1983-02-14

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 7, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the Statute Law relating to Income Tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the tax amendments in Bill C-139 are understandably of a diverse character, since taxation is no longer a simple matter of occasionally adjusting the Customs Tariff and varying the rate of excise tax.
A century ago, Gladstone recognized that budgets had, even then, become something more than a simple matter of raising revenue. "Budgets are not merely affairs of arithmetic", he observed, "but in a thousand ways go to the root of the prosperity of individuals, the relation of classes and the strength of kingdoms".
Today, taxation, or the absence of it, can profoundly affect the lives of every Canadian. Today, taxation has become one of the major tools available to Government to help shape the future. Here in Canada one need only recall the impact of a change in the manufacturers' sales tax, on the one hand, or in old age pensions on the other hand, to realize the pervasive ramifications of tax legislation. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said last year, "the tax system itself is no longer concerned with only raising revenues, but has increasingly become an important instrument in pursuing a variety of social and economic objectives of the Government. These multiple objectives contributed to the complexity of the tax system".
Since our society, including our economy, is in a permanent state of change, a permanent state of evolution, it is hardly surprising that our tax laws should be subjected to frequent review and amendment. It also follows that the rate of change in our tax system may accelerate as technological change and consumer taste alter continually what we produce and how we produce it.
The criticism has been made about the tax legislation now before us that there is too much of it, that it is too complex and that it has been too frequently altered since it was first introduced. To whatever degree there is truth in those allegations,
they are all arguments, in the end, for more frequent and detailed consultation with those who are being taxed. Ultimately, the success of any taxation depends upon the consent of those taxed. Broadly speaking, this would be more forthcoming if those paying the tax understand the process of budget formulation and are certain that their views will at least be heard, if not always accepted.
In the case of the tax measures now before us, both intensive and extensive consultations followed their introduction many months ago. Interested business groups, organized labour, consumer and various community groups have all had the opportunity to make known their objections or to offer their own proposals, both in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and in several other forums. The result in part is the amended measures now finally before the House.
Not all of these measures have been modified, or at least modified to the degree some may have wished, but the consent of many is now embodied in the amended tax proposals upon which we shall soon vote.


Mr. McDermid:: How soon?


Roy MacLaren: Allow me to cite two or three examples. As Members opposite are aware, there have been significant changes to the tax treatment of life insurance First proposed in November, 1981. These changes are designed to meet the concerns of life insurance agents, companies and policy holders. It should be kept in mind, for example, that policies purchased before December 2 last year are not affected by the legislation. Moreover, this legislation will exempt from taxation accumulating income from the vast majority of policies purchased on or after December 2. Regular policies paid for over 20 years or more will also be exempt from the periodic tax.
Other permanent life insurance policies may also be exempt, including those with single-premium, paid-up additions providing additional insurance on these policies. There is no dollar limit on the amount of exempt life insurance coverage which a policy holder can have. This modification was made after extensive consultation between the Government and the life insurance industry and reflects the objective of encouraging Canadians to provide protection for their families and dependants.
One could also add to the list of tax measures that have benefited from public discussion the significant tax changes for

February 14, 1983
Income Tax
the benefit of small business. For example, provisions for the Small Business Bond program which extends assistance to small firms in financial difficulties have been extended to the end of 1983. The program, which was to be terminated at the end of last year, reduces interest rates by almost 7 percentage points through a tax exemption to lenders.
Moreover, taxation of the work in progress of professionals has been modified to exempt, among others, physicians, dentists, lawyers, accountants and veterinarians. This legislation will allow for the lower personal income tax rates proposed in the 1981 budget for the 1982 taxation year. These rate reductions will reduce the tax of those in many income brackets and represent a total saving of approximately $1 billion annually for almost six million taxpayers.
Additionally, to aid lower and middle-income families which have only one wage earner, the federal tax reduction has been modified to $200 per taxpayer plus up to $200 for a dependent spouse. This reduction for taxpayers with dependent spouses with annual incomes up to $20,000 will mean a tax saving of $200. More than 2.5 million Canadian families will receive an additional $100 tax saving as a result of the Government's proposal to increase the value of the refundable Child Tax Credit. All these and others are examples of proposed tax changes which were modified as a result of consultation and representation.
That such changes were made should not be seen, as some have alleged, as evidence of failure on the part of the then Minister of Finance or his advisers. Rather, the modifications should be seen as a successful outcome of a process of budget consultation, however imperfect, that we increasingly need in Canada. In saying that, I do not mean that the process itself is perfect. It has been improved, but very much remains to be done. As Walter Gordon, when Minister of Finance, urged, the old established tradition according to which budgets are prepared in the Department of Finance, without consultation or discussion with other officials or outside experts, and without informing Cabinet of what is going to be proposed until a few hours before presentation to the House, is out of date and should be changed.
His immediate successor noted with equal regret, private Members of the House, and many individuals and associations outside Parliament, have expressed a desire to be given some real channel of communication on budgetary matters and that the House has also had continual difficulty with the legislative side of the budgetary process. And he added:
We have clearly not met with complete success in our attempt to balance a need for immediate implementation of fiscal measures with the requirement for proper notice to affected taxpayers without offending against the constitutional principles surrounding budget secrecy, the privileges of the House of Commons and the financial initiative of the Crown.
His successor, the third Minister of Finance in turn, noted:
What I would like is for the Minister of Finance to be able to present a tentative basis of his proposal to Parliament for discussion. The way it is now, the Minister of Finance has to present highly important advice from a very small
group of expert advisers ... and on this the Government stands or falls. I think this is wrong.
I have cited the identity of views among a number of successive Ministers of Finance. To ensure that there is nothing partisan detected in what I have quoted, I want to add the observation of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who, when Minister of Finance, said:
I hope that it will be possible in the coming session of Parliament to examine the entire process of budget-making-
Despite this unanimity of views among successive Finance Ministers extending over two decades, we still have today the continuing practice of attempting to force modern budgetmaking into the long-outmoded practice of another and simpler age, of an age when, as I noted earlier, budget-making largely constituted the adjustment of the Customs Tariff and varying the rate of excise tax. It is as if one expected an adult to wear a child's clothing.
The difficulties arise in two areas. Donald Macdonald, when Minister of Finance, in recalling the statements of his predecessor, said:
Two aspects of the budgetary process require particular study. The first is a strict rule of secrecy that applies to the budget prior to its introduction. The second is the procedure for consideration of the budget proposals following their introduction in Parliament.
The first of these two problem areas, that of budget secrecy, arises from the need to ensure that no one employing advance information gains financial advantage for himself or herself. During the first decades of our Confederation, advance knowledge of a change in a customs tariff or an excise tax could indeed have provided an undue opportunity. But today, the growing complexity of budgets alone makes such abuse increasingly unlikely. There are today many areas of taxation where the canvassing of options, the public weighing of alternatives, could not in any conceivable circumstance provide anyone with an unwarranted opportunity to exploit for personal gain his or her advance knowledge.
What has gradually overtaken this anachronistic preoccupation with secrecy is the understandable misgiving that the consideration of proposals for tax change is not always carried out in the full knowledge of all their effects. These are areas where no small group of advisers, however skilful, can hope to identify all possible impacts of the proposed changes. Today, submissions are frequently made by groups or individuals in ignorance of what others might be suggesting and the Minister of Finance himself is limited, at least by tradition, in seeking public advice.
The basic problem facing those who formulate and implement a budget is that any pre-budget proposals are prepared in isolation. When budgets are being drafted, there is no public forum in which one proposal can be weighed against another and in which one interest group can offer its suggestions for discussion by others. For example, tax practitioners, among others, rightly believe that they can frequently offer useful suggestions for improvement in both the form and content of tax legislation.
February 14, 1983

There is another problem arising from the tradition of secrecy. As in the instance of the legislation now before us, a committee of the Canadian Tax Foundation has noted:
A complicated amendment has followed a complicated amendment and the purpose and scope of certain provisions is difficult to determine. As a matter of tradition, tax changes are usually effective from the date of the budget, but the precise language of an amendment may not be known until many months later when the legislation is finally passed.
Further, the straitjacket imposed by tradition is more restrictive today than it was even a few years ago. With the introduction of the so-called "envelope system" of Government expenditure, the need for pre-budget consultation among Departments has become yet more desirable. However, even that consultation within Government is hampered by the practice of another age.
There are several solutions to these pervasive problems. Green papers, distributed well in advance of a budget could offer various options and invite comment. Preparation of such green papers and their subsequent discussion might in turn be facilitated if a permanent advisory committee on taxation were to be created by the Department of Finance, as the Department of National Revenue has done in the case of its tax advisory committee. As an alternative, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs might be invited to hold pre-budget hearings.
As both the Canadian Tax Foundation and the Minister of Finance's green paper on consultation of 1981 have suggested, the quality of budget formulation might be substantially improved if a committee of the House were to hold hearings about a range of options placed before it by the Minister of Finance. At a time when all Parties are seeking ways to make more effective the committees of this House, here is a way in which at least one committee could play a more significant role in ensuring the adoption of better legislation. The Standing Committee could provide the opportunity for those with particular viewpoints to present them publicly and for everyone to hear those various positions scrutinized and, where possible, reconciled. This would provide wide spread public benefits, not the least of which would be the reassurance given to those who will be taxed that their representations were being heard. From that could flow consent.
The second major area of difficulty identified by Mr. Macdonald when he was Minister of Finance, and also examined in the subsequent green paper, involves the consideration of budget proposals following their introduction in Parliament. Here again, either ad hoc advisory committees of experts or the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs could play a valuable part in ensuring that certain Bills or parts of Bills are given more thorough scrutiny. Under our present procedure, tax Bills are reviewed by the House in the Committee of the Whole. Since no witnesses, no experts, are permitted in the Committee of the Whole, their contributing remains unavailable to Members. As the recent green paper concluded:
Income Tax
The key to more effective Parliamentary consideration of budget measures lies not so much in major reform to parliamentary procedures as in a more thorough and focused discussion at each stage, from the budget through to the passage of budget legislation. This discussion can be improved through practices such as the tabling of comprehensive notices of Ways and Means, and the provision of technical explanations. It can also be helped by the use of standing or special committees where circumstances warrant.
These cautious and even arid words mask yet a greater need in our society, the pressing need to improve consultation on economic matters among business, Government and labour. Consultation which should inform the budgetary process is important in itself. It is even more important as an expression of a wider recognition that, as public and private entrepreneurship becomes more entwined, consultation and greater understanding among business, Government and labour become an imperative for our further economic growth.
A variety of historical and other factors has contributed to the unsatisfactory situation in Canada today, where such consultation and co-ordination is so badly needed. In the past, and to a degree today, a small population spread over a vast territory has militated against effective consultation. Foreign investment of a pervasive nature has rendered it more difficult for Governments or, for that matter, labour unions to be certain that they are dealing with principals and not merely with branch managers. The existence of several levels of Government within our federal state has further complicated the consultative opportunities compared with those in a unitary state.
These and several other factors have all combined to make the desirable degree of consultation difficult to achieve. In my view, however, the real difficulty arises over the absence of a managed, continuing and formal consultation. In certain areas such consultative occasions do, happily, exist. But across the wide sweep of industry, no such continuing mechanisms are available to business, Government and labour.
In a report prepared by a Government and business task force which I chaired in 1976, we noted that a central problem was the lack of ready consultative mechanisms. Subsequently, 23 industry sector committees, each involving business, Government and labour, were created. Their recommendations were, in turn, reviewed by the cumbersomely named second-tier committee. This may strike anyone who is ardent to debate the issues themselves as a rather mechanistic approach to the question of relations among business, Government and labour, including the method of how budget preparation can be facilitated, to ensure that all those with a direct interest are given the opportunity to be heard. But it must be evident to all but the most myopic observer of the Canadian scene that a prime factor contributing to the current alienation among business, Government and labour is the absence of any process to accommodate their differences.
Our democratic system of Government is predicated on the assumption that the continuing interests of various groups in an increasingly pluralistic society can be reconciled in an

February 14, 1983
Income Tax
approximate national consensus. For such system to be successful, provision must be made for major interest groups to consult with both the national and provincial Governments.
In recent years, largely as an expression of opposition to wage and price controls, or at least to wage controls which limited collective bargaining, organized labour has withdrawn from even the limited consultation which did exist at the national level. Unorganized workers were not, in any event, represented. For its part, business found it difficult to designate its spokesman. This is a problem which parenthetically is understandable when one considers the divergence of interests that necessarily exist among small business, or large Canadian or foreign-controlled, resource-based or high technology businesses.
These and other considerations are all in fact arguments that, if we are going to compete successfully abroad, we must work much harder to create mutual understanding among the major players in the economy by producing the mechanisms to allow that understanding to take place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules of the Flouse provide for a ten-minute period of questions and answers at this point. Are there any Hon. Members who seek to ask questions?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Hon. Member would advise this House where he finds the rate reductions in this Bill. Could he explain to the House the imposition of the six and five program that wiped out the indexing that has been a part of our tax system for so many years, reducing the indexing this year to 6 per cent and next year to 5 per cent, no matter what inflation does; an increase in taxes effective this year, as a result of this Bill, of well over a billion dollars, and very much more than that next year as the compounding effect of the reduction in indexing this year, again compounded with next year's index reduction, takes effect in the 1983 year. Would he explain that to the House?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) made a number of points and if I do not recollect them all, I am sure he will return to his question.
His first point was the capping of indexing of income taxation, the old age pensions and Family Allowances. The Member did note that what inflation is in 1983 will determine the degree to which the capping will limit for some Canadians the increase in those programs. The Bank of Nova Scotia, for example, recently forecast, it seems with some confidence, the rate of increase in the CPI to be 6 per cent in 1983. If that is the case, there would then be no difference between the capping of income taxation of the old age pensions and Family Allowances and the actual rate of increase of the CPI.
The Hon. Member would, of course, want to keep in mind that those who are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Child Tax Credit are not affected by the capping of the two programs, and are indeed compensated for the capping of Old Age Security and Family Allowances.
The Hon. Member asked about the reduction in income tax rates, if I understood him correctly. Indeed, the Bill will bring into law the lower personal income tax rates proposed in the 1981 budget for the 1982 taxation year. This reduces the tax in many income brackets and represents a total saving of about a billion dollars for an estimated 5.8 million Canadians.
I mentioned during the course of my statement the fact that the federal tax reduction has been revised to provide a flat $200 deduction per taxpayer, plus up to $200 for a dependent spouse. Therefore, we shall see substantial tax savings for Canadians, both in terms of their marginal rates and in terms of the federal tax reduction for the taxation year 1982 and beyond.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has difficulty at this point. There are a number of Members seeking to ask questions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A short supplementary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South on a short supplementary.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Member is completely off base. He knows we are not talking about old age pensions and Family Allowances. We are talking about income tax in Bill C-139. This Bill takes away indexing from the income tax system and will increase taxes this year by well over a billion dollars and next year by nearly $2 billion. Why is he talking about a tax reduction? Why does he not make some sense?


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) gave a welcome insight into possible changes in the budgetary process. This would have been fine in a budget speech, but this is an income tax Bill. I would like to know more about what the Hon. Member is thinking with regard to the income tax changes. That is what he should have been talking about this morning.
He is a businessman and no doubt a lot of his constituents seek funds for investment in their businesses. What does he think about the turning into public coffers of all those funds which are going to be collected under the changes in IAACs and forward-averaging? I trust he understands net forwardaveraging of moneys due will be paid into the Crown and then drawn back as the taxpayer requires. That places the money in the hands of the Crown. Under the IAACs, moneys were placed in the hands of trust companies or into RRSPs or an annuity contract, and were available for investment in private sources. Will the Member give us the benefit of his thinking as to whether there is preference for forward-averaging or IAACs from an industrial and commercial point of view?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a question which is of substantial complexity and obviously has a different impact on different companies in different ways. Broadly speaking, it is fair to say that taxpayers who benefited from IAACs in the past will benefit from the reduction in the marginal rate under the new forward-averaging scheme. I
February 14, 1983

believe that the Hon. Member and I would agree that, on balance, the new system is both more equitable and lessens the opportunity for-abuse is a strong word, but distortion than under the previous system. Indeed on balance, the combination of the IAAC provision and the net averaging would be of benefit to many businesses.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Hon. Member, perhaps unwittingly, avoided answering my question. I did not ask what benefits the individual taxpayer would have under IAAC or forwardaveraging. From a philosophical point of view, the money that is paid into these provisions will go into the public coffers as against the private coffers. That is the philosophy I would like the Hon. Member to explain to me.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, under the new legislation for lAACs, previously the money could be withheld and an annuity purchased or other private arrangements made. The basic philosophy of the Government in this instance was that this gave to those taxpayers, those investing in IAACs, an opportunity which was unavailable to others. It was a system which prevented a more equitable character in our tax system. There is some argument for this change. In seeking greater equity in the tax system, which is indeed one of the major elements of the tax legislation now before us, the new system will provide for that. I support it. I think it is a positive move.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is one minute remaining. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) rises to ask a question.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation by the hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren). It was well read, even if it did lack a certain verve or vigour. With the new system of budget formulation that he envisages, and he went into this in some detail and gave a list of alternatives, is it his perference that the green paper, the draft budget, should go to a standing committee, a committee of this House, or should it be debated in the House and Committee of the Whole?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should make his question short because time is running out.


Dave Nickerson: How long would this budget formulation process take? Would it be similar to that in the United States, with a whole year involved, or would it be less than that?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak with great verbal vigour. I would think that the process would last the best part of a year. We would do well to start with a green paper, which sets forth some of the options that a Minister of Finance foresees, and that the green paper be sent to a committee of this House for discussion and for witnesses to appear. I should prefer such a system rather than a committee of experts, but committees of experts are certainly a supplementary way of doing it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and answers has expired.
Income Tax


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: That is the first time I have received applause like that!
Today I want to speak on one particular aspect of taxation, an aspect which has largely been neglected in Bill C-139. I see the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) smiling. She knows what the subject is going to be. It is going to be the question of taxation as it affects Northern Canada, Northern taxation. As a Member of Parliament for that part of the country, I receive more letters of complaint regarding taxation than letters of complaint regarding even the Post Office. Therefore, the importance of the issue to people living in the North can be seen.
The present system of taxation as it affects Northern Canada is grossly unfair and inequitable. It results in Northerners proportionately paying much greater taxes than their Southern counterparts. I will explain why this happens.
The cost of living in the North is much greater than in the South. If you look at the Government's statistics and the results of spatial surveys, you find that in the more cosmopolitan, larger areas of the North, such as Yellowknife and Whitehorse, the costs there on a raw basis exceed those in Edmonton by about 25 per cent. A little further north, say, in the Inuvik area, costs on a raw basis are again some 50 per cent greater. In all of the smaller settlements, costs can be 75 per cent or 100 per cent greater than they are is a comparable place in the South.
When one looks at these raw costs-the supermarket prices, the price of housing, electricity and so on-one finds that the costs in the North are even higher than they would appear to be from those surveys. There is a lack of alternatives in the North. In the South, if you do not want to pay the supermarket prices for eggs or strawberries, you can go out to the farms and buy them directly. You can shop around. There are a large number of secondhand stores and secondhand merchandise can be purchased. This is not the case in the North. And when you consider the cost of electricity and heating oil which are necessary to heat the houses because there is no gas or other alternatives, you find that a much greater amount of electricity is needed and a much greater quantity of oil. Also, the price of electricity might be, say, four times higher than the price in Ottawa and half as much again might be needed to heat the houses. That, of course, increases the cost of living to a great extent. Needless to say, there is greater wear and tear on vehicles because of gravel roads and the cold weather.
When you add all this up, even in the Southern parts of the North, you find the real cost of living is going to be at least 50 per cent greater than that, for instance, in Edmonton. This means, Mr. Speaker, that if you are going to enjoy the same standard of living in the North as is enjoyed in the South, more money is needed. It is that simple.

February 14, 1983
Income Tax
Looking at the difference between Edmonton, Yellowknife and Inuvik, a family living on an income of $30,000 in Edmonton would need in Yellowknife an income of $45,000, and in Inuvik an income of some $60,000, to achieve the same standard of living.
Now enters the tax system! In Canada we have a tax system which contains a rapidly progressive way of computing taxes. A person does not have to make too much money before his marginal tax rate, federal and provincial or federal and territorial, reaches 40 per cent or 50 per cent. Let us take the difference between Edmonton and Inuvik now. If an employer in Inuvik gave an employee an additional $30,000 a year to make his standard of living equivalent, and the marginal tax rate was 50 per cent, he would end up with only an additional $15,000 a year, giving him $45,000 in total. This would buy him the same standard of living as that of someone earning $22,500 a year in Edmonton.
We can see very easily, therefore, that the unfair tax system results in a lower standard of living for Northerners. Incidentally, you might say the same is true of corporate income taxes. This is, evidently, grossly unjust and the system needs radical adjustment. I will refer later in my presentation, Mr. Speaker, to what the nature of the adjustment should be.
The inherent unfairness of the Northern taxation system has given rise to another phenomenon. Because it is impossible for an employer properly to compensate an employee in cash or in wages because of the great tax bite, the system of various allowances and subsidies has evolved. People did not really want this sytem but it was thrust upon them because of the tax system which we have in Canada. In particular, the Government itself, the people involved in the Government offices in the North, did not want it, but it was thrust upon them by directives from Ottawa.
The most common allowance or benefit for people in the North has been the subsidization of housing. Either a house has been provided to an employee at less than market rent, which, of course, would be, perhaps, two or three times higher than here in Ottawa, or cash has been advanced to help subsidize the payment of rent.
Another very common benefit which employees have been granted in the North has been vacation travel assistance, one or two trips per year for each family, either to Montreal for people in the Eastern Arctic, or Edmonton for people in the Western Arctic.
This has been a very common system of encouraging people to take up employment in the North. This system worked reasonably well until about 1978. At that time the Department of National Revenue, through strict interpretation of the Income Tax Act-and under a strict interpretation these benefits and allowances are taxable-started making threatening noises. It threatened to disrupt the system which had grown up, a system to which Revenue Canada up to that time had turned a very sensible blind eye. In 1978-79 the debate raged, so to speak, and I remember it was a very important issue in election campaigns in the North in 1979 and 1980.
In the 1980 campaign, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was then Leader of the Opposition, said that if he was elected he would look into the tax system in the North
and bring about permanent changes. But as so very often happens, especially with the Government opposite, once the election was over and the Liberal Party had been returned to office, they forgot all about the promises which had been made during the course of the election campaign. This resulted, Mr. Speaker, in a public outcry at the betrayal which had taken place.
When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) travelled to Yellowknife and Whitehorse, he was greeted there by people with placards complaining about the broken promises and the fact that the tax system there was to be made even more unfair. This public pressure resulted in a remission order with which most Members of this House are now familiar. The taxes which should have been collected with respect to certain housing and vacation travel allowances were to be rescinded. In a way, this was unfair because the same benefit, by different names, resulted in it either being taxable or non-taxable. Also travel benefits given for medical or educational purposes were deemed to be taxable, whereas those for vacation travel were deemed to be nontaxable. This remission order lasted from year to year and was renewed annually because of the continuing public pressure. It was renewed at the time of the last budget until the end of 1983.
The year-to-year suspense has made it very difficult for proper planning to take place. It was extremely difficult for labour negotiations to take place when they did not know whether the benefits and salaries, and all the other things which were up for negotiation at the table, were to be taxable next year or not. It was very difficult for labour negotiations to take place. In any event, after two or three years of living with this remission order we kind of got used to it. We changed some of the names of the various allowances to make them fit in with the wording of the remission order.
During 1982 the committee of public servants was established here. It had members from Treasury Board, Finance, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mines and a number of other Departments. It had been set up to look at the issue and try to come up with some permanent and sensible solutions. Unfortunately, not one Northerner was on the committee. There was one lady who had been born at Port Radium but who had left there when she was seven years old. All these people were from Ottawa. Policies are being made which affect people from far-flung places in Canada by people who know only Ottawa. Time and again Northerners requested permission to participate in the exercise but they were denied.
The result of the committee study was announced in a press release by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on December 2, 1982 and brought about the most bureaucratic, unintelligible system that could possibly be devised by the most twisted brains in the Department of Finance. The simple
February 14, 1983

remission order was to be phased out over a period of years and was to be replaced by a complex, accountant's nightmare, containing such things as the repugnant principle of imputed rent. There was no way that the man on the street could understand what was about to hit him. Furthermore, tax accountants or tax lawyers could not compute the effect of this because regulations did not exist. All that existed was a press release from the Minister of Finance. This kind of thing is happening frequently, Mr. Speaker; we are getting Government by press release, not Government by regulation. Apparently the new system is to be implemented by a series of remission orders, not by changes to the Income Tax Act or its regulations, and so the uncertainty will continue.
The effect of the proposed system will be to drive people out of Northern Canada, including indigenous Northerners. I know a lot of people who have gone already because they can get a better deal in Southern Canada, when taxation is taken into consideration, than they can in their own area.
This move reduces industry and reduces development in the North. It puts marginal operations out of business. At Pine Point, which is suffering from low lead and zinc prices, three or four hundred people have already been laid off. If this tax threat is implemented, and I presume it will be unless there is a change of heart on the part of the Minister, it will result in another $2 or $3 million burden on the mine or on its employees. That could very well mean that the mine will never get back into production.
This measure will increase the cost of Government in the North. More people work in Government there than in anything else. It will encourage fly-in, fly-out operations. If an industry employs people who live in Edmonton and flies them in, the cost is not considered taxable; they are just going backwards and forwards to work, although the distance may be 1,000 or 1,500 miles. If people are located in the North, however, and taken out to Edmonton a few times a year for a holiday, the cost is taxable.
Not too long ago I was speaking to the chief executive officer of Echo Bay Mines. He told me that if this system is put in place, 50 people who would have been located in Yellowknife would now be located in Edmonton. About half of them would be professional and managerial people, so this provision is taking the brains out of the North and putting them in the South. Perhaps that is what the Government wants. It does not want tax revenues generated in the North to be used there as that would give rise to self-sufficiency. It would rather keep northerners dependent. It does not want people to make the North their home but wants to keep the Ottawa bureaucratic control over that part of the country.
I should like to suggest what I-and some people of all political persuasions-consider to be the real solution, Mr. Speaker. Even the few remaining Liberals in the Northwest Territories have come to the same conclusion and I am sorry that their advice has been disregarded by the Government.
Any change must be permanent and it must be made to the Income Tax Act. We cannot live from year to year with remission orders. The change must be simple and easily understood, not like the complex, five-page remission orders
Income Tax
that would be the result of the proposal made by the Minister of Finance. All that is required is one or two additional lines on the income tax form. People living in Northern Canada must be granted an additional deduction against income for the purpose of computing tax or they could be given a tax credit. I will not argue which is better as there are points on each side. A combination of these methods could even be used. It is far and away the simplest system and the one that makes the most sense.
The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) went into the problem in detail and produced a report. I would commend that report to Hon. Members who are interested in the subject of Northern taxation. He points out that in countries such as Denmark, Russia and Australia- which in a way are similar to Canada as most of the population lives in heavily populated areas, and then there is a sparsely populated hinterland-regardless of the respective ideologies of each country, each has adopted the same approach and there is a special taxation system for remote areas.
I believe Australia is divided into three tax zones. Perhaps 90 per cent of the population lives in the first tax zone and pays tax under the normal system. Then, depending on the remoteness and the cost of living in an area, the tax system is slightly different. I believe they use tax credits. If we were to amend the Income Tax Act in this way, we would be able to phase out the special rules that govern special allowances.
In my opinion, Government revenues would increase over a period of time if we used a sensible system of taxation. People would be encouraged to live and to remain in the North, and surely we want that.
1 will not go through the few concluding remarks that I had prepared, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure for me to be able to speak on this most important topic today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The rules of the House provide for a period of ten minutes for questions and answers. Are there Hon. Members rising to put questions to the Hon. Member who just spoke? If not, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on Bill C-139. One aspect interested me particularly, and that is the special problems of Northern residents as they relate to income tax, the extra cost burdens incurred by people in the North, and his plea for special tax treatment.
I was interested in his account of the kinds of special tax treatment provided in other countries such as Denmark, the Soviet Union and Australia and in the concept of tax zones. If he could provide additional information on the nature of those tax zones and some kind of solution to the difficulty we find ourselves in, I would be interested in that. Perhaps we should use the tax system in certain ways to subsidize or offset the high cost of living in various parts of the country. The concept

February 14, 1983
Income Tax
of tax zones might very well have some appeal and could be examined more closely.
My main purpose in speaking in the debate is to try to lay a broader framework with regard to the tax system. I have become, over the years I have been in the House and during the time I have been Chairman of the Finance Committee, extremely concerned with the tax system as it now stands and with the increased complexity which has evolved in that system over the years from the time of tax reform in the early 1970s. There are certain basic principles which should underlie any tax system, especially the principles that should underlie the income tax system. There are many options which can be taken as to the kind of income tax system which one can design for implementation in a country. But once you have developed the basic principles on which your tax system will rest, one should be very, very careful and indeed reluctant to violate them in any significant way.
Violation of the basic tenets of the income tax system leads to a situation where one group can say, "We are receiving special treatment under the tax system", and another group can then come along and say, "If that group can get special consideration under the tax system and can be treated differently from other Canadians, I think I have an equally strong argument that myself or my group should be treated differently as well". That is precisely the evolution in the taxation system which has occurred at an accelerated rate since tax reform in 1970-71.
We have seen the system modified in a great many ways to take into consideration the special needs of certain groups, the necessity or perceived necessity of stimulating certain kinds of economic activity. These changes to the tax system have resulted in a system existing today which is so complex and so difficult to understand that it has virtually lost the respect of the average Canadian taxpayer. When the Canadian taxpayer no longer understands and/or respects the system of taxation imposed upon him or her, it will lead to some very serious problems with compliance, because after all we still have a voluntary compliance system wherein people declare their income and pay tax on the basis of their own personally-prepared declaration of income and expenses. It leads to problems that have arisen most recently with regard to economic activity which takes place outside the tax system. We have the problem of the underground economy which is growing very rapidly in Canada. It certainly does not approach the extent of the problem in some other countries, notably the United States, but it is certainly growing at a much more rapid rate than any of us in the House would like to see. We have problems of that nature.
Also we have the problems of special interest which flow from my earlier comments that, as certain groups or special interests see other groups receiving special consideration under the Income Tax Act, they demand-and I am certain all Members of the House have experienced these kinds of pressures from various interest groups, whether they be business groups, charitable groups, individuals or groups of individuals-to be treated somehow separately and in a special
way under the provisions of that Act. This leads to even greater chaos, if I can use that term, in the public understanding of what is fair, how they are being taxed, on what basis they are being taxed, whether they are paying a fair share of the burden of public expenditure, whether they are paying too much or too little. This kind of situation leads the whole tax system into disrepute.
On a number of occasions in the House I have said that it is time we as a Parliament and as a people set out clearly among ourselves what precisely are the basic principles on which we will found our system of revenue-raising in the country and what are the things we will ask from that system. Essentially, income tax was brought in in the 1916-1917 range as a tax designed to raise revenues to finance our efforts in the First World War. It was not supposed to be a permanent tax; it was supposed to be a temporary one. But it became a permanent feature of our tax system, and various rationales have arisen over time as to why income tax is an appropriate vehicle for raising revenue.
The point is that income tax was a revenue-raising device. That is all it was, but over time we have seen the system become a number of other things. It is no longer just a revenue-raising device. It is a device which is now used to confer special privileges on certain groups by reducing their exposure to income tax. It is a device which is supposed to redistribute income and to stimulate economic growth and development. We are placing so many demands on the tax system that it is unable to achieve any of the objectives which have evolved for the system over time in any respectable way. It is being asked to do so many things that it is doing none of them well, and we will face very serious difficulties in the future with the particular system.
We have before us Bill C-139. I have heard Hon. Members in the House indicate that the Bill is very large; indeed it is. I have heard them indicate that the Bill should not be passed expeditiously by the House because it needs comprehensive and detailed study. I would have to remind my friends that the basic aspects of this legislation have been before the House for over a year now. It started with the November, 1981 budget and the modifications thereto. Subsequent to that budget, there were the June 28 budget, its subsequent modifications and the modifications which occurred in October. But the basic areas under discussion have been before the House for over a year. They have been the subject of an innumerable number of interventions. They have received detailed and close scrutiny by members of a special committee of the Progressive Conservative caucus, by Members of the New Democratic caucus, and certainly great scrutiny by Members of the Liberal caucus. These provisions are not ones with which we are unfamiliar or something which has been dropped on us from high with which we are supposed to deal in a short period of time.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)
February 14, 1983

were members of the special sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs during the month of September, at which time we received submissions, heard testimony from witnesses, prepared a draft report on the tax provisions which were available after the June 28 budget and, of course, the previous November budget, and drafted recommendations in the form of a commentary. There were no recommendations made specifically by unanimous agreement of the members of the Committee, but we drafted a report which incorporated opinions in such a way that the reader could easily deduce the opinions of the Committee as to what should be done. Indeed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he brought down his October financial statement incorporated a great many of the suggestions that were implicit in the report of the Standing Committee. He made modifications to the provisions as a result to reflect those views as well as the views of hundreds and hundreds of other submissions made to the current Minister and, to the previous Minister concerning impact. He looked at how they could be modified to lessen any adverse impact and how they could be made more fair and more effective in achieving the objectives the Minister of Finance wanted.
We hear the cry that these tax provisions have to be studied in great detail. I agree they have to be studied carefully. We have to ensure that the provisions in Bill C-139 achieve the objectives which the Minister has stated he wishes. I suggest these provisions in one form or another have been under study and intense scrutiny by Members of this House of Commons for a very long time. As a result, we should be able to deal with this matter expeditiously and get it behind us so that we can turn our attention to more fundamental issues dealing with taxation, namely, the structure and fairness of it which simply cannot go without attention much longer.
In the next little while we will have to make decisions as to what the base will be of our tax system. Shall we follow the current practice, which is to use the base of income as the basis for our tax system, or will we move toward a more consumption-oriented tax base? Both methods can be handled in much the same way from a practical perspective as the current income tax system is.
We have also to take a close look at another very important aspect. How shall we apply this tax structure that we will create with regard to the timing of income? One of the big debates as a result of one of the provisions in Bill C-139 is whether or not accrued income should be taxed even though that income has not actually passed into the hands of the recipient.


Dave Nickerson: Absolutely not.


John Leslie Evans: I hear the Hon. Member opposite say absolutely not. That issue was carefully scrutinized by Members of the Finance Committee in September. We came up with very serious reservations about this notion of taxing accrued income
Income Tax
as opposed to taxing income when it Finally comes into the hands of the recipient for tax purposes.
The whole question of timing should not be dealt with in an ad hoc way; it should be dealt with in a consistent way. If we are going to tax income on a pure income basis, then logic would dictate that you would do it on the basis of when income is earned, not when income is realized. Our Committee, however, indicated that we probably should not be going in that direction of taxing income when earned. Rather, we should be moving toward a system of taxing income when it is realized; that is, when the person has the money in hand.
That moves us away from what is called an income-based tax system toward what is called a consumption-based tax system. People pay tax on the basis of what they are taking out of the system; in other words, a reflection of how much they are consuming in the system and not how much they are earning in the system. Also, that kind of a consumption-based income tax system leads to a much heavier emphasis on saving and investment which, of course, are the precursors of economic growth and increased standards of living.
Those kinds of questions have not been debated to any great extent in this House, and I suggest they have to be. Not only do we have to determine on which basis we are going to tax, but we must determine the timing aspect of that income.
We have to look as well at a very serious question that has evolved over the last 50 years, the question of the progressivity of the tax system. Progressivity of the tax systems means that as your income goes up you not only pay more tax but you pay more tax at a higher percentage rate. Your marginal tax rate goes up over time, which is the difference between the proportional tax system where everyone pays a flat tax of, say, 20 per cent. A flat tax means the more you make the more you pay, but the percentage you pay does not go up. This is contrary to the system we have where the percentage you pay also goes up over time. The basic argument is that this will somehow lead to redistribution of income. It means you tax the wealthier at a much higher rate and those in lower income categories pay a lower rate.
If we look at the total tax system we have in this country, from excise taxes to sales to property taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes, as well as the special payroll taxes of UIC, Workmen's Compensation, Canada Pension Plan-which are, in any real sense, taxes-we find prior to the introduction of the income tax that essentially we had a flat tax in this country. We had a number of excise taxes, special tariffs and special duties, a flat tax system. Everyone basically paid the same percentage of income in taxation. Income tax was introduced, but over the years the progressivity of that tax became greater and the illusion was that that would redistribute income.
The problem is that a progressive tax system also has negative incentive effects. As the progressivity increases the number of exclusions, deductions, exemptions and special treatment also increase. But if we look at the tax system today, lo and behold, what do we find? With all the complexity and

February 14, 1983
Income Tax
all the attempts at redistributing income, we have a flat tax system again. We have gone from a flat tax system-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. The rules provide for 2 questions and answers at this time. The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose).


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) concerning the progressivity of the tax system and how we are heading toward a flat tax system despite the best efforts of this Government. Is the Hon. Member aware that, in this proposed budget for 1982-1983, for a family made up of two parents and two children and an income of $20,000 per annum, that family would have a 21 per cent increase in federal tax, added to which is the provincial portion of another 6 per cent, making a 27 per cent tax increase? This will amount to about $125 a month extra. Has the Hon. Member considered that in comparison to a person earning $50,000 whose increase in tax is only 13 per cent? What about the person receiving an income of $150,000 who has a drop of 7.6 per cent in tax? And a person earning $500,000, there is a drop in tax of 17 per cent.
Is the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre aware of this? Does he feel that is assisting in the flattening out, and eroding the effects of a progressive system which we thought we had to redistribute income? Because we have not been redistributing income; the tax system still favours the rich.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I disagree very strongly with the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose). He will use the figures and say, for example, that tax only goes up by 13 per cent for those with a $50,000 income. In terms of dollars, that is a substantially higher contribution than that being made by others.
We must come to grips with the question of how progressive that tax system should be. My personal view, which I know my friends in the corner disagree with, is that the Government should never take more than 50 per cent of an additional dollar that is made. Why should individuals make an effort if the Government is to take two-thirds in taxes and leave them with one-third? Of course, this involves the incentive question versus the revenue-raising question and the income-redistribution question. We will have to discuss these issues logically and rationally.
Presently, the top marginal tax rate is 50 per cent and I strongly believe that that is as high as it should be. In fact, I think it should not be that high.


Mr. Stewart:: Come on over.


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member opposite says come on over. I suggest to him, if he looks at developments in other countries in Liberal circles, that he will find that it is not heresy for me to say that. It is, indeed, mainline Liberalism.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) has suggested that the Bill has been thoroughly debated over the entire year. Has he looked at Clauses 121 and 122 of the Bill which were never in any budget proposals or, in fact, set out anywhere? Those Clauses specifically give the Government the right to garnishee a person's money 90 days in advance. Clause 122 provides the right for the Government to seize an individual's business without a proper court order and to operate that business as if it owns it. Those Clauses were never set out in any budget or in any manner to be studied by the committee to which the Hon. Member refers.
Under those circumstances, does the Hon. Member believe that the Bill should be rushed through the House?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member did not misunderstand what I said. I did not say that the Bill should be rushed through the House; I said that we should deal with the Bill expeditiously.
The Hon. Member has certainly raised a subject that was not discussed in the Finance Committee. I have heard of those provisions but I have not seen them debated to any extent. The Hon. Member is, indeed, performing his parliamentary duty by ensuring that those issues do come before the House. I would encourage him to give us his views on those particular provisions and explain why he may or may not support them.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in this question of incentives. The argument against the public school system about 125 years ago was that poor people would not have the same incentive to educate their children. This incentive argument is of particular interest when one considers that the new tax system will raise the income tax paid by a family of four by $125 a month. How does the increase of a tax rate on families like that affect their incentives? Does the Hon. Member think that the Ian Sinclairs and the Samuel Bronfmans of Canada will have their incentives destroyed if there is a progressive tax system, even if it takes approximately 55 per cent of those million dollar a year levels?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I know exactly what the Hon. Member is saying but the figures that he is relating to us do not relate to the income tax itself. They relate to an entire range of other kinds of taxes that he has conveniently rolled into this particular discussion of the income tax. He is rolling in many other taxes including, for example, Unemployment Insurance premiums.
No one who has to pay income tax is facing an increase in tax rates. The tax rates are cut for everyone, down to an income of $11,100 under the proposals before us. No one faces an increase in income tax rates.
There are other taxes involved. The increase in UIC premiums is required by law because that is supposed to be a pay-as-you-go system. The federal Government is not supposed to pay the entire cost of Unemployment Insurance from its general revenue. The Hon. Member is distorting the facts about the income tax when he says that certain individuals are paying
February 14, 1983

higher tax rates. No one is paying higher tax rates under this provision.
1 agree with the Hon. Member that the tax system is excessively complex. There are too many taxes that are applied arbitrarily in many cases. The income tax system must be rationalized so that we may have a more equitable tax system that can be clearly understood by individuals. If this is done, we will no longer have the confusing statistics that have been given by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must be aware that the federal and provincial Governments have put hundreds of millions of dollars into Northeast coal which has presently put about 2,000 workers in my riding out of work. These people also live in one-industry communities. They will be taxed on the benefits of the housing that has been provided to them.
I have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and I have asked him to give these people the same privileges and benefits as those in the North. The Minister has not yet given me the courtesy of an answer. Will these one-industry communities that are experiencing these difficulties get the tax benefits that other communities in Northern areas receive?


John Leslie Evans: As much as I would like to answer that question, 1 am sure it would be totally irrelevant to the Hon. Member's concern because I am not the Minister of Finance. I cannot make that decision. I suggest he ask the question of the Minister during Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and answers has expired. According to Standing Order 35(2) and 35(3), speeches will now be limited to ten minutes and there will be no question period.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-139 is such a mish-mash that neither I nor most other Hon. Members even know where to start in attempting to give it a fair appraisal. For that reason, I think it is worthy to begin by observing that when the small print on insurance policies became too complex for the average buyer to absorb, public pressure forced their simplification. Similarly, when the gobble-dygook surrounding simple legal matters like uncontested divorces and title searches became too much, we saw the development of the do-it-yourself movement and the rise of the so-called para-legal people.
Not only is it desirable but I think it is imperative that the taxpaying citizens of this country be able to communicate with their elected Government in terms that they both can understand. Is that unreasonable? Yet we have here a massive, Jerry-built contraption of some 295 pages that reflects no less than four budgets, near-budgets, mini-budgets, non-budgets and what have you. This does not count the number of minor statements, adjustments, changes, modifications and just plain retreats that this monstrosity reflects. In turn, it proposes amendments to a taxation system that nearly defied logical explanation at its inception. The inevitable result of all this is
Income Tax
that the poor individual taxpayer is so totally helpless and at sea when confronted by a taxation problem that he connot deal with it without professional help. I believe that this is wrong in principle.
A related point to this one leads me to ask just what view of the man in the street is held by the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada. I ask this seriously because 1 have to deal with these Departments regularly on behalf of constituents who are being harassed by someone hidden in the bowels of Government. However, I ask it particularly because of the nature of these proposed tax measures and, specifically, these measures which deal with private individuals and their investments.
I have spent a good part of my working life in the life insurance and general insurance business. Therefore, because the Bill is too ill-designed, ill-conceived and ill-constructed to be dealt with as a whole, I shall try to direct my comments to those parts of this legislative monstrosity which bear upon insurance and its proceeds.
If there is any principle which is at the heart of our free enterprise system, one which is supported by the Government and Party in power, in theory, at least, it is the right of the individual to have foresight and to prepare for his own retirement years. By all means, the state should provide a base level of income for those who are not successful at doing this for themselves, but once the Government starts penalizing those who are successful, once it begins making it difficult for them to provide for themselves without state support, then it is turning away one of the principles of our system and, indeed, from one of the principles which make possible our concept of a free society.
The original budget of November, 1981 clearly showed the Government's philosophical bent in this matter. Although it has since backed down several times on specific points which were logically untenable, there remains a clear disincentive for individuals to invest in life insurance, what has been up until now the main investment vehicle for the less advantaged among us. In other words, now people might just say: "What is the use of saving money? We might as well squander it and the state will look after us when we reach the usual retirement age of 65."
This disincentive takes two forms. First, policy holders are to be taxed on the accrued income from their policies, deferred annuities. To tax a person on hypothetical income which he or she has not received is, in every case, to force a hardship on the investor. Investors must either scrimp and save from their current incomes to pay the tax or they must liquidate some of their investments to do so. In either case, there is created a strong disincentive to invest, and that is a likelihood that one more family and one more elderly couple will be dependent on state largesse when they reach the end of their working and earning lives. The recent passage of Bill C-131 has shown us all just how secure state largesse can be.

February 14, 1983
Income Tax
The other manner in which this legislation acts as a disincentive to investment on the part of the small investor is by its very existence. No matter how watered down the final Act may be, it will forever be difficult for the small investor or would-be purchaser of a life insurance policy to forget its original intent. For a brief minute, the Government lowered its friendly mask, its "good guy" false-face, and let us see its real fangs.
Whatever it may say, whatever it may in the short term do, the fact remains that it has shown us that its real intent is to discourage small investment and individual independence. It has shown us where its heart is, that it is philosophically more comfortable when its subjects receive a more or less standard income, with greater dependence on it and less on their own initiatives. This is not a new idea on the world political stage, it has been with us for a long time. It has a name, but that name is not Liberalism.
The Government's attempts this direction go back to 1978, with the repeal of the investment income tax on life insurance. Hand in hand with this went an attempt at taking the savings accumulation in a life insurance policy at death. That attempt proved abortive at the time. Now we are confronted with this present mish-mash, and while we have so far succeeded in watering down the proposals as originally presented in November of 1981, the line of Government thinking still stands exposed.
If 1 were a would-be policy holder, if I were a would-be investor, I would hesitate. My hand would be stayed by the nagging worry in the back of my mind, "When will the Government drop the other shoe?" I remember speaking on this same legislation, and the former Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), had the good sense to back off; but his successor certainly did not.
How about the insurance agent or, for that matter, any other salesman who is the victim of the Government's ill-conceived schemes to gouge money from them in other ways? A salesman or anyone else who is dependent on a car for making a livelihood is as dependent as is the Minister on his staff, and for the same reason. He knows where he wants to go, but it is the car that carries him. The Government has declared that, by its new "half year convention", the depreciation on that car will be limited to one half the normal rate in the year in which it is purchased. What will be the inevitable effect of this measure? It will discourage his purchase of that car. That is what it will do at this time when the automative sector of the Canadian economy needs every bit of support it can get.
Can you forgive us, Mr. Speaker, if we, the public, get the impression that the Party in power has no idea of what it is doing or even what it is trying to do? However, this is not the only instance in this Bill where the blatant, anti-small investor mindset stands out. No longer will Canadians be able to deduct the interest on loans taken out by RRSPs. Nearly one million people earning less than $30,000 a year declare RRSP
contributions. What, then would the proposed Bill achieve? It would seal off another avenue of investment and, thus, independence for the small investor.
I could go on if time permitted. This measure will deny registration for future deferred profit-sharing plans which allow an owner to qualify as a member of the plan. How petty can one get? Shades of Bolshevism! Perish the thought, Mr. Speaker! Should we benefit from anything? Never mind the fact that it is the small owner who provides the bulk of Canada's payrolls, and never mind the fact that the direct effect of the Bill will be to discourage such profit-sharing plans in small business.
What, then, is the inevitable result? It will mean many more Canadians reaching retirement age without resources of their own on which to fall back, and who will thus be dependent on the standardized largesse of their loving, caring Government.
I see, that Your Honour is starting to rise, and I will therefore take my seat.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to reiterate what some of my colleagues have said with regard to the legislation before the House, that is, that there is a real need to pass the legislation, and this-


John Horton McDermid: Come on, it is a 300-page Bill. Quit ramming things through.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: -as expeditiously as possible. That does not necessarily mean ramming it through, but it has been pointed out that many of these items contained in the package have been debated in one form or another, including in this House and in committee, for some time, and if we are to-


John Horton McDermid: Dictators over there.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: -resolve some of the uncertainty out there, I think we must get down to the business of passing the legislation in order to get on with the business of Canada.


Mr. Cosgrove:: That is what the business community wants.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: There have been a great deal of changes made in the legislation over time.


John Horton McDermid: Called theft.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Most of the changes are contained in this Bill, Bill C-139. One of the good things which has come out of these changes has been something which was beginning to be lacking in this country, that is, the opportunity for honest dialogue between the Government and business in the community at large. Whatever lack there may have been in that area, it is heartening to me, as an individual Member, to see this dialogue improving. An ideal situation would be where we could sit down at the same table, discuss our mutual problems, recognize our various points of view, and then attempt to come to a consensus which is fair, not only to the industries with which we are dealing, but to all people of Canada as well.
February 14, 1983

It is a very complicated world that we live in today, as we try to be fair to each other, as we try to spread the wealth around in such a way that those who need help most receive it, while at the same time not destroying the necessary incentives within the system to allow business to expand and to prosper to the benefit to all Canadians.
Whatever the reasons, it has been a complicated time in the life of Canada as we have evolved many different ways to try to attain the objectives that 1 have stated. Now that we have reached this point in our history where we are maturing as a nation, we are now finding better ways to discuss our problems together and come up with solutions. The solutions that come from consensus do not necessarily or ever please all of us but 1 do think that once consensus has been reached, thoughtful Canadians recognize that now that we have a consensus in this area or that area, we will put that consensus to work as our guidelines and move in a common direction, instead of continuing to bicker among ourselves.
I suppose one of the most controversial items suggested in the 1981 budget had to do with life insurance, and that has been referred to on many occasions in and out of this House. I was involved not in the life insurance industry but in the general insurance industry, so I do sympathize in a philosophical sense with the problems that my former colleagues in the life insurance business had. 1 also have to say that 1 have a tremendous amount of respect for the way in which they brought forward their concerns. They rose in anger and that anger changed to very hard and heavy discussion. I think it proves the point that when things cool down where you have honest dialogue, you will have changes made for the benefit of all.
I think what happened in the life insurance area was that it appeared that a very basic premise of Canadians, and that is that we have the right and obligation to protect ourselves via life insurance and to protect those we leave behind when we pass on to our great reward, was being attacked. Life insurance has always been deemed a very responsible way to conduct one's affairs. No one argues with that and indeed that caused the greatest amount of furore in the first place was that there was the perception out there that people were somehow going to lose the right to protect themselves and pay stiff tax penalties for having in what they felt was a very responsible manner.
1 think that the life insurance people were right to say: "1 do not really think you guys are going in the right direction". It was only after careful and thoughtful discussion by the industry that changes were made, but I do not view that as a bad thing. I think it could have been done differently in the first instance, but hindsight is always a wonderful thing to have. I do not think that it is a bad thing that something was put on the table that had to be discussed. Somewhere along the line we had to resolve what we intended by the tax regulations concerning life insurance, or in fact anything else. We are going through a very difficult period in trying to realign our
Income Tax
tax laws, which are cumbersome and probably unnecessarily so, and which have to be changed so that the average Canadian can understand them. It is frightening to me that even chartered accountants are having difficulties dealing with our income tax laws and the intent of the laws.
In regard to the life insurance industry, I think that once it was proven that what we were really talking about was taxing income-because that is what income tax laws are for, to tax income-there was a degree of consensus. Under the previous set of rules there were devices-and the unfortunate term "loopholes" has been used-within this system that allowed people to take advantage of the system. And that is their privilege; the whole tax system has been based on that. If one can see a way to make it work to one's advantage, by all means do so.
However, if we are going to continue to try to be fair in our taxation system to all Canadians, if we are going to ensure that we pay tax to the National Treasury in a generally equitable way among all Canadians so we can look after the needs of the country and the people in the community who are not as fortunate as others, then we have from time to time to take a look at these ways to use the system to one's advantage and ask; "Are we being fair?" This is what has happened in the case of the life insurance industry.
I am not going into all of the amendments at this time except to say that the Government, 1 am sure, recognizes that not everyone selling life insurance is exactly ecstatic about the changes, but that the majority of them say: "It is now in the proper perspective; it is now something we can live with; we can now sell to our clients; it has gone back to the basic of just simply taxing the income portion of life insurance".
If I may be parochial for just a moment in this matter, one of the first groups that to my knowledge came in very heavily on this subject were the life insurance people of Thunder Bay and Northwestern Ontario. These are people with whom I associated for many years and for whom I have a great deal of respect. They very properly pointed out what they felt were the deficiencies. I was able to take that message to the Government, to a Government albeit reluctant at first to listen because, after all, it is very difficult to make changes once a Bill has been put on the table. The impulse is to say there is a problem taken care of, let us go on. It takes a big man, a big Government or big thinking, to be able to say: "Wait a minute, you have had to hit me over the head perhaps, but these points that you raise are relative. We do feel that you make a strong and valid argument; we will now listen to you; we will react to your concerns and together we will be in a position to do better by you and the industry and still preserve the sanctity of trying to be fair to all Canadians."
Mr. Speaker, this is just one item that is contained in Bill C-139 but it is another reason why this Bill deserves to be passed as expeditiously as possible so that we can clarify some of the concerns that Canadians have and proceed on to bigger and better things.

February 14, 1983
Income Tax


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-139, an Act respecting the Income Tax Act.
Before I begin 1 would like to explain that I am not an expert on income tax and I want also to stress that I do not think there are many Canadians who are expert on income tax either. I do not think a taxpayer should have to have a five-year accounting degree in order to figure out what is going on with his taxes.
Now the Government is adding to the Income Tax Act another 300 pages, 300 pages of more complicated information for people to have to delve through and figure out. My office spends a lot of time helping people with their income tax problems, and I am sure many other Members of Parliament have many questions and concerns expressed to them by their constituents. We often have problems with our RRSPs, particularly with older people. It is one thing to sell people RRSPs but it is another thing to give them some counselling as to what kinds of benefits they provide, and what kinds of problems they will have if they do not cash them in at the right time, or if they cash them in all at once what difficulties they will be in. They are not getting that kind of counselling.
Unfortunately, the Government provides ways for them to be able to enter into these programs but in many, many cases it does not provide the follow up, so that explanations can be given to these people of what the advantages, if any, are.
Then there is taxation of small-businessmen, many of whom are going out of business. Many do not understand the income tax problem. This is a tremendous hazard for them, not only in operating their business but in having to get experts to figure out their taxation problems.
The problem with complicated taxes is that nobody understands them. When people do understand the tax system, it can be used to frighten or harass them. People are frightened and are concerned about whether they are filling out their tax forms correctly. This is what is happening to waiters and waitresses in my riding. The federal tax people have decided that waiters and waitresses are cheating on their income tax. I do not have the current figures, but according to the 1971 census a waitress earned $1,442 and a waiter earned $2,995. At that time the average income in Canada was about $5,300. In 1971, waiters and waitresses earned only half the average annual income. The same is probably true today. Thousands of these people across the country have received letters from the tax Department stating that they have under-estimated their income by hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is disturbing is that the majority of Canadians who received those letters have no background in dealing with income tax problems. They are not aware of their rights and the tax department is not quick to help. They do not belong to unions, they are not organized. The tax Department representative walks in, corners them and makes them sign documents which may be very detrimental to them. I repeat, these people earn half the average wage in Canada.
There is a man in my constituency who tries to help these people. He has been working with the tax Department for nearly 20 years. He tells me that never in all that time has he run into anything like this. The tax Department is being pretty tough on waiters and waitresses, treating them differently from those who earn a lot of money.
When the original MacEachen budget was introduced, the Government said it would close a lot of loopholes in the taxation system. Many of these loopholes have since been reopened. The tax cuts for the well-to-do which were introduced in that budget have remained. For those with a taxable income under $25,000 a year, there is no real change in their taxation under this Bill. However, if you earn a lot of money, this Bill puts you on the gravy train. Those earning $86,000 to $130,000 a year will receive a 5 per cent cut in taxes; those earning over $130,000 will receive a 9 per cent cut. That is quite a Christmas present for the rich from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)
The rich will not have to worry about paying more in corporation taxes. In 1960, corporation taxes made up over 40 per cent of federal tax revenues. Today it is about 30 per cent. Shame, taking it out on the working people of Canada. Obviously you can do a lot better with the tax Department if you make $1 million a year and have a team of accountants working for you than if you were a waiter or waitress. If you are a waitress, the Government not only takes your money with no questions asked, but tells you how much you were supposed to have made.
With regard to Northern benefits, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary about this and he said there was no increase in taxation.


Mr. Fisher:: Who said that?


Sidney James Parker: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) stated in his speech that there was no increase. I want to tell him that there is a very serious increase in the taxation of the benefits of housing and particularly in single-industry communities such as I represent.
Northern benefits have been changed a little to help assist Northern groups for the year ending 1983, but they are of absolutely no assistance for the single-industry communities such as I represent-those who have been laid off. Those in the logging camps will now have to pay tax on room and meal benefits and on their automobile expenses. That is a shame at this time when our logging and mining industries as well as the coal industry in my riding are in such a predicament.
The problem has been created by the federal and provincial Governments which have allowed funding in Northern British Columbia to take away jobs from those who pay taxes, those who are trying to make a living in the single-industry communities. I wrote to the Minister about these problems but I have not received an answer. Shame! A Member of Parliament cannot even get an answer from a Minister on a very important issue like this.
February 14, 1983

5.0. 21


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

Then there is the matter of how fast we are being asked to pass this legislation. The Government has been sitting on this legislation for months. It came running into the House before Christmas demanding that we pass the Bill immediately. The Government will come into the House in a few days and say that in the interest of those who will be receiving money back, it has to have this legislation. The Government will say it is the Opposition that is not allowing these people to have their money. That is what this Government does with every piece of legislation that comes into this House.
This is very important legislation which requires a lot of consideration by members on all sides of the House. The Government says it will not make any income tax refunds until the Bill is passed. That will not sell. There is no difference between this Bill and the Bill to cut the Family Allowances. They cut the Family Allowances first and then passed the Bill later. We on this side said that was illegal and should not be done. The Government can take money away from those receiving Family Allowances, but cannot reimburse others until the legislation is passed. What a hypocritical move on the part of this Government! But it will not work. The Government says we must pass this Bill quickly because of the uncertainty among taxpayers. Do you know what causes that uncertainty?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair hesitates to interrupt but the time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, do you know what that uncertainty causes? You get uncertainty when Cabinet Ministers start babbling about the tax system, as the Minister of State responsible for the Status of Women did. I would like to read some excerpts from letters that appeared in our local newspaper-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to say so, but I was one of the people who said no to the request that this inane diatribe continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. The Chair did not hear it at the time. The Hon. Member for Ontario.


Mr. Fennell:: In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, not long ago, the Canadian Government announced a number of measures aimed at assisting Canadian shipbuilders. These measures include a broader application of Canadian Customs and Excise legislation as it concerns goods used for the purpose of resource exploration and exploitation beyond the present twelve-mile limit; maintaining subisidies to promote production in the industry and extending a production subsidy for ships finished and delivered before July 1, 1985; and adopting a coastal shipping policy to encourage greater participation by ships sailing under the Canadian flag.
I find it rather strange, however, that Opposition members suddenly seem to have dropped the subject, especially since between November 4 and December 13, 1982, they rose seven times to speak to this matter. Since the new policy was announced, the subject was brought up only once, on January 19. It must be because of the favourable reception this policy has received in shipbuilding circles.



HEALTH CARE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, we have a conflict in the House. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has indicated that she is negotiating with the Provinces regarding the proposed Canada Health Act. Yet when we talk to provincial Ministers, they indicate they have not met with the Minister for many months.
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, concern about the contents of the Bill is growing.
People in the health care profession, labour organizations, and consumer groups, want to voice their concerns about Canada's health care system and the proposed Health Care Act. They are concerned about issues such as over-crowding in hospitals, lengthy waiting lists, and the need for trained personnel. They have asked repeatedly that the Minister meet and talk with them so they can make their views known. No such meetings are taking place.
22800

February 14, 1983
In that context, Madam Speaker, I urge this House to urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to refer the subject matter of the Bill to the Standing Committee so that witnesses can be heard and recommendations made to the Minister about health care in Canada.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that one of three blanking presses will be moved temporarily from the Mint in Winnipeg to the Nickel Belt Riding of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), where it will be used to fulfill a contract of Inco in Lively, Ontario.
As 45 employees of the Mint were laid off in July, 1982, the removal of a blanking press is valid cause for concern that future lay-offs are to be expected. Furthermore, the cost of moving such a machine will total tens of thousands of dollars, which increases my need to question the rationale of a temporary transfer. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) to provide this House and the City of Winnipeg with an explanation of why this costly move is being considered when the Mint in Winnipeg is fully competent and capable of handling the task to be done in Lively, Ontario.
The employees of the Mint are truly worried that the same irrational decision making, as seen in the case of the aerospace training centre, will also prevail in their circumstances, causing Winnipeg once more to be passed over as a less logical alternative. At this time of record high unemployment the Mint employees and myself, would appreciate receiving the Minister's assurances that no further lay-offs will take place.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, late last week at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva there were reports about the violations which have taken place against human rights in El Salvador during 1982. Over 4,000 people have been murdered. Actually, 4,777 were listed as having been murdered by, as the report indicated, forces of the right, many times supported by the Government.
Lask week, although I can hardly believe it, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, visited El Salvador, spent 18 hours there, and after leaving said that she had never seen a place in which human rights had been so well respected. In the light of that statement, I would say that the Government of Canada has to be extremely careful about following any policy of the United States in that part of the world.
I would ask that the Government of Canada be very sensitive to the sermon that Archbishop Rivera y Damas preached yesterday in the Cathedral of El Salvador, asking for amnesty for the 700 political prisoners who are now imprisoned and being tortured, as the report stated in Geneva, so that when the Holy Father visits there on March 6 there could be the beginnings of a dialogue which will bring about peace.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, on the subject of corporate communications, the Human Resources Management Council of The Financial Times found that corporations with full line internal and external information systems in place are weathering the recession better than most. In addition, they benefit from greater Government and public acceptance of unpopular business strategies now taking place across the country. While this information environment is a new phenomenon arising from the right-to-know attitudes developing during the past two decades, those attitudes are here to stay and they call for a greater openness between business and society. The Council found that few Canadian corporations assigned adequate priorities to the need-to-know and right-to-know attitudes. Consequently, the Council concluded that the credibility of business as a whole and its ability to bring the country out of a recession have suffered serious damage. In order to ameliorate this situation, the Council made several recommendations, one of which was that each corporation appoint a director of communications, equipped with both authority and support staff to be charged with the responsibility to prepare annual information plans and to carry them out.
As a Member of this Government who supported Bill C-43, dealing with access to Government information, I would like to call upon those involved in Canadian industry to give greater opportunity to improving corporate communications and to provide factual, fair, reasonable and as complete information to the public, and to their employees, as competitive interests allow.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: The recent decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to force agriculture and horticultural employers and employees to pay unemployment insurance premiums for employees receiving less than $250 a year, or where an employee is employed less than 25 working days a year, is totally unacceptable to the Canadian Horticultural Council, its membership, and in those areas where such employees are employed on a seasonal basis, to
February 14, 1983

fruit growers, vegetable growers and tobacco growers, among others.
This decision shows a complete lack of understanding and lack of regard for the position of such employers, and will have a negative effect on their ability to produce labour-intensive horticultural crops. This decision is totally incompatible with the Government's objective of import labour replacement and the creation of more jobs for Canadians in the horticultural industry.
Because of the drastic downturn of our economy, everything should be done to help maintain and encourage the horticultural industry in Canada, but creating difficulties and administrative nightmares is totally negative and discouraging. I hope the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) will also see the unfairness of this whole matter and take it upon himself to revoke this regulation by reinstating Clause 16(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, which is not only totally fair and equitable, but is also imbued with that rare commodity, common sense.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, Canadian cars are not now equipped with pollution-control devices to the same extent as American cars. Although standards were identical in both countries in the early 1970s, American cars are now estimated to cause only one-seventh as much pollution as Canadian cars. Traditionally, Canadians have paid more for their cars than Americans; however, our before-tax costs are now lower. There is evidence that emission-control devices do not reduce engine performance or add materially to the cost of the car.
This would seem a good time to act to protect our environment from the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons which are spewed out by our cars. There would also be opportunity for job creation in refining and using emission-control devices. I understand Environment Canada is studying the question, and I look forward to seeing the Minister introduce this matter to the House for discussion and decision.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, at a time when unemployed Canadians number almost 1.6 million, and, when added to those who are underemployed or only able to find part-time work, the number comes to over 2
million, it is clear that the Government must start somewhere to resolve this serious problem. It is equally clear that no solution to any problem thus far solved by the Government has come without a willingness to expend the sizeable amounts of money that problem solving in Government takes.
As the well-known Chinese proverb has it, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". Accordingly, it is in the spirit of my usual bipartisanship that I extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his ever-supportive caucus on their success in tackling the national unemployment problem, starting with Senator Pitfield and Donald Macdonald. May I further take the liberty of pointing out to him that should his anti-unemployment program ever expand to that degree, there is 11.6 per cent of the work force in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka that would like to be squeezed into it as well.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REPORT ON CANADIAN CONTENT IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING

Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, the CRTC recently released its report on Canadian content on television. Although this report contained only draft regulatory changes, it is a laudable attempt to deal with the following items; first, the relegation of Canadian programing to non prime time hours; second, the almost total absence of high quality Canadian drama on our private networks, and third, the other problems relating to the small size and fragmentation of the Canadian television market.
The CRTC, as regulator, is trying to ensure that viewers have the opportunity to watch first-rate Canadian television, but little more can be done until the Government tables legislation and policies to deal with broadcasting problems in the 80s. For a year, now, we have been entertained by stories of imminent changes and new initiatives, but each promises has been followed by a new excuse for Government inaction, and the abdication of its policy-making role.
Meanwhile, we have total confusion concerning the part that new delivery technologies, notably dishes, will play in the future of Canadian television, and we have a CBC which is powerless to meet new challenges or to plan for the future because the Government reneged on its promise to increase funding, which has decreased over the last five years.
We have no new incentives to help our private broadcasters tap the increased international market for new programs.
We lack new initiatives to help train our visual artists. The 80s are here, and we need to stimulate private sector production of better Canadian TV entertainment.

February 14, 1983
Oral Questions ENERGY



SUPPORT URGED FOR SOLAR INDUSTRY

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, the fate of Canada's solar industry is soon to be decided by Members of Cabinet. After reviewing the industry's present status and potential, Cabinet Ministers will have to establish the level of funding the solar industry may receive for the next five years. I strongly suggest that federal Cabinet Ministers show complete support for the solar industry and continue funding at least to equal the present level of spending.
In particular applications, solar energy can be cheaper than convention sources. The Cabinet discussion paper prepared on this topic concludes that "over a five-year period, aggressive pursuit of lower price/higher performance systems by both industry and Government can achieve commercial cost-effectiveness. This is realistic but challenging."
Price performance goals cited in the discussion paper put solar energy below the consumer price of competing energy sources such as oil, natural gas, and electricity, in most parts of Canada. The only exception is in the prairies where natural gas is less expensive.
I appeal to the federal Cabinet to show support for the solar industry by continuing funding with the intention of advancing the industry to a state of independence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. One of the problems in this House seems to be in getting the Prime Minister to take an interest in those who are out of work or on welfare, particularly those living below the poverty line. According to recent figures, some 46.8 per cent of those people are single women.
In spite of his musings that the poor are getting richer, would the Prime Minister agree to establish a special committee to examine the situation of single women, and the conditions in which they find themselves, which suggest that they are totally inappropriate to Canadians in 1983. I refer particularly to those families that are headed by single women which, according to the same figures, comprise some 42 per cent of single women.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. He should refer to what 1 said the other day. I never said that the poor were getting
richer; I said the poverty line was a moving line and it was traditionally going up in Canada. Therefore, the premise of his question being wrong, I take it that I do not have to deal with the question itself.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that answer is totally inadequate, particularly in light of the percentages of single women who are living below the poverty line and trying to put meals on the table for their children. I would point out, with respect to the Prime Minister's previous comments in this regard, that we are not speaking of average incomes but of a subsistence level beneath which the average family, living below the poverty line, cannot meet its needs, particularly those families with young children.


PLIGHT OF ELDERLY FEMALE PENSIONERS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister not establish terms of reference for a special committee to examine these matters and, at the same time, address itself to considerations of elderly female pensioners who are living in conditions that can only be described as intolerable? I can assure him that there are very few in that category who are spending their winter holidays in the Caribbean.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition takes a swipe at his predecessor, who obviously was spending the last week in the Caribbean. I do not think that is fair comment from a seatmate of the former Leader of the Opposition.
As far as a parliamentary committee is concerned, Madam Speaker, the new Leader of the Opposition has a new House Leader. He knows that questions on setting up parliamentary committees are usually discussed between House Leaders. I am sure that our House Leader would follow that course if the Hon. Member wants to follow it.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has any personal objection to setting up a special committee of this House to look into specific problems of single women in this country, before he is off to St. Lucia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No specific objections, Madam Speaker, beyond the general difficulty that House Leaders meet when there are too many special committees set up, all to deal with pressing and urgent problems; the House becomes impossible to manage in such circumstances. I am sure his new assistant as House Leader will be able to negotiate his way through some of these things with or without the help of the new Leader of the Opposition.
February 14, 1983


SINGLE PARENTHOOD
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that 48.5 per cent of single-parents families headed by females are falling below the poverty line. These women have difficulty getting jobs, they have problems with child care, problems with health care, and problems that lead to suffering among the children. Does the Prime Minister have any specific objection to referring the issue of single parenthood to the Standing Committee on National Elealth and Welfare for examination and report back to the House, with recommendations? Does he have any specific objections to that kind of plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course I have no personal objections. I am not a member of that Committee but 1 think that this is a matter that should be dealt with through the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee itself. I have no idea what its current agenda is. If the Hon. Member makes representation to his own Members on that Committee I am sure they can arrange things in the usual way with the Chairman of the Committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, there has been some obstinacy at those meetings. We do not have such a Committee at the moment.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ISSUES
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, one of the issues that we thought might come out of parliamentary reform was the setting up of a few more permanent standing committees. It seems to me that the House and the women of Canada could benefit from a permanent standing committee to deal with women's issues. They have special problems in terms of the impact of high technology on their job situation, they have special problems with parenting, with retirement, health care and so on. Would the Prime Minister have any specific objection to setting up a new permanent standing committee to deal with women's issues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a singular request on the day when we are precisely voting on the setting up of these parliamentary committees. It is the first time in my memory that we have to vote on the creation of such committees. I am sorry that the Opposition has been dragging its feet, preventing us from getting ahead with this business to the point of calling it to a vote this afternoon.
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week the Minister tabled a framework agreement signed by Canada and the United States which covered or laid down certain conditions for the testing of certain weapons, including the Cruise missile, on the assumption that such tests actually take place at some point in the future. On Friday in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the following:
There is no understanding beyond what was tabled.
I would like to ask the Minister to be more precise on that today. More specifically, had the Government or the Prime Minister made a commitment in principle to test the Cruise missile prior to the reaching of the agreement which the Minister tabled last week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Madam Speaker.


CABINET DECISION-MINISTERS' STATEMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in view of that very interesting reply of the Minister, I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. Last April 29, in reply to a motion which I moved on behalf of my colleagues in opposition to the Cruise missile, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the House that President Carter had requested Canada to test the Cruise missile system. He went on to say:
This request has been accepted by the Canadian Cabinet.
Further on the Minister of Justice added these words:
The decision to go ahead with that has been taken. What is being held up is the implementation of the decision which has already been taken.
Who was misleading the House? Was the former Secretary of State for External Affairs misleading the House when he said that last April, or was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs misleading the House when he answered the way he did today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered the question as I would have. I can assure the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that there is no misleading of the House in that. The agreement with the United States, the request which was made of us, concerned a weapons testing agreement, the Cruise being one of the specific instances of weapons which could or could not be tested under that agreement.
In so far as President Carter's request referred to by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is concerned, I have not

February 14, 1983
Oral Questions
had time to ascertain whether he asked specifically to test the Cruise or whether he was talking about a testing weapons system generally, and whether the reference to that by the former Secretary of State for External Affairs was not based upon an inaccurate memory of what President Carter had requested. I cannot say, but I will certainly undertake to have either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or myself find out the precise terms of President Carter's request.
I know since 1980, since President Reagan has been President and since we have formed the Government, that the discussion has been, and the request of the United States has been in terms of general weapons testing.
I recognize, as I believe the Minister recognized, that in people's minds there was often an identification of the Cruise with the general umbrella agreement. But in terms of what the United States requested and in terms of what Cabinet authorized, it was a general weapons testing. Cabinet made the specific point that when the Cruise came up to be requested we would ask the Minister of National Defence to bring that specifically to Cabinet to be discussed under the umbrella agreement.


FORMER MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, something very significant is being said here because the former Secretary of State for External Affairs could not have been more categoric in his wording. He referred to a Cabinet decision. He did not refer to a weapons system test in general. He referred very specifically to the Cruise missile. The missile system referred to in my motion for debate that day included the Cruise missile.
The Minister in his speech went on to speak at some length on why Canada was an appropriate terrain for testing the Cruise missile and, I repeat, with specific reference to a Cabinet decision, the Minister of Justice said:
Following the decision of 1979, President Carter requested some 18 months ago that we allow one of the proposed missile systems, the Cruise missile system, to be tested in Canada. It is the Carter request, which was subsequently adopted by the Reagan administration, which has been accepted by the Canadian cabinet.
Nothing could be more precise than that. Therefore I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now saying that there is no such agreement with the United States. Is he now saying it is quite possible in the future of the country that we will not be testing the Cruise missile?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the latter point, yes, it is quite possible, but that is purely hypothetical. On the specific point made by the Hon. Member, I would want to refer him to my previous answer, particularly when he quoted the former Secretary of State as saying that it was the Carter request which was subsequently adopted by the Reagan administration. With respect, I think that that is a misunderstanding or a misstatement. As far as I have been able to verify, since 1980 what the Reagan administration has been asking is a missile weapons testing agreement.
In communications I have seen it has been expressed in those terms, not in terms of the Cruise.


John Edward Broadbent: Why did he go on to talk about the Cruise in his speech?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because, as I said in my previous answer, for many people, once they have accepted the umbrella agreement the Cruise is the thing they fear will happen. Most of the opposition today, vocal opposition, is on the Cruise. That is the subject which is in everyone's mind.
Once again, what has been signed by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, what has been discussed and passed in Cabinet is a weapons testing agreement. We make no effort to hide the fact that the Cruise is one of the weapons which will interest the United States and, as I said, we made specific mention in the Cabinet decision that when that request came up-therefore it was obvious that we felt it was likely to come up-the Minister of Defence should come back to Cabinet before acting under the umbrella agreement.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Mines. The Minister will know that all mining operations in Yukon are now shut down. The largest of these, the Cyprus Anvil mine at Faro, which accounts for 40 per cent of the Yukon economy, has been closed for more than eight months. The people have not only had to endure economic hardships but they have also had to contend with cruel promises from the Government which promised to help revive the mine more than five months ago. To date those promises have not been fulfilled.
On February 1 the vice-president of Cyprus Anvil said that a deal with the federal Government would be completed and mine workers would be back to work by the end of this month. Will the Minister here and today announce what deal the mining company has achieved with the Government of Canada in order to get these mine workers back to work and the economy of Yukon on the move again?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: No, Madam Speaker, and I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that negotiations have been going on for quite some time. All Government programs which are available to the unemployed in Canada, including miners, are available to miners in the Cyprus Anvil operation.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, what the Minister says is that the Federal Government is prepared to stand by and watch the economy of Yukon crumble.
*

February 14, 1983


GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, is the Minister now prepared to admit the error of her Government's ways and give support to an initiative which will provide improved infrastructure and lower production costs for northern mining companies, in particular by opening the road to Skagway for ore trucks, by improving power subsidies to northern mining companies, and of course by scrapping the ill-considered plan to tax northern workers on the transportation and housing allowances which they receive from their employers?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is indulging in his usual rhetoric. I remind him that those programs which are in place are putting people back to work. If he would care to look at the Cassiar situation he would see that Section 38 is working very well and those miners are working today. With a little more co-operation from the other side we would see more people back to work.
*
* *


FINANCE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister will be introducing, for first reading today, a Bill to borrow some $5 billion. Would the Minister advise this House whether on Motions today he will be giving this House a full and complete financial statement for 1982-83 and for as far as he can see into the next fiscal year? Also, will he be tabling with this House full projections of his financial requirements?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Bill is to receive first reading today. It will be debated on second reading tomorrow. At eleven o'clock tomorrow I will be making a speech in this House, and I will be very happy to provide the information to the Hon. Member concerning our financial situation for 1982-1983.


Erik Nielsen: What about 1983-1984?


PROVISION OF INFORMATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, is the Minister saying to this House that he is asking us to accept the borrowing authority bill for $5 billion without fulfilling his promises made to this House on October 27, promises confirmed also in this House by his Minister of State for Finance on October 28, and promises confirmed to myself in the Question Period one week ago, that he would table full and complete financial information, indeed a budget, before he would ask for further borrowing authority?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I never said in my October 27 statement, or since, that there would be a budget before asking for additional financial funds. That was my hope obviously. But, as the Hon. Member knows, the Income Tax Act provisions resulting from the previous budget have not yet been passed by this House. This has delayed my plans regarding the introduction of a budget. In the meantime there will be a requirement for additional borrowing authority.
However, I indicated in my October 27 statement that I would be coming to the House before the end of the fiscal year for additional borrowing authority. This is what I am doing at the present time. As I indicated to the Hon. Member, we will have second reading on the Bill tomorrow, and I will be very happy to provide my hon. friend with the information that he needs to pass judgment on the additional borrowing authority.


PROPOSAL TO REINSTATE FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he received proposals regarding legislation that would try to accommodate the difficult situations that have occurred between farmers and banks and other borrowing institutions? Has the Minister received proposals to revise or reinstitute the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, or amendments to the Bankruptcy Act? If so, what is his disposition toward them?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there is a Bill before this House in the name of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middle-sex in which there is a particular proposal. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex has been pressing for consideration of this Bill. Both the Minister of Agriculture and myself have indicated that the principle of trying to do something is one to which we are attracted in the current circumstances.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You have a principle of trying to do something. What about doing something?


Marc Lalonde: But, as far as legislation by the Government is concerned, that is a matter that would be announced in due time if any such step is taken.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF AGRI-BOND PROGRAM
Gary Michael Gurbin: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. He well knows that since the Liberal Government took power in February, 1980, over 900 farmers have faced bankruptcy and thousands of others are in serious difficulty. In the Minister's upcoming budget is he seriously considering including an agri-bond or other type provision that would provide some long-term low interest rate financing for agriculture so that farmers can plan their future?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member forgets to mention is that since we

February 14, 1983
Oral Questions
took office this Government has added very significantly to the financing of the Farm Credit Corporation so that it can help the farmers. A number of measures were announced by the previous Minister of Finance-


Erik Nielsen: Name one.


Marc Lalonde: -in support of the farmers. The Minister of Agriculture also has been proceeding with legislation in this regard. As a matter of fact there is a Bill before this House called Canagrex, which 1 hope will be passed by this House, which will be helpful to the farmers and which is supported very strongly by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. 1 would like to point out to my hon. friend that there has been no shortage of measures in this House to help farmers. As far as speculation on the contents of the budget is concerned, speculation will have to remain until the budget is read in this House.

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
to use the additional borrowing? Is it simply to offset the high cost to the Government that has been brought about as a result of its mismanagement?
Thomas Edward Siddon: You have just noticed it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I shall be delighted to answer the Hon. Member's question in detail when I give my speech tomorrow. Meanwhile, I would like to remind him that 72 per cent of the increase in the Government's borrowing requirements is due to a reduction in Government revenue in terms of taxes collected from individuals and also from corporations which today are not making the same profits they were making before. The remainder of this amount will be used to help unemployed Canadians, in the form of unemployment insurance benefits or through the Federal Government's contribution to welfare payments paid by the provinces but 50 per cent funded by the Government of Canada.
So it is fairly simple-72 per cent of our increased requirement is due to the fact that the Government's revenue has decreased, and the rest is needed for benefits paid to Canadians in financial difficulty. 1 can hardly believe that my hon. colleague should think that is a waste of money.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the hearings that the Canadian Transport Commission was supposed to hold tomorrow in Halifax regarding the dispute between CN and CAST. Could the Minister inform the House why he supported CN's motion to adjourn the hearing, thus depriving the Canadian people of an opportunity to find out about the business relationship between CN and CAST?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the decision was made with the consent of the Premier of Nova Scotia an my own, and it was made because a number of discussions and negotiations are taking place at the present time which might bring about some substantial changes in this case.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who is going to ask the House of Commons to approve additional borrowing for the Government. In the last 22 months the Government has sought and received approval to borrow $31.6 billion. Given that we have a rate of unemployment almost double what it was two years ago, and given that we have the highest rate of bankruptcy we have ever had in the history of the country outside the Great Depression, for what precisely does the Minister propose


STIMULATION OF ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the Minister has borne out exactly what I said. The money he needs is because of decreased revenue which resulted from a downturn in the economy which has caused record high levels of unemployment, which again results in higher payouts and lower revenues. Would it not make more sense to use some of the billions of dollars that we have borrowed to stimulate the economy and get ahead with rail redevelopment, port redevelopment, or the building of homes, the end result being that we would have some immediate benefit in job creation and longterm benefit in meeting our future needs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I wonder where the Hon. Member has been the last few months.


Ian Deans: I have been here.


Marc Lalonde: As he well knows, thanks to the measures that have been announced in the last few weeks by the Minister of Transport and myself, the railways will invest $800 million this year alone in railway improvement in the West. Total expenditures by the railways will be well over $10 billion over this decade. Those are expenditures that will have been undertaken thanks to steps initiated by this Government.
The Hon. Member talked about housing. He must also realize that the starts in January rose to an annually adjusted
February 14, 1983

level of 165,000 units, which is a very significant increase compared to last year. Again, that has been the result of hundreds of millions of dollars that this Government has put into the development of housing and the expansion of housing construction. This is a result of measures taken by this Government and approved by this Parliament. The Hon. Member must have been outside the House or quite absent minded when these were considered. 1 do not know where he has been, frankly.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE IMPORTATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC VIDEO CASSETTES
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the importation of pornographic material to Canada. The Minister will know that at least 95 per cent of this material in Canada is imported. Recent reports indicate that video cassettes form a large portion of this. One method of getting them in is to change the labels on the cassettes so that the customs officials do not know what is in them. What action, if any, is the Minister taking to try to cut down on the importation of pornographic material into Canada?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the importation of pornographic material is regulated by legislation, and the relevant regulations are generally known to Hon. Members. It is, of course, extremely difficult, when importation is carried out by individuals or when parcels are addressed to a specific individual, to keep a close watch on such activities especially, as the Hon. Member just pointed out, when the labelling on a video cassette, for instance, has been removed or changed. However, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that we are taking all necessary measures to enforce the laws of this country as strictly as possible, and 1 may also remind him that not long ago, the Department of National Revenue, through its Customs and Excise division, took action in this area and banned the entry of cassettes considered by a large majority of Canadians to be immoral.


APPLICATION OF TAX WRITE-OFFS-REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE AMENDED
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question for the same Minister concerns tax write-offs for films produced in Canada as outlined in the income tax form, item 28(H). Will the Minister confirm that nowhere in the Income Tax Act is there a provision that would have the effect of excluding the producers of pornographic films from claiming this write-off? Furthermore, if this is so,
Oral Questions
will the Minister assure the House that he will table amendments to the Income Tax Act that will discourage rather than encourage the production of pornographic movies in Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as far as the First part of the question is concerned, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that it is not the purpose of the Income Tax Act that its provisions should be used to judge the morality or immorality of items that may or may not be financed through the Income Tax Act itself. Furthermore, as far as amendments to the Act are concerned, I may remind the Hon. Member that matters of policy fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Following the questions from the Member for Yukon and the Member for Calgary West, will the Minister tell us what she thinks of the idea of having a standing committee dealing with problems of women, particularly single mothers?


Judith A. Erola: Frankly, Madam Speaker, I am very amused to hear that the Opposition is finally interested in the status of women.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: When I suggested publicly approximately a month ago that such a study be launched, I heard no support whatever from the other side of the House.


David Kilgour: In other words, the Minister does not choose to answer the question.


FINANCING OF-VIDEODROME&quot; MOTION PICTURE
David Kilgour: Will the Minister then tell us what she thinks about the movie "Videodrome" which is playing in Ottawa now and consists of scenes such as burning women with cigarettes, a movie financed in large part by the Canada Film Development Corporation? Does she think that the taxpayers' money should be going to finance films like this or does she think that money should be going to Family Allowances and pensions instead?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, this Government has an excellent record on this subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 14, 1983
Oral Questions Mr. Epp: Which subject?


Judith A. Erola: May I remind him that this Government financed a definitive film on pornography called "Not a Love Story". That was financed by this Government. This Government has done more to promote the education of people on the subject of pornography. We do not spend our time going to watch the movies; we do something about them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF ALGERIA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Brehri, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Algeria.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Would he advise the House whether his officials in the rulings division of the Taxation Department, in their capacity as the collectors of premiums for unemployment insurance, are now changing the rules and reassessing beneficiaries under the Unemployment Insurance Act as far back as four years?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 was not aware of that situation. I shall make some enquiries and subsequently inform the House and the Hon. Member.


POSITION OF SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the Minister particularly look into the situation of those persons who were formerly classified as self employed, such as fishermen, Irish moss harvesters and others, who are now being reassessed?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, 1 shall make enquiries about the question in general as well as the specific cases raised by the Hon. Member.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Late last Friday the Minister released his long awaited RCMP file destruction policy, setting out criteria with respect to the over 800,000 files opened by the Security Service on law abiding Canadians. The new policy is full of so many loopholes that, in reality, it is nothing less than a "Big Brother" privacy invasion policy, written and administered by the RCMP Security Service itself. Will the Minister tell the House approximately how many files will be destroyed pursuant to this policy and, more important, whether this same policy will form the basis for the future in terms not only of destruction of existing files but of the opening of new files by the Security Service?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I cannot indicate now precisely how many files will be destroyed, but tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands will be destroyed. The policy is a defined one. I disagree with the Hon. Member that it leaves a great many loopholes. 1 would like to hear from him what sort of loopholes he perceives could indeed be filled.
The policy calls for an independent review by the Privacy Commissioner. I think that will provide an effective safeguard that the privacy of Canadians is being adequately regarded by the Security Service in its file destruction policy.
As far as opening files for the future is concerned, the statement that I made on Friday was not meant to cover that. It was addressed to file destruction. Basically, the criteria are the same for opening new files as for the destruction of files.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The McDonald Commission itself described the criteria proposed by the Minister as "so vague and loose as to justify almost any collection program." So the Minister is really giving a licence to the RCMP Security Service to continue invading the privacy of thousands of law abiding Canadians.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, will the Minister now clarify what the provisions in the policy related to blackmail and indiscretion specifically refer to? Will they continue to apply generally to all homosexuals and lesbians in Canada? Will the Minister now agree to refer this important question to the Justice Committee for a full and comprehensive study?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think the ridiculous characterization of this policy by the Hon. Member shows that he has not taken the opportunity of the weekend to read the policy. I would urge him to do so before making such ridiculous suggestions about what the
February 14, 1983

file destruction and file opening policies of the Security Service will be.
IVladam Speaker: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: I do not dare go for the leadership of your Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Reid for Revenue!


INCOME TAX
John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. Since our exchange on Friday my office has been deluged with calls from Canadians complaining about the amount of information which has been made available on their income tax returns, but they have also been confused because the income which is listed under the title of AAI does not seem to explain what their three year average income has been. The question that I am hearing, as a matter of detail, is, "What does AAI stand for?"


Erik Nielsen: Average Annual Income.


John Mercer Reid: Second, how is the figure which appears in the lower right hand corner determined?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is an interesting one, and I think it will be of some help to many Canadians when they complete their tax returns. Actually, we must remember that this amount refers to the income averaging formula, and that each taxpayer receives both a T-l form and the schedules attached to his tax return. These schedules include a section dealing with income averaging, which gives the formula used to calculate the amount. That is, we take the amounts for the last three years-
Madam Speaker, it seems the Hon. Members opposite are not really interested, and that even the new Leader of the Opposition seems to be following the lead of his predecessor, in that he is paying very little attention to the business of the House and displaying the same contempt for the business of the House as his-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the Minister's answer is going to be rather complex, and perhaps he should concentrate
Oral Questions
on answering the Hon. Member instead of being concerned about what others are saying.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, thank you for your advice.
I was therefore saying that the taxpayer's income for 1981, 1980 and 1979 is multiplied by an indexing factor which is indicated on the form, so that the average for these three years, multiplied by the indexing factor, gives the amount indicated on the form, which is supposed to help the taxpayer use the income averaging formula.


PUBLIC WORKS
John Horton McDermid: My question is directed through you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Public Works. When renewing a lease for an already established citizenship court, is it customary for the Minister's Department to sign a six-month lease?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member sends me the details, I will look into this matter. That is a rather hypothetical question.


Mr. Kempling:: Well, that is a hypothetical Minister.


BRAMPTON, ONT. COURT LEASE
John Horton McDermid: Maybe I can clarify it for the Minister. Could the Minister explain why a lease for the citizenship court in Brampton was just signed for six months and why an active search to move that facility to another constituency is under way? Is this the penalty that my constituents must pay for my exposure of that misguided Liberal manual which suggested the use of citizenship court judges to attract prospective Members to their Party?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I suspect that the Hon. Member's constituents are sufficiently penalized by his being here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Provencher.


Mr. Epp:: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question-


Mr. Rossi:: You did it again, McDermid.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I notice the Hon. Member is still exercising the best part of his body.

February 14, 1983
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS PAYMENT OF MANITOBA PAYROLL TAX
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would like to ask the
Minister of Finance whether a decision has been made as to whether a provincial level of Government can in fact tax the federal Government. Has that been determined in a constitutional sense? This relates back to the Manitoba payroll tax, and he said he would give me an answer. Second, has the federal Government decided that it is in fact obligated to pay the Manitoba payroll tax?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I believe it is well established that the two levels of Government in Canada cannot tax each other. It is part of our constitutional tradition. I believe there are court decisions, as a matter of fact, to that effect. However, as the Hon. Member knows, all through the years the federal Government has agreed to pay grants in lieu of taxes, or has voluntarily agreed to pay an amount equivalent to a particular tax. This has happened, for instance, in terms of taxation at the municipal level, and there have also been reciprocal taxation agreements with the Provinces. Several Provinces have signed such an agreement. The western Provinces have not, however, reached an agreement with the federal Government, with regard to this matter as yet, most of them feeling that they would end up paying more taxes than they would be collecting, I suspect. But now that the situation seems to have been reversed, the Government of Manitoba has shown a great interest in signing a reciprocal taxation agreement, suspecting that it will be receiving more money than paying under such an arrangement. Therefore, I am considering the matter, therefore, at the present time and I will bring it to Cabinet for consideration.


POSITION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This question has been before us for some period of time and, constitutionally, one level of Government cannot tax another. The whole justification for the tax was that the Manitoba Government would recover from the federal Government moneys which the Province did not receive, moneys which it thought it would receive under Established Programs Financing. It is a worker's tax. It has had serious and deleterious effects on the creation of employment in Manitoba. The facts remain the same, but the Minister has not answered the question. Manitobans are waiting for that money because it was part of their projected revenues. Has the federal Government now made a decision on whether or not to pay that money?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there are two Provincial Governments in this contry that have resorted to such a payroll tax, the Government of Quebec and Manitoba. I must say that
this is an evolution which is a cause for concern. I have warned my provincial colleagues about this situation and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss this further. As far as the Government's decision is concerned, however, I hope that I will be in a position to announce a decision soon. Again, this is a matter which will be brought to my colleagues for their consideration.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM RATIFICATION OF ARMS TESTING AGREEMENTS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the weapons testing agreement. I would very much like to know the Prime Minister's view as to whether only the Government should ratify potential arms testing agreements with the United States, or should the Parliament of Canada ratify those agreements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if we consider what is done in every case of which I know when Parliament considers foreign policy matters, usually the Government sign such an agreement and then it comes before Parliament. We would be happy to hear the views of the Conservative Party on the Cruise and the weapons testing agreement at any time it chooses to devote one of its opposition days to that subject.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, would the Prime Minister not agree that on a matter as potentially divisive and as seriously important as the Cruise test, perhaps the Parliament of Canada should deal with the matter prior to any agreements being signed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, perhaps it should and perhaps it should not. I do know that an all-Party committee has just reviewed the rules of the House of Commons and it has not chosen to insert any rule which indicated that foreign policy agreements should be ratified by Parliament before becoming operative. The Hon. Member will realize that that is the system in the United States, but it has never existed in Canada.


Erik Nielsen: That is not so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member and his colleagues are interested in this reform, maybe they should bring the matter forward when they are debating reform of the rules.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If that is your recommendation, I am prepared to give it serious consideration.
February 14, 1983



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 11, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner that the third report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House on Monday, January 31, 1983, be concurred in; and the motion of Mr. Crosby (p. 22759).
Madam Speaker:: It being three o'clock, and pursuant to Standing Order 12(3), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the third report of the Striking Committee. May I remind Hon. Members that there will be a 15-minute bell and we will vote at the end of that time.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is lost.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with the Hon. Members for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and I think if you put the question on the main motion right away, you will get the unanimous consent of the House, and we should then be able to have the Standing Committees of the House struck without further delay.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for proceeding with the question on the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: If the House agrees, we shall dispense with the bells to call in the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 14, 1983
Striking Committee Report


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried. Motion agreed to.
* *
*


PETITIONS
Madam 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 Friday, February 11, 1983, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
* *
*



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Due to the special character of today, the people of Spadina have asked me to give a special valentine to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with 500 signatures-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members know that they are not allowed to display anything in the House of Commons. I do not see why the rules are used in this way.
* *
*
Andre	NAYS Messrs. Gurbin	McKinnonBlenkarn	Gustafson	McKnightBosley	Hamilton	MitgesBradley	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MunroCardiff	Mountain)	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Clarke	Hawkes	Murta(Vancouver Quadra)	Hees	NeilCooper	Hnatyshyn	NickersonCossitt (Mrs.)	Howie	NielsenCrosby	Jarvis	Nowlan(Halifax West)	Kempling	ScottDantzer	Kilgour	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	King	ScottDick	Korchinski	(Victoria-Haliburton)Domm	Lambert	SiddonEpp	Lewis	StewartFennell	Malone	TaylorForrestall	McCain	ThackerFretz	McCuish	TowersGamble	McDermid	VankoughnetGreenaway	McGrath	WenmanMcKenzie	Wright-58.



PETITION


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I should like to present a petition from 342 constituents of London-Middlesex, expressing their opposition to the broadcasting of Playboy films on the Pay TV channel, First Choice.
The petitioners are deeply concerned about the detrimental effect these movies may have on our youth and believe that they severely damage the integrity and dignity of Canadian women. They also fear that this is the thin edge of the wedge and will eventually lead to the showing of hard-core pornography on Canadian television.
For the above rasons, the constituents humbly protest the airing of Playboy programs.
February 14, 1983



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise in regard to the next item of business which appears on the Notice Paper, respecting the intention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to ask leave to introduce a Bill requesting further borrowing authority.
Under the provisions of citation 235 of Beauchesne's a Member is entitled, in fact is bound, to bring to the Speaker's notice any instance of what he considers to be a breach of order. That is what I am doing.
Last Thursday the Government Flouse Leader indicated the Government's intentions to the Flouse, as reported at p. 22713 of Hansard:
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) also intends to give notice of a Bill to authorize the Government to borrow additional funds until the end of the financial year and the beginning of the next one.
That flies in the fact of commitments made by the Minister on October 27 last, and by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) on October 28 last. At another time 1 might argue that as a substantive point of order, which I think it is, but today my point of order is much more precise and clear than that on the question of notice.
1 refer you to the new Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders, Madam Speaker, specifically Standing Order 47(1), previously 42(1), which reads as follows:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the Order Paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the House. Such notice shall be laid on the Table before six o'clock p.m., or before five o'clock p.m. on a Friday, and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
We had oral notice from the Government House leader last Thursday. Beauchesne clearly states, however, that oral notice in fact has no substance. The exact reference is contained in citation 395 of Beauchesne's, so it is necessary to comply with Standing Order 47(1) precisely.
I have examined Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, February 10 and for Friday, February 11, very carefully. Nowhere in Votes and Proceedings is there an indication that notice has been given of a motion for leave to introduce this Bill. In other words, nowhere in Votes and Proceedings has this item been printed. Consequently, Standing Order 47(1) has not been complied with.
1 therefore submit to the Chair that it would be improper at this point on our agenda, for the Minister to ask leave to introduce a Bill for the provision of additional borrowing authority.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to join with the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) on this point of order. We had some sort of notice during the discussion of business for next week from the
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
Government House Leader, but when we reviewed the printed notice, as my colleague said, for Thursday of last week and when we reviewed the Votes and Proceedings for Friday of last week, nowhere was there any mention of any Government borrowing Bill.
The first official printed notice which the House had was delivered this morning under Order Paper and Notices of Monday, February 14, 1983, on page 6, at which point the following reference appears:
February 11, 1983-The Minister of Finance-Bill intituled: "An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority".
I refer you, Madam Speaker, to page 144 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citations 399 and 400. We are not arguing that there is any question about what time it was laid on the Table; that is not the point at issue. Citation 400 reads:
The publication of a proposed motion, once in the Notice Paper and the next day on the Order Paper, is siffucient to cover two days' notice under S.O. 42.
That is as it then was. Under Standing Order 47(1) it is very clear that the notice must be laid upon the Table and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
As 1 suggested, it was not printed in the Votes and Proceedings of Friday. We submit that in order to give the required notice, today's printed notice on the Order Paper and Notices will start day one and day two will be tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 am told-and this is confirmed by our practice in the past-that since 1969, such notices have never been printed in Votes and Proceedings, but have always appeared in the Order Paper and Notices.
In accordance with the practice established since 1969, it is obvious that the hundreds of notices which have been given since that time are not invalid. It is a question of parliamentary procedure. We did follow the rules and give proper notice. The Bill is listed on today's Order Paper and, besides, Members of the Opposition cannot claim to have been taken by surprise since I announced last Thursday that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had indeed the intention of giving that notice Friday, which is exactly what he did. I even said that if the Bill was to be introduced today, we would begin second reading tomorrow. Therefore, first, Members opposite cannot say they were taken by surprise because they were given verbal notice and, second, the parliamentary practice since 1969 has been for that type of notice to be published in the Order Paper and Notices, but not in Votes and Proceedings. It is in the Order Paper, and today we are introducing a Bill for which proper notice was given. In my opinion, everything is in order and the Opposition is splitting hairs when it wants to delay second reading of this Bill by invoking the argument of the Hon. Member for Calgary-


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader raised two points. The first was in regard to past

February 14, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
practices. I simply remind the Chair of another situation, dollar votes in appropriations Bills and legislating through appropriations Bills, which had been a practice for many years. That did not prevent the Chair from reaching what I believe to be the most appropriate decision and saying that the fact that it was done in the past was not justification for carrying on what was an improper practice.
Second, the Government House Leader indicated that since he had given notice orally last Thursday, it was sufficient notice. I should like to refer to Citation 395 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 143, which reads:
Oral notices for future proceedings do not generally exist in the House of Commons.
It goes on to indicate that the only provision for oral notices to have force and effect is in regard to the then Standing Orders 33 and 75C, which were the two closure provisions, and that only in those instances do oral notices have any force or, to use the language of Beauchesne's, do they exist. They do not exist except to the extent of the former Standing Orders 33 and 75C.
For those two reasons 1 humbly suggest that the arguments presented by the Government House Leader have no substance. I feel the Chair is obliged to enforce the provisions of Standing Order 47(1) which are vey clear and precise.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, in his remarks the Government House Leader made reference to the comment that the notice had been printed on the Order Paper on Friday. That is the very point. It was not printed on the Order Paper on Friday. Therefore, the 48-hour notice could not start to run. It started today. We agree that it started to run today, but it certainly did not start to run on Friday.
In closing I suggest the Standing Orders of the House have been reviewed very carefully by a special committee. We have now brought them into print in the new Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders. Section 47(1) is very clear, and we ask that you enforce it.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the so-called counter-argument made by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). In my view, he was giving a very narrow interpretation of one of Beauchesne's citations, and furthermore, he entirely failed to understand what I said earlier. We gave written notice, and to make things absolutely clear, we gave notice before 5 p.m. on Friday. Notice was given. When the Hon. Member takes as an example the $1 votes in the Estimates, this was indeed a practice used by the Government. It was the Government that decided to put in $1 votes, but in the present situation, the practice that evolved of not publishing written notice from the Government in the Votes and Proceedings was not developed by the Government. According to my information, it was the Clerks working under your direction, Madam Speaker, who decided, in 1969, to publish such notices in the Order Paper instead of in the Votes
and Proceedings. There is therefore no analogy whatsoever for and no possible comparison between the example given by the Member for Calgary Centre concerning $1 votes in the estimates and the notice in question.
The Government was supposed to give forty-eight hours' notice. We gave notice before 5 p.m. on Friday. When I referred to verbal notice, I was saying this merely to point out to the Members opposite that if they wished to feign surprise, it was not a good idea. Verbal notice was not meant as validation of a notice that was duly given in writing on Friday before 5 p.m. In the circumstances, the Hon. Member's counterargument is futile.
Without wishing to repeat myself, I said earlier what the practice was since 1969. The Chair will therefore have to decide: Does the fact that the Government gave written notice in the form and within the time prescribed, and the Clerks, under the authority of the Chair, decided to publish such notice in one document rather than another, in any way invalidate the notice in question? That is the question you must answer, Madam Speaker. But if you answer in the affirmative, that it does invalidate our notice, I think, with due respect, that you will be destroying a practice that goes back to 1969, and that this would not be in accordance with our procedures, which are based not only on written Rules but also on Parliamentary principles and practice.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise very briefly on the submission with respect to the point before the Chair. It is not a question of past practices. It is not a question of substantial or partial compliance with notice requirements. It is not a question of traditional practices in the House. The whole question which the Chair has to decide is whether the Standing Orders of this House have been complied with.


Yvon Pinard: By whom?


Erik Nielsen: Have the Standing Orders been complied with regarding the requirements of this item on the Order Paper?


Yvon Pinard: By whom?


Erik Nielsen: The Government House Leader asks by whom. By the Government in submitting a Bill which the Government is attempting to bring before the House now.


Mr. Ethier:: Who decides?


Erik Nielsen: Who decides it? The Standing Orders decide whether the requirements have been met. A former Acting Speaker who was the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House says "Oh, no.'' But surely, Madam Speaker, if anything guides our procedures in this House it has to be the Standing Orders. They are abundantly clear. Standing Order 47(1) stipulates:
February 14, 1983

Such notice shall be laid on the Table before six o'clock p.m., or before five o'clock p.m. on a Friday-
That part was complied with. But the Standing Order goes on as follows:
-and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
Either those words in the Standing Order mean something or they do not. For the Chair to come to any conclusion other than that those words were not complied with nullifies that Standing Order completely.
In our submission, respectfully, it is the job of the Chair to enforce the Standing Orders. Rightly or wrongly, those words are there. Rightly or wrongly, from an oversight or for whatever reason, the printing did not occur in the Votes and Proceedings at that day, namely, last Friday. Clearly, Madam Speaker, this Standing Order, in its strictest reading, has not been complied with. The only conclusion in our submission is that the Chair must not call that order today but whenever the Government chooses to set it down under Government Orders after today.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I think the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) has put the problem very succinctly before us. It is not a matter of trust or who did what correctly or incorrectly, that does not matter. The Standing Order says quite clearly that the notice must be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the day on which it was given to the Table.
I, like others, have had an opportunity to check that day, and I found the suggestion that that did not happen to be absolutely correct. It did not happen. I do not think the House should be put in a position of having to judge the correctness of a statement by the Government House leader. The Government House leader said he gave it to the Table. The Table apparently did not have it published. But I would be put in a very awkward position then of having to judge who made the mistake and whether or not the notice was in fact there by five o'clock, and I think that is quite unfair. The only thing we can go by is the printed word. The printed word in this instance says that it must appear. It did not appear. It makes no difference whether it was handed in or not handed in. It makes no difference whether it got there in time or did not get there in time. It makes no difference really who erred. The fact of the matter is it is not there. If it is not there, I respectfully suggest that we cannot proceed with it. If we cannot proceed with it, what we are talking about is a one-day delay.


Madam Speaker:: First of all, I would like to deal with one of the arguments brought forward by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) when he referred to the matter of the appropriation Bills and said that argument applied. 1 just want to remain him that, in my view, it is a totally different situation when those items are accepted. It is with the agreement of the House or with the explicit agreement of the Speaker who, having reviewed the items, that items are determined to be properly put in the appropriation Bill, or the
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
contrary. Often the Speaker rules that some of the items should be omitted. But that is not really an argument dealing with the particular matter that we are studying now.
Changes in the Standing Order need to be interpreted in the light of past practices, as we always do for any Standing Order.


Erik Nielsen: The wording has not changed.


Madam Speaker:: The Table Officers tell me that they did everything that was required according to a practice in this House, which is 15 years old.


Erik Nielsen: This has not changed. That does not matter.


Madam Speaker:: This is the argument that we have to consider. This practice is 15 years old.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Madam Speaker:: We do have a new Standing Order.


Erik Nielsen: Not this one.


Madam Speaker:: It says that the Notice should be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. 1 want to remind Hon. Members that before we had the change in the Standing Orders-


Erik Nielsen: That has not changed.


Madam Speaker:: -this particular Standing Order dealing with notices was written in exactly the same wording. Before we made the change in the Standing Order-


Thomas Edward Siddon: It still stands.


Madam Speaker:: -that wording meant that it was sufficient to publish the notice in the Notice Paper and not in the Votes of Proceedings. That is the practice which is 15 years old. Now, the Standing Order using that wording meant that such notice was sufficient. I have to conclude that it means the same thing now that we have the new Standing Orders.


Erik Nielsen: It is not in the Notice Paper either.


Madam Speaker:: 1 refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Citation 400. It reads:
(1) The publication of a proposed motion, once in the Notice Paper and the next day on the Order Paper, is sufficient to cover two days' notice under S.O. 42.
That is the relevant quotation from Beauchesne. As far as I can see, and according to the advice given by the Table Officers who dealt with this particular notice and who deal with all notices, all the requirements of the Standing Order according to our practice have been fulfilled.


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


Yvon Pinard: Ring the bells again.


Harvie Andre: I find it very surprising that the very clear language of-

February 14, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Yvon Pinard: Ring the bells again.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, it is a substantive point of order that I am raising.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Allow him to raise it.


Harvie Andre: The new Standing Orders, after examination by a committee of this House for many months, state very specifically that it should be printed in the Votes and Proceedings.
You have now ruled, Madam Speaker, in spite of this language, in spite of the fact that procedure has not been followed that, in essence, the Standing Order goes out of the window. That establishes a precedent, and I would like it taken into very careful consideration as to where it will lead us in this House. There may, in fact, be a very major point of order on it. Specifically there is another part of Standing Order 47(1) which states in the first line, not the last line, the following:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave-
You have indicated that publication in the Notice Paper has the same meaning as publication in Votes and Proceedings something which, as I indicated, we will argue on another occasion, but surely publication in today's Notice Paper does not constitute 48 hours. Surely there is at most only a few hours between the time when-


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker has ruled on that.


Erik Nielsen: No, she has not.


Harvie Andre: -this appeared and when the Minister planned to introduce his Bill. Is the Chair going to say that past practices have eliminated the 48 hours as well? If so, this House is put into a hopeless situation. The Government House Leader had indicated the intention orally last Thursday. But I would again remind Hon. Members, Madam Speaker, of Citation 395 of Beauchesne's which reads that oral notices do not exist.


Yvon Pinard: Look at Citation No. 400 in Beauchesne.


Harvie Andre: If oral notices do not exist, we are in a circumstance where it is quite possible that on a Friday afternoon, at five minutes to five o'clock, a Minister may table notice of an introduction of a Bill, or some other form of notice having a very important impact. As Members of Parliament we will see that on Monday for the first time and be faced with a motion that day of who knows what kind of import. It could be very profound in its implications.
If the line of reasoning you have given in regard to the previous point of order carries over to this point of order, Madam Speaker, we will have, in effect, done away with the 48 hours' notice as well. We would be in a situation where no warning whatsoever is given.


Erik Nielsen: Forget the warning.


Harvie Andre: It behooves the Chair to examine the responsibilities that the Chair and the Table have toward the House-not toward the Government so that it may pursue what it wants and rubber stamp everything it does-that procedures are handled properly and that we get proper notice of what the Government wants to rubber stamp before we are called upon to rubber stamp it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is hardly in a position to defend his argument today. He is complaining about the fact that the Opposition might be taken by surprise because the notice has not been printed in Votes and Proceedings and because that notice was given Friday afternoon at 4.55. There is nothing new there, Madam Speaker. It is an old practice, as you said yourself in your ruling. I deplore the fact that he has again wasted five minutes to criticize your ruling. The Hon. Member has no right to do that. In my opinion, he is showing disrespect for Parliament, and I maintain that he has absolutely no grievance today, for the simple reason that we did give verbal notice before the written notice in the Order Paper. We did not have to do that, but simple courtesy-

I am sorry. Perhaps the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) does not hear the translation very well. Maybe he would prefer that I speak in English. 1 will do so.


Erik Nielsen: Speak in French. That is all right.


Yvon Pinard: Well, I will continue my remarks in French, Madam Speaker, but Hon. Members must hear me out. They have been trying to interrupt me for some time. A Member of the Opposition has shown disrespect for Parliament during five minutes when he criticized the ruling you have just made. His argument is unfounded. It has been our practice for the past 15 years and, besides, there is no precedent because, although we were not compelled to do so, we did give verbal notice last Thursday of our intention to introduce this Bill today. The only thing the Hon. Member is trying to do once again is to find an excuse to bring Parliament to a standstill one way or another, and that is-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.

I will hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I will not hear any other Member.


Ian Deans: about dealing with the amount of notice required and the procedure to be used for the introduction of a Bill.
I would suggest that the events of December 22 are significant in consideration of this. What happened prior to December 22 is related to the Standing Orders that had been adopted in 1978. Had it been the intention of the Government, the Official Opposition, the NDP or any Member of the House of Commons to adopt or adapt the December 22 Standing Orders to conform with the procedures used prior to December 22, we would have changed the Standing Order appropriately.
The decision on December 22 was that this was an appropriate Standing Order, that these were appropriate proceedings and were therefore the proceedings that should be followed. I put it quite bluntly to the Government that if it had been its intention to move another procedure, it may well have been the one that was in fact the practice of the day, then there should have been a change to the Standing Orders of December 22. The fact that the House of Commons accepted a Standing Order in the manner it was written is a clear indication that the House of Commons intended that to be the method used for the introduction of Bills.
I therefore suggest that had there been no such thing as the December 22 debate, no such thing as the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders that were adopted on that day, then it only would have been appropriate, and quite so, to refer back to practices carried out prior to that day.
However, this is the first occasion, to my knowledge, when this matter has risen since the implementation of the December 22 Standing Orders. The House of Commons is entitled on this first occasion to ask that the order that it approved be adhered to specifically.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: The House of Commons is entitled to ask that whatever the practice was quite clearly it was not the practice that was approved by the House on December 22. Therefore, the manner of conducting business changed as of December 22, and while the words may well be the same, it was the intention of the House that those words be adhered to and that those intentions be followed.
I put to you, Madam Speaker, that it may well be appropriate, in cases where there is ambiguity, where there are serious doubts about the meaning of certain words, to refer to Beau-chesne or past practice. But as of December 22, the rules of the House of Commons were made clear. As of December 22, it is the wish of the Opposition that this particular rule be adhered to.


Madam Speaker:: May I remind Hon. Members that if the notice had been published in Votes and Proceedings and had been given at five minutes to five on Friday, it would have been sufficient time for the 48 hours to expire. That argument made by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) does not particularly apply to the situation. The formal notice was given on Friday and was published on Friday.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Where?
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Madam Speaker:: It was published in the Notice Paper, as is our practice.


Harvie Andre: What is the date on the Notice Paper?


Madam Speaker:: February 11, 1983. That notice was given on Friday and it was published and dated February 11, 1983.
With regard to the arguments made by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre, I would remind him that I am not throwing this Standing Order out the window. I am only saying that it means the same thing as it meant before because the wording that existed before the changes regarding this particular point has not been changed.
I want to tell Hon. Members that I know that this particular point was made to the Committee. The officers who had to review these Standing Orders asked the Committee whether it should not change that particular wording in order to bring it up to the practice that we have been following for 15 years. The members of the Committee decided not to change that wording. The interpretation that we have to make from that decision and from the conversation that took place at that time is that the Standing Order should remain as it was as it concerns this particular passage. It should, therefore, be interpreted in light of our longstanding practice.
That is the interpretation that the Chair now has of that particular Standing Order. Perhaps Hon. Members want to change that. Apparently, some Members of the House do not understand that it might have meant a change in the particular procedure for notices. That is quite obvious from what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has been telling us.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He is playing games.


Madam Speaker:: If Hon. Members want to change that, then they should give sufficient notice to everyone concerned. Bills have been treated in that way, even since the Standing Orders have been changed. Therefore, the Chair sees no reason to change the procedure for this particular Bill. Thanks Hon. Members for their arguments, but I regret to inform them of my interpretation that the notice is in order.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not rise to question your ruling. However, something was said in it that caught my ear, namely, that there were discussions between the Officers, and I presume you meant the Officers at the Table, and the members of the Special Committee with respect to the interpretation of this Standing Order, and a question was raised by the Table Officers with the members of the Special Committee as to whether they wanted to change the wording of this Standing Order.
I was under the impression that any of these matters which were discussed were discussed on an all-Party basis. Indeed, we had two or three meetings on an all-Party basis where representatives of all Parties were present with Table Officers,

February 14, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
discussing the kind of changes which would be necessary as a result of the adoption of the third report of the Special Committee. Indeed, the Table Officers had gone back to the membership of the Special Committee on two occasions of which I know. However, my point is that we were aware of those occasions on an all-Party basis.
This Standing Order was never, to my knowledge, a subject of discussions between Table Officers and the members of the Special Committee. To my recollection, which could be faulty, it was never explained to us attending those meetings of an allParty nature to discuss the consequential changes, that this particular rule had been the subject matter of any discussions between Table Officers and the members of the Special Committee. I thought I would make that point clear so that if any decisions were reached with respect to considering any changes in Standing Order 46-47?


Marc Lalonde: It does not matter, 47, 48.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is how your budget deficit goes.


Erik Nielsen: Those discussions were held completely outside the knowledge of any Member of the Official Opposition, and I believe that to be the case, also, with respect to the New Democratic Party.


Madam Speaker:: I think it must be quite clear that the Chair was not involved in those discussions, but those discussions were reported to the Chair. 1 assume those discussions were held with representatives of all Parties. 1 could not imagine that any Office of the Table would be discussing matters with only Members of one Party. If it were only with one Member or two Members, I am sure that those Members were delegated by the other Members of the Committee to deal with the matter. I cannot imagine any Officer of the House discussing any changes to the Standing Orders with only one or two of the Parties involved.
It is quite clear that at that time the members or representatives of the members of the Committee on Procedure and Organization indicated that they did not want to change the wording of the Standing Orders. Therefore, our interpretation of that particular discussion is that the Standing Order should be interpreted as it has been in the last 15 years.
If the House wants to change that, the Chair is at the disposal of the House. However, until now the Chair has received no notice that the interpretation of that particular Standing Order should be different from the one which I have given just now.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I just want to emphasize the fact that there have been no discussions by the Government or by the New Democratic Party or by Table Officers or by Your Honour's office with any Member of this Party with respect to changes to Standing Order 47 at any time.


Marc Lalonde: There have been no changes.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I ask for clarification of your ruling. You used the term, I believe, "once in the Notice Paper and the next day on the Order Paper." Since there is nothing in the Notice Paper for Friday, I would ask Your Honour to clarify your ruling in terms of the fact that the only time we have received notice through the Notice Paper is today. Therefore, I have difficulty in seeing how we can have notice and then notice the next day all happening on the same day.


Madam Speaker:: I think that was quite clear from the reference I gave the Hon. Member. The publication of a proposed motion once in the Notice Paper and the next day on the Order Paper is sufficient to cover two days' notice under former Standing Order 42, which is now Standing Order 47. That is quite clear, and I do not see what other explanation 1 could give the Hon. Member.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the point is that today is the first day it has been on the Notice Paper. It may have been tabled with the Officers at five minutes before five o'clock on February 11, last Friday, but today is the first day it has been on the Notice Paper. To follow the citation Your Honour read in order to justify not following Standing Order 47(1)-


Erik Nielsen: She is not listening to you. Wait for her.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as 1 was saying, the citation you read stated that notice is satisfied if it is published one day in the Notice Paper and the following day on the Order Paper. In fact, today is the first day it has been published in the Notice Paper.


Erik Nielsen: Anywhere.


Harvie Andre: It is the first day it has been published anywhere. It should have been published in Votes and Proceedings, but it was not. It must be published tomorrow in the Order Paper for it to satisfy the citation that Your Honour has read, to in fact overrule the wording of Standing Order 47(1).


Ian Deans: Absolutely. I do not always agree with you, Harve, but you are right on.


Mr. Bradley:: Ring March bells again.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Damned engineers.


Yvon Pinard: Ring the bells and go campaign.


Madam Speaker:: It is now quite clear to me exactly what this means. It has always been the practice, and even if notice were given at five minutes to five o'clock on Friday afternoon and thereafter published, as it has been now, the requirements of the Standing Orders would have been followed. Therefore, I do not see why Hon. Members are raising the question now, unless they want a complete change in a practice which has been followed in the House for fifteen years.


Erik Nielsen: Just comply with the Standing Orders.
February 14, 1983


Madam Speaker:: That is the problem we have usually had with weekends. If notice had been given on a weekday, we would not have had this problem, because the Notice Paper would have been published the next day. It was given on the weekend, and every weekend has been considered to constitute the proper time for publication of notice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, the notice is not to the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The notice is to this House. Whatever the practice of the Table Officers, whatever their administrative shorthand has been, if it has been wrong, then the attention of the House is drawn to it. Surely the Chair must comply with that.
In this particular case, there is a Notice Paper dated today, and it is clear, there is this item in a document dated today. There is no way that anyone can say that this is not a document dated today. There are items in here that, with the greatest of respect, bear a certain date-


An Hon. Member:: If you have respect, sit down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are not the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Standing Order does not say-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will not be howled down by a mob.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Respect the Chair!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I say that when it comes to respect to the Chair that in the chair I have faced a lot more unruliness than you chaps can put up any day.
In so far as this is concerned, and I am very serious here, this Standing Order must be complied with by the Table Officers, and there is nothing in our practices that provides for a practice for weekdays, but never on Sunday. This is a fact. There cannot be notice on Monday morning and a Minister allowed to introduce a particular piece of legislation that very afternoon, under any circumstances.


An Hon. Member:: Who says that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Hon. Member who is so learned in the rules asks who said that. The Chair said it, the Minister said it and the Government House Leader said it. But notice was given today to this House. There is no way that I can go down to the Clerk's Office at six o'clock and say: "All right, I want to see every notice." That has not been the practice. We do not do that. Therefore, what I am simply saying is that the language is patently clear, and I do not know by what authority, of the Chair or of anyone in this House, the language of the rules can be deliberately bypassed. Based upon soi disant precedents, you cannot do it. If we have to say mea culpa, we
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
were wrong, that is so, but let us say that that was wrong. That is the point that I am objecting to, that one considers these rules to be written in Sanskrit or some other language that no one in this House understands.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, it becomes very obvious that one of the reasons that the rules were reconsidered was that either the rules themselves were considered inadequate to keep the House properly informed, or that precedents or some other influence on the rules had made it impossible for the House to be satisfied with the conduct of the business of the House.
If one is to revert to all the precedents of rules prior to December 22, then the exercise of the revision of the rules has been for naught.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that what I have to say is in no way critical of you, nor do I intend to reflect on anything you may have said or chosen to rule upon, but I do submit to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that he is acting in extremely bad faith in trying to impose on you, as Speaker, and upon this House, his wish in spite of the very excellent rapport which existed during the procedures of that Committee. The intention of the Committee was to avoid some of the previous practices of the Government. It is because these practices were abhorred that so much time and patience was exercised to correct what was then construed to be a weakness in the rules which denied proper notice to the House and to the people of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I think that the House should apologize to you for the position in which you have been placed by this Government. The Government is trying to defy the very rules which in good faith were adopted with an intention and an interpretation by an all-Party Committee of this House, and it is now putting, you, Madam Speaker, in a very embarrassing position. The Government of this day, Madam Speaker, owes you and that Committee a heartfelt apology for its absolute neglect of the spirit and the intent of the work which was done to improve the rules, so that the House might be better informed and notified of what was going to happen.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Madam
Speaker, I do not want to dwell on the comments on your ruling, but nevertheless I must say a few words about the comments made by some of my colleagues, who seem to think the House should forget its past, its precedents and its history, just because a committee sat down and revised its rules. Madam Speaker, in its report the committee indicated that its work must go on. The committee did not tinker with all the Standing Orders, and in fact, most of them were left as they were.
When the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) says that on December 21, the history of the House of Commons changed and that now the Standing Orders are set

February 14, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
in a new mortar and is no longer flexible and that there is no longer any need or possibility for them to be interpreted by the Chair on the basis of past rulings and application of rulings I would remind the Hon. Member that it is not the first time the Standing Orders of the House have been revised, in whole or in part. In 1976, Hon. Members reached agreement on various kinds of reforms. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has been sitting in the House a little longer than I have. He has witnessed many reforms, and as a former Speaker of the House, I do not understand how he could forget that the House has provided interpretations of Standing Orders in the course of the years, and that the Chair has always been obliged to accept them and to act accordingly. For instance, Speaker Lamoureux applied the Standing Orders very strictly, on the basis of precedent. Speaker Jerome made quite a few innovations as far as interpreting the Standing Orders was concerned. Today, we are told that this Standing Order has been interpreted in this way for fifteen years. The Speaker says: If Hon. Members want it to be clarified, let them give me appropriate notice and let us get on with it. However, let us not waste our time here this afternoon with people telling us that on December 21, a group of Members-not senior, but junior Members-may have wanted to be more forward-looking. There have been others in the past who examined the Standing Orders. Well, because these junior Members submitted a report to the House which was adopted unanimously, it all means that we must realize we no longer have to refer to Beauchesne, not even for the interpretation of the slightest word, and those are the words of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.
Madam Speaker, I think that these Members want to take you through a dark tunnel, as it were, where you will never see the light. The future of this House is based on its history, on its part and on its precedents, and if we want to change our customs and procedures, this cannot be done at a moment's notice. Today, for example, Members are asking the Chair for an entirely new interpretation of one of the Standing Orders which during the last fifteen years, for reasons I ignore, has been given a much broader interpretation.
Madam Speaker, I think you would do well to be wary of agreeing with the interpretations given by the Members opposite with respect to dropping all our precedents and the entire history of the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Allow me, Madam Speaker, to make a correction. We had at least one meeting with the Clerk of the House and the House Leaders before Christmas and I heard a while ago the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) say that no one on that side had been consulted about the drafting of clause 47. I would like to refer to that meeting and it will be noted that a new text was indeed suggested. However, it was the member for Yukon himself who had asked that such an amendment not be made and that clause 47 remain as clause 42. Under such circumstances, there is no doubt that he was mistaken when he thought that no member from his party had
been consulted since he advocated the statu quo in the interpretation of that clause and this fact should be on record.


Madam Speaker:: Let us be quite clear about what is taking place. Supposing that we did not have a weekend and that the notice had been given today, Monday, and the notice would have been published in the Notice Paper on Tuesday. The notice would have been printed on the Order Paper on Wednesday. Therefore, Hon. Members would have no question. That is quite clear. All the requirements of the Standing Order would have been fulfilled.
The weekend has always posed a problem for the application of this particular Standing Order because the notice that is required is not two sitting days but 48 hours. When a notice is given on Friday, when we come into the House on Monday we have had the 48 hours' notice. That is the practice against which I interpret the situation today. If Hon. Members wanted to change that, they had the chance to change it. They did not want to change it. Our interpretation is that they do not want to change it because they wanted Standing Order 47(1) to be interpreted as Standing Order 42 was interpreted, and that is what the Chair is doing.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I will not accept any more interventions on this particular situation. If the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has another point of order, I will be glad to listen to it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the point of order that I would bring to your attention does not bear on this point but on the law of the land. As I understand the provisions of the Lords Day Act and the Interpretation Act, which applies to all laws and statutory provisions of every kind in Canada, they regard Sunday as a non-juridical day. They do not involve those-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The practice of the House is quite different.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipcg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise, not to quarrel with your ruling, but merely to comment on something that you said while you were making your ruling that ought to be commented on. That is your comment about the Special Committee. The Special Committee, by not changing this particular rule, neither added to the credibility of that rule nor took away from it, because it was not even considered.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That point might be well taken when Members again meet in Committee. I would urge Members to discuss again this matter in the Committee. Obviously we cannot resolve it here in the House in these discussions. The question should be re-discussed in the Committee, and I would urge Hon. Members to do just that.
February 14, 1983


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will understand that I have heard enough commentaries on this point of order. I have now ruled. Therefore, there cannot be any commentaries on that ruling. If the Hon. Member wants to discuss it in general, he knows that this is not the time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I did not bring up the Committee, you did. All right? You are the one that brought up the Committee in your ruling.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, but the Chair has to give its arguments. If the Chair can, it should be explicit. I thought that it would be a good idea to be explicit on this particular point because obviously there was some confusion. Because I mentioned it, that does not mean that the Hon. Member is now entitled to make comments on the broader question of all the changes that might be brought to certain Standing Orders.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I have a question of clarification. In your Honour's ruling, you suggested that the reason for the kind of departure from the new Standing Order 47 is certain past practices. The past practices of the Table are the kind of Friday habits that the Table has got into. I think these can apply unless challenged. With the current practices, or whatever the practices are, the citation in Beauchesne, Citation 400, has to take precedence over the Friday habits of the Table.


Madam Speaker:: That might happen in the future, but until the Chair is advised that that is the interpretation that is put on that particular Standing Order, the Chair has no choice but to rule as it did.



BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT


Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C- "An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority."


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, 1 have a point of order with respect to the Minister's request for leave to introduce a Bill to provide the Government with supplementary borrowing authority. It is our position on this side that by attempting to introduce a borrowing authority Bill at this time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is committing a breach of the procedures and practices of this House. Madam Speaker, since we have just had a great deal of discussion as to what the practices are, it may be helpful in your consideration of my submission.
First, it is customary for the Government to produce a fiscal statement prior to requesting borrowing authority and, second, the Minister is breaking a contract and an undertaking that he
Borrowing Authority
made with this House at the time he last received supplementary borrowing authority. With your indulgence, I have two arguments to make.
First, with respect to the custom of presenting a fiscal statement to Parliament prior to requesting borrowing authority, one should look at the practice followed at the time of a budget. Before seeking borrowing authority the Government lays out a detailed statement of its projected revenues and requirements. Apart from the fact that it is only by generating such projections that the Government can reasonably predict what its borrowing requirements are, such projections are prerequisites for us as an informed Opposition to have an intelligent debate in Parliament. The Government should not expect, nor should Parliament grant, borrowing authority in cases where there is not a demonstrated need for additional funds. We submit that the Government should provide those statements now, before the Bill is introduced.
This House has been consistent in its demands that the Government's borrowing not exceed the requirements that it has demonstrated to the House. That was the principle which led to the splitting of the last borrowing Bill. That was the principle that led to the Government backing off on the amount of $4 billion.
I want to refer specifically to Erskine May, page 3 where it talks about the principles of parliamentary law. I am not here to give a long lecture on the principles of parliamentary law, but I want to suggest one item to the Chair. It reads:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner-
I emphasize that.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will interrupt the Hon. Member because I do not quite understand what his point of order is. Is the Hon. Member debating the motion to put the Bill for first reading? He knows he cannot debate that. If the House does not want to accept that the motion be put, we can vote on it, but there is no discussion and no debate at this particular time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there will be plenty of debate once we get to it. The point I am trying to make to the Chair is that the Minister has no business asking for leave when he has not complied with the customary practices of this House which are to provide financial statements ahead of time. On a borrowing authority Bill, he cannot have his leave without presenting us with the statements upon which he is going to ask for that authority.
I referred in my submission to comments made by Ministers. I want to refer briefly to two further comments. The former Minister of Finance stated in June 1982:
I would therefore tell the committee that I would anticipate coming back to the House to request additional borrowing authority sometime prior to the end of the fiscal year. But I would not expect the House to act upon an additional request for borrowing authority without providing it with detailed information on the economic situation and the implications of that situation on the Government's fiscal situation.

February 14, 1983
Borrowing A uthority
Briefly, the second point I wish to make is that, setting aside that argument and the undertakings which they gave, they are now coming back to us, hat in hand, asking the Chair and the House to ignore previous procedure and to consider a borrowing Bill without any economic statements. That is the point of order I make to you, Madam Speaker. We cannot entertain the motion for leave without the economic statements upon which the Minister is asking for his borrowing Bill.


Madam Speaker:: As I understand it, Hon. Members do not agree that the Minister may leave to introduce his Bill at this particular time on supplementary borrowing authority. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.
(Division No. 295)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Dionne	KaplanAxworthy	(Northumberland-	KellyBachand	Miramichi)	Killens (Mrs.)Berger	Dubois	LachanceBlais	Duclos	LajoieBlaker	Dupont	LalondeBloomfield	Erola (Mrs.)	LamontagneBockstael	Ethier	LangBossy	Evans	LanielBreau	Ferguson	LapierreBurghardt	Fisher	LapointeBussieres	Flis	(Charlevoix)Caccia	Foster	LapointeCampbell (Miss)	Fox	(Beauce)(South West Nova)	Francis	LeBlancCampbell	Frith	Leduc(LaSalle)	Garant	LefebvreCampbell	Gauthier	Loiselle(Cardigan)	Gendron	MacBainChenier	Gingras	MackaseyCollenette	Gourd	MacLarenCorbin	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacLellanCosgrove	Gourde	MaltaisCote (Mrs.)	(Levis)	MarceauCousineau	Gray	MasseCullen	Guilbault	MastersCyr	Harquail	McCauleyDaudlin	Henderson	McRaeDawson	Herbert	Nicholson (Miss)De Bane	Hervieux-Payette	Parentde Corneille	(Mrs.)	PelletierDeniger	Hopkins	PepinDesmarais	Hudecki	PetersonDingwall	Irwin	PinardDion	Isabelle	PortelanceDionne	Johnston	Regan(Chicoutimi)	Joyal	
Messrs.
Reid	Smith	Turner(Kenora-Rainy River)	Tessier	VeilletteRoberts	Tobin	WatsonRompkey Schroder	Trudeau
NAYS Messrs.	Weatherhead-Althouse	Greenaway	McKinnonAndre	Gurbin	McKnightAnguish	Gustafson	McMillanBaker	Hamilton	Miller(Nepean-Carleton)	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MitgesBenjamin	Mountain)	MunroBlaikie	Hawkcs	(Esquimalt-Blenkarn	Heap	MurtaBosley	Hnatyshyn	NeilBradley	Howie	NickersonBroadbent	Jarvis	NielsenCardiff	Keeper	OgleCarney (Miss)	Kempling	ParkerClarke	Kilgour	Robinson(Vancouver Quadra)	King	(Burnaby)Cooper	Korchinski	RoseCossitt (Mrs.)	Lambert	ScottCrosby	Lewis	(Hamilton-'(Halifax West)	Lewycky	ScottDantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	(Victoria-HDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	SiddonDeans	Malone	Stewartde Jong	Mazankowski	TaylorEllis	McCain	ThackerEpp	McCuish	TowersFennell	McDermid	VankoughnetForrestall	McDonald (Ms.)	WrightFretz	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Young-76.Fulton Gamble	McKenzie	
During the taking of the vote:


Some Hon. Members:: Out.


Madam Speaker:: 1 believe the Hon. Member may stay in the House, but I suppose since he arrived after the proceedings started, he cannot vote, but he can stay in the House.
And the Clerk proceeding to announce the result of the vote:


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) has entered the House after the Whips took their seats, and in view of Standing Order 15(2), I would invite the Speaker to rule as to whether or not the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's should be allowed to vote. We have no quarrel, Madam Speaker, with the fact he wears no necktie because, obviously, he is suffering some discomfort.


Mr. Simmons:: Madam Speaker, 1 regret getting here after the bell stopped ringing. With the 50 Tory backbenchers absent, at least I am here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) please tell the House whether he was in the House when the voting proceedings started.


Roger Simmons: I was here-
February 14, 1983


An Hon. Member:: You liar. You liar.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I was here when the voting began.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Privilege, Madam Speaker-


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I was not here-


An Hon. Member:: You are a liar.


Roger Simmons: Hold it, guys. You might learn something.


An Hon. Member:: Not from you!


Roger Simmons: 1 was not here when the bells stopped ringing, but I am here now, unlike 50 Tories.


Madam Speaker:: That is not the question that I asked the Hon. Member. I asked the Hon. Member whether he was in the House when the voting proceedings started. In other words, did he enter the House after the question was put?


Roger Simmons: No, Madam Speaker, 1 was not in the House when the question was put.


Harvie Andre: Liar!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, obviously I withdraw that remark. I misheard what the Hon. Member said.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Since the Hon. Member was not in the House at the beginning of the voting proceedings, I have to ask that his name be removed from the list of voting Members.

The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, on February 8 I again raised questions with respect to the Greymac Mortgage Company and Seaway Mortgage Company fiasco. This is clearly within the responsibility of the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) advised the House a week ago that the Government was aware, on or before March 31, 1982, that Greymac Mortgage Company and Seaway Mortgage Company were both in default under the Loan and Trust Companies Acts, that they were not managing their affairs properly under those Acts and that the Government had put those two corporations on what he said was a short leash. Indeed, they were advised that their licences would only be extended for a two-month period and they were put under severe restrictions with respect to their investment activities.
Clearly, more had to be done than that. The Government knew that these corporations were associated with two trust companies, both licensed under the Province of Ontario, being Seaway Trust Company and Greymac Trust Company. The Government had an obligation to advise the Province of Ontario, through the loan and trust company people operating trust company affairs in that Province, of what it knew about the mortgage corporations.
I asked the Minister whether he would make a statement on motions to tell the House what he knew and what he had told his counterpart in the Province of Ontario. The Minister made fun of that suggestion. He said that somewhere along the line he had Conservatives fighting with Conservatives. I do not think there is anything funny or any fight about Conservatism with respect to the matter.
The situation is that the Government is responsible for the maintenance of a sound financial system in the country. The Government is further responsible under the management of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to ensure that member companies licensed under that arrangement comply with sound business practices and sound financial requirements under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Clearly the Government acted as a sleeping policeman. Clearly the Government had some sort of idea that the honest principals behind Greymac and Seaway would do something right. It continued to let Greymac and Seaway operate as mortgage corporations, licensed and permitted to operate under the umbrella protection of Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. It continued to let them operate under the Loan Companies and Trust Companies Acts. It made no effort to terminate their arrangements in the Province of Ontario. Indeed, with respect to Greymac, the Government allowed the principals in Greymac to become involved in a third trust company, Crown Trust, in September 1982, without doing anything about it, without blowing the whistle, without calling a halt.

February 14, 1983
Adjournment Debate
The Government stands indicted for its failure to do something. All sorts of people placed their money with Greymac and Seaway during 1982. Indeed, those corporations were touched by the Province of Ontario as being a fair place for boards of education and municipalities to put surplus funds. My own board of education, the Peel Board of Education, on January 1 of this year put $3 million with Greymac. My own municipality, the Municipality of Mississauga, in March 1982 advanced to Greymac Mortgage Corporation $1 million on a note for one year.
Somewhere along the line the Government, responsible for Greymac and responsible for Seaway, through its mortgage corporation arm, and certainly under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, had a responsibility to act. It did not act. People have suffered. Tremendous losses have been incurred. It is time for the Government to come clean.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, in my previous comments in the House during Question Period, responding generally to the observations of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I indicated that pursuant to Section 73(1) of the Loan Companies Act, as in the case of the two federal mortgage loan companies here involved, the Superintendent makes a report to the Minister as to his concern about the ability of companies to continue business under the provisions of existing licences. Section 73(2) of the Act further provides that the Minister, upon receiving that report, shall first of all hear the principals of the company as to the information given by the Superintendent in his report, and then shall determine at that point what course of action the federal Government should follow.
I am still in the process of receiving submissions by principals of the company as represented by solicitors. As a matter of fact, as late as Tuesday of last week, further submissions were made by the company to its solicitors and principals, and the proceedings were adjourned in order for them to file even further material. Until such time as they have completed their submissions, and I have made a report on this matter bearing on the very issues raised by the Hon. Member, as I have indicated, it is not possible for me to go into some of the details which the Hon. Member has requested.
I might be able to assist the Hon. Member, if he is concerned, as he has indicated he is by indicating that provincial authorities who are responsible for the parent companies of the mortgage companies, for which there is responsibility on the part of the Superintendent of Insurance under federal legislation, and the Province of Ontario, which has a responsibility, were somewhat prejudiced in that they may have gained information from the federal Government about the subsidiaries, that they did not have, which pertained to the companies. I can put his mind to rest. There is continuous discussion and communication between the officials of both departments, and at all times officials of the Province, responsible for the parent companies, were aware of all of the actions taken by the federal Government.


INDUSTRY-LAY-OFFS IN SOUTHEAST BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL PROJECTS
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, on January 27 I raised a question with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) regarding the $1 billion which the federal and provincial Governments have provided to support a coal industry in northeastern British Columbia. This is a very important question for my riding because it deals with coal.
Coal is very important in Kootenay-East Revelstoke. It provides jobs for thousands of people and is the reason for the existence of towns such as Sparwood and Fernie. But the existence of those towns is threatened. In the community of Sparwood alone 2,000 coal miners have had temporary layoffs. Four hundred workers have had indefinite lay-offs and this project has not yet come onstream.
That figure of 2,000 lay-offs is pretty significant. I saw the same figure when I was reading the 1982-1983 Economic Review and Outlook published by the British Columbia Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. That review had a section on northeast coal. It stated that the development would create 2,000 new jobs at the mine site alone. That is quite a coincidence. While Governments are planning 2,000 new coal jobs in the northeast, 2,000 coal miners are being laid off in the southeastern part of British Columbia.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was careful when he answered my question to point out that the federal Government had been involved in developing northeast coal. He said he wanted it understood that the federal Government had substantially assisted the British Columbia Government in this venture. Between the two levels of government the assistance is substantial indeed. That help in the form of railways, roads, a new town site and seaport will come to about $1 billion. The coal companies will be putting up only $1.6 billion. That is quite a massive subsidy considering what some of the people from the southern coal companies have had to say.
Mr. Bob Brady of B.C. Coal said of the southeastern producers:
We could have expanded to meet the demand and it wouldn't have cost the taxpayer a cent. The infrastructure is all there.
Mr. Jerry Joynt of Fording Coal said the same thing. The point is that the B.C. and federal Governments have spent a billion dollars of taxpayers money and the main effect will be to destroy over 2,000 jobs in one place and create those same jobs somewhere else.
These communities will be badly hurt by this; the families will suffer upheaval and unemployment. I called upon the Government to do something, by ensuring that northeast coal did not come on stream until southeast coal production was approaching its capacity. The only thing the Minister could say was that he could not decide which Governments buy coal and from whom.
February 14, 1983

However, the Government could take steps. If it was not building the infrastructure for those companies, then other countries would be more likely to use the resources already available. The Government could also work with the British Columbia Government to encourage it to set up a mechanism for the orderly marketing of coal. Similar programs were set up in Saskatchewan under the NDP Government to protect towns and jobs. This worked in Saskatchewan because the Government had the will to act.
I called upon the Government to take those two necessary steps to protect the jobs and towns of southeastern British Columbia. The Minister said, "I wish I had control over the market." 1 want to say that the Government has created this problem. Many railway workers are dependent upon this industry. Many communities that provide the substructure are dependent upon it. The Government has the responsibility because it created the problem. I urge the Minister to immediately request a meeting between his Department and the B.C. Government to ensure that this injustice does not take place because of the subsidies provided by the two levels of Government.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the invitation of the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), I can say that if ever British Columbia wants to meet with Industry, Trade and Commerce officials, there will be no problem. Our doors are open and we would be happy to discuss the whole question of the coal industry both in southern and northern British Columbia.
First of all, I want to mention that Canadian coal exports began mostly in 1970, when we were able to export some 1.35 billion tons, which was the handled tonnage at that time, and that we now export 16.2 million tons per year, which represents assets of $1.03 billion. It is important to note at this stage, Mr. Speaker, that it is only since 1976 that British Columbia has had major investments in the coal industry and the planning of coal mines in the northeastern part of the province. The industry really began at that time, in 1976. Full capacity production for the first two mines, namely Quintette (Denison) and Bullmoose (Teck Corporation), is expected to be reached by 1985. We cannot say therefore that we have fallen behind. A normal schedule has been followed for planning and development.
Another important element which should be noted, Mr. Speaker, is that the Federal Government did not invest directly in the coal mines, but provided assistance for the infrastructures. It is therefore not the Federal Government which is investing in British Columbia coal mines, but the private sector. It is very important to make this distinction. When the Federal Government invests in infrastructures, it expects a cost-benefit relationship to recover the amounts invested. It is therefore only a matter of sound management. The Govern-
Adjournment Debate
ment of British Columbia supports those projects through massive investments in the infrastructure and by extending power lines and railway tracks to the new mines. Federal support is aimed at upgrading the CN lines between Prince George and Prince Rupert, a project which will certainly benefit a great many industries, including wheat producers and lumber mills.
Mr. Speaker, since it is rather difficult to answer such questions in three minutes, I might prefer to table the document which contains the answers I have here, so that they will appear as an appendix to Hansard. I think that would give an excellent idea of the answer to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the current lay-offs in southeastern British Columbia have nothing to do with the northeastern projects, because the first deliveries of coal from that region are not expected before December 1983. In the meantime, the development of coal deposits in the northeastern region and the setting up of the related infrastructure provide a sizeable number of jobs for British Columbia workers. I have very interesting notes and I think that the Hon. Member might like to have them. I will pass them on to him immediately after completing my remarks. However, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible, I would like to table this document and have it appended to Hansard so that our readers will see it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry, but I should explain to the Parliamentary Secretary that no other proceedings are permitted during the adjournment proceedings. He may want to look to another occasion when he can do that, but I noted that he offered to make it available to the Hon. Member, in any event.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF HABITUAL CRIMINALS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pursue a question which I asked of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), on February 8, last. The question related to the status of habitual criminals in Canadian penitentiaries and noted that legislation was being promised by the former Minister of Justice in 1977 to ensure that a full review would be made of all persons who were presently incarcerated as habitual criminals, in light of the new criteria which were established in the 1977 dangerous offenders legislation.
In the limited time I have this afternoon, I will cite from an excellent, very comprehensive study which was prepared by Professor Michael Jackson of the Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, entitled "Sentences That Never End, the Report on the Habitual Criminal Study". I will also refer to the complaint which was made to the United Nations Human Rights Committee by Mr. Robert Haddock, who is currently a prisoner at Kent Penitentiary in British Columbia. He alleged that Canada is in breach of Article 15 of the International

February 14, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and failed to perform its duty under Article 2 of that Covenant.
In 1947, Canada enacted, through amendments to the Criminal Code, habitual criminal legislation. Effectively, under this legislation, a person who had been found to be a habitual criminal could be sentenced to preventive detention; in other words, an indeterminate sentence under which a person could be imprisoned for the rest of his or her life, subject to reviews by the National Parole Board. That legislation was reviewed in 1969 by the Ouimet Committee, which came to the conclusion that the habitual criminal legislation should in fact be repealed and replaced by dangerous offender legislation which focused clearly on those individuals who constituted a continuing danger to the personal safety of others, and were not simply social nuisances of some sort.
1 might note that in the application of this legislation, there was great geographical inequity. In fact, of the 80 persons who were sentenced to preventive detention, 45 were sentenced in British Columbia and 39 of those 45 were sentenced in the City of Vancouver. The reason for that is well known to those who are familiar with the criminal justice system in Vancouver in the 1960s. It was the then senior Crown counsel, Mr. Steward McMorran, now a county court judge, who invoked this habitual criminal legislation, basically to deter, as much as possible, in what he called the wild west posse state of justice, criminals who might have come to British Columbia from other Provinces.
Following the recommendation of the Ouimet Committee, in 1977, some eight years after the Committee reported, its recommendations were enacted by the federal Government. The old habitual criminal legislation was replaced by new dangerous offender legislation in Part 21 of the Criminal Code.
The new dangerous offenders legislation emphasizes that the offender must have committed an indictable offence that involved the use of violence against another person, or conduct that constituted a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well being of other persons, punishable by a sentence of ten or more years. There are other specific criteria, as well.
At the time this legislation was implemented, the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ron Basford, gave a commitment to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He stated that, as a matter of policy, all those persons sentenced under the old habitual criminal legislation would be reviewed by the Parole Board. He said:
Then there were questions about those already in the penitentiaries as dangerous sexual offenders or habitual criminals. They are covered by the old Code, but as a matter of policy their cases will be reviewed once a year.
This is the critical portion:
They will be reviewed on the basis by the Parole Board against the new formulation of what a dangerous offender is. That does not obviously guarantee that they will be paroled, but it does mean that their cases will be reviewed in accordance with the new standard.
That commitment made by the then Minister of Justice was never fulfilled. To this day it has not been fulfilled and it is on that basis that Mr. Robert Haddock and a number of other
habitual criminals argue that their cases should in fact be reviewed.
Time does not allow me to summarize all the findings of the study conducted by Professor Jackson, but certainly I can summarize the major findings. They are, first of all, that the majority of men who were part of the study have always been regarded not as serious, dangerous offenders in terms of their propensity to commit violence, but rather as serious social nuisances. Professor Jackson came to the conclusion that none of these men could properly be regarded as dangerous offenders within the definition of the 1977 legislation, and that the parole board had not been using those criteria in conducting its reviews of the men involved. It notes as well that the length of time that has been served by these people is greatly disproportionate to the harm or damage they have done and the risk of further harm or damage they may pose to the public.
Professor Jackson argues that in fact if there is not speedy redress of their grievances that the Government will be in breach of Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
Professor Jackson makes two key recommendations, first, that legislation should be introduced providing for judicial review of all habitual criminals to determine whether or not they are dangerous offenders within the definition of the 1977 dangerous offenders' legislation and, second, and very importantly considering the people we are dealing with and the lengthy terms of imprisonment they have served, that resources be made available on a voluntary basis to facilitate the establishment and reintegration of former habitual criminals into the community.
I was encouraged by the response of the Minister of Justice to my question on February 8. I hope that he will in fact implement the recommendations of Professor Jackson's study and once and for all redress what is obviously a very serious grievance that has led to complaints before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and certainly an injustice with respect to the individuals involved.


Mr. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, Department officials have examined Professor Jackson's report, which was referred to by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The Minister met with Professor Jackson in Ottawa recently concerning his report. As a result we are exploring the feasibility of various methods that might be available, both under current law and, if necessary, under new legislation, to remedy the situation, bearing in mind the need both to be fair to the individuals in question and to ensure that no dangerous individuals are released.
The Hon. Member will know that Professor Jackson's study related only to habitual offenders incarcerated in the Province of British Columbia. The facts surrounding habitual offenders incarcerated outside of British Columbia must also be exam-
February 14. 1983

ined. Particular attention must be paid to offenders who were incarcerated under the habitual offenders' provision but whose offences would qualify them for a finding as dangerous offenders under the existing Criminal Code provisions and give cause for concern over their prospective release from custody.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), are consulting with respect to the most proper and appropriate means of maintaining the delicate balance between individual rights and the welfare and protection of society as a whole.
The calls for new legislation give rise to concern, for a number of reasons. New legislation is time consuming; it imposes a potentially large burden on the courts to review cases and it does not address the pre-1977 convictions for
Adjournment Debate
offences that could give rise to a post-1977 application under Part XXI.
Alternatively, if an existing mechanism can be found that offers a way to review these cases in light of the need to balance the concern for fairness to the individuals involved and the concern for protecting the public against any members of the group who are dangerous, it would seem preferable to employ such a mechanism. If no such mechanism is available, then new legislation would be considered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 15, 1983