1983-12-16

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am making a further plea for the tourist industry in my riding of Grey-Simcoe and throughout Canada. There is no question that the tourist industry in Canada is in dire straits. It is not only faced with serving fewer tourists, but it has to deal as well with detriments and roadblocks created by the various Governments, especially in the field of taxation, such as taxes on accommodation, taxes on food, and extremely high taxes on alcoholic beverages and on gasoline. To top this off, the tourist industry is facing yet another detriment, another hike in fares by the six major airlines in Canada.
In the first seven months of this year hotel beverage income was down, and occupancy has dropped a further 10 per cent. On the other hand, the federal Government raked in $6 billion in alcohol taxes alone in 1981-82, a 16 per cent jump, not to mention the added billions garnished by the provincial Governments.
Surely it is quite evident that by raising travelling costs, by charging almost double for a gallon of gasoline than do our neighbours to the south, by excessive taxation on spirits, and the high cost of accommodation in Canada, everything possible is being done to discourage foreign tourists from coming to Canada. Everything possible is being done to discourage a real opportunity to increase tourism and reduce our tourist deficit further. Therefore, I call upon all branches of all Governments across our country to get together and apply some much needed common sense to solve our tourist problems so that we can get on with the job of developing this very important industry to its full potential.
* *


VIA RAIL
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is announcing today,
outside Parliament, the restoration of certain of the VIA Rail services that were abandoned by the Government, outside Parliament, and without public hearings, last year. My Party, which held the public hearings which this Government refused to hold, and which opposed the unilateral shutdown of VIA Rail services, is pleased that the Government is beginning to reverse its position.
However, I am most concerned that the announcements that are being made today make no reference to the VIA line between Edmonton and Vancouver. That is one of the major tourist routes in Canada and should be restored immediately. Effective rail passenger service on that line would not only help the local economy in western Canada, it would have significant positive impact upon Canadian tourism, our balance of payments, and upon Canadian economic recovery generally. Also, it would add dramatically to Canadian national unity because it would be good for the people of this country to have an easy opportunity to see the grandeur of the Canadian Rocky Mountains and to feel a part of our country.
Let me speak briefly of the community of Jasper. That community has been hit hard three times by transportation policies of this Government. First, there has been a reluctance to give us adequate air transport. Second, there have been continuing threats to close down the Banff-Jasper Highway. Finally, there has been the unilateral abandonment of VIA Rail service. It may be that the Minister is letting out his announcement a piece at a time in accord with his own political agenda. I make the point that the economic and tourist development of western Canada is too important to leave to the Minister's political agenda. I hope he will restore the VIA service immediately.


DANGERS PRESENTED BY PROLIFERATION OF PERSONAL HEADPHONE STEREO SETS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, millions of portable stereo sound systems are being sold around the world. Strapped to your belt and listened to by headphones, these personal stereos have become the fad among joggers and cyclists. While a recent article in The British Medical Journal praised the virtues of these sound systems, others have warned that they can lure the unwary to destruction of their hearing, particularly when the volume is turned up. Recent research at Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford has shown that these personal stereos can produce up to 105 decibels of sound. By comparison, at ten feet the noise of a pneumatic drill is 90 decibels.
254

December 16, 1983
This being the case, I share the concern of Dr. William Lund, a consultant at Radcliffe, who is of the opinion that any noise above 90 decibels is dangerous to hearing. If the measurement of the noise level of these earphone systems is correct, the hearing of thousands of young people is at risk. Therefore, I urge the Government to bring in regulations such that Canadian manufacturers of these sound systems must provide some form of warning mechanism, which could include a light designed to come on when the sound being transmitted reaches 90 decibels, a noise level above which hearing could be impaired.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, an Alberta director of the Canadian Medical Association and past President of the Alberta Medical Association was reported in the Edmonton Journal yesterday as saying that the federal Tories would have been dead ducks if they had taken a stand against the Canada Health Act. "Let's face it, politics is politics", Dr. Wally Mydland said Wednesday after the federal Tories announced their support. "If a party wants to be elected they can't be against motherhood", commented the Calgary surgeon. Instead, he said, the federal Tories will try to defuse this potentially touchy election issue, and have promised that "when they got in power they'd fix it up and make it right for us". This analysis is confirmed by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave).
[DOT] (MIO)
This report throws useful light on the curious haste with which the Tory caucus members indicated their unconditional support for a Canada Health Act that is aimed at preventing extra billing and user fees, two practices which they had never previously criticized in the House, and which calls for penalties for those practices, something which they always resisted.
The Conservatives are becoming more and more like the Liberals every day, Mr. Speaker. We now have official opposition by Decima Poll as well as government by Gallup Poll. We in the New Democratic Party are the ones who really pioneered medicare in Saskatchewan, not the Liberals or Tories whose revisionist account of the history of medicare yesterday would qualify them for a scholarship from the Soviet Academy of Sciences.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted to the Hon. Member has, unfortunately, expired.


EMPLOYMENT RETRAINING SCHEME SUGGESTED FOR LIBERAL PARTY BACK-BENCHERS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians witness the collapse of the Liberal Government and see its Ministers and high poobahs absconding with everything that is not nailed down, we do, however, have a certain degree of sympathy for the poor Grit back-benchers who have been denied their fair share of the spoils. They are scurrying around sending out resumes, and searching desperately for anything that will keep them out of the soup lines after the next election.
In the spirit of charity and magnanimity which will characterize the next Conservative Government, I therefore suggest a scheme of job retraining for Liberal back-benchers designed to avoid the spectacle of ex-MPs lining up outside UIC offices. Despite severe ossification of the mental facilities, unavoidable after years of association with the likes of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), and Senator Keith Davey, I am sure that some of these poor souls are salvageable. With tender loving care, a few of these poor Liberal back-benchers might be taught the rudiments of honest toil, and even, I might suggest, how to tie their own shoelaces.


UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, 1984 will mark a very historic event in the evolution of our nation. During the American Revolution many remained faithful to the Crown of England and came to what is now Ontario. Those people were of many nationalities. We in Canada owe a great deal to those early settlers, and therefore we should not only celebrate the event but pay tribute to the almost 40,000 individuals who pioneered this country in 1983 and 1984.
The heritage which those people brought to Canada two hundred years ago is a tradition of which I am proud to be a part, a tradition which is available to all Canadians regardless of whether they claim United Empire Loyalist ancestry or not. The Loyalist bicentennial offers Canadians a means of gaining a better understanding and appreciation of themselves by examining the rich legacy left by those individuals.
It is unfortunate, and indeed a sad situation, that the federal Government has a strange standard which is being applied to Canadian historical events. The Loyalists introduced such British political institutions as representative government, the constitutional cornerstone around which a system of parliamentary democracy based on a constitutional monarchy has protected the rights of minorities in Canada.
It is unfortunate that the present federal Government continues its selective approach to events such as the UEL bicen-
December 16, 1983

tennial and is ignoring this important legacy given to Ontario and Canada. It is just this type of partisan extravagance that turns one part of Canada against another, one Canadian against another. With the unfortunate unemployment situation in southeastern Ontario, and with the tourist industry in need of promotion, it would only seem fair to create employment and offer a much needed boost to this area on an equal basis.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on June 29 the previous Minister of Employment and Immigration completed a year spent studying a thousand briefs from the public, by announcing a program of case-by-case review of long-term illegal migrants in Canada. He aimed to bring them into compliance with the law where possible, by encouraging them to come forward and be legalized, so as to reduce lawbreaking, human suffering and breakup of families, and to avoid the mammoth legal hassles of 50,000 deportation cases and appeals. This was welcomed by the churches and the other voluntary agencies serving immigrants.
However, the present Minister seems intent on destroying this program. After a brief and quiet press statement made in early August, no instructions were sent to immigrant-serving agencies and lawyers for over two months. By November 17 less than 1,000 out of an estimated 50,000 illegal migrants had applied under this program. Less than a quarter of the applications had been reviewed, and less than 6 per cent of the anonymous applications were given approval in principle.
Clearly, illegal migrants were cautious and were waiting to see how well the program would work for them. However, the Minister then announced that he would cut off the program on March 30. He sent out questionnaires requiring the re-examination of applicants, even demanding the passport number from anonymous applicants, thus making a mockery of the program. No wonder the illegal migrants are cautious.
1 call on the Minister to cancel his cutoff and to give serious encouragement to the good program started by the previous Minister.


CANADA-RUSSIA IMBALANCE-IMPORTANCE OF EXPORTS TO WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. Western Canada in particular owes its very economic vitality to international trade. Its economy is based on the export of grain, coal, natural gas, forestry products, minerals, et cetera.
Oral Questions
Our trade with Russia is substantial. On an annual basis Russia buys almost $2.25 billion worth of Canadian wheat, and about $150 million worth of oil field equipment and technology. Canada, in exchange, buys a paltry $45 million worth per year of Lada cars and trucks from Russia. This is a distorted balance of trade, and the Russians are certainly looking to close the vast exchange gap in trade. Other international markets for wheat and technology are available to them.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I was indeed perplexed to hear and understand the revulsion in this House recently over the statement by the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board that we may have to buy a few more Lada cars in order to maintain our trade with Russia. I am concerned. Is the interest of western Canada again to be sacrificed to the political sensitivity of central Canada? 1 trust that cooler minds will prevail, as they have on several issues, such as the Manitoba language issue and the recent health care issue, and that western Canada trade with Russia will be maintained.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He will know that within seven months of coming to office in 1979, the Progressive Conservative Government introduced to Parliament a comprehensive Bill to control Crown corporations. Since that time all the Minister has been able to do is introduce a Bill that was so bad it had to be withdrawn, and to allow a series of scandals to take place which have cost taxpayers over $2 billion.
When will the Minister introduce to Parliament a comprehensive Bill dealing with Crown corporations, which will come to grips with the issues which have been pointed out by the Lambert Commission, the Public Accounts Committee, and the Auditor General, among others?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of my hon. friend's remarks. The Bill that was introduced by my predecessor, not by me, was a very important response to the need for a stronger accountability framework. Be that as it may, we said in the Throne Speech that we intended to introduce new legislation on this matter. It is my intention early in the New Year, I hope, to introduce a Bill which will be comprehensive and will have as its objective, responding to a range of important and, I think, legitimate concerns about the objects and content of the previous draft legislation.

December 16, 1983
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the previous legislation, Bill C-153. Have the Minister's officials yet told him what his policy on Crown corporations is? If so, can he confirm to the House that the Government is scrapping the approach that was proposed in Bill C-153 and is moving back to a model which is more similar to Bill C-27, the P.C. Bill?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. friend's new Leader would want officials to tell us what our policy should be; I think that should be decided by the Government, and be confirmed by Parliament, if my hon. friend is serious about improving the role of Parliament. We are working very actively and seriously on a new Bill. I hope that my hon. friend will be patient enough to wait to see what is in it when I present the Bill early in the New Year, I hope. It is designed to respond to a range of very useful comments and criticisms about the previous Bill which, in spite of my hon. friend's remarks, was still a very useful and important effort to deal with the need for an improved accountability framework for Crown corporations.


CREATION OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer the Minister to a confidential Treasury Board document dated November 18, 1983. It is a discussion paper on the points which will be included in the Government's Bill when it is introduced in January. One of the provisions in Bill C-153 to which the House objected, was the ability of Crown corporations to incorporate subsidiaries without any word of approval from Parliament. For example, CDIC would be able to buy or create any new Crown corporation anywhere in Canada or abroad without a moment's debate in Parliament, if it used internally generated funds. Will the Minister confirm, as is shown in this discussion paper, that the Bill which will be introduced by the Minister in January will include that provision, and that in fact there will not be proper parliamentary control over the creation of subsidiaries of Crown corporations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there are many documents prepared by officials to assist in discussing the development of policy. I can say to my hon. friend that no final decisions have yet been taken by Cabinet on the contents of a new Bill. I know that my own inclination is to have a comprehensive piece of legislation which addresses very broadly a whole range of concerns which have been expressed about the previous legislation, in order to achieve an objective which I think is the objective of both sides of the House, and that is to have an improved framework of accountability and control for our Crown corporations.


BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON INDUSTRY-PROPOSED BAN ON EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade who, I am sure, is aware of the vital importance of the British Columbia salmon industry, both domestically and internationally. Recently the Governor of Alaska, Mr. Bill Sheffield, proposed measures to ban the sale of our Pacific salmon into the United States. I believe all Members of this House are aware of the efforts made by the Minister of International Trade, and his colleagues, internationally, in spending millions of dollars on lobbying and advertising efforts to try to assure the marketability of Canadian sealskins in Europe. Would the Minister tell this House, and in particular, British Columbians, what steps he has taken to try to stop this kind of economic blackmail which is being proposed against our Pacific salmon by the United States?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that, in any effort which may be taken to block the sale of British Columbia salmon into the United States, we will show the same determination and diligence in protecting the rights of Canadian exporters as we have done in relation to the threat to lumber a year ago, and the threat to potatoes-another one which we won within the past two days-and indeed we have consistently shown this diligence in protecting Canadian rights at the same time that Canada meets its obligations in international trade.


James Ross Fulton: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister for International Trade is telling us is that he is sending that signal to the United States now, and that he is not going to wait until we have the situation which arose with forest products and potatoes.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS ON WEST COAST SALMON TREATY
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is in regard to the incompetence of the Government in its failure to obtain the consent of the United States Senate to force the negotiations on a West Coast salmon treaty back to the table. A final bottom line was taken by the B.C. industry on February 1 of this year. It was ratified by both the Canadian and United States negotiators. It went on the rocks in the United States, principally because of a U.S. Senator from Alaska. Would the Minister be prepared to assure the House right now that this country and this Government will not back down in these negotiations on a West Coast salmon treaty, that we are going to hold that bottom line, and if it forces this country into a fish war with the United States, so be it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of any fish wars. I believe that we can, and have been managing our trade relations with the United States on a very good basis.
December 16, 1983

What the Hon. Member refers to, of course, is the fact that, under its rather quaint constitution, the United States administration does not have the full authority to make a treaty and that the Senate, without having the discipline of party lines which exists in our system, sometimes is not responsive to the urgings of the administration.
That poses a difficulty in relation to some treaty negotiations with the Americans. We must recognize that as a difficulty to be overcome, and we must show some patience as a consequence. I believe that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and our past performance in successfully achieving agreements with the Americans will be reflected in this one.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has had one supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to go back to the President of the Treasury Board who will be aware of the fact that while the Government has been dithering on omnibus Crown corporation legislation, the Canada Development Investment Corporation released yesterday its quarterly statements which show consolidated losses of over $105 million, for which the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. I want to ask this Minister, who is responsible for Crown corporations and for the Government's estimates-and I do not want him to fob the question off to the Minister of National Revenue-in view of the fact that both de Havilland and Canadair in this report indicate that they are going to be exceeding their loan guarantees in 1984 unless more cash is put into them, how much more money is the President of the Treasury Board prepared to recommend that Parliament put into these companies in the absence of comprehensive Crown corporation legislation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should direct his questions about funding specifically for these companies to the Minister who answers for these companies in the House of Commons. I want to say to him that, as important as Crown corporation legislation is in order to improve their accountability framework, such legislation will not prevent downturns in world markets for aircraft caused by world recession, deregulation of the industry in the United States, or competition from other types of planes made by foreign competing companies.
I think what my hon. friend should be prepared to do, which he obviously is not, is to sing the same tune in this House as does his colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre,
Oral Questions
the industry critic, when he gives interviews to the French language press. There he says if he forms a government he will be supporting these companies. Here my hon. friend brings out what may be the hidden agenda of his Party, to destroy the tens of thousands of jobs involved. Why does he not come clean with the Canadian people and the workers involved?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we have no hidden agenda. Our policies are up front, unlike the Government's.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION- REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL HAVE ACCESS TO BOOKS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this Minister seems incapable of telling the House what he is doing on Crown corporation policy. Is he prepared to give guarantees to this House of Commons that the concerns of the Auditor General regarding the auditing of Crown corporations will be included in any omnibus Crown corporation Bill, and in particular that the Auditor General be given access to the books of the Canada Development Investment Corporation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in my approach to developing legislation on this subject it is my intention to pay very serious attention to the concerns of the Auditor General. To the extent we respond to them in a way which the House considers adequate, it will be up to the House to decide when it sees the legislation. But I want to say to my hon. friend that I am surprised about what he says about his policies, in view of the fact that the finance critic of his Party says that when it comes to policies his Party should be in a fog because, if the public knew what his Party's policies were, they would never elect it, and I can well believe this.


URANIUM CARTEL-COURT RULING ON IMMUNITY OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. For the past two years he and other members of the cabinet have promised that Uranium Canada and Eldorado Nuclear would be held to account, and the forum would be the courts. Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada did not exonerate these two Crown corporations, but said they were immune from prosecution. The question remains: How are the officials accountable with respect to these actions?
In light of the fact we can not now prosecute these two Crown corporations, is the Minister willing to release the Bertrand Report as it pertains to these two Crown corporations, and which forms the basis of the prosecution he is mounting against the other defendants?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be highly unusual to release evidence on which a prosecution is based when the prosecution is not proceeding. I will certainly take the advice of my Department, but at first

December 16, 1983
Oral Questions
blush that seems to me to be a proposition which has always been rejected by Attorneys General, and would, 1 think, establish a very unfortunate precedent.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, there is one standard for the Government and another one for individuals and corporations. That is the real problem.


PROSECUTION OF OTHER CORPORATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of Canada has overriding jurisdiction and discretion on whether to proceed with a prosecution. That is at the Minister's discretion. Is it fair to prosecute the corporations that remain on the indictment, having in mind that the two Crown corporations, in furtherance of government policy, and which were the ringleaders in this scheme, are escaping prosecution? Is it fair to prosecute those private individuals and corporations?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have made no decision yet as to whether to continue with the prosecution of those other individuals and companies. I am expecting, in the next day or two, a report from counsel who had special responsibility for this case. It is quite unfair for my hon. friend to suggest that the Government has not been completely open about this. As far as the prosecution is concerned, we did not even make a prosecutorial decision on our own not to proceed. We took the matter to the courts, and it is the Supreme Court of the country which has decided that the prosecution should not proceed.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour responsible for Canada Post. The recent Throne Speech, under the title "Opening the Door to Labour", said:
Workers deserve... an equal voice in the resolution of issues like technological change and productivity improvement.
It also said:
Selected Crown corporations... will be encouraged to test new methods of co-operative productivity improvement.
And finally:
Labour representatives will be invited to join the boards of directors of selected Crown corporations.
Fine phrases-but the fact is that Canada Post, the one Crown corporation which has labour representation on its Board, has been implementing a five-year plan without approval from its own board of directors and without any meaningful consultation with its unions. Will the Minister immediately agree to direct the President of Canada Post,
Michael Warren, to put a total freeze on implementation of his five-year plan until there has been genuine consultation with the various postal unions and full consideration and approval by Canada Post's own board of directors? Otherwise the Throne Speech is a sham.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is misinformed. I understand that there is a projected five-year plan that is currently being discussed which will be eventually approved early in the new year by the board of directors. Consultation is currently taking place with union representatives before a final decision on this five-year plan is taken by the board of directors. I suspect that the Hon. Member has heard about this plan because of the consultation that is currently taking place. It is a new course for the Post Office to consult with the employees on project plans. It is a welcome new opportunity. I am hopeful that the five year plan which should be approved by the board of directors in the new year will be one that will not only be supported by the administration but will be well accepted by the unions.


SERVICE AND HUMAN RELATIONS
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister has had some consultations with both the Canadian Labour Congress and some of the postal unions and he should be aware that a lot of that labour-management consultation has consisted solely of hasty phone calls and unilateral press releases by the President of the Corporation. That does not constitute consultation and good labour relations, in my books, or anybody else's. The first principle of the Canada Post Office Act is to maintain basic customer service. Rather than doing that, the Post Office has continually been putting the prime onus on financial self sufficiency-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister has been fully apprised of the facts of the situation by the CLC and by the unions. Will the Minister undertake to direct the President of Canada Post immediately to stop breaking the law and begin to put service and human relations at the top of his Corporation's list, rather than financial self sufficiency? The unions at Canada Post have agreed to obey-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked his question.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the allegation of the Hon. Member would have to be substantiated. To say that the Canada Post Corporation is breaking the law is a serious accusation. At the request of union representatives I am looking at the activities of the Corporation in order to reassure myself and Members of Parliament that the major three objectives of the Corporation, which are included in the legislation creating the Crown corporation which was passed by Parliament, are respected. So far I have not seen the type of
December 16, 1983

evidence that the Hon. Member is suggesting, to show that the Corporation is violating the law. I am looking at the matter further.
If the objectives which have been given to the Corporation are not followed, it will be brought to the attention of the board of directors who will make sure that the Corporation follows the legislation.


DISASTERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition) Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I am sure that all Members of the House were shocked and saddened as a result of the tragic accident that occurred at Sydney Steel yesterday, which claimed three lives and injured two other people. I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in conveying our genuine condolences to all members of the families affected.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mulroney:: In the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether he has any further details in regard to this tragedy? What plans has the Government to ensure that the plant is rendered operational as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the accident, inasmuch as it plays such a vital role in the economy of Nova Scotia, and of Cape Breton in particular?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in extending my condolences to the families. The Minister is not in the House today because he is in Washington on ministerial business. I am sure the corporation responsible will do the utmost to make sure that this company is back in operation as quickly as possible. This is very vital to the economy of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton. There have already been communications by the members for this area with the Government to make sure that everything is done as quickly as possible to ensure that work resumes speedily.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO RESTART PLANT
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, an extended break for Parliament is being contemplated. Could I have the assurance of the Acting Prime Minister that, prior to our departure for Christmas, the Government will lay before the House an assurance of substance to the people of Cape Breton that every conceivable effort will be made to ensure that the plant is re-energized and back on stream as quickly as possible, with an indication of how it would propose to accomplish this?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am informed that it is a provincial Crown corporation which operates the mill. The federal Government has always been very keen to help in these situations. Our record in the past has guaranteed that everything possible will be done. Basically it is the responsibility of a provincial Crown corporation. If they get in touch with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, we will do everything we can to help them.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Martin Brian Mulroney: I would like the Acting Prime Minister to assure the House Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my point, that initiatives will be taken by the federal Government of Canada, in communication with the Government of Nova Scotia, to ensure that the highest priority is given, prior to the Christmas break, to laying out a commitment to the people of Cape Breton that progress will be made as quickly as humanly possible.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sure that the Government of Nova Scotia will take the necessary steps. It is their responsibility. I am sure that Premier Buchanan will be in touch with our Government if he feels that he needs our assistance in the circumstances. We will be willing to help, as I have already said.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It is about the uranium cartel prosecution. The Government has the ability to waive the defence of Crown immunity in this particular instance.
Executive privilege was used as a defence by President Nixon of the United States until public opinion determined that that should be reversed. He, in fact, suffered the consequences for that decision. Donald Macdonald was the Minister of Energy at the time, sole shareholder of Eldorado Nuclear and of Uranium Canada. Senator Jack Austin is now the Minister of State for Social Development responsible for Crown corporations. They travelled the world to set up this club.
Will the Minister not now consider that it would be appropriate to waive that defence of Crown immunity, in order that the full facts can come forward and that the Government agencies can be subject to prosecution like any other citizen?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, whatever reason there might have been to that claim some time ago 1 think it no longer exists in the light of the decision

December 16, 1983
Oral Questions
of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the prosecution cannot proceed. That is the beginning and the end of the matter.
As 1 indicated in my previous answers, the Government has done this prosecution completely in public. We have taken the advice of a distinguished counsel, Mr. John Brown. It was on his advice that the prosecution proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada. He argued the case, and argued it well. Nevertheless, the Court has rendered its decision. We, like other citizens, are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short supplementary. The question seems to have been asked on more than one occasion.


ROLE OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a very important supplementary question I wish to ask of the Minister. He knows full well that the defence of Crown immunity was put in by the federal Government on behalf of the Crown corporations. It is a defence that can be waived and not necessarily be raised.
I want to ask the Minister about the appropriateness of Senator Jack Austin answering on behalf of the Government, since he was a key player in setting up the cartel, a key player in this whole instance, is operating now as the Minister responsible for Crown corporations, and is the one who will have to make the decision as to whether to waive that defence. Does the Minister not think that Senator Austin should move aside and not be involved in the decision as to whether or not this defence should be used?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. friend has various questions about how government decisions are made, but this is not a question about how government decision is made; it is a question of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which has decided that a prosecution should not proceed.
In the House yesterday, I heard my colleague from Nickel Belt say she was proposing to introduce amendments to the Combines Investigation Act which would make, in some circumstances to be revealed subsequently, Crown corporations liable in such circumstances.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head on one supplementary.


GRANTING OF IMMUNITY-INQUIRY RESPECTING PARTICIPATION OF MINISTER OF STATE
Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether Senator Austin participated personally in the decision to grant immunity to Crown corporations which, if prosecuted, may well have revealed him to have been the architect of the conspiracy?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I am not sure that I am even the responsible Minister to answer it. I will ask my officials first, whether that is within our Department's responsibilities and, second, if it is, whether that information can be made available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has indicated his difficulty in answering the question. If the Hon. Member-


Chris Speyer: So what?


Mr. Nielsen:: Oh, come on!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There have been a series of questions, and if the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead wishes to go one further supplementary-


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.


ACCOUNTABILITY OF MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from any Minister on that side of the House how we can have any kind of accountability in this Parliament if Ministers who are involved in decisions by Crown corporations, decisions which may well be illegal, have the power to stop the courts from inquiring into that illegality? How do we have any accountability in a system like that?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the prosecution was not stopped here. The prosecution was brought forward. It was brought forward to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has decided against us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to questions I asked him earlier this week about the Atomic Energy Control Board. In his response to me he said that there would be public hearings if they are requested. He also said there was no specific request.
I have a letter here, sent to the Atomic Energy Control Board in September, from the Canadian Labour Congress asking for open hearings on the changes to the regulations. Since that request was made, the letter was acknowledged by AECB, how can the Minister rise in the House and say that there was no request for open hearings?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have checked that point. I have
December 16, 1983

been informed by the Board that they have been in communication with the Canadian Labour Congress and that they are expecting to have a presentation made. As I understand it, they have even agreed on a date. I think that the Board are acting under the law of this Parliament and have said that they want to hear representations on this matter. They have provided a date for the CLC to appear in front of the Board, so there is not much more I can do about it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I guess the Minister has found a way out of answering why he lied to the House, whether intentionally or unintentionally, last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has used an expression that is unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw his remark.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 withdraw the remark. Obviously the answer was somewhat in variance with the truth, for whatever reason.


REPORT OF INCREASED RISK TO PREGNANT WOMEN
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, since an official of the Atomic Energy Control Board admitted in The Citizen yesterday that there is increased risk to pregnant women under the new regulations that are being put forward, does the Minister not believe that open public hearings are not only in the interest of workers but of the public, and that they should not be closed meetings but meetings at which the public will be able to attend and on which the media can report? Should that not be done?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that when the Board is giving everyone who wishes to appear the opportunity to do so, it is very difficult for me to ask for more than that. If the Hon. Member wants to appear I will make sure that he will be heard by the Board. If he wants to have the press with him, he can take them with him.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is in regard to the RCMP investigation into the alleged misconduct by DND employees in accepting cash or other favours to overlook quality defects in material sold by Levy Auto Parts of Toronto under various military contracts. Can the Minister indicate when that investigation will be completed by the RCMP?
Can he also indicate how the RCMP became aware of these alleged misconducts? Can he confirm that it was in fact the
Oral Questions
American FBI that discovered this potential breach of ethics here in Canada, and that it was the FBI that informed the RCMP, and subsequently DND?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will not answer either of those questions. I suggest that the Hon. Member should not be asking them. I would remind him and all Members that he has the potential, by questions and statements that he makes under the protection and immunities which we enjoy in this place, to prevent a fair trial from taking place, if, indeed, that investigation results in charges being laid. I would urge him and other Members to take that limitation into consideration when they are deciding on questions to ask in the House.


Harvie Andre: I suggest the Minister should listen to the question before reaching any judgment as to whether any potential court case might be prejudiced.


SALE OF TANK PARTS TO SOUTH AFRICA
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in 1981 this company was accused by a former employee of breaking Canadian law by selling tank parts to South Africa in contravention of our agreement under NATO. Can the Minister tell the House whether the RCMP investigated that allegation, whether that company was given a clean bill of health and therefore allowed to continue these military contracts of which it allegedly has been in violation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I do not normally ask the police to report to me on investigations that are under way. The Hon. Member is asking me to inform myself about a matter and see whether the investigation is a proper one, and if all allegations that have been made that deserve to be considered are being considered. I will consider the Member's representation and decide what to do about it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Could the Minister explain to the House the unusual wheeling and dealing which has gone on between the Department of Public Works, Harbourfront Corporation and Rampart Enterprises, with respect to the harbourfront development in Toronto.
The Department expropriated the property for $9.4 million and conveyed it to the Harbourfront Corporation for $1. Rampart Enterprises undertook to develop condominiums which sit on top of a refurbished warehouse which the Crown will now be obliged to maintain in perpetuity, along with associated lands.

December 16, 1983
Oral Questions
The Minister seems to have played the role of Simple Simon in this costly arrangement. Could he explain why he would spend $9.4 million of taxpayers' money to get the privilege of paying the costs of maintaining this building forever, to the benefit of Rampart Enterprises?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the Hon. Member is one which came to my attention in the Auditor General's Report. I have asked for further information. I hope the Hon. Member will bear with me while I am waiting. In fact I am having a meeting with my officials this afternoon. I hope that this issue will be clarified then.


LEASING OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BUILDING IN CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister and concerns Rampart Enterprises. In the Adjournment Debate of November 17, his Parliamentary Secretary assured me that the Department would be glad to table in the House the complete leasing agreement between the Crown and Rampart Enterprises, or to make a copy of it available to interested members. This is in the dealings which the Minister had with Rampart Enterprises on the DVA building in Charlottetown. The Minister seems to be stonewalling the honest efforts of his Parliamentary Secretary to obtain the document. Why is he loath to disclose his dealings with Rampart Enterprises in the DVA building case? Will he assure me that the Charlottetown lease and pertinent documents will be tabled in the House forthwith?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not stonewalling anybody. I will check why this was not done and, obviously, try to expedite the matter.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I will direct my question to the Hon. Minister of Public Works. The government wharves in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, have become totally inadequate for present day use, and completely antiquated for future needs. Since this is one of the busiest fishing ports in Nova Scotia and his Government is seeking suggestions for make-work programs, is the Minister planning restoration, extension, or other improvements to government wharves? When does he plan to dredge the harbour adequately so that our deep sea trawlers are not scraping bottom when entering or leaving port?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, it sounds very familiar to hear the Hon. Member's scathing language on some issues on which he and I used to
exchange barbs in the old days. I act as the construction agent or, in the case of dredging, some Public Works equipment is used at the request of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In that capacity I obviously am not as up to date as I used to be in my previous responsibility.
Certainly we have-and I have been given them by my colleagues in Cabinet-additional funds to improve our dredging capacity, with the Department of Public Works acting as an agent for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I will see whether some of these funds can improve the situation described by the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY FUNDING OF NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister, because it is a very important matter. These people down there still want to work, but they cannot continue working. It is a very important issue as well for the economic viability of the port. We need a channel in Lunenburg harbour at least 100 feet wide and 24 feet deep at mean low tide, from Battery Point to the Lunenburg foundry. This is an actual fact. Will the Minister indicate whether he would set aside some of these capital funds to which he just now referred, for this type of work? If so, will he make some of these funds available on an emergency basis- and this is an emergency basis-for the benefit of the fishing industry in that area?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not underestimate at all the importance of Lunenburg as a fishing port and as a very important centre of fisheries operation. Because of my knowledge of the area and of the fish plant, I obviously will inquire right away. I might say that I thought upgrading the dredging fleet was a very high priority, probably because of my previous experience. When these funds come before the committee for approval, I hope I will have the support of all sides of the House.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. A month ago he was at the Food and Agriculture Organization conference in Rome, where delegates adopted a resolution which provided for an undertaking on the free exchange of plant genetic resources. However, Canada chose not to take a position on the resolution and reserved its position, saying that the Government would have to review the implications of any such undertaking. In view of the tremendous importance of genetic resources to Canadian farmers and to all people of the world, is the Canadian Government now, one month later, prepared to be a signatory to this undertaking to permit the
December 16, 1983

free exchange of plant genetic resources among countries? If not, why not?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes it sound as if I was present when the discussion took place. I am sure he knows full well that it was a bunch of bureaucrats who were discussing whether it would take place, at FAO, the permanent residents of Rome, as we call them. 1 had only been there for one week of the sessions.
We believe the exchange of seeds has taken place freely in the world, and the Hon. Member knows it. We have an organization at the present time known as the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources. We think the solution to the perceived problem should come by strengthening existing systems, not by striking out in a new and uncertain direction.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who was the author of that?


Erik Nielsen: You read well.


Eugene Whelan: 1 dictated this before I left. I wanted to make sure that both the Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has put an adequate reply on the record.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DR. MORENO LEON, MINISTER OF ENERGY OF VENEZUELA
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour of calling to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of Dr. Moreno Leon, the Minister of Energy of Venezuela.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. He announced in November that he would renovate a building vacated by the RCMP in Donovan's Industrial Park, to be used as a federal minimum security prison in Newfoundland. This is without the knowledge or the permission of the municipal council of Mount Pearl, and the Minister has badly upset his Newfoundland colleague from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador who said that it is "madness and an insult to the people of Newfoundland". Also he said that it would not be done elsewhere in Canada, "certainly not in Toronto, which is Mr. Kaplan's area".
Oral Questions
In view of the anger that this issue has aroused in Mount Pearl and in the Minister's colleague, is he now in a position to announce that he is cancelling this minimum security abortion, in that he plans to put a penitentiary in an industrial park in the Town of Mount Pearl, Newfoundland?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Another penal colony.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would be surprised to know that in Toronto there are two minimum security institutions in industrial areas of the city, upstairs from post offices as a matter of fact.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, that is what is happening.


Erik Nielsen: There must be one in Ottawa too.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Also he would be surprised to know that low security institutions with inmates who are about to be released and are not at that point considered violent or dangerous, are an asset to the communities in which they are situated. I am looking forward to being able to discuss with officials and with the local municipality the advantages and problems which sometimes arise with minimum security institutions. I assure the Hon. Member that there are dozens of reasons, and dozens of examples across the country, which will show the people in the Newfoundland area the advantages of this institution.
Also I remind him that Newfoundland has approximately 200 federal offenders in the correctional system of Canada. None of them are able to spend their period of federal incarceration in a federal institution in Newfoundland. I am very pleased to be able to provide for the establishment, for the first time, of a federal penitentiary in Newfoundland. Minimum security is the appropriate level because there are very few Newfoundlanders who are considered dangerous in the federal system-


Some Hon. Members:: Except John!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and are incarcerated at the level of maximum security. From a correctional point of view, from a community point of view, and from the point of view of a national Government fulfilling its responsibility to provide minimum security institutions where there is need, this is the correct decision.


John Carnell Crosbie: Perhaps, if you put these people in the mail, you would not need this institution; they would simply disappear.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT PENITENTIARY BE CONSTRUCTED
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government treats all 560,000 Newfoundlanders as though they were offenders. Therefore, we hardly need a penitentiary for that purpose. Can the Minister assure this House that a

December 16, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Whelan
proper penitentiary will be built, with the necessary luxurious comforts, for these 200 Newfoundlanders he says have violated federal law? Will he assure the House a proper penitentiary will be built in Newfoundland in the near future?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, one assurance I can give the Hon. Member is that this institution will be up to the same good standards of all federal penitentiaries in Canada. As a minimum security institution this will be at exactly the same level as those that are located in Toronto or anywhere else in our country.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on Thursday, December 15, 1983, meets the requirement of the Standing Order as to form.
[ Translation]
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Tousignant) on Thursday, December 15, 1983, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege must be raised as soon as possible after the event. I believe 1 have a question of privilege arising out of today's Question Period and the exchange between the Chair and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). I want, however, to examine the record very carefully before raising the matter, if I do. I am simply informing the Chair now so that 1 will not be shot down for not having raised it at the earliest possible opportunity. 1 will do so Monday, if I think it necessary.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When 1 was trying to answer a question, I may not have informed the House properly. I want
to say to the Hon. Member who asked the question that we do not intend to sign this agreement because some of the main players who have the genetic resources are on the sidelines now. They are not going to be participating in this program. That is why we are not going to sign it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this is the last day upon which we will probably be reasonable on this matter. We will consent for today, but I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary think very seriously over the weekend about starting to answer these questions on Monday next.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all the questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-2, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, in the time available to me, I want to make a couple of points. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is still here.


Eugene Whelan: You talked last night.


Charles James Mayer: The Minister says I was talking last night. 1 hope he listened to what I was saying. I was referring to what 1 thought would benefit the farming community. 1 am also happy that the Parliamentary Secretary is here because I made some comments with regard to the problem that I have with the tax Bill, and that seems to be the mindset of the Government.
December 16, 1983

I want to make two points related to that. First, there is a provision in the Bill to allow farmers and fishermen a three-year carryback and a ten-year carryforward period rather than the one-year carryback and five-year carryforward period for losses. That does not make sense to many people because people do not produce to lose money. One goes into a production operation in order to make money. I submit that you could make the carryforward a thousand years and it would not make any difference. Increasing the carryforward period from five years to ten does not make a lot of sense. People will not be encouraged to stay in business because the carryforward period is going to be extended.
The carryback period is useful because losses can be averaged over a longer period of time. That could save a person as far as taxes are concerned. However, encouraging people to stay in business and be productive by allowing them to carry losses further into the future in order to deduct against anticipated income does not make sense. If that is what the Government is doing to encourage people to stay in business, it is not an important factor as far as this Bill is concerned.
Let met get to the point that I believe is useful. I want to quote from two sources. One is an article by Ronald Anderson in the Globe and Mail of December 6, 1983. It refers to statements by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston). I quote from the article:
Use of the tax system as a multipurpose instrument of economic policy has produced a convoluted tax system in Canada that hardly anyone any longer can hope to understand .. .
The complexities and the burdens of the tax laws, he said, are driving taxpayers to seek tax savings as an end in itself, when the talent and capital would be better invested in other more productive purposes.... but he hoped that in the future, more of the country's brain power would be engaged in the laboratories and less would be preoccupied with the Income Tax Act.
That makes a lot of sense. If we are going to have any kind of economic growth, development or increase in wealth, we should concentrate on creating wealth instead of simply using the tax system to divide up what is already there.
I also quote an article by Mr. Derek Bok, President of Harvard University and a former law professor and Dean of Law at Harvard. It refers to the United States. I quote:
A nation's values and problem are mirrored in the ways in which it uses its ablest people. In Japan, a country only half our size, 30 per cent more engineers graduate each year than in all of the United States. But Japan boasts a total of less than 15,000 lawyers, while American universities graduate 35,000 every year. It would be hard to claim that these differences have no practical consequences. As the Japanese put it, "Engineers make the pie grow larger, lawyers only decide how to carve it up."
I see you are giving me the signal to speed up, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude.
That is the tragedy of this Bill. Instead of using the tax system to encourage production, we are setting forth more rules and regulations that will require more lawyers and bureaucrats to interpret the law in such a way that people can divide the pie into smaller pieces so they can get a chance at their piece of the pie. I would like to see a total revision of the Income Tax Act so that it encourages people to be productive. We have more natural resources per capita than any other country. We have more farm land per capita than any other
Income Tax Act
country in the world. Therefore, it is a tragedy to pass Bills like this.
What we are dealing with today is only an amendment, but this amendment is contained within a book that is close to an inch thick. It is a tragedy that there will be more Bills and more regulations that will make it more difficult for Canadians to produce. The Income Tax Act should be made simpler and easier to understand so people can use it as an incentive to produce rather than simply argue among themselves about how it will be divided up. 1 will have no trouble at all with voting against this Bill.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy it when my colleague makes a presentation because he usually has some very sound and practical ideas to put forward. I know that both of us like to indulge in political rhetoric every so often, but when we scrape away the rhetoric we find some interesting thoughts. The same is true of the summary that the Hon. Member gave of the tax system today.
I heard the Hon. Member quote Mr. Anderson and I heard the Hon. Member put emphasis on creating wealth and productivity rather than creating red tape and bureaucracy. I would like to bounce an idea off of him and see how he reacts to it. In my opinion, the example he chose of carryback and carryforward on losses is a good example. That provision will not create wealth and I agree with him about that. However, it will reinforce the opportunity to create wealth. The provision in itself will not generate farming or business activity but will give people a boost as they go along that path.
I also heard the Hon. Member's comment about complexity and the multiple uses of the tax system. He argues that we should try to get away from that and focus on the production of wealth. 1 wonder if he would like to make a contribution regarding the use of grants from government as opposed to the use of the tax system. It seems to me that grants are more easily focused into productive areas but they are also more controversial because we have to decide who is productive and will get the grant and who is not productive and will not get the grant. As well, grants tend to be resented by people who are farther away from Ottawa. I wonder if the Hon. Member could comment on the use of tax incentives like the carryforward and carryback provision versus grants. Perhaps he could give us some of his own thoughts on this matter. I am sure that his thoughts will be quite practical.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate being afforded the opportunity to do so. The Parliamentary Secretary used an interesting choice of words when he said that he wanted to bounce some ideas off of an opposition Member. I think that that is a refreshing attitude and one which I would encourage. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would have a chance to bounce some of those ideas off the Minister and the tax department. We would then find ourselves in a system where we as Members of Parliament would have a chance to have some genuine input.

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, regarding grants, to my mind, the person best able to decide what to do with the wealth that he generates is that individual himself. I have heard government programs described as being like a blood transfusion in which a quart of blood is taken from the left arm and put into the right arm and half of it is spilled on the way over. We all know full well that when blood is spilled, it coagulates. That is an irreversible reaction and it cannot be brought back to the same form again. That is an interesting analogy, and I think that that happens in a lot of places.
We should believe in the individual's right to decide what he should do with his earnings. 1 believe that a person whose life or money is at risk is probably in a better position to decide what to do about it than a bureaucrat, particularly in a country like Canada, which is so large and diverse geographically.
1 would certainly be in favour of tax incentives, but I really do not think that extending the carryforward period of a loss from five years to ten years can be construed as very much of a tax incentive. We should give people genuine tax incentives like a tax holiday for the startup period of a business. There are all kinds of material available in the literature which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has seen to show how tax holidays or partial tax relief in the initial startup period of a business would work just as well. We would then have people working with their own money rather than lying awake nights trying to think up ways to spend the Government's money. Instead, they are worrying about how to make use of a tax incentive based upon the money that they have put up front in order to develop a business and therefore jobs.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could move this discussion one step further because the Hon. Member has made an interesting observation. When we set up tax incentives, we set up incentives for people who are not necessarily in the target group. For example, small businesses can operate for a period of time and accumulate $1 million of surplus within the company. Then once they accumulate over $1 million, they are classified as big business and are taxed at a higher rate. Quite a bit of activity goes on as companies accumulate this surplus in an attempt to avoid that cutoff point. That then provokes the tax department to make all sorts of anti-avoidance rules and that creates the very complexity the Hon. Member has described and about which he has quite rightly complained. In fact, these different types of incomes combined with the anti-avoidance rules tend to create the biggest complexities in the Income Tax Act.
Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell us how he would deal with the anti-avoidance problem while having regard to the Government's responsibility to be fair to all taxpayers. How would he deal with that in order to avoid some of the complexity that would result?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has raised a very complex question, one which I certainly would not pretend to be qualified to answer on a specific or case by case basis. However, I can give him the general line of
thinking that I would subscribe to. The simpler and the more straightforward the tax system can be made, the better off we are. If there are to be exceptions, they should only be exceptions. If there are a great many exceptions, then pretty soon there are exceptions to exceptions and regulations on regulations and we run into all of these anti-avoidance situations.
We should keep the tax system as simple as possible so that if a business gets a three-year or five-year tax holiday, that is all. Once they are past that, there is nothing more. They know what the rules are and the rules are not changed very often. I do not know what I mean by that, but the rules certainly should not be changed every time there is a new budget. That is one of the problems that we have been faced with in the country and in all fairness I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with that even though he is a government Member. He hears that every day from the people who come to see him about what will be in the upcoming budget.
The only advice I could offer is, if at all possible make the tax system as simple and as straightforward as possible. I can give the Parliamentary Secretary specific examples of how people in the farming community do things for tax reasons and not for productive reasons. That must hurt the whole country because it means that we have, in economic terms, a disalloca-tion of scarce resources. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary a prime example of this. There is over $1 billion worth of deferred grain sales sitting in the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg right now. Farmers do not want to accept that money until after the new year because they are in such a taxable position that it is to their advantage to leave that money there. At the same time there are a lot of people in the farming community who have extreme difficulty paying their bills at the end of the year. This is an example of a situation where some of these anti-avoidance rules are causing more problems in the farming community than the situation which the anti-avoidance rules sought to correct.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak for a few moments about this Bill. 1 see that my good friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is looking at me. I am glad he is here because I want to begin by raising one local complaint.


Eugene Whelan: I was trying to figure out who you were.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know that the Minister of Agriculture knows my riding very well and he knows who I am. We have appeared on platforms together. For instance, at the opening of the Yorkton Stampede last July, we welcomed him to our fair city.
A number of farmers are now complaining about the Minister of Agriculture sitting across the way because they believe he has broken a campaign promise with regard to taxation. 1 hope the good old Minister of Agriculture is listening. In the election campaign of 1980, the Government promised to change the valuation date for capital gains for farmers. As everyone knows, valuation day is December 31, 1971, and since then farm land has appreciated.
December 16, 1983

Most farmers do not have any pensions of their own; their pension plan comes from what they get when they sell their farm. In my riding the farms are small or average-sized and when they are sold the federal tax man takes a huge bite of the capital gain, most of which is due to inflation. A quarter section of land might have been worth $15,000 in 1971 but might be worth $60,000 now. The farmer needs that money in order to retire. The Minister of Agriculture made a promise in 1980 and he remembers that very well.


Eugene Whelan: 1 do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister confirms that, Mr. Speaker. He promised that the valuation date would be changed from 1971 to 1976 and that it would be indexed. I remember asking questions of the Minister in committee over the last few years about whether he was going to keep that promise. I have put the same question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The answer is always that the Liberal Party keeps its promises. It is four years since the last election campaign and I should like to receive some assurance in this debate that the Liberal Party is going to keep this promise.
Farmers are becoming rather annoyed, they are becoming rather restless, and they are becoming rather suspicious of our good Irish friend, the Minister of Agriculture, who parades around the country in his big green hat. I wonder whether he will get to his feet in this debate and assure the House that he will make this change for the farmers of Canada. If he does, that will go a long way toward helping some of the older farmers retire and use the money from the sale of their farms as their pension. They deserve that, Mr. Speaker. That is the one local point that I wanted to make about the Bill that is before us because there is no reference in it to a change in the capital gains system for the ordinary farmer.
The same thing applies to many small businessmen, of course. The Liberal Party promised that it would change this provision for the farmers and I expect it to deliver. The matter is becoming quite urgent as I do not know how long the Minister of Agriculture will hold that portfolio. If there is a leadership and "Old Blue Eyes" happens to become the next Prime Minister for a few months, I am not sure whether he would agree with the Minister of Agriculture that this would be an appropriate change. I wonder if the Minister will get to his feet and confirm that this change will take place before the end of his mandate.
I am concerned, and I think the whole country should be, that our tax system enables the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. That is unfair and inequitable but it is a system that is typical of a capitalist economy. Anyone with a few dollars can get a tax write-off and if they make a few more dollars they get a bigger tax write-off. The ordinary working person, the small farmer and the small businessman do not enjoy the same benefit. The biggest stumbling block to the country becoming a more equal society or a more just society is the tax system.
Income Tax Act
In 1962 the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker appointed the Carter Commission to study taxation. Its basic conclusion was that the system was very unfair, as different sources of income were taxed in different ways. A working person in Toronto, for example, has to pay tax on every dollar earned, but a person who clips coupons or derives most of his income from dividends, capital gains, or who takes advantage of the loopholes in the system, qualifies for all kinds of exemptions. That is not fair at all. It is the ordinary working person, the farmer, the small businessman who makes the greatest contribution and the rewards should be equal to those of the wealthy.
An article which appeared a short time ago in Macleans magazine showed the position of three taxpayers in 1983. Taxpayer A had an income of $200,000 derived from dividends; taxpayer B had a salary of $200,000 from employment; taxpayer C had an income of $25,000 from employment. Taxpayer A paid $36,900 taxes on his $200,000 dividend income, or 18.5 per cent; taxpayer B paid $87,600 in taxes on his $200,000 salary, or 44 per cent; taxpayer C paid $3,600 taxes on his $25,000 salary, or 14.4 per cent. You can see the unfairness in this system, Mr. Speaker. The article pointed out that the person with the $200,000 dividend income could probably reduce his tax load through other federal tax benefits. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that is what happens with a number of people who have large incomes.

Mr. Speaker, I say it is not fair that in our society, the richest people in Canada pay only a small percentage of their income in taxes.

I only have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I want to put one or two more things on record. The average tax rate for large companies in this country is 24 per cent but for small business the average tax rate is 36 per cent, according to Statistics Canada in 1979. That is not fair. I think it is the ordinary person who should receive the greater benefit. Large companies also have the advantage of deferring taxes. About $25 billion is owed in deferred taxes by large companies.
Another statistic which reveals how unfair this capitalistic society of ours is makes a comparison between revenues received from individuals and revenues received from corporations. In 1950, for example, federal and provincial governments collected 51 per cent of their revenues from individuals and 49 per cent from corporations. In the 1960s and 1970s, the age of the Just Society, 71 per cent of total income tax came from individuals, an increase of 21 per cent, and only 28 per cent came from corporations. In 1980, 76.6 per cent of total income tax revenue came from individuals and 23.3 per cent from corporations. This shows that between 1950 and 1980 the tax load for the ordinary citizen went from roughly 51 per cent to 77 per cent while for corporations it decreased from 49 per cent to 23 per cent.
This shows that the tax system is not fair to the ordinary citizen, the worker, the farmer or the small business person. It is time that Parliament woke up to that fact and made sure

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
that our laws give equal benefit to the person who carried a box lunch or to the ordinary farmer as is given to the person who lunches on caviar and champagne.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made some interesting comments about the tax loads of different groups in our society. Is he aware that the average tax rate paid by the agricultural community is less than 10 per cent? He said that small business typically pays 36 per cent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am not sure what the Minister of Agriculture would say about this.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What do you say?


John Leslie Evans: It is the lowest of any industrial category in our country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The farmers do have some tax breaks, Mr. Speaker. However, once again, if you look at the breakdown, you will find that the farmers with the biggest breaks are the large farmers, the large ranchers in this country. It is not the small guy who lives in my riding. That is why the Liberal Party made a promise in 1980 to change the valuation date concerning capital gains. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will confirm this. That kind of change would help the ordinary person. That is what I am interested in.
I was elected to this House believing in the principles of fairness and equality and I believe we are here to make sure the ordinary citizen gets a better deal. Just because the big farmer or rancher has all kinds of benefits under our tax system does not mean the ordinary person has. I come from the riding of Yorkton-Melville, Mr. Speaker. According to the census statistics there are more people in my riding who live on low incomes than any other riding in Saskatchewan. Therefore, this kind of problem affects me in my riding more than it affects any other riding in the province. That is why, when it is said that farmers do not pay very much in taxation compared to their income, that may be true for some of the wealthy people in parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but for the ordinary citizen in my riding it is not the case at all. Those people are overtaxed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that was not the point of my comments at all. If the Hon. Member is saying that the tax system is in disarray and needs to be reformed, I would tend to agree with him. I have said so publicly. However, Mr. Speaker, the point is that taking statistics and pointing out average tax rates of this group or that group, and saying that big business only pays 24 per cent, small business pays 36 per cent, and talking about the person who is getting dividend income of $200,000-and I would wager you could count them on one hand-does not lead to productive debate in this House.
Average tax rates can be terribly misleading for many reasons. Governments have put in place incentives to achieve objectives. The agricultural community does pay around 8 per cent average tax rate. It is the lowest of any industrial group in
this country. Is that bad? I am not saying it is bad. The Government has put incentives in place to assist agriculture and because we have assisted agriculture we have been able to achieve very high rates of growth and productivity. That is what we receive for allowing an 8 per cent average tax rate in agriculture.
The same thing applies in other areas, Mr. Speaker. Is it fair and proper simply to throw around average tax rates for different groups and say that somehow this is unfair and unwise, that it is not good for the country, without really saying why it is that those groups have been allowed to pay lower than average tax rates? What additional contribution are they making to this country as a result of the fact that they are not paying the money in tax to the federal Government? They are doing other things in the national interest. Certainly, policies made by this Parliament were made to achieve national objectives. Those objectives are reflected in those average tax rates, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is grossly unfair for Hon. Members of that Party to stand up and pillory people who have been doing what this Parliament said was in the national interest to do, and as a result the statistics reflect a lower than average tax rate for that particular group.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily what all the people in this Parliament believe. We have now a majority Government. That is what it believes in. That is what it implemented. Its own Royal Commission, the Carter Commission, said we had one of the most unfair tax systems in the whole western world. That is the difference between our Party and the Party opposite. I believe our tax system should be changed so that the ordinary person would receive a much better break. Those of us who are able to pay-and I include myself in that category-ought to pay more of the load. Perhaps that is a philosophical difference. But there is a philosophical difference between the democratic socialist party and the one opposite. I do not apologise for that, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here. I believe we should reform the tax system to give the ordinary person a bit of a break.
When the Government abolished IAACs, the income averaging annuity contract, that did not hurt the large, wealthy farmer as much as it hurt the little guy. If you talk to chartered accountants-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Are you kidding?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What do you mean, "Are you kidding?"


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Both of them got a better break.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If you talk to accountants in the small towns in Saskatchewan where the small farmers are, you will not get that story at all. That is the difference, perhaps, between our Party and the Party across the way, Mr. Speaker. But I would love to have the Minister of Agriculture rise and say a few words and tell us his Party is going to keep the promise which it made in 1980.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) a question. I
December 16, 1983

think that is the complete name of his constituency. I know it is a large one. He is talking about the promise we have not kept. 1 thought he would remind the House about all the promises we made concerning agriculture, every one of which we kept except the one he is talking about. The Hon. Member could have mentioned the other seven we did keep. We intend to keep that promise. It is not too late yet, as the Hon. Member knows full well.
We made that promise after a study, after consultation and that type of thing. If the Hon. Member remembers, we passed laws in this House providing that a farm could be transferred tax-free to a son or daughter who were actively farming. That has been interpreted, changed by regulation and so on, to mean that those farms are taxed after the valuation date and I have an interest in that. I believe that is a circumvention, actually, that regulation, of the intent of Parliament regarding transferring those farms. I was reading the other day the speeches which I made at the time we made those changes, and the speeches which other Hon. Members made. We are investigating this matter at the present time. I will say that we were the only nation in the world which allowed that at the time. The United States did not dare do it. But we feel there is nothing more important in the world than food production.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in raising some questions about the appropriateness of the direction the Government is taking. I am always amused when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rises to tell us how he just spent two or three hours reading his own speeches. It is interesting reading, no doubt.


Eugene Whelan: You would be a very wise man if you read them also.


Ian Deans: As my colleague the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) says, "He must be a bit of a masochist".


Eugene Whelan: A bit of a what?


Ian Deans: I would like to spend a few moments speaking about the Government's general direction, Mr. Speaker. I have become increasingly more concerned over the last few years with the way governments have moved-not only this Government but many governments-toward using income earners' taxes as a basis for subsidizing the so-called free enterprise sector. It seems to me, back over the years, that the free enterprisers of the world-and there are few left-believe that they should get government off their backs, that if they could just be left to do their own thing, they would take their chances. If they succeeded, that would be fine; if they did not, then they themselves would assume the responsibility.
In the last few years I have seen a dramatic shift which has brought many people to the door of the Government asking for additional assistance, sometimes in the form of direct handouts and on other occasions in the form of loan guarantees, the purpose of which is to attempt to guarantee the incomes of shareholders of those major corporations-and in the main it
Income Tax Act
is the major corporations which show up-or an attempt to try to guarantee the investment of some of the smaller investors in less major corporations. This is done at the expense of the individual taxpayer who is asked to contribute more heavily to the tax coffers of the country in order that the Government will have available to it moneys to hand out to other people to secure their investments.
We do not afford individual taxpayers that same kind of protection, the benefits of which are now and have been over the last two years made available to major private corporations. I look back over the course of the last year or year and a half and think of the countless numbers of families who found themselves unable to meet their mortgage commitments because the Government, together with the Bank of Canada, made decisions which would allow interest rates to rise far beyond what most people would have accepted as being reasonable. Those people came to the Government and said they were losing their investment, that they could not afford to make the payments which are in many ways the direct consequence of government policy. The Government said: "Isn't that very, very tough; we really would like to help". But no help was forthcoming.
However, those same people in that same year were required to contribute, through their income taxes, to loan guarantees for major corporations and to direct subsidies to less major corporations all across the country. The purpose of that particular exercise was to secure the investment of investors in those corporations.


John Leslie Evans: Not to mention save jobs.


Ian Deans: The question really is, however, did it save jobs?


John Leslie Evans: Yes.


Ian Deans: Is that the appropriate way to secure those jobs? Is it right to continue to overtax average working families in order to save a few jobs, rather than reducing the tax burden on those self-same families to enable them to enter the marketplace and increase the demand for goods?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: This sounds like Reagan's 1980 platform.


Ian Deans: To increase demand, improve the competitive position of the various corporations in that way rather than the way the Government has chosen? Not in isolation, I admit.


John Leslie Evans: You just made my case for me.


Ian Deans: I would argue, as I have all along and as I have been joined, belatedly, by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), that it makes more sense to reduce the burden of taxation on the average Canadian family and allow them to purchase the products made by Canadians which would ultimately result in Canadians going back to work-


John Leslie Evans: Excellent argument.

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act


Ian Deans: -rather than tax them more heavily as this Government is doing and then pass on to the corporations who do not have a market for their products the money necessary to safeguard their investment.
The Government is pursuing a policy which is doomed to failure, because even if you provide tax credits or direct relief to corporations for the purpose of improving their productivity, in the final analysis the only thing that will improve the economic condition of those companies will be if there is a market for their product. You are not going to improve the purchasing capacity of individual Canadian families by increasing their tax burden. The more we take from Canadians in taxes, the less they have to purchase those goods and services that they and other Canadians across this land produce.
I suggest this Bill continues the trend down the slippery slope, that it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. That clearly distinguishes the Government's position from the position we would take. 1 admit, Mr. Speaker, that this position and the Tory position may well be somewhat at odds in certain specific areas. But the fact of the matter is that between the two of them they are pursuing similar policy objectives.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Same Party.


Ian Deans: In my opinion, those policy objectives are absolutely doomed. They are guaranteed to fail. If I understand the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre correctly, he agrees with me and therefore, while we have begun the process, we must increase our efforts to try to change the direction we are currently taking. That is not going to be done by adding to the tax burden of the lower income group. These amendments in fact do just that by eliminating such things as the $100 deductible. It is not a lot of money, I admit, but $100 per family across the country adds up to a substantial sum.


John Leslie Evans: If they make the contribution, they can still take the deduction.


Ian Deans: Up until now that was not the requirement. Therefore, the money was used in the economy and you are taking money out of the economy now.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the general direction of the Government is wrong and has been wrong for some time. There are certain things which must be looked at very seriously. There is the question of how to get construction workers to work in remote areas, or even less remote but away from home, and what kind of assistance we are prepared to provide to guarantee that those people do not lose by going where the work is. There is the question of tax forms and whether or not they can be improved and simplified in order to make it easier for people to fill them out without having to go and pay for it. There is the question of pensioners' incomes. There are pensioners who derive their income primarily from bonds, Canada Savings Bonds and certificates. They must pay quarterly even though they do not get their income until the end of the year. Can we not make some further adjustments in order to compensate for that burden? Many of these people are forced to
take money from a meagre income in order to pay their taxes in the fond hope they will live long enough to get their money back from their investments.
I think those things have to be looked at with some considerable speed and detail in order to change the situation for the coming year.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I thought when you recognized the last speaker it was supposed to be the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I could have sworn that the speech came from the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). It sounded to me like such a ringing cry of Reaganism.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is more here.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Let us see, we are going to reduce taxes, get off the backs of the taxpayer, withdraw government activity in the economy and just let everything take its natural course. That was a most astonishing speech. After we combine the speech of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), who did not do his homework, with that of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, who has changed the direction of his Party-


Ian Deans: Not at all.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -we can now understand what has happened to the traditional socialist fire. These people have decided that the old left-wing principles of participation in the economy have certainly gone out the window.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a very simple, straightforward question.


Ian Deans: That is the only kind you can ask.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Does he believe it was a waste of time for the Government of Canada to support the workers of Massey-Fer-guson?


Ian Deans: I thought I heard the ultimate stupidity when listening to other Members speak, but this just has to take the cake.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is what you said; I just summarized it.


Ian Deans: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) should be so incapable of understanding the argument put forward speaks volumes about the way the Ministry operates. I want to make it clear that I was speaking about demand side economics.


John Leslie Evans: Not by messing with the tax rate.


Ian Deans: Demand side. This creates demand by enabling people to have more money in their pockets for purchasing purposes.
December 16, 1983


An Hon. Member:: That's not Ronnie Reagan. That's not what Ronald Reagan did.


Ian Deans: What Ronald Reagan did not do either, incidentally, is pursue the policy of this Government of taxing more heavily in order to hand money out. Whatever his policy turned out to be, it was neither what I was proposing nor what this Government has done. 1 think that is a fair comment. I am offended by the fact that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would compare me to the Member for York Peel (Mr. Stevens).


An Hon. Member:: You have more hair.


Ian Deans: I would like to put to you that, aside from the obvious physical differences, to make a comparison is absolutely outrageous and stupid. Do you know what I would have done on the other question of Massey? 1 would have stimulated the opportunity for the farming community to replace the worn-out and obsolete machinery that they had in order that they could purchase it from Canadian manufacturers like Massey and the workers could have gone back to work. It I were going to spend money, that is where I would have spent it.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a great deal of disagreement with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. We have spoken on a number of fora about tax matters. I find that every time he speaks he gets closer and closer to the position that I have taken. 1 find that interesting. The essence of what is known as the trickle-down theory which the NDP railed about and said was a terrible theory was that you cut taxes and put more money in the hands of the people so that they can spend, save and invest as they will. The benefits from that tax cut flowing through the system would create jobs, employment and income for others. That is what is known as the trickle-down theory.


Ian Deans: No, it is not.


John Leslie Evans: That is supply side economics, Mr. Speaker, of the purest form. The Member for Hamilton Mountain has for the first time espoused the supply side theory of economics and the trickle-down theory of how the economy works as the policy of the New Democratic Party. Welcome to the real world.


Ian Deans: I will be brief. I cannot believe this, it is incredible. The trickle-down theory, my friend, is a Conservative theory which says that if you relieve the burden on the higher income earners there will a trickle down of benefit to those at the bottom. The Member and his Government are doing the opposite. They are taxing more heavily those at the bottom end of the income scale and increasing taxes right across the board in order to provide money to safeguard the investment income of the investors. That is what you are doing. Quite clearly, that is counter to every common-sense,
Income Tax Act
intelligent move that might be suggested by anyone with any knowledge.


Ian Deans: I am suggesting to the Hon. Member that if you want to cut through all the rhetoric you must reduce taxes for average Canadian families. You do not increase them as this Bill is doing. In the process of reducing the tax burden you enable those families to purchase the products manufactured in Canada. In the process of that you create employment. Tell me where that is wrong.


John Leslie Evans: I do not tell you it is wrong.


Ian Deans: Then why are you arguing?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue this most provocative discussion with this marvellous proponent of Reagan politics in Canada. I would like to continue by asking him what he would do in the period of time between the tax relief that he is going to provide for his consumers and the time when workers need their jobs. There is a gap between the time when we stimulate farmers through the tax system and the time when they are going to place orders and start to have an impact with various companies. What does the Hon. Member suggest the Government should do during that time? Should we simply wait until the trickle down occurs and then allow people to line up in soup lines and so on? This is the kind of thing we hear from south of the border. I am wondering if we are now hearing it from Hamilton Mountain as well.


Ian Deans: I have had to change my jacket in order to try to get away from this Reaganomics threat that they seem to be imposing upon me. For God's sake, do not try to interpret the internal works of the book by the cover that is on it. I want to make it clear that the policy being pursued by the Government in every single aspect as it applies to average income earners in Canada increases their tax burden. To increase the tax burden at this point in time is foolish. If the Government continues down the road that it has chosen, there will be a further erosion of consumer purchasing power, the end result of which must inevitably be that our manufacturing sector, not having the markets available to them, will ultimately fail. The Government's pursuit of this in an ideological, blind way is absolutely ridiculous.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McLean:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might invite the Chair to consider calling it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is quite understandable that the Hon. Member would prefer to begin and end his speech rather than have an interruption over the luncheon break.
Accordingly, it being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the debate was interrupted at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) had just been given the floor.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this stage of the debate. On Tuesday of this week 1 listened with interest to that part of the debate which touched upon the voluntary sector, the effect of the Budget speech on the tax measures relating to that sector and its failure to deal with the sector in any significant way. 1 was particularly interested when the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) attempted to interpret after a fashion the give and take tax proposals espoused by national voluntary organizations. As reported on page 156 of Hansard, obviously there is confusion about the relationship between the definition of charitable activity and the implementation of the give and take tax credit which would give to charitable activities a job-creating capacity and to the voluntary sector as a whole a decided impetus.
I am not surprised by this apparent confusion because it mirrors the confusion which has been widespread for some time, obviously within the Government and particularly within the Department of Finance, a confusion which stunningly touched the voluntary sector following the April Budget. Hon. Members will recall that the Minister somehow believed they were being supportive of the voluntary sector by announcing the removal of the $100 standard deduction to make way for what is-and this has been agreed by departmental officials themselves-nothing short of a $80 million tax grab by the federal Treasury. We had a Budget which referred to equity and growth, a Budget which contained in terms of an entire sector of our community nothing but punitive action and no incentive at all.
Because of the shocking lack of information and because almost nothing has been collected by Statistics Canada on the Canadian voluntary sector, we have to turn to non-governmental sources to obtain trend data on the size and the cash flow of that sector. The best available trend information comes from the United Way-Centraide movement, which represents something in the range of one-quarter of non-religious voluntary action in Canada. We learn from the United Way that our voluntary sector is threatened by the Government's neglect. If we turn to that organization's reporting, we see that from 1970 to 1981 the total funds it raised increased by 100 per cent. However, over the same 11-year period the Consumer Price Index, the cost of living, increased by 144 per cent. Of course, this means that the purchasing power or the real value of funds raised by United Way-Centraide decreased by 31 per cent or almost a third since 1970.
It would be very useful to have definitive data on the entire charitable sector, but the Government has not collected such
information. This statistical neglect emanates from the same Government which had the effrontery in the Throne Speech to mention the massive, diverse and vital voluntary sector, and then go on to make seven references to the importance of the sector having done nothing over the past decade to indicate that it knew it even existed.
Leaders of the voluntary sector-and I would like to quote from the NVO Coalition brief-told the Macdonald Commission earlier this week:
-the best available information suggests that Canada's voluntary sector is in decline.
In the same brief of the NVO Coalition, which includes 125 national groups or the majority of Canada's charities, it was concluded:
To look only at the jurisdiction of the federal government, in several fundamental areas of public policy, government is behaving neither consistently nor supportively towards Canada's voluntary sector. As we approach the 21st century, mere toleration of voluntary action, which characterizes the current behavior of government, will no longer suffice.
If we in the House agree that the voluntary sector has an essential role to play in our country's future, we must begin to address the threats to the viability of that sector in the future. Surely the experts on the subject are those closest to the problem. The leaders in this sector have told the Government and Hon. Members of the House on all sides what needs to be done. We should be listening to them. The key problem before us is now to enable the voluntary sector to expand its capacity or to restore its capacity without increasing its dependency upon already too big government.
The key reason for paying priority attention to this is that the voluntary sector has an increasingly major role to play in responding to the crises of our day, particularly to the unemployment crisis at the moment. Hon. Members of the House should know that, quite apart from the huge amount of voluntary labour they encourage, Canada's voluntary organizations are a major employer of Canadians.
For example, a recent study commissioned and published by the Department of the Secretary of State demonstrated that, excluding all universities, teaching institutions and hospitals, the remaining 40,000 charities employed 173,000 Canadians in 1980. That represents one in six jobs in Canada. Undoubtedly the real figure is larger because not all voluntary organizations are registered charities. Voluntary groups in all parts of Canada have been consistent in what they have been telling Members of the House as well as the Government. They see the essential problem as the unfairness or inequity of the tax treatment of charitable gifts by individual taxpayers. I believe they are absolutely right.
For example, for two taxpayers who each make a $200 contribution to the Canadian Cancer Society, one with a taxable income of $50,000 and the other with a taxable income of $15,000, what does it cost each of them to support the Society? The higher income tax payer deducts the $200 from his or her taxable income which, as Hon. Members of the House will know, is taxed at a marginal rate of at least 50 per cent depending upon the province of residence. His or her net
December 16, 1983

cost of making a $200 gift ends up at $100 or less. On the other hand, the lower income tax payer deducts his or her gift from taxable income which is taxed at less than 30 per cent. The after tax cost to the lower taxpayer is therefore at least $140. It is not fair, just or equitable.
What is even more important is that the charities keep telling us that it is not only unfair but is perceived to be unfair. It is loaded against the average person in favour of the affluent. Is it only the affluent of Canada that we wish to encourage to give? The tax deductions basis for charitable giving is the essential problem. No informed person can dispute that the community has come to a consensus on this question.
In the discussions which the National Voluntary Organizations leaders had with tax officials, they were not able to disagree with them. If that is the case, what should we be doing about it? For more than five years the voluntary sector has been putting before the Government of Canada and Ministers of Finance a solution. They have done so with consistency and with growing force, documenting and answering questions the Minister and his officials have brought to them. I am sure Hon. Members of this House have received submissions from voluntary groups on behalf of the give and take tax proposals.
The proposal is simple. Instead of deducting charitable gifts from taxable income, taxpayers should be able to claim a 50 per cent charitable tax credit. What this would mean to the two taxpayers I just referred to is this: the cost of their $200 gift to the Canadian Cancer Society would be the same. It would be $100 after tax. Most important, it would be fair and be seen to be fair. It would create an environment where taxpayers will be encouraged to support their charitable organization with government as their silent partner rather than regularly having government meddling and putting its fingers into the midst of their activities. It will also increase the accountability of voluntary organizations to their members and supporters. It will restore and eventually enhance the fiscal capacity of this sector.
Based on the take-up rate for the political tax credit, which Hon. Members will recall was first introduced in 1975, we know that even the highly motivated 1 per cent of taxpayers who support our federal and provincial political parties took several years to respond fully to the new incentive to give which Parliament had provided for them.
There is no reason to suspect that the much larger number of taxpayers who support Canada's 47,000 registered charities will change their giving behaviour any faster than those who support the political process. As taxpayers learn to become more generous to their community organizations, the forgone revenue, the funds lost in taxation revenue, will increase. We all know that a tax expenditure of this nature is nonetheless an expenditure.
The most important, basic and essential point seems to have escaped the present Government and the Minister of Finance, and it is that the new funds which will flow into Canada's
Income Tax Act
voluntary sector will be twice as large as the cost to government. Two new dollars will become available to the voluntary sector for each dollar of revenue forgone by the Government.
This is a deal which surely in the interests of the taxpayers the Government should not be passing up. It is twice as cost effective as a grant to a voluntary organization by the Government. It avoids entirely the danger of dependency which concerns not just organizations but also small business and, indeed, all thoughtful Canadians.
Hon. Members may know that over the years officials of the department of Finance have presented to the National Voluntary Organizations Coalition a continuing, changing cost analysis of what it would cost to bring in the give and take proposals. Always, however, the cost estimates have assumed two things: first, that taxpayers would respond very rapidly to the proposed changes; and second, that the new charitable giving would impose a heavy burden on our exchequer.
As to the first assumption coming from the tax department, it is simply unrealistic. There is nothing to show it would happen in the exercise of the political tax credit. As to the second, it is in effect a veiled endorsement of the give and take proposal because it is based on the assumption that the proposal, when implemented, will accomplish its basic objective, which is to invigorate that entire sector; that is, to take the pressure off government spending into many of the areas with which the voluntary sector has had a real and historic involvement.
It is important to remember that when our voluntary organizations raise money, they spend it on labour. They hire low and middle-income Canadians, many of whom are in the target group of this Government; women, handicapped and first-time entrants into the labour force. They train people, another target of this Government, in the areas of essential skills, in many cases irreplaceable skills, while responding to the problems of the community. The voluntary sector, quite apart from its volunteer labour, is, as I have pointed out, an employer of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. One can make the assertion that it is our most labour-intensive industry.
In its Throne Speech, the Government announced its intention to create a so-called national voluntary service. The Government has issued vague and contradictory statements since the Throne Speech which, either through design or incompetence, have confused the public. For example, the CBC national television news on the night of the Throne Speech reported to its audience that the Government intended to pay volunteers. If through re-packaging or new spending this Government intends to engage in further direct job creation through the voluntary sector, I urge it to consider whether looking to the longer term in our nation it is spending the taxpayers' money effectively for its stated purposes. The amount in question happens to be about the same amount as the Department of Finance has estimated the give and take proposals might cost.
Even discounting the erroneous assumption by Finance Department officials, I ask Hon. Members to consider the

December 16, 1983
274___________________________________
Income Tax Act trade-offs involved. Suppose we invest this sum in the give and take tax credit. We would end up generating two new charitable dollars for each dollar this Government forgoes in revenue. This money would flow directly into the voluntary sector. It would create more stable jobs than the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) is capable of imagining. Instead of a type of quick-fix, there would be an investment in long-term job creation in Canada's most labour-intensive sector. There would be no further manipulation of our voluntary organizations for the sake of this Government's electoral timetable.
There is time, not much time but still stome time, for this Government to reconsider. Indeed, the next Budget may be its last chance. On behalf of Hon. Members on this side, I urge the Government to move toward implementing the give and take proposals without delay. No action could be more constructive and more cost effective for a government that truly believes in and supports voluntary action, a government whose Throne Speech has referred to "Canada's massive diverse and vital voluntary sector". The three million Canadians who participate in the voluntary sector are watching to see the reaction of this Government. Increasingly that sector is communicating to itself. It recognizes there are now 373 million hours of voluntary labour representing over $2 billion. The Government's response to the give and take will demonstrate once and for all whether those remarks in the Throne Speech are just cynical rhetoric or whether it really is a death-bed repentance.
[DOT] (M30)


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we have heard once again a heated presentation from the Hon. Member and I think we should commend him for his perseverance on this topic. He is always ready to present his ideas quite eloquently even if he mixes those ideas up with a little political rhetoric from time to time.
During his speech, the Hon. Member said that he was speaking on behalf of the members on his side of the House. Does that mean that an endorsement of the give and take proposal is an official policy of his Party?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in the House and out, I have indicated that that is the decision of our caucus. I have spoken to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in committee regarding that matter. I have said that if the Government will bring in that proposal, we will support it and its implementation. That was said before the last Budget was brought down. Representations were made in committee. That question is not in debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that those ideas are my ideas. Let me say that while I do endorse those ideas, they are also endorsed by the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What is your Party's position?


Walter Franklin McLean: Our Party has reviewed those ideas very carefully and we believe they are based upon the same principle of incentive which we have indicated is so important for the small business sector and the principle that the voluntary sector does not need more grants but needs to be able to make its own determination with less government involvement. That the Parliamentary Secretary is in doubt about where this Party stands on this matter, after the months we have been advocating, reviewing and supporting the proposals that have come from the National Voluntary Organizations, is somewhat amazing to me.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that I have managed to amaze the Hon. Member this afternoon. However, I was amazed when, on December 11, a Calgary newspaper published a story which indicated that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had said in an interview that his Party would not present any position on any topic at all because it did not want the Liberals to steal its ideas. I presume that the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) is taking a different tack today. At least he is ready to be specific and I commend his approach rather than the one taken by the Hon. Member for Yukon.
I would like to ask a follow-up question. If his Party has examined these proposals and contends that a more vigorous voluntary sector will result, that a more vigorous voluntary sector will take the pressure off government services, then is the Hon. Member saying that he supports a transfer of funds from grants whenever the tax expenditure starts to grow? For example, would voluntary arts groups that start to claim more and more in the form of tax expenditures support the diminish-ment of grants for arts activities from the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox)?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, let me deal first with the last point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. All along, the matter at the root of this has been the suggestion that we be free to make our own decisions. The Parliamentary Secretary has come right to the nub of the matter. The voluntary sector, whether it be in arts and culture, caring, recreation, amateur sports, religion or international aid, would like to be able to plan ahead. It would like to be able to know that it can raise money, that it is not dependent and that it has the Government as a silent partner. It recognizes that that will then leave it with the responsibility to sell its product and involve more citizens in its activities.
We must recognize the realities. After all, these three million Canadians who volunteer their time are some of the most cost-conscious people in the country. They know the worth of their time. They are the ones who are most critical of big government spending. They are telling us that they would be prepared to recognize the realities of today's world and they believe that when government spends a dollar, they can do the same thing for about 35 cents or 40 cents.
Let us be quite clear about the red herring raised by the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the stealing of ideas. We are espousing an idea that was put forward by a major sector
December 16, 1983

within Canadian society. We have been dealing with this matter for some time and have been pressing the Government to take action on it. If the Government will take action, the health of our society will be stimulated. If anything, along with so many other areas of government, there are too many policies. The question is not one of policies but is one of trust or confidence in the Government.
Let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary that no sector of society does not recognize that there exists the question of trusting the Government to be an equal partner. Will the Government trust those people to get on with their cultural work, caring work and international assistance which they know how to do so well? The Parliamentary Secretary would like to make another comment.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I somehow seem to set the Hon. Member off into these attacks he has been making but I do not mean my line of questioning to be hostile toward him at all. 1 would like him to understand that.
I take it, therefore, that he says that if the voluntary sector absorbs tax expenditure in the form of tax credits, then the pressure on the Government to make direct expenditures in the form of grants will ease. He says that this process will therefore not only balance out but the higher value of the tax credit will leave us with a richer voluntary sector in the end. He said something about $2 for every $1.
I wonder if he could give us some more information. Again,
1 do not ask this question in a hostile manner but would simply appreciate some enlightenment on the problem of universality and the problem of selecting the appropriate charities or voluntary groups. Can the Hon. Member give us some idea of how universal access, the ensuring of which I think is the responsibility of government, can be guaranteed? Second, what general standards would we be using to select groups that would qualify for such tax credits and incentives?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has raised two questions. He first raised the question of the easing of government expenditure. Given the deficits that are now part of our parliamentary situation, the reality is that the funds are not available. The question to be asked is: If we are to maintain the quality of life we have now, how are we to most effectively deliver these programs? If we are also to maintain a sense of involvement and quality of life, we must take into account two factors. These two factors are cost effectiveness and the building of the quality of life through involvement, the sharing of values and the whole question of the shape and style of our society.
The Parliamentary Secretary then moved to the second area of concern to the voluntary agencies, which is the whole question of allowable political activity. Because of the time that is available to me today, Mr. Speaker, and since we are dealing with the Income Tax Act, I have spoken particularly about the Income Tax Act as it affects the voluntary sector. I could easily have taken this time to speak about the screw-up in the Department of National Revenue as it relates to unfair treatment. I see that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Income Tax Act
Bussieres) is present and I am almost tempted to begin to discuss that subject.
However, the question in that regard is that there has also been a whole series of proposals for changing the guidelines put before the Minister and his officials. These proposals would answer the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary of who should be legitimate. There is a recognition that there must be responsibility on the part of government and that there must be some peer entry so that people concerned and knowledgeable have a point of appeal. Earlier in the week I asked the Minister about the bullying tactics of his Department and the refusal to re-register or to deal with the matter.
The Government proposals that the Parliamentary Secretary raised are outlined in the paper submitted to the Macdonald Commission. It suggests that there are criteria which are open to debate, with three clear exceptions: activities that are criminal in nature; support or opposition, financial or otherwise, to any political Party or candidate for elected office at any level of government; and any activity which would benefit a member of the charity in his capacity as a member. The brief suggests that there is need for an open and fair mechanism for reviewing the entire area.
When one examines the matter of advocacy or allowable charitable activity, one finds that the opinion expressed by the umbrella Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations is that Revenue Canada has been harassing them, has not been trying to sort the matter out, and that after many years, only now is it proposed to form a parliamentary committee to define all this.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a final comment and I will keep it brief so that the Hon. Member may reply. I am still not clear. If the give and take proposal or some variation of it is introduced, it would put lots of money in the hands of volunteer agencies. Does that mean that his Party would support a reduction of grants to some agencies, or would yet another layer of funding be added to those agencies?
Also, how does the Hon. Member propose to deal with the problems of universal access by all Canadians to problems which are easily solved through government but not so easily solved through volunteer agencies?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to grant unanimous consent for the extension of the ten-minute question and answer period?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the question was about the extra demand on the Treasury. I felt I had begun to address that in my last comments. As was the case with the political tax credit which took two or three years before political Parties began to understand what was needed, so in the present case there would be no instant quick-fix. I thought I had made that point. This proposal would strengthen the viability of that sector of our society and maintain its health and vitality. Government,

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
with limited financial resources, would not be under pressure to make extra demands. I believe that proposal has been addressed.
In terms of universality, what we are talking about is the individual's right to participate. It has never been suggested that the volunteer sector should do everything that the government should do but it needs help to make its contribution to society. Where there are gaps in society and there is no volunteer activity to fill them, the Canadian tradition has been for government to stimulate or encourage the voluntary sector from time to time. It is like the elephant that begins to get its nose into the tent and is soon inside. Now things have gone so far that they are saying: "Let us have the tent back and we will from time to time negotiate where that is necessary".


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). Does this issue not come down to one thing, namely, that in the Budget brought in earlier this year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), he took half of the give and take proposal offered by the voluntary organizations when he cancelled the $100 standard deduction? He did not take the other half of the proposal, however, which was the tax credit proposal. Is it not a fact that the Government has done a tax grab on the voluntary sector and has hurt it by not adopting the tax credit proposal to which it is legitimately entitled? Is that not the heart of the matter?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) underlines the fact that this is not just a minor tax grab; $80 million in tax revenue was anticipated and there was no incentive given to that voluntary sector. The Budget spoke of putting incentives and stimulation into different sectors but the voluntary sector was ignored. The irony of it is that, despite all the briefings he received, when the Minister was questioned in the House he said it got half of what it wanted. The proposal was that if the $100 standard tax deduction was removed, people should be reminded that charities and agencies still depend on them. For the Government to go half way was worse than nothing.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: How is it worse than nothing?


Walter Franklin McLean: It is worse than nothing because this sector depends on signals from the Government. At the present time people are hard pressed, so less revenue is going into this sector. Fewer volunteers are available because so many women have returned to the work force. The caring agencies have more work than ever and society is in need of some stroking from the Government.
All this has a lot to do with a tax measure which merely sends a signal to people that the Government is not even asking them to address the matter but is removing the assistance it formerly gave. That can only be interpreted as a refusal to see this sector of society as worth while.
The first priority of the National Voluntary Organizations is the 50 per cent tax credit; the second is the clarification of the definition of revenue; and the third is recognition of their role.
When the Parliamentary Secretary asks what they do With a half way measure like this, the answer is that the Government does nothing to give recognition to their role. It has not offered to undertake serious economic studies or to set up co-ordinating mechanisms. There were seven references to this in the Throne Speech and an indication at long last that a task force would be formed to study information that has been available for 10 or 15 years. We have not heard when the task force will meet, what its terms of reference are or when it will report. Those of us who are concerned can be forgiven for being somewhat cynical about whether the Government intends to take action in this sector.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, that deserves some reply. At least I give credit to the NDP for recognizing that the $100 standard deduction had previously been a personal deduction for people who did not make any contribution to any voluntary sector or charity. It was simply a standard deduction whether one gave or did not give; in fact, it was an incentive not to give because one could get the deduction without giving any money away.
Now, all that the Government is saying is that if you want the deduction, you must prove that you gave the money. We have said to the people who are not giving money and claiming the deduction: "Prove it. Come up with a receipt. Make the actual donation you are claiming you made".
We are not saying we are going to divert the money away from the voluntary sector and into the Treasury. We have not said that at all. As a matter of fact, we have said the very opposite. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South and the Hon. Member for Waterloo used terrific political rhetoric when they said it is a tax grab. It is not a tax grab. In fact, let me assure Hon. Members that we would be quite happy to forgo the $80 million, provided there are $80 million worth of receipts to show the money was given to the voluntary and charitable sector. We are not saying we are diverting the money away from those sectors. We are simply saying we would like it to be given to those people who give instead of simply being claimed-without any hot air.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, let me make a response to this last point. The evidence of the National Voluntary Organizations on the question of the demand for receipts is that it costs Canada's voluntary agencies $8 every time they are now forced to give a receipt for $5, what with the accentuated post office rates we have now and the records which are required by the Department. So they are now in the process of saying that this is truly a disincentive. This Government has given nothing on the other side to offset the costs. What it has done is put a net penalty on these voluntary agencies.


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Waterloo, given the previous interjection. Would the Hon. Member care to tell the House why, in his view, the Budget underlying this change estimates that the Government will increase its revenues by $80 million as a direct result,
December 16, 1983

unless the Government expects to take in more money and only from those people who are no longer going to be able to make the deduction for charitable donations?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Be honest about the answer. It is not out of the pockets of the charities.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is not out of the pockets of the charities, it is out of the pockets of the public. But Government does not come clean and say to the public: "We have now put through another devious plan to impose another hidden tax on you". The Parliamentary Secretary does well to bring this matter out, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), absolutely hit the nail on the head. We are dealing here with flim-flam if we are talking about a tax proposal which will do something to stimulate growth in the country. This tax measure is a kind of disincentive and a kind of dishonesty.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, one very true thing which the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) said was that we are dealing with flim-flam, because what I have heard from him and his two colleagues directly opposite from me is flim-flam. Is it now the position of the Tory Party that people should be able to get credit for charitable donations which they do not make?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is right. Good for you.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is what the Hon. Member is saying, Mr. Speaker. That is not the position of this Government. When the Hon. Member says it costs charitable organizations $8 for every receipt they issue, that is the ultimate red herring. That is a lot of hogwash. The Hon. Member knows better. When he has his colleague stand up and put "patsy" questions to him in that regard, he is being quite dishonest with this House. If it is the position of the Tory Party that people should receive tax credits for charitable donations which they do not make, let him stand in his place now and say so.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is exactly his position on this.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the position of this Party is that the Government ought to bring before the people of Canada incentives, not disincentives. In the action it has taken, it has put a disincentive in front of the people of Canada. My hon. colleague can try to divert the attention of the House, and of the public who follow this debate, so that they will somehow believe that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is an incentive, and here there is a disincentive, plus a penalty in terms of the cost which is imposed on each of those 47,000 voluntary agencies.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, we have now had a new position from the Tory Party, that it is in fact an incentive for people to give if they do not have to show they have given. That is the most convoluted logic I have heard yet. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that what the Government has done is to put an incentive in the tax system to say: "If you
Income Tax Act
give, and show you have given, you will receive a tax credit for it". What the Official Opposition is saying is: "You do not have to give, and you do not have to show you have given, and you can still receive a tax credit for it". Is that the position of the Opposition?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is exactly what they are saying.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, my colleague says we need a charitable institution to help the Hon. Member. It seems to me that what we are talking about here is proposals put forward by Canada's National Voluntary Organization, and we are talking about a government which gives them half a loaf and attempts to "snow" them.
Obviously, the issue is not whether there should be tax receipts at any point. What we are talking about is a proposal which includes the removal of the $100 tax allowance, and included in that should be the incentive to offset the costs which would somehow stimulate and send a signal to Canadians that the work that those people are doing is worth while.
The proposals were fully before the committee and the Department. This is not a discussion, Mr. Speaker, which is beginning today, although. I welcome this discussion. The Government commissioned a report under Judge Andreychuk in 1974. In 1978 it had a consultation. In 1981 the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), then the Minister responsible for charitable organizations, met with voluntary agency representatives in consultation and it was all reviewed.
We have now had a succession of Secretaries of State and Ministers of Finance review the matter. For Hon. Members to come to the House and somehow indicate that the matter has not been looked at, that there were not some proposals of give and take on both sides, that there were not some new proposals-the work of edicting them has not even been done by government or Statistics Canada-does absolutely no credit to this place or give any encouragement to that sector which wonders where this Government may go.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Hon. Member for Waterloo a simple question in an attempt to deal with the lack of understanding of Hon. Members opposite with respect to anything about charities and volunteer agencies in Canada. Is it not a fact that before the changes in this income tax measure, one could give and did not receive any credit unless one were in a relatively high bracket, and the Budget change took away the automatic deduction but introduced no new incentive whatsoever to increase one's charitable donation to any charity in order to help those who need help? Is it also not a fact that the Government estimates that through this change it will increase its coffers by $80 million without giving anyone out there any incentive additional to what is already in the law to help those who need help?


Walter Franklin McLean: I thank my hon. colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. We have already agreed, and the Parliamentary Secretary has confirmed, the matter of the additional government revenues of $80 million. Earlier in my remarks I gave the example that under the present format, with respect to persons

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
with differing incomes giving the same amount to the Cancer Society, it would cost a person on a $15,000 income more than it would the person on a $50,000 income.
We are trying to encourage a sense of charity and generosity across our society. Something which is indexed against the low income person-who has as much right to give and to be encouraged to give as any other Canadian-surely should not be something which is given to the rich. Rather it should be something which enhances the health of our entire society, and our tax measures ought to affirm that.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is arguing against himself even though he is being asked "put-up" questions. He is saying this deduction is going to hurt the guy who makes $50,000 as much as it is going to hurt the guy who makes $15,000. Is that not precisely what we want? Is it reasonable to expect that the person who makes $50,000 a year and has no deductible receipts is going to get the same benefit as the fellow who makes $15,000 and has no receipts? That is the kind of Tory financial argument we get in this House all the time.
The fact is that if you have to produce receipts to get a deduction, you are going to give enough so that those receipts will be large enough to warrant a deduction. The Opposition is saying that the guy who gives a quarter at the end of October for a poppy is entitled to a deduction of $100, whether or not he gives anything else during the year. That is precisely what the Hon. Member for Waterloo is saying.


Mr. Kempling:: What a sick mind.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If it is the Hon. Member's position that the automatic deduction of $100 per taxpayer, whether or not he gives anything, is beneficial to charities, I would like to have someone over there explain to me the logic of that convoluted nonsense.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all express some measure of sorrow. The proposals I have been espousing today have been sent regularly by the National Voluntary Organizations Coalition to the Hon. Member's office. If his comments in response to those proposals reflect the seriousness with which he takes them, and if he does not have in his riding a cancer society, a Red Cross, a UNICEF, church groups, a ballet, a choir or a cultural group, or any national voluntary groups, then he will not need to worry about what that sector has been saying.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are trying to make another speech.


Walter Franklin McLean: The Hon. Member raised the question of equity. I gave an illustration of a $200 contribution to the cancer society from two taxpayers, one with a taxable income of $50,000 and the other of $15,000. The question I asked was, what does it cost these two citizens to support the Canadian Cancer Society? The higher income taxpayer deducts the $200
from his taxable income, which is taxed at a marginal rate of at least 50 per cent depending on the province of residence. His net cost of making the $200 gift ends up at $100 or less. The lower income taxpayer deducts the gift from taxable income, which is taxed at less than 30 per cent. His or her after tax cost is therefore $140. Given a difference of $35,000 between the two, the lower income person is paying $40 more for the privilege of participating in the voluntary sector life of Canada.
If the Hon. Member wishes I will arrange a meeting with the leadership of the National Voluntary Organizations and let them explain it to him the way they have to me. Possibly they can convince him where I cannot of the merit of this proposal.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's logic is impeccable but for the great flaw in it. The proposition he is putting forward is that the person who makes $15,000 is going to contribute exactly the same as the person who makes $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000. He expects us to sit here and swallow that garbage because of the self-righteousness with which he is putting forward the proposal. That is absolute nonsense and he knows it. Why does he not deal with the reality instead of the idealism he is trying to put forward here, which he himself does not believe in, any more than his colleagues believe in medicare? They are only supporting that because it is politically expedient.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, since Hon. Members have an opportunity to give speeches on the Bill before us, or on their views generally of the tax system, I suggest that we consider the question and answer period to have come to a close and go on to listen to other speakers with other points of view.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's sentiment. I regret but I happen to have a couple of questions more. I think we should put these questions to the Hon. Member for Waterloo for two reasons: first, because he is a good and positive spokesman for the give and take proposal when he decides to promote it positively instead of with a lot of political rhetoric; second, because there is some confusion here, which has been pointed out quite clearly by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


William James Kempling: He is the one who is confused.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The solution offered in the give and take proposal is worthy of debate. It is a good idea worthy of considerable examination. It may or may not fly but it certainly merits some debate. In the Budget we approached an entirely separate problem. The Hon. Member for Waterloo has said that tax deductions have certain problems and tax credits have certain attractions. In making that comment he has clearly distinguished between the current approach and his proposed approach. I ask him to stop mixing up the budget proposal, which is for immediate consideration, and his give and take proposal, which can be handled over the longer term and should be debated. By mixing them up he diminishes the
December 16, 1983

proposal, and he should know that. He is demeaning his own idea and he should be ashamed.
Let me remind the House that the Members of the NDP have been honest about this. The standard deduction has been used as a personal, non-charitable deduction. To get rid of the confusion the Hon. Member has raised, 1 would point out that in the Budget Speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), said "Representatives of voluntary organisations have expressed concern that this deduction reduces the tax incentive for charitable giving since the deduction is not directly related to amounts given". That is a direct quote and it is accurate. All we are saying is that we want to help the voluntary sector. We want people who claim to make the gifts to come up actually with the receipt showing they made the gifts. Then, when we get that cleared away, let us go on to the idea that the Hon. Member has raised, because it is worthy of debate. He stands up here and mixes the two together and hurts his own idea with the cheap political rhetoric he has been giving us this afternoon.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the Budget and to what the voluntary agencies have said. Let me remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the representatives of the national voluntary agencies sought a meeting with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) after the speech in order to clarify the record. 1 regret, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have the documentation here.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: 1 would like to see it.


Walter Franklin McLean: I will find the correspondence between them showing the misrepresentation of what they said. The voluntary agencies said that they agree with what was in the Throne Speech. 1 see behind the curtain the Parliamentary Secretary who was then responsible. He may recall that they said that they agreed, but the Minister put in the speech only half of what the agreement was. They agreed with that provided the Government put the other incentives in.


John Leslie Evans: Not true.


Walter Franklin McLean: 1 recall the comments and the questions in the House on the basis of their correspondence to the Minister of Finance. That is only half of the record. The Throne Speech represented an agreement from that sector which they themselves disputed after the Budget.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think 1 have to intervene because there was no agreement. The Hon. Member talks about an agreement as though the Minister of Finance had agreed that he would undertake the give and take proposal as well as eliminate the $100 standard deduction. There was no agreement. There was representation made by the National Voluntary Organizations that the $100 standard deduction should be removed first and the give and take proposal of a 50 per cent tax credit should be introduced. That is true, but there was no agreement about that. The voluntary sector made the
Income Tax Act
representation clearly and honestly. It asked why the taxpayers would be asked to give a $100 deduction to everyone across the board, whether or not they made any contribution whatsoever to a charitable organization. It does not make sense and it should have been abolished a long time ago.


Mr. Forrestall:: Why wasn't it?


John Leslie Evans: It now has been. This Government is doing it right now. Mr. Speaker, there should not be a $100 standard deduction that is independent of the fact of giving to a voluntary organization. The voluntary organizations said that we should not have this $100 standard deduction anyway because it does not make any sense. Even without the $100 standard deduction it is not going to attract the kind of donations which we think are good for the country. They are not going to make sure that the distribution of giving is broadly spread across the income spectrum. The fact of the deduction, as opposed to a tax credit, means that the higher income people are going to have a greater incentive to give than the lower income people. We would like to see that spread in incentives eliminated. The way to do that is to introduce a tax credit.
Let it be clearly on the record, Mr. Speaker that no voluntary organization would ever stand up and say that on the tax forms of this country there should be a $100 standard deduction that is supposedly related to charitable giving but in fact has no relationship to charitable giving whatsoever. None of them would say that. All the worthy charitable organizations in this country will provide you with a receipt. That receipt can be written off against your taxes today as it could have been before. The $100 gift to those who did not give a dime to the charitable organizations is being removed. Those who do give will get exactly the same deduction as they always got.
The next question is whether we should use a tax credit system as opposed to a deduction system. That is a debate that is worthy and should be entered into in the House, but it is not something which is dealt with in the legislative proposal which is before us today.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, once again we are into the question of interpretation and memory. The Parliamentary Secretary, quite rightly, suggested that there was agreement on the part of the voluntary agencies that that provision should be removed. I agree with him. There has been no disagreement. Their proposals were always linked, and at no time was there a suggestion that those would somehow be divided. The Parliamentary Secretary does disservice to the record. The reason that the agencies were so upset after the Budget Speech was that their linkage, their proposal with its linkage, was not honoured. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that the $100 deduction does not have an effect, it now means that any time you give a $5 donation it is going to cost those agencies, on average, by their own records, $8 in order to issue a receipt for it.


John Leslie Evans: Not true.

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act


Walter Franklin McLean: The Parliamentary Secretary says it is not true. All I can say is that the agencies which are costing it themselves gave me that information. At the moment I prefer to take the information I am given from them regarding their own costs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member saying that today the national charitable organizations would say that they want the Government to introduce a $100 standard deduction?


Walter Franklin McLean: It is not the issue.


John Leslie Evans: Yes, it is the issue because the $100 standard deduction is being removed. If there was no $100 standard deduction today-


Walter Franklin McLean: You are trying to make it the issue to serve your purpose.


John Leslie Evans: That is what is in the Budget proposals. Would the organizations come forward and say that that measure should be introduced as a matter of public policy? They would not say that. Therefore, you cannot say that there is a necessary linkage between the removal of the deduction and the 50 per cent tax credit. That is a red herring.
The Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, has just raised the subject of the $8 to issue a receipt. That is only applicable if the organization is using direct mail fund raising and the money coming in is received by a direct mail agency. In that case, a receipt has to be sent back. In that case, it is going to cost more. It certainly does not cost $8; that would be the most expensive form. The organizations which have volunteers who go door to door, such as the Heart Fund, the National Cancer Society and the Terry Fox centre will write you out a receipt if you give them a cheque for $10 or $5 at the door. Do not tell me that costs $8.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That's right.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that. This introduces another interesting question of whether the Government, by its policy, wishes to divide agency from agency. We are dealing not only with charitable organizations but with cultural and sport organizations and, in the international field, with coalitions. These organizations are beginning, in the interest of scarce resources, to pool their resources in order to increase their efficiency of operation.
A moment ago in his response, the Hon. Member raised the question of what we think is good for the country in relation to the voluntary agency. We come to the profound philosophical difference between the Liberal Party and its use of tax dollars to manipulate and to direct the country, and the freedoms that I would be prepared to give to the voluntary sector to make their own decisions, recognizing that they are going to make some decisions that will cause me some discomfort.
On the question of how we use the tax system as an incentive for encouraging the best in this sector in our society, of late the Hon. Member's Government has begun to say that
incentives are good for small business and the business sector because they allow them to make some of their own mistakes and to share with government instead of government taking all the blame. I ask him to begin to apply the logic, which he has now begun to discover about the voluntary sector, to that sector and begin to trust it. The suggestion about the removal of the $100 tax deduction was that it was not encouraging that incentive. The voluntary sector said, "Do not hang us out to dry. Give us something that will provide an incentive". What we are being asked to vote on in the House at this point is tax legislation which does nothing to stimulate that sector. On the other hand, the same Budget put up incentives for small business. I do not see where the equity is.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberiand-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I think we are starting to smoke them out a bit. Finally, the Hon. Member has said that they are not talking about charities but about cultural endeavours and international endeavours. All afternoon he was talking about charitable donations. Suddenly he is not talking about that, because he is in a corner, a corner from which there is no exit.
He was asked directly if he would propose as a national policy that the Government introduce immediately a $100 tax-free deduction for charity. He said that he was not talking about charity, he was talking about cultural and international organizations. We are getting somewhere. This shows the value of extending this question period.
Since he did not answer the question from my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), which was a valid question, I want to ask the Hon. Member if he is in favour or not in favour of the Government's bringing in a policy to give every Canadian a $100 tax deduction for charitable, cultural or international donations, whether or not the individual taxpayer makes that donation. Is he saying that that is cheaper than having to issue receipt for the donations?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear that this Party is not advocating the return of the $100 tax deduction.


Marcel Dionne: That is what you have been arguing all day.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is what you are saying.


Walter Franklin McLean: As the Hon. Member came into the House and entered the debate late, let me explain that our question was a discussion about the give and take tax proposals put forward by Canada's national voluntary agencies. It is in relation to the Budget and we are discussing tax legislation. We are making a comment about the failure of the Government to act in this particular area. Let me remind the Hon. Member that we are talking about a sector of our society which has been recognized by government Departments. Possibly he would like to have a briefing from the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) and the officials in the voluntary action sector. Possibly he would like to understand that when we talk

December 16, 1983
to that sector and when we look at the statistics which I mentioned earlier about the number of people, the input into the Gross National Product and the numbers of hours that go into it, we are dealing with these areas.
We are dealing with the Government's relationship with voluntary groups that give assistance to the disadvantaged, the advancement of religion, advancement of education, advancement of health, conservation of natural environment, as well as other purposes beneficial to the community. That is the frame of reference under which the voluntary agencies put themselves. If the Hon. Member wishes to dissociate himself from those, so be it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today our respective House leaders entered into an agreement or understanding regarding how the proceedings today would continue. 1 do not recall part of that gentlemen's agreement being a prolonged question and answer period. 1 believe it has served us well and we have agreed to continue with this, but 1 suspect, having listened to the arguments for the past half hour, that the arguments over the last 15 or 20 minutes have simply been arguments repeated time and again. I do not believe that we are exposing any new information or material.
I ask that the House give some consideration to returning to our normal procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member made that proposal earlier in a somewhat similar expression. As I understand it, the House gave its unanimous consent to an unlimited continuation of the question, answer and comment period which is normally of ten-minute's duration. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) deserves considerable commendation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As far as I know, while I have been in the chair no Member has been able to take a 20-minute speech and add a 10-minute question period for a total of something in the order of an hour and fifteen minutes.
However, the difficulty for the Chair is simply that the House gave unanimous consent to an extended question and answer period without putting a time limit on it. I would advise members, if I may, that I am receiving conflicting signals. Some of these signals indicate that there are Members who would like to enter debate and some of the signals, which are clearly given by Members to my right rising to continue the question and answer period, are that we ought to continue.
There are formal methods, the most usual of which would be to put a motion to see a particular method, for the purposes of debate, by which this could be done. 1 think that perhaps we might take a couple of minutes to see whether or not there is a mood in the House to move on to debate. If not, I invite those Hon. Members who wish to move to debate to consider a motion for that purpose.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In the meantime, it is my view that since unanimous consent did not include any time limit, 1 will continue to recognize Hon. Members on questions and answers. I must. There is no choice.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. To begin with, 1 find it strange that a member of the NDP, a Party which has used every tactic in the book over and over to delay debate, is now saying that we should not delay debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: A point of order is an appeal to the rules and standing orders of the House. I must ask Hon. Members who rise on a point of order to do that. Before I can recognize the Hon. Member on a question, I must recognize any other points of order.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I agree with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and I agree with you as well that we should commend the Member for Waterloo for his endurance contest. He has indeed contributed greatly to the debate.
I would like to note his contribution at the end of the question session when he said that his Party was not advocating a return of the $100 standard deduction. However, may 1 propose a second point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before we get to a
second point of order, would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary address himself to the first point of order? I would be pleased to hear any point of order, but let us make it a point of order.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. Your gentle teaching is moving me in the right direction. Since the unanimous consent of the House for extending the question period has meant that we have probably robbed one speaker of a full 20-minute cycle, 1 suggest, with the good will of the House, that we could give the next speaker a 20-minute cycle and a 10-minute question period, which would restore us to the normal balance in debate. We could then resume shorter speeches. I propose that you seek unanimous consent to go back to debate and to give the next speaker his or her regular turn with a 20-minute speech with questions.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not give unanimous consent to that. I want to put a question to the last speaker.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There is nothing in the rules which says we have to alternate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize Hon. Members, whether to the left or to the right, in the usual fashion. I think it is consistent, but the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is pursuing a form of supplementary questions, and since the time is unlimited by the decision of the House of Commons, I will recognize the

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
Hon. Member after 1 hear first from the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This points out the foolishness of giving unanimous consent to continue the question period. Since it has been given, though, I am taking advantage of it.
I wish to put a final question to the Hon. Member for Waterloo, who has finally got around to saying that he is not worried about the $100 deduction for charitable donations but rather about other donations. I will put a very direct question to him. Has his Party come to this decision on the same basis that they have come to the decision on medicare, that it is politically expedient to take a position against the removal of the $100 donation not because the donation was good for charities-in fact, it was bad for charities-but because it sounds politically sexy? Is that the position of the Opposition?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, that provocative question will not draw bait. 1 have been reflecting the concern of the NVO Coalition. Its concern was that the provisions in the Budget and the tax matters we are debating today reflect only half the proposals. The proposal to withdraw the $100 automatic tax deduction without any incentive to that sector is not adequate. The question as to whether or not we are in favour of reinstating that provision is not the issue in front of the House today.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, it is the issue. Answer the question.


Walter Franklin McLean: We are dealing with proposals which have been put forward by the Government and the question of whether or not they represent the interests and concerns of national voluntary agencies, in the Budget Speech it was suggested that they did represent such agencies, but the agencies themselves have indicated that they were tied to a scheme of tax credits which would bring some incentive to the sector. This is a position which our Party endorses and will seek to advocate with the hope that the Government in its dying days will implement it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the Hon. Member has endured a long question period. If he had not given such a flawed speech, he would not have required such endurance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers, comments?


Mr. McCain:: On debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would have been the Hon. Member's normal privilege to give a 20-minute speech followed by a 10-minute question and answer period, had we not extended the preceding question
period. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to restore that full privilege to the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte rather than limit him to a 10-minute speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would certainly want to seek understanding as to whether the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) wishes to have that privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to the attention of the Chair that the House is operating under a House order. I think we should stick to that. Debate has been called, the Hon. Member has risen and I think he should be recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am not clear as to what the Hon. Member is suggesting. The motion, if I might call it that, is a faulty one because it has not been seconded.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I did not put a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I propose to recognize the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte. That Hon. Member ought to be heard for a period of 20 minutes rather than 10 minutes. That is a change from our Standing Orders because at this point in time more than eight hours of debate has passed and accordingly all speeches have to be limited to 10 minutes.


Mr. Fennell:: He ought to be given 20 minutes.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In order to understand the mood of the House, perhaps I should be a bit more formal. It has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), that the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte but no other Hon. Member be granted debate time of 20 minutes.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I was not moving a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) rising on that point?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have witnessed a charade for the last hour in which certain Hon. Members on both sides of the House have flagrantly abused the principle involved in the ten-minute question and comment period.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I just wanted him to have his allotted time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Whether or not the Chair agrees there has been flagrant abuse, I
December 16, 1983

frankly think it is my duty to defend Hon. Members in this situation because the House gave unanimous consent to extend that question and answer period. In any event, the only thing I need to know from the Hon. Member for Spadina is whether or not he extends his consent to the proposition of the Parliamentary Secretary, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: There is already a question before the
House.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I have a separate one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize that Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) on the point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, we do not require unanimous consent. If it is a request for unanimous consent, that is one thing, but I distinctly hear the Chair say that it was a motion and that it was seconded. If that is the case, it is a majority vote of Members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is the fault of the Chair. 1 should have stated that the Parliamentary Secretary was seeking unanimous consent. I correct myself in that regard. That is the basis upon which we are operating. I will once again put the question. Is there unanimous consent to extend the 20-minute debate period solely to the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent? I think I heard a weak "no"; I want to be sure. Is there unanimous consent or not?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thought my answer was quite audible. Others have heard it, but I will repeat it for the fourth time, "no".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the Hon. Member. I had to ask because obviously the Hon. Member's microphone was not turned on and I was not sure whether I heard a "no".
The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte on a ten-minute
debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We tried.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, there are those of generous heart in the House. Had I had an opportunity to answer your question, I would have said that it was my obligation to observe the rules of the House and that I would not impose myself upon others in the House. I extended
Income Tax Act
unanimous consent even though I had an appointment and was somewhat embarrassed to have to wait this period of time. 1 hope the Hon. Member who said "no" said it with a clear conscience and a generosity of heart of which he can be proud in days to come. However, it was not necessary.
I would like to refer to something which I did not see this year, anywhere 1 was. This year I did not see anyone put a quarter in the box for a poppy. It was either a handful of coins or a bill. It seems to me that the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) who offers a quarter for a poppy does not deserve the $100 exemption. He would not need it. However, we have just concluded a long discussion about the subject matter of the $100 exemption. When it was initially put in place, the intention was that it was primarily in recognition of occasional contributions one makes and for which one cannot obtain a receipt if it is wanted and, second, for the widow's mite and public services donated to service clubs and churches by the generosity of sacrifice of time, whether it be for a church supper, a Rotary fund gathering or whatever. There are thousands of hours spent in virtually every church in the country by people, many of whom cannot afford to contribute $100. While the subject matter related to the broader sense of contribution and the $100 exemption, that $100 is deserved by those who give of their time when they do not have money. They have earned it manyfold.
I suppose there is no better example than the church which the grandfather of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi would have attended. That church was kept afloat by the contribution of time and effort to put on public events at which money was raised. Yes, people contributed money but some also contributed time.
This is a contemptible approach to the history and tradition of the recognition of the widow's mite among other things. If the widow is taxable at all, she is deserving of that $100 exemption. This is a picayune, miserable, contemptible approach to a problem which they could not resolve in any other way. If someone should happen to publish the remarks of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi in the House today and combine them with the Government's consideration of him in moving the air base from his constituency, it will just add to his trouble, as he has used serious indiscretion in his approach to the subject matter.
There are many problems in my constituency with the Department of National Revenue and its collection of taxes. Among other things, this Act imposes an undue burden on the small businessman. It puts the guy with less than $30,000 income from his business, including his salary, in a position where he must pay up to an additional $2,000 in taxes. This does not get at the big guy; it gets at the little guy.
It forces the small businessman to seek a haven. Tens of thousands of companies or reorganizations of companies have placed money accrued in the surplus account in havens at extra expense in order to avoid taxes and remain solvent. As the tax structure presently exists, it depletes the small busi-

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
nessman's cash flow at a time when he can ill afford it. There should have been a lower level below which these taxes would not have applied. Every small businessman puts his cash flow back into his business, whether he is a farmer, storekeeper or restaurateur. That is where the money goes. It is not cash in the bank. It is not available for the Government to milk the cow even further. The money is there and is needed. An additional tax burden is not necessary.
I want to cite an inequity in the farming community. I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would present this case. If a farmer is in need of an additional income and if he happens to be a tradesman practising his profession, if he earns enough to be taxable, it makes no difference how much he lost in his farm organization. He is still taxed for the full income earned while working off the farm.
This is in contrast with any incorporated company which, by virtue of its size and business, did not make a good profit and therefore had to add another string to the bow to try to sweeten the pot. If the company is brought into a profitable position by undertaking another endeavour in the incorporated structure, the company is not taxed on that additional endeavour. Whatever is lost in the other endeavours will be of no significance. That does not apply in the case of the bona fide farmer. I am not talking about the millionaire who owns a hobby farm from which he expects no income but expects to spend money. I am talking about the guy who wants to farm.
One of my friends has been so assaulted by the income tax group. They have gone back over a three-year period. Every cent he earned, he put back into his farm. He does not have that money because he paid farm bills. He will be taxed on the income he earned outside the farm while he was paying the bills he accrued in earlier years while farming.
This does not apply to the company, but it does apply to the fisherman. If a fisherman earns more at his casual or off-season work than he earns while fishing, if he has expense fishing and loses money, he is taxed on his outside earnings with no protection against the moneys he has lost in a poor season. That is not right. It is a classification of people in an unfair and improper way. When people want to pay their bills, they should have the chance. I wish I had had the 20 minutes to which I was entitled before the exaggerated question period and kerfuffle took place here, because there are several instances I want to cite from personal experience.
A tradesman in my constituency got tired of wandering all over Canada to practice his trade. For five years he established himself in a small business which he thought would be self-sustaining. He thought he could stay at home. When his job came to an end, he retired and returned to his former home and started to operate his business. What happened? There was a five-year review of his tax structure and he was asked for $25,000. He does not have $25,000. He could not sell his assets for $25,000, yet it would be a self-sustaining structure. There is something wrong when a man cannot invest in his future without being taxed backwards. Give the man a chance.
Above all, we need a new Act for our farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. The present Act has so many interpretive possibilities that no one knows what his tax will be, no matter how carefully he files. Whether it be the largest corporation or the smallest company in Canada, they all have to answer the same questions and provide the same information. An individual has to answer virtually all the same questions, however not with the volumes of substantiating documentation. Size no longer makes a difference. The ability to afford the representation makes no difference.
Since the change in the location of the National Revenue office to Newfoundland, there is no way you can get reasonable treatment in a prompt fashion from that structure of National Revenue. A friend called this morning to tell me that he wrote to the Newfoundland Department in March. He received a reply in late June, by which time he had already been penalized. This Department has to pull up its socks. I wish I could have had the 20 minutes I should have had. ! hope the gentleman who denied me that opportunity will enjoy whatever time is allotted to him.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the rules, the way they have been used, have hindered the Hon. Member who just spoke, but since it was his colleagues who helped to abuse them, he should talk to them.
This is the kind of tax plan we could expect from the Tory Party, even though the Liberal Government is delivering it. It is in effect Reaganomics. It follows the principle of soaking the poor to provide socialism for the rich. It is not only unfair, but it is a continuation of the kind of policy that is destroying our economy.
To highlight the unfairness, in 1981 there were 239 people who earned more than $250,000 but paid no tax. Over 8,000 people earning over $50,000 paid no tax. This is a continuation of a process that went on for 30 years. In 1950, people in the highest tax bracket paid tax at the rate of 84 per cent. By 1981, that had been cut to 50 per cent. In other words, the trend for 30 years has been to tax the low and middle-income people more and the high-income people less.
In this Budget we have tax changes which by the Government's accounting will increase personal income tax by $3.5 billion in the next four years. This will come mostly from middle and low-income taxpayers, not high-income taxpayers.
Tax changes will bring corporation taxes down by almost $2.7 billion. Those tax benefits will go mostly to large corporations, not small business. Not only is this extremely unfair, it is the trickle-up theory rather than the trickle down theory that the Party opposite has espoused for 30 or 40 years in words, not in actions, and it is contributing heavily to the recent recession and the difficulty of recoverying from it. It is justifed on the argument that this kind of piling up of wealth among the few on the poverty of the many creates jobs. That is not believed by anyone on the street.
In 1957, personal income tax accounted for 27 per cent of the Government's revenue, and corporation income tax accounted for 25 per cent, almost dollar for dollar. By 1983 the split was 48 per cent from personal income tax and only 12 per cent from corporation tax. In other words, in those years
December 16, 1983

the number of personal income taxpayers quadrupled by comparison with total corporate taxpayers. During those same years, unemployment rose from 3 per cent or 4 per cent to 12 per cent. In other words, the policy of taxing the poor to subsidize the rich went hand in hand with growing unemployment. To tell us that more of the same disease will in some mysterious way cure us is an insult.
a (1550)
It is recognized that one of the greatest job creators in the country is the small business sector. Yet our tax system taxes that sector at a rate that is 50 per cent higher than the rate at which it taxes big business. There is also the matter of tax deferrals. The total amount of money that is outstanding in tax deferrals is now more than $25 billion, almost the same amount as the deficit. If those corporations were to pay their taxes, there would be almost no deficit at all to be used as an excuse for high interest rates. This Government, and in its few months in office the Tory Government, made no move to collect those taxes. The Government will harass ordinary working people for $100 or $300 and sick the tax collectors on them, but the big corporations never have to pay their taxes even though the country is supposedly worried about the deficit. Who gets that $25 billion? Ninety-five per cent of it goes to corporations with more than $10 million worth of assets or, in other words, the big corporations.
As well, small business pays a greater share of its profits to the other forms of taxation, the Canada Pension Plan and the unemployment insurance fund. The pension plan and unemployment insurance are a heavier burden on the profits of small businesses than on the profits of big businesses. This was shown to be true by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment on the way one particular sector of big business contributes to this injustice which is leading to the ruination of the country. In 1971, banks paid about 50 per cent of their profits in tax. In 1982, they paid 8 per cent of their profits in tax. In 11 years, that amount went down from 50 per cent to 8 per cent. In 1982, for example, the Bank of Montreal made a profit of only $239 million. Therefore, it was too poor to pay tax. It got a tax credit. Working people earning $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 a year were robbed by the Government in order to give $22 million to the Bank of Montreal. The Royal Bank made a profit of $330 million and did not pay taxes. It received a tax credit of $28 million. That is robbery, Mr. Speaker, as carried out by this Government. Not only does the Tory Party not protest this but indications are that if it were to change places with the Government, it would carry the same program perhaps even a little further.
The banks have acknowledged that 40 per cent of their investments are made outside of Canada. Wealth that is created in Canada is moved by the banks to countries like Brazil, Mexico or South Korea, many of which are military dictatorships with unstable Governments which may never be able to repay those loans. Because of the glitter of high interest
Income Tax Act
rates, the banks have invested in those countries money that they took, partly through this Government's tax system, from working people and small businessmen and women, money which the banks now refuse to restore to the economy.
Small business people in Spadina have often not been able to get loans even when they were willing to pay the extortionate rates which are being charged, because the banks have been lending that money out of the country and financing takeovers by Dome, Massey and other companies which have not created jobs.
This budget carries further the extremely unjust principle of giving more to those who have too much and taking from those who are desperate. It is ensuring that there will be no real recovery in the country, it is ensuring that the depression that has begun will deepen. This situation will not be corrected by the people to my extreme right because they have the same philosophy on this matter as the Liberal Government, which is to soak the poor with socialism for the rich. I am very sorry that it looks as if this Budget will be put through by the two old Parties, because it will hurt the people in Canada who are already being hurt the most and it will freeze the economy of the country.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the Lion. Member's closing remarks. The Ways and Means motion, Bill C-2, will be passed by the three old Parties based upon an agreement made by the House Leaders of those Parties to pass this Bill by Wednesday of next week before we rise to take our Christmas break.
In the ten minutes that I have, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the debate on Bill C-2. I might say that it is too bad that it has taken eight months to get to this point in the debate. Bill C-2 is a Bill which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, flows out of the April Budget, and here we are finally passing the Bill into its final stages in December.
From my perspective, the most welcome things in this Bill are the investment tax credits because, indeed, many businesses are in deep trouble as a result of the economy. Those businesses which can call themselves survivors and have lived through the 1981-1982 recession are struggling along in 1983 with damaged balance sheets, stripped earned surplus accounts and, in some cases, capital accounts, and they are hanging on by their fingernails through the good graces of a bank managers who feel that if they have survived this long, they may survive long into the future.
The key to the future for all businesses is what will happen to interest rates down the road. I would like to spend a few moments talking about that. The Gross National Product is up slightly but housing starts have dropped 41 per cent since the housing grants were used up. We will have to watch whether or not capital spending increases as a result of the investment tax credits. Anyone who studies the capital spending trend will know that capital spending thus far this year is 27 per cent below what it was in 1982, and 1982 was not a banner year.
When we talk about capital spending, we are talking about jobs, plants, machinery and the acquisition of assets for pro-
80146- 10

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act
duction processes which will produce a product that can be sold on which a profit can be made. One of the few redeeming things I see in this Bill is the investment tax credits, because those may stimulate some of the capital spending that we need.
We have heard from the business community that what is really holding everyone back is the question of where interest rates are going. 1 note that the Bank of Canada rate is now at its highest point in the last year. It is now at over 10 per cent, and that is concerning many people who look at the trends in interest rates. They are asking where we are going, whether the rate will stay as high or if it will drop lower.
Among the real investors who are interested in long-term activity, much is made of the fact that real interest rates are double what they normally are. In other words, whatever the bank rate is less inflation is what is called the real interest rates. Traditionally, those interest rates are at 3 per cent. They are now above 6 per cent, and that is what concerns those who are looking for the long-term investment and sustained economic activity that will soak up some of the unemployed and get them off the unemployment rolls and back into a normal lifestyle.
The economic indicators in the economy show housing starts have dropped by 41 per cent, unemployment is flat at about 11 per cent and inflation is down to 4.9 per cent, but the dollar is also down, and that is causing concern. Where are interest rates going? There is almost a subculture in this country that has made a short-term killing on high interest rates. Longterm sustained growth is what we need, however, in order to employ those people able to work and retrain those who lack skills so that we can create a society able to pay for housing, automobiles and consumer goods without subsidies or grants. These should be the long-term objectives of the Government.
The key to all this is a decline in interest rates which will be maintained in the long term. This would encourage investment in projects of a lasting nature. Many economic commentators claim that Canadians are great savers and traditionally put from 13 per cent to 15 per cent of annual income into savings. Some way must be found of translating those savings into consumer goods or long-term investments. That can only be done if people are convinced of the stability of interest rates over a long period. Then they would be prepared to invest in homes, factories or the refurbishing of plant and machinery and activities that create jobs. If we can do all that, and I believe we can, then we will be able to sell our production on world markets on a sustained basis. That type of activity is what will turn the economy around and keep it going.
If there is a sustained rise in interest rates as a result of the upward movement in the prime rate as expressed by the Bank of Canada, there will be panic in the economy. People will begin to hold their money in savings accounts in anticipation of an increase in the inflation rate.
We must continue to fight inflation and put policies in place that will sustain lower interest rates over a long period of time. When that happens, all sorts of investment money will become
available. We will not have to go outside the country for money or to the Government for grants. The key is lower interest rates for a long period time. If that can be achieved, then the recovery, fragile as it is, will continue.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my participation in this debate on Bill C-2 by recalling some of the semantics that have been witnessed in this House. We are dealing with a concept that was introduced during the First World War as a temporary measure by the government of the day. Only a few weeks ago we finished dealing with a Bill that was initiated in 1925, 1926 and 1927, the statutory freight rates. At the time, the Bills which introduced these measures were described as having effect into perpetuity. It is strange how something that was to last into perpetuity died before the temporary legislation that was passed 12 or 13 years earlier.
Some 120 changes are proposed in this Bill. The law is already extremely complex and will become more so as a result of these changes. It has been the stated intention of the Government for many years that the tax law should provide equity and justice for taxpayers, yet very little progress has been made in that direction. For instance, the situation today is not very different from what it was immediately following World War II. The top 20 per cent of income earners in this country today control about 40 per cent of the assets of Canada, and that was approximately the position following World War II. The bottom 20 per cent of the population now has the use of about 4 per cent of Canada's assets, which is a slight decline from what was available to them following World War II.
In 1981, the last year for which accurate statistics were available, this so-called equitable system did not elicit the same amount of tax because 239 Canadians with incomes in excess of $250,000 paid no income tax in that year. At the same time, 8,031 Canadians with incomes in excess of $50,000 per annum paid no income tax. This happened in spite of the ideas expressed from the Speech from the Throne in 1980. That Throne Speech said that Canadians would accept sacrifices to meet the economic challenges of the 1980s but that they would not accept injustice; that Canadians have always faced up to difficult decisions and, if necessary, would do so in the future, but only if the burden were shared equitably. Where does the equity lie when 8,000 or 9,000 income earners pay absolutely no income tax? Where is the justice in that and where is the equity?
The income tax system is supposedly based on a progressive tax structure, funding the Government through the principle of ability to pay-the proportional change in income tax paid increases as income increases. The amount of tax levied against these people does not always follow that rule, however. In the Income Tax Act there are in excess of 100 tax preferences that can only be called subsidies to those particular taxpayers. For every change, incentive, deduction or write-off in the tax system, a subsidy is, in effect, paid. Before we grant some of these subsidies, I do not believe that parliamentarians often enough ask the question, "What do these so-called
December 16, 1983

incentives do? How does it affect low income earners? What does it do for high income earners? Who is benefiting? And is it fair?"
Some specific places in this proposed Bill with which I want to deal, in order to point out the lack of fairness, is, first of all, the capital gains provisions. There is small mention of capital gains tax. It is a very minor change which takes into account a provision which has the effect of helping someone who has farm losses in the year in which he sells out. It is not exactly an incentive to people in the business of farming, but in fact has the effect, if you analyze it, of encouraging people to sell out because they will be able to declare their farm losses.
This is contrary to what we expected from this Government, because when you read the missive which was sent out from the Liberal national campaign headquarters in January 30, 1980, during the last election campaign, you find that one of the few promises made by the Liberal Government, in order to maintain its commitment to the protection of the family farm, was to effect changes in the Income Tax Act which would allow capital gains to be calculated on the basis of imputed value on December 31, 1971 or December 31, 1974, whichever is greater. That change of the valuation day to allow the valuation to occur December 31, 1974, has not been mentioned in the two Throne Speeches we have had. It has not been mentioned in the several Budgets and the many changes to the Income Tax Act which have come before this House. It has been totally ignored.
We have been calling for the Government to act on that promise and to comply with some of the changes which a few of the provinces have implemented and which recognize special problems in saving up for retirement which farmers face. We have suggested it take a leaf from the book of Saskatchewan which allows a further deduction of $100,000 for farmers who sell their farm on retirement in order to put them more or less on a par with people in the cities who have the option of retiring and writing off the value of their home and property in which they have lived throughout their working life.
We recognize the fact that farm homes usually receive very little recognition of value when the land is sold. The farmstead and the house itself usually do not contribute anything of significance to the value of the property when it is being sold.
There are a number of inequities which have been added as the tax law has been changed on an ad hoc basis over the past number of years since the Carter Commission, when we attempted to start afresh and say, "A buck is a buck and everyone will pay tax on money which is earned, regardless of how it is earned". We have now got into-


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I apologize to the Hon. Member for interrupting him, but what we are seeing on the television monitor, while an Hon. Member has the floor and is supposed to be the only person being shown, is the Speaker and not the Hon. Member. I would like to ask the Chair to look into this matter.
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As a matter of fact, I have noticed from time to time on the monitors that the television cameras are not necessarily perfectly related to the person whose microphone is open.


John Leslie Evans: They are showing you, Mr. Speaker, not the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The point is well made by the Parliamentary Secretary and it will certainly be taken up by the authorities of the House.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) for bringing to the attention of the House the fact that I was not being Edgar Bergen to your Charley McCarthy, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: You are not shown to your constituents full-time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is right. The question of equity has surfaced a number of ways in the ad hoc changes which have been made to the Income Tax Act. I believe I have time to cite one specific point which has to do with the ISIPs, which would allow individuals to have a special deal with regard to capital gains tax, provided that they invest in publicly traded stocks. The way that the operation works is-


John Leslie Evans: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The same thing is happening again. The Speaker and the Table officer are on the monitors and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre should be the only person, according to our agreement with the television service, who should be shown on television. It must be the Hon. Member who has the floor. I request that that be looked into immediately, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The reason the Hon. Member sees me in discussion with the Table officer is that he had been asked to go to the telephone with respect to this problem. I understand there is the usual explanation-


John William Bosley: Technical difficulties beyond our control. Please do not adjust your set.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There are technical difficulties. As far as the remark, which I appreciate, from the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) is concerned about not adjusting your set, I do not believe there is a thing in the world we can do about it for the moment, unless the House would like to take a two or three minute break to see whether repairs can be effected.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If the camera can be focused on the Chair, it can be focused on the Hon. Member who is speaking. If there is that kind of technical difficulty, then cut the transmission and let the Hon. Member go on with his speech. Let us stop being foolish.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I have a further point of order.

December 16, 1983
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: No, I have been advised to keep quiet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 feel the courtesy must be extended to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. It is most regrettable but they do have that technical difficulty. Does the Hon. Member have a preference? Perhaps, if he wishes, I can instruct the broadcast section to simply cut the monitors altogether for the moment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my microphone is no longer working.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They have seven cameras.


An Hon. Member:: Put him in the Speaker's chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 am informed that of the total of seven cameras, six are out of order and only the one which is at the end of the Chamber and facing the Chair is in order. Even that one is not workable. Always presuming that the people in the broadcast section can hear me, 1 would request that they stop all cameras but leave the sound within the House. We could then proceed in that fashion with debate.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The next time they should fix them before they are all out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it agreed we stop the cameras?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to pick up where 1 left off. I was attempting to point out an inequity which had crept into the Income Tax Act, an inequity both in the ability to levy taxes and an inequity-and perhaps a more important one-in the ability of certain groups in our society to raise money. As you will recall, during the last change to the Income Tax Act we introduced something called and IS1P, or indexed security investment plan, which permitted individuals to buy stocks which were traded publicly by large corporations, set them into a plan, and at the end of the year look at the listed trading price, calculate what the investment was worth, and if it had increased in value by 10 per cent or 15 per cent and the cost of living index had only increased by 5 per cent, the investor was allowed to deduct the cost of living index and put half of the balance of that income into his taxable income. Those who were operating with their own private companies did not have that option and were at some disadvantage in the money markets or the banks because the profitability of their operation was going to be less than the publicly traded corporations. People would like to invest in large public corporations because of the ISIP program. I see there has been a minor change in this proposal which has the effect of allowing refunds up to 40 per cent to taxpayers who are individuals or private corporations and certain trusts. For
all other taxpayers, the stipulated percentage is 20 per cent, and all that would be left would be those publicly traded corporations. The provision goes on to say that since the amount is deemed to have been paid by the taxpayer, it will only be used to offset any other liability he may have under the Act and will be refunded to the extent of any excess. As 1 read that, it means that if he is not taxable there will not be any way to get the refundable tax credit. That is something we should remember because most of us think of a refundable tax credit as something which will allow us to get some money back from the Government. That is not what it is in this case.
I was going to talk a little further about the effect of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act on farmers who are forced to work off the farm, but I see my time has elapsed, so I will continue to raise that point in committee and during question period.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, rather than enter into debate, may 1 ask the Speaker whether the House is in compliance with the Standing Orders as regards the cameras?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The latest report I have is that the television screens on the monitors now match my uniform; they are black.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, if the House is not able to conduct its business in the way the Standing Orders intend, then we ought not to be conducting our business at this time. We should call it five o'clock and resume debate on Monday.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the House can conduct its business in the usual way. The only thing missing is the image on the TV screen, and I am sure the public can get along very nicely without that. I suggest we continue with our business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There was in the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) an implied suggestion to seek unanimous consent. It is obvious there is not unanimous consent. I do not think that Hon. Members want the Chair to rule. The television broadcasting of the House is certainly part of our standard operating procedure. The Chair can be put in the position of making a ruling and I will do so, but perhaps we can do it without my having to reach into procedural matters.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Perhaps if we agree among ourselves at this point to allow one more speaker we can have a quick conversation and come back and tell you the mood of the House. If someone is willing to make a speech and sacrifice his image, then we can try to get some sense of what is going on.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of whether someone is concerned about his image appearing on the screen. If restraint in this country has reached the point where the House of Commons cannot conduct its business in the manner and with the appropriate recordings which the Standing Orders of this House demand, then I think we should
December 16, 1983

not proceed until the Government or the administration of the House gets its act together and cuts out the restraint from which we are obviously suffering and gives us the proper recordings of the debate due to us all.
Very few people in my own constituency, unless they happen to have dish receivers, will ever see what is happening in this House. So it is not a matter of personal desire or intent but simply a wish that the Government and the House operate as they are supposed to do before we proceed with further business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: To the best of my understanding there are two Hon. Members who may wish to speak. In the circumstances, one of those Hon. Members has indicated he would prefer not to speak. 1 want to be careful. Hon. Members will understand that if 1 were to rule that the House shall not sit any time that the television monitors break down, we would run into some pretty serious precedents. For that reason 1 am attempting to seek the mood and consent of the House rather than operate on the Chair's ruling.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you did not make a ruling because 1 wanted to suggest that it is certainly my understanding that television is important in the House, but Hansard is the official record of the House of Commons and so is the record kept by the Table officers and television is additional thereto. I would argue that a decline in the television services, while grossly inconveniencing Canadians, does not represent a breach of the rights of Canadians.
With regard to the point you are making, we should be grateful that the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Mirami-chi (Mr. Dionne) does not speak more often because look what it did to the cameras. As to the question of whether there are further speeches to be made today, I accept the point the Hon. Member from the NDP is making and 1 would be prepared to sit down and call it five o'clock.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, since I was brought into this by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), 1 just want to point out two things.
Income Tax Act
He is quite correct when he says that Hansard is the official version of the debates in this House and it is still functioning. You are quite right when you say we are setting a dangerous precedent if we close down the House because of the inability of the cameras to transmit the images of the speakers in this House.
While I would not apologize if I disrupted the system, 1 am afraid that 1 cannot take the credit. It was the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who has that distinction, and I congratulate him.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order and to the comments I made a few minutes ago, I have checked around and 1 find that regardless of whether the television cameras are on, off or in between, you would find agreement if you called it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 want to check of course with the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. Considering the terms of the House order made yesterday, the question is really not to be put, but debate will continue on Monday. I gather the mood of the House is that we should call it five o'clock. I seek the consent of the House, and that includes the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. Do I have that consent?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, we are setting a dangerous precedent here right now. However, 1 do not pretend to have a monopoly on knowledge or common sense in this House and 1 defer to the judgment of my colleagues, as long as it is understood that we are not establishing a precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is no precedent. The House can proceed by unanimous consent in any direction it wishes.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock in the morning pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 19, 1983