard. Each Progressive Conservative Member, the sixty or sixty-eight who voted, would be asked: Did you enter the House before or after the vote? I am prepared to accept their good faith and to believe in their sense of honour. If their leader won't, then let individual Members do it.
But if you will not use such a tactic, which in itself would be a precedent in my view, we have a very simple alternative. A point of order has been raised, and points of order are raised where allegedly something was out of order. And if you find it is the case, then we call a new one. It is as simple as that. When a point of order is raised and declared valid, we start over again, in order to comply with our rules, and this is what we should do in the circumstances. In all fairness, Conservatives must recognize that important matters are not solved by childish acts, child play as we saw this morning.
Mr. Chairman, Clause 6 is involved. I think you have been misled earlier in the debate on the meaning of Clause 6. Clause 6 does not provide the government with more money. It is an initiative to lighten the taxpayers' burden. The Tories childish trick is hurting small taxpayers with life insurance who would benefit under Clause 6, and therefore Mr. Chairman it is not a tax levy the Tories defeated or wanted to defeat through an improper trick this morning, but an initiative to lighten the tax burden of low income people in Canada, and this is the shameful aspect of their attitude. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I am confident the Conservative Leader, in order to avoid a much too long and sterile procedural debate that will ultimately demonstrate once again that the Conservatives played a mischievous trick and broke our rules in order to force us to call a new vote, and this is why I am asking the Conservative Leader to have the decency, courage and honour-which I am not denying him-to say: "I have checked or I undertake, from all the evidence I can get by checking the recorded vote with my Members whom I can control, to ask them on their honour if they really indulged in this foolishness or if they voted before the process had started. If he will not, I leave it to the Chair, under our rules, precedent and parliamentary procedure and I ask you, if you find that there was a breach of our rules, because clearly there are points that are uncontradicted, and it is therefore in evidence that some 40 to 50 Members entered the House from the Tory side after the voting process had started, if you so find on the basis of such undisputed facts, we then have no alternative but to declare the vote out of order and in violation of our rules, and to call a new vote on Clause 6 of the Bill.


Roderick Blaker: I want to make one thing clear. I have indicated earlier that it is not physically possible for the occupant of the Chair to be a visual policeman in matters of this nature. I believe this to be a matter that is in the hands of the House, and certainly there will not come from the Chair some conclusion, based upon recollection or subjective imagination, that there may be x, y or z number of members who voted irregularly.
At this point in time we have a problem, and it is that, under Standing Order 15(2), it is clear that the issue faced by the House is whether or not the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry will, in the end, be correct or incorrect as to the facts.
The only way I know, since I have been here, to determine whether or not an individual Member voted irregularly is to ask the individual Member. That is the only procedure we have ever seen that I know of.
The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry has made a general allegation, and I do not know how to proceed from that point. I would like further advice from Members.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that there is no way that can be found and no process that can be manufactured that would change the result or that can be employed and do justice to the situation which exists here now, five and one-half hours after it occurred, with several Members who are not present now.
It was interesting to listen to the Government House Leader embark perhaps on his preliminary leadership speech, judging from the response he got from his colleagues. At first, he whined about having a bare backside as a result of the vote and, if the whining did not catch on, those fellows over there would like to jump ship. They are scurrying like that well-known animal leaving the Titanic and suggesting that we go along with the rescission of the vote.
In addition to the citation that I have already laid before the Chair, there are three others in Beauchesne that are pertinent. They are, Citations 449, 450 and 451 to be found on page 157 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. I am not going to take the time of the House to read them but they all deal with rescinding resolutions. They do not deal with rescinding motions and they do not deal with rescinding a vote on a clause of a Bill. Indeed, a careful reading of those three citations would lead quickly to the conclusion that that process cannot now be employed. Indeed, if it were employed, those citations compel us to the conclusion that even if the Chair found that it was possible, it would be debatable.
Since the ruling of the Chair this morning with respect to any intervening motions, in view of the existence of the House order calling upon us to make certain disposition of the legislation now before us in the House in 22 minutes, it is simply impossible to follow that procedure. Thus, we are left in the same dilemma as before, and it would be a serious injustice, Sir, if any process were adopted now in the absence of so many Members on this side.
December 20, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I hear the groans and the whines over there, but let us recall yesterday's vote on clause 1 which was 23 on the government side and 16 on this side. Those 16 were all in their places. I can allege now, which I do on the basis of very sound advice from those who advised me, that at least 12 government Members came from behind the curtains and voted improperly on Clause 1. Are we, on the basis of that allegation, to go back and review yesterday's vote on Clause 1 ? It is ludicrous to contemplate that kind of process.
Before I sit down I have one more point in response to the intervention of the Government House Leader. He seems to be hurt by the fact that no one has made any denials on this side. He is a learned Member at the Bar and has pleaded cases before where precision is required, as it is in the House of Commons. I have heard allegations today ranging from ten irregular votes on this side to 15 irregular votes. Another Member described it as from 10 to 20 irregular votes; another Member described it as 20 to 30; another 49; another 59. He himself said 50 on the first occasion. Then it was 40 to 50. In the name of all that is reasonable, Sir, how can any arbitrary allegation be dealt with? The only possible solution is to allow the vote to stand and allow the process to take us up to the vote tonight at six o'clock when we must concur on the motion.


Roderick Blaker: Again, as I did earlier this afternoon, I would like Hon. Members to give an indication as to the direction of the mind of the Chair.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are getting seasick.


Roderick Blaker: I will recognize Hon. Members if they wish to proceed, but after I have made some explanatory comments. The situation is that we have an allegation that some number-and that number as referred to is different in different references-of Members may have voted or did, in fact, vote irregularly.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who said so? Who are they?


Roderick Blaker: That allegation has been duly made. If we were to proceed that such an allegation can be made at any time by any Member, the only thing the person in the chair could do would be to call upon the whole House to enter into some standing procedure as to whether or not they had at the time referred to voted irregularly. I can easily see, if that procedure were repeated again and again, that the result would be an injustice to those Hon. Members who may well have been present for a vote, who voted perfectly regularly but who were not in the House at the moment when the general allegation was made.
I think it will serve the interests of individual Members far better if we proceed in the manner suggested by the Hon. Member for Yukon. That is, if there is an allegation that a Member voted irregularly, the Chair will inquire of the Member whether or not he wishes to make a statement in that
Income Tax Act
regard. 1 believe that proceeding will protect the rights of individual Members far more than create a precedent such that Members present at the time of the vote might not have the opportunity, when the allegation is made, to declare whether or not they were present. I think we have to proceed in that fashion. That is the view of the Chair at the moment. I will recognize Hon. Members.


Ian Deans: Mr. Chairman, you may recall some time ago when I first entered this debate that I suggested it would be virtually impossible for the Chair to find a satisfactory way to resolve the question. I put to you, as I see it now, that what you have before you is unsubstantiated allegations. It may well be that what has been said by either side, on the Conservative side or on the Liberal side, is correct but cannot be proven. There is no way that I can see a question of how many Members or exactly which Members were present in the House of Commons at the time the vote was taken could be laid before the Table in order that the Table could determine the appropriateness of each and every single vote cast.
I suggest, given that the allegation is a blanket allegation that does not clearly specify which Members were supposed to be or there inferred to be in violation of the Standing Orders or the procedures, given that it is not possible for the Chair to determine now at this point which Members were here and which Members were not here at the time the vote was taken, that the vote that was taken should stand, that the Government should accept that Clause 6 has been lost, that the Government should subsequently find some way, if it wants that clause, to put the clause back in future, and that we should get on with the business of the nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that we have had enough Members attest to the fact that this morning an irregularity occurred in the vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: I think that is now beyond doubt.


An Hon. Member:: That is your interpretation.


David P. Smith: We have had countless Members on this side rise and attest to that.


John Horton McDermid: You were not even here.


David P. Smith: I would refer you, Mr. Chairman, to Standing Order 1-if the other side would like to hear.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Make a specific charge, David.


David P. Smith: If Hon. Members on the other side would like to hear Standing Order 1 and follow the example of the Hon. Member for the Yukon, it reads:
1. In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this House.
I would then refer you, Mr. Chairman, to page 398 of Erskine May. There is a reference here, I submit, that is directly on point with regard to the taking of a division. I think the other side is having a little problem extending courtesies which we have been extending.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: Erskine May, at page 398, states:
When, however, a major irregularity occurs in the conduct of a division, the usual practice is for the Chair to interrupt the process of division as soon as the irregularity is discovered, put the question again and proceed to take a division de novo.
Exactly as stated in Erskine May is the custom and practice of the House of Commons at Westminster. Our own Standing Orders say that we are to follow those customs when we do not have something directly on point.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that when an Hon. Member, as did the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, rises on a point of order to make the point that a major irregularity had occurred, at that point you are quite rightly entitled to interrupt that division and to put the question again-


John Carnell Crosbie: He did not.


David P. Smith: -and proceed to take a division de novo. I do not think it is necessary for you, Mr. Chairman, to conclude that Members a, b, c and d voted improperly. I think you can exercise your discretion and your judgment and come to the conclusion that a major irregularity occurred.


Mr. Stevens:: You mean the Government lost.


David P. Smith: Once you have come to the conclusion that a major irregularity occurred, you then have the authority of Erskine May to put the question again and proceed to take a division de novo. That, Mr. Chairman, is what I submit we should do in this instance.


Roderick Blaker: I want to make clear to Hon. Members that I will not put the Chair in a position where it becomes, and I said this earlier, a policeman. It is absolute irrelevance that allegations may have been made. I am not going to conclude from the very fact that there is an allegation that it is well founded. That would be an abomination of my responsibilities to all Members in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Does the Hon. Member for Richmond South Delta rise on a question of privilege?


Thomas Edward Siddon: I rise on a question of privilege, Sir. In presenting the question of privilege I would like to point out that the Minister of State for Small Business is casting an aspersion on the integrity of all Members of this House by suggesting an
irregularity without presenting one shred of evidence by way of television-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of State for Small Business was not even in the House.


Roderick Blaker: I think I should rule. Hon. Members will recognize the lateness of the hour.


Mr. Kilgour:: I submit to Hon. Members that the Government is in an impossible position. It is like a general election-


Roderick Blaker: I need a reference to the point of order. The point of order is that a general allegation of irregular voting has taken place. The only issue that I understand is before the House is how to remedy this problem. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Mr. Chairman, there is no way of solving that problem because, for one thing, there is no way of compelling all Members of this House to get up and say whether they voted properly or improperly. That is the position of the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry and there is no solution for it.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. The Chair has taken the position that if an Hon. Member wishes to make an allegation that another Hon. Member voted irregularly, we will follow that practice, which has been the common practice in the House. The Chair will then inquire of the Hon. Member of whom it is alleged that he or she voted irregularly whether he or she would care to make a statement, and I think we will now constitute that as a ruling.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I happened-


Roderick Blaker: I see that other Hon. Members wish to continue. I will withdraw the statement that it is a ruling because it may be that there are other factors in the minds of some Hon. Members. I will repeat that that is the direction in which I think the ruling should go.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I happened to be here this morning when this was going on. I was doing my job, not slacking off like Hon. Members opposite who are now twisting the rules of the House.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Respect the Chair.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member for St. John's West will have noted that throughout this long day I have had on many occasions to call Hon. Members on all
December 20, 1983

sides of the House to order. I ask him to do the same. Would he address himself very much to the point of order?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In addressing the point of order, I wish to point out that if the last vote at 12.50 o'clock is to be challenged, the vote which immediately preceded it by five minutes was conducted in exactly the same way. I accuse, "j'accuse", Hon. Members opposite. There were at least eight Members to ten Members, on the vote five minutes ahead of this vote, on the opposite side who were counted after the vote commenced-


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: They should be put under oath the same as everybody else.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: I submit that the irregularity is that the Government will not observe the rules. It will not accept the fact that it has been defeated.


Roderick Blaker: If the Hon. Member continues, I will take the usual steps.


John Carnell Crosbie: Out, out, out.
[ Translation]


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, I would add a few comments to enlighten the Chair. For 15 years, you have been fully aware of the role of the Committee of the Whole. For 15 years, from both sides of the House clauses have been discussed and many Members from both sides of the House have often been standing behind the curtain, ready to come in when the Chairman calls a vote. Reference was made earlier to the usual practice. This has always been the practice over the last 15 years. This morning of course, there were more conservative Members than liberal ones. Now, Mr. Chairman, you know perfectly well it is the Government's responsibility to maintain its majority.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.
\ English]


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that if we pursue the line of endeavour you have indicated, we may well run into a situation where, in the event that any Hon. Member should be identified and that Hon. Member is not here to respond in the customary fashion, it will be impossible to determine adequately whether the allegation made was made appropriately. Mr. Chairman will recall that the real thrust of the whole process involves a statement then by the Hon. Member being accused as to whether or not he was properly in the House at the proper time and did properly vote. I raise that as a matter of serious concern with respect to the recommendation you have made, Mr. Chairman.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, you quite properly pointed out the time constraints the House is under at the present time.
Income Tax Act
The one option you suggested as a possibility was that individual accusations would be made by individual Members against others. Obviously between now and six o'clock that would not be possible. 1 can say that when I was in my seat in the House, as the vote was being taken, I saw a number of Liberal Members coming into the House on this vote-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member address himself to the point of order?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, the point is simply that if a procedure is proposed which will challenge the votes of Members on this side of the House, such a procedure would not be fair, just or proper unless Members on this side were given the assurance of the right to challenge the vote of every Member on the Liberal side who may have come in or out of the House during the vote which took place at 12.30 this afternoon. That is the point I am trying to make. Should it be your decision, Mr. Chairman, to allow votes on this side of the House to be challenged, I would reserve my right to challenge in turn the vote of every Liberal Member in the House.


Roderick Blaker: I believe it is appropriate to indicate that this will be the last intervention.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief and state at the outset that I was not in the House at the time of the vote. I do not know whether 1, 10, 20 or 40 Members opposite entered the House, nor do I know whether 1, 10, 20 or 40 Liberals entered the House at the inappropriate moment.


Erik Nielsen: If any.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: What 1 do know is that, Mr. Chairman, you are in a very difficult position as are all Hon. Members of the House. You have before you a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry, which alleges in general terms that some Members of the House entered after the vote had begun. Of course I would remind the House that it was not necessarily to vote, their coming into the House. I do not agree that the solution to the problem is for a notice of motion to be presented and for Members to rescind the vote which took place earlier. That would make a mockery of the House and end forevermore the effectiveness of this place. We have fought for too many decades to eliminate that type of challenge to the Speaker. However, I am afraid there is no way around your dilemma, Mr. Chairman. Your dilemma cannot be put on the shoulders of Members of the House. Your dilemma is that at six o'clock you must pass judgment on a point of order. It will then be up to the House to agree or disagree with your ruling.


Erik Nielsen: No, we vote at six o'clock.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I remind the House that the dilemma we are in is not the fault of the chair or of the officers at the Table. The whole issue is one of integrity.


Roderick Blaker: Order, please.

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue-


An Hon. Member:: Let him go on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: I ask the Hon. Member to address himself to the point of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will speak to the point of order. The point of order is that some Members entered the House after the vote had begun.


Erik Nielsen: How do you know?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The solution that the Member be challenged by the Leader of the Opposition and asked is unfair, frankly. If a Member is prepared, when asked, to say that he entered into the House illegally, he should have the sense of integrity to volunteer that information. This is why I say it is a question of integrity. I am afraid that only you, Mr. Chairman, can render the decision.


Mr. Ethier:: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the Chair was in a dilemma and sought advice before. I would like to remind Hon. Members of the night of July 16 when you, Mr. Chairman, were in the Chair and rose to put the question to the House. As a matter of fact, you were putting the question that the House do adjourn when some Members rose and insisted to be recognized. You refused to do so because you said that the question had been put, and rightly so. After 30 minutes of argument, you adjourned the House, and we returned an hour later at which time the Speaker made a ruling. In the Speaker's ruling it was quite clear that we are here in the House to be heard. We are sent here by our constituents to be heard. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona wanted to be heard at that time and therefore the clock was turned back. The Speaker came in and recognized the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
I suggest that we should turn the clock back today so that the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry can be heard.


Roderick Blaker: Order. The time has arrived for the ruling. I think it is in the interests of all Members that there not be a possibility of what I might call a mass allegation. If there are individual allegations, they will be handled as they have been handled in previous instances of this type of voting irregularity, when each individual Hon. Member has had the opportunity in that fashion to declare that in his view he voted regularly or irregularly. My decision is subject, of course, to appeal. Short of that, I intend to call it six o'clock and move forward.
It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, December 15, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the Bill. May I explain the procedure to Hon. Members?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was about to say that you must rise and report progress before the six o'clock House order is to be read from the chair. It is the motion to concur that is being put at six o'clock. That is the question that is put before the House pursuant to the House order.


Roderick Blaker: 1 do not know if I misunderstood the Hon. Member for Yukon. It is my intention at this point to put all clauses remaining and dispose of them.


Erik Nielsen: From Clause 7 on, Sir.


Roderick Blaker: That is correct. I do not know where the difference of understanding arose. We will begin now with Clause 8. Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 8 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 10 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 11 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 12 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 12 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 14 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 14 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 16 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 16 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 21 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 21 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 25 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 25 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: I wonder if Hon. Members would perhaps like me to refer to groups of clauses or would Hon. Members prefer that we take them one by one?
December 20, 1983

Income Tax Act


Erik Nielsen: Why not put all clauses? They are going to be carried on division in every instance. To save the time of the House you could put them all as they will all carry on division.


Roderick Blaker: I had put Clause 25. Shall all remaining clauses from 26 to Clause 124 inclusive carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clauses 26 to 124 inclusive agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Did you put the question on Clause 7? 1 did not hear the question put on Clause 7.


Roderick Blaker: My information is that Clause 7 passed earlier today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. You called Clause 7 at the outset when you began to call the clauses.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, we could proceed in an orderly fashion. Apparently you called all clauses from 7 to
124,	but I understand there are 125. You did not call clause
125,	on page 210.


Roderick Blaker: This is because, according to my information, Clause 125 was agreed to earlier today.

1 see a signal from the-I am getting tired, my apologies. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance indicates that indeed Clause 125 was passed earlier. It was in one of the groupings with Clause 1 or Clause 2.
Bill reported with amendments.


Marc Lalonde: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Erik Nielsen: It was carried on division then. I would like to make certain that when you rise and report the Bill, it will be as amended by the deletion of Clause 6.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, I rise on that point of order.


Roderick Blaker: I will recognize the Hon. Member momentarily. I wonder if I could clear up one issue. My information is that Clause 7 carried earlier today. Lest there be any confusion, I will put the question again.
Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 7 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: I will now hear the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Yukon, am I to understand that the reporting of the Bill this way will correspond to the philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition who has announced that he would support any good legislation to help the small workers of Canada?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have not yet heard you put the question on Clause 7.


Some Hon. Members:: He did.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: If I am wrong, I am sorry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lalonde) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 3)
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Campbell (Cardigan) Chenier Chretien Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cdte (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier

December 20, 1983
Income Tax Act
	Messrs.			Messrs.		
Gendron	Laniel	Ouellet	Deans	Lambert	Nielsen	Gimai'el	Lapierre	Parent	de Jong	La Salle	Nowlan	Gingras	Lapointe	Pelletier	Dick	Lawrence	Oberle	Gourd	(Charlevoix)	Penner	Elzinga	Lewis	Orlikow	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Lapointe	Pepin	Epp	Lewycky	Paproski	Gourde	(Beauce)	Peterson	Fennell	MacDonald (Miss)	Parker	y(Levis)	LeBlanc	Pinard	Fraser	(Kingston and the Islands)	Patterson	Gray	Leduc	Portelance	Fretz	Malone	Reid	Guilbault	Lefebvre	Prud'homme	Fulton	Manly	(St. Catharines)	Harquail	Loiselle	Regan	Gamble	Mayer	Riis	Henderson	Lumley	Roberts	Gass	Mazankowski	Robinson	Herbert	MacBain	Robinson	Greenaway	McCain	(Burnaby)	Hervieux-Payette	MacEachen	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Gurbin	McCuish	St. Germain	(Mrs.) '	MacGuigan	Rossi	Gustafson	McDermid	Sargeant	Hopkins	Mackasey	Roy	Halliday	McDonald (Ms.)	Scott	Hudecki	MacLaren	Savard	Hargrave	(Broadview-Greenwood)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	: iIsabelle	MacLellan	Schroder	Hawkes	McKenzie	Scott	Ittinuar	Malepart	Simmons	Heap	McKinnon	(Victoria-Haliburton)	;Johnston	Maltais	Smith	Hees	McKnight	Shields	Joyal	Marceau	Tardif	Hnatyshyn	McLean	Siddon	Kaplan	Masse	Tessier	Hovdebo	McMillan	Speyer	Kelly	Masters	Tobin	Howie	Miller	Stevens	Killens (Mrs.)	McCauley	Tousignant	Jarvis	Mitchell (Ms.)	Stewart	Lachance	McRae	Turner	Jelinek	Mitges	Taylor	Lajoie	Munro	Veillette	Jewett (Miss)	Mulroney	Thacker	.Lalonde	(Hamilton East)	Watson	Keeper	Munro	Towers	Lamontagne	Nicholson (Miss)	Weatherhead	Kempling	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Vankoughnet	Landers	Olivier	Whelan	Kilgour	Murphy	Wilson	Lang	Ostiguy	Yanakis-139.	King	Murta	Wise	Knowles	Neil	Young-106.	Kristiansen	Nickerson	V-NAYS	Messrs.	* VMr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.	2Althouse	Bosley	Cooper	Andre Anguish	Bradley Cardiff	Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)	It being 6.37 o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until	.Beatty	Clark	Crombie	tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).	Benjamin	(Brandon-Souris)	Crosbie	-Blackburn Blaikie	Clarke (Vancouver Quadra)	(St. John's West) Dantzer	At 6.37 p.m.	the House adjourned,	without question put,	Blenkarn	Cook	Darling	pursuant to Standing Order.	
Wednesday, December 21, 1983