1983-01-31

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 13, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to inquire whether it is the Government's intention to proceed with the time allocation motion that was introduced on Friday last after the Question Period this afternoon.


Mr. Pinard:: Definitely, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this opening session of this week is part of the experience of this House in hit-and-run contact with the subject of income tax. Bill C-139 had its origin on that nefarious night of November 12, 1981. Then there was another interlude. There were some letters of clarification. There was an interlude until June 28 last. Then there was a statement, which was no other than a budget message, from the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in the latter part of October when this House resumed its sittings.
In that time we have seen the economy of Canada take a further precipitous drop, much of it, I suggest as a result of that disastrous night of November 12, 1981. Stacking it on, we also saw the effects of the national energy policy. The confidence of business and of individuals in Canada did not just fly out the window; it jetted out the window. We know what followed thereon. The Government said that we were into a world-wide recession. Balderdash! We created most of our own.
The National Energy Program took the most successful part of the Canadian economy, lopped off its head and pierced its bod's with any number of doubled-edged swords. That tattered remains of a government can only be called a disgraceful gang of plunderers of the Canadian economy. Because of the National Energy Program and the subsequent actions taken by the Canadian Government, had they been financiers in the private investment field, the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources (Mr. Chretien) the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could have been up on charges of manipulating the market and driving down the value of corporate stocks, both foreign controlled and Canadian owned, to the extent that that confidence so needed in the investment market by both Canadians and foreigners was gone.
We are now trying to sweep up some of the debris that was left by the former Minister of Finance. What a disastrous term of office he had. The Government has adopted a time allocation frame of mind. This Bill is 300-odd pages long. It is extremely complex and I am sure that 90 per cent of the Members of the Government do not know what it contains. Yet we will be told that we have to deal with it in a matter of a few days, both on second reading and in Committee of the Whole, because the Government's timetable is in such a shambles.
I should like to refer to the committee report of October 5, 1982, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), shared the Chair for that committee with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). Usually five of us attended meetings, although sometimes there were only four Members there. Once the attendance actually went up to seven Members but I think that was the highest number that was ever present. I think the chairmen of the committee will agree that it was not really consultation as we examined the budgetary process.
At those sessions in late August and in September we obtained observations from various bodies in Canada. The committee met morning, afternoon and evening in order to accommodate witnesses and hear explanations from officials of the Tax Planning Branch of the Department of Finance. Officials from the Department of National Revenue attended as well, but they were not heard. Those of us who attended the sessions derived a good deal of knowledge about the way officials in the Department of Finance think. To them this was consultation, but to me it was only consultation after the event.
I want to see the budgetary process changed, Mr. Speaker. In over 20 years, on both sides of the House, I have been involved in budgets and it has been a most frustrating experience. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue I participated, with my colleague who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, in interdepartmental considerations of income tax changes. That was purely an in-house operation and as Parliamentary Secretaries we had to be exceedingly tough and tell the

January 31, 1983
Income Tax
officials that certain things they proposed just would not fly. That is not enough, but is not the type of process one wants.
1 will not talk this morning about individual points of detail; 1 would have to speak for two hours and I am allowed only 20 minutes. These points will be coming up in future discussions, in which I intend to participate fully. But we should understand what we are after, and that is, at this time of year, a statement of budgetary intentions wherein the Government generally lays out its program-how much money will be required and what areas of Government revenues are suffering. Then we could have Hon. Members of the House and of the other place, the public, major economic associations, manufacturing groups and individuals make their comment, and some time in October we could settle on the budget and get it through. This would tell people precisely what they may anticipate.
Since November 12, 1981 we have had nothing but a great degree of uncertainty in soft costs and capital cost allowances. The premiums for medical services in private plans were added on to the income of individuals for whom payments were made; the previously very successful income-averaging contracts, the IAACs, were cancelled; and we went into forward averaging. This is all fine for a socialist Government. It is purely a socialist proposition because the money has to be paid by the individual to the Government and then may be claimed back under the plan, whereas, under income-averaging contracts, it went into private investment and represented a great deal of money. We will get to discussing the other deterrents of participating in forward averaging.
No, this is not the way we should proceed with regard to dealing with the budget. We certainly should not have to deal with a collection of all the left over sweepings on the floor, having been discarded by the tax proposals of 1970 following the Carter report. There is much discarded, disreputable Carter tax theory implemented or included in the November 12 budget. Of course, the Minister did not want to understand, his colleagues did not understand what they were doing and Government backbenchers were in some sort of euphoria, not wanting to know. What I charge them with is not wanting to know what is in the budget and what it means to Canada. Only when people come to them, small-businessmen, for instance, who say "You are killing us with the tax on the dividends to small business" does anything happen.
Incidentally, the theory in the tax program branch is that returns on dividends to an owner of a small business are equivalent to an employee's salary from that small business. As far as the individual is concerned, that is his return. But the small businessman has sleepless nights; he has to worry about meeting payrolls. He has high blood pressure as a result of these activities. He has all the worries. The Finance Department grandiloquently says he should only be getting a salary, that his return is equivalent to a salary. What nonsense.
There is a theory in the Finance Department which has been applicable for years. The Government has a right to every dollar earned by an individual because as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in her startling proposals said the other day, a spouse's allowance is a tax expenditure, a child allowance is a tax expenditure, the personal allowance given to each taxpayer is a tax expenditure and every incentive is a tax expenditure. In other words, the Crown is giving up that money.
What does the word "expenditure" mean but a putting out of money? This is tax money being put out by the Government. That is absolute socialism right to the rotten core of it. All of that money belongs to the Crown. People have shed sweat and worried and have done all those things that are required to earn that money, be it by way of salary or be it by way of initiative and capability-the doers and the movers in this society-and it is not right. God only knows what the Government thinks. It talks about patting the pioneers on the back. It talks about all the things that have been done, that older generations deserve the accolades of the new generations. But that was not done by telling people that they were working for the Government and that the Government, the state, was allowing them to keep a certain proportion of their earnings. What was allowed to be kept? One can go through all of the documentation of the Finance Department and its philosophy, which is that everything a taxpayer, corporate or individual, is allowed to keep is a tax expenditure to be controlled by the Minister of Finance and his minions. That is the philosophy. That is the end result. I will hear the views of the former Parliamentary Secretary, but that is the net result.
We are told that the net result of an increase in child allowance will be increased tax expenditures. We are told that incentives with regard to multiple residences, or MURBs, are tax expenditures. That is nonsense, I believe. I have had a lifetime of exposure to these matters and I find it incomprehensible and an abuse of language for the Government to say that everything that the taxpayer keeps in income tax represents an expenditure by the state. In other words, we all exist for the benefit of the state. That is a total denial-


Mr. Evans:: That is false.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre show how the operation of the philosophy of income tax under the Liberal administration is other than that.
I see you are getting anxious, Mr. Speaker, and I recognize that I have had my 20 minutes. I hope to raise this subject again in some other guise because this is a matter which must be brought to the attention of the people of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Standing Orders of the House now provide for a ten-minute exchange period for questions and answers. Are Members rising to put questions to the Hon. Member who has just spoken?
January 31, 1983


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 trust that this will be in the spirit that motivated the committee to provide this exchange and that it will not be statement or diatribe that cannot be answered or that the period will be occupied by others for the whole time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Peterson).


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West but to respond to some of the charges he has made. I believe I do this in the spirit which he has just articulated in order to suggest to Members of the House the directions that we perhaps should be pursuing in the future with respect to our fiscal policy, monetary policy and the development of our general economic climate in Canada.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West laced his remarks with hyperbole and misinformation. For example, is it Canada's fault or is this Government to blame for the situation which is taking place in energy throughout the entire world, a world of chaos? Absolutely not. Can he say that the budget of November 12 is responsible for the recession in Canada?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Is it responsible for the recession in the United States, in the entire western industrial world, or the entire world? This type of hyperbole does not help us find the constructive solutions which we have an obligation to find for the people of Canada.
In that spirit, I believe that we on all sides of the House should look at what we can do and suggest for both the short and long-term benefit of Canada's economy. For the short term, I suggest we must provide the support mechanisms which will enable viable businesses to weather our current recession.
Over the longer term, we must set our goals for the productivity of Canadians. By this I mean we must set our goals on becoming world leaders in producing certain products both in our existing industries and in the industries and technologies of the future.
What is the role of a Government in this quest, this pursuit of our short-term and our long-term objectives? There are many roles for the Government to play, but the most important, I believe, is the role involved in creating a favourable monetary and fiscal regulatory environment, a favourable climate in these areas in which the private sector in Canada can thrive to the maximum extent possible.
Dealing with monetary policy first, I believe that individual businesses, big and small, and investors in Canada cannot
Income Tax
survive a tremendous resurgence in interest rates such as we have experienced in the past. It would be incredible today if interest rates were again to skyrocket. What would be our alternatives if interest rates in the United States start to go back up to the unprecedented high which we saw one year ago? We have a number of alternatives available to us and I just want to mention perhaps two. If we were to keep our interest rates lower than those in the United States, naturally foreigners would come here to attempt to borrow on Canada's capital markets. We could protect our capital markets from this type of foreign borrowing which would have the tendency to drive our rates up even higher. We could protect our capital markets, which would then have low interest rates, by resorting to techniques such as the interest equalization tax which was used by the United States for over a decade. This would be one approach we should consider.
Another approach, and I believe it merits the serious consideration of Members of this House, would be to allow a modest or reasonable drop in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar as against the American dollar. This would certainly have some adverse impacts, but I think that on the whole looking at this type of approach might produce some positive benefits for Canadians. I would like to hear discussion on that type of point.
On the monetary side, as well our financial institutions have a very important role to play in both the short term and the long term. Let us consider our banks. In helping the private sector through the current recession, our financial institutions in Canada have an obligation to make available after-tax financing to our small businesses through the Small Business Development Bonds and other programs put in place by our Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Siddon:: Where did you get the idea, Jim?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We have created the environment in which these types of instruments can be issued to provide less of a cash drain on businesses in difficulty.
Our financial institutions have an obligation to make small businesses in difficulty aware of these instruments and to cooperate with them in every way possible to see that those who need assistance get that type of financing. That is why we put these measures in place. I am also concerned, with the tremendously huge financing which the banks have given to our bigger companies both in Canada and offshore. With the recession coming on, and with what our finance Committee found out about the banks being highly leveraged, I am concerned that our banks do not try to pull back their lines of credit as they affect small businesses in Canada.
It is much easier, we know, to go to small business people who have been building operations over the years and say to them, "We are calling your lines of credit". Small businesses do not necessarily have the clout of the billion dollar corporations here and abroad. Our financial institutions cannot, if it is

January 31, 1983
Income Tax
their tendency, pull back those lines of credit from viable small businesses.
Unfortunately, I know of a couple of bad examples. People have come to me whose small businesses, employing 30 to 80 people, have not been adversely affected because of the recession, but even though they have maintained their businesses and have not defaulted on any bank loans, their bankers have come to them and said: "We will pull your loans". That is irresponsible. It creates additional unemployment. It is our small businesses which need that help in these tough times. Banks and financial institutions might be having difficulty with some big loans, but they have an obligation to support our small businesses.
I would also hope that we could get through many of the measures which have been before the House for a long period of time so that we could go on to new types of legislation, such as that dealing with our loan and trust institutions, so that they could enter into commercial lending and become an added source of funds, particularly for small business.
I also believe it would be worthwhile to study the investment powers of our major financial institutions; for example, our insurance companies and our loan and trust institutions. As Hon. Members are aware, they have the power to invest only 8 per cent of their funds in small, unproven enterprises, enterprises which do not have a proven track record. These institutions currently have very little ability to promote venture capital, to go out and help people who have an idea and are prepared to back it with all their managerial and technical ability, to get those new small businesses of the future going. The big institutions do not have the power to get into those areas.
I believe we should consider the possibility of increasing the size of the basket clause of our financial institutions. We might even consider the possibility that, in return for increasing their investment powers, they would have a greater obligation to consider the new types of ventures which the inventive genius of the Canadian entrepreneur is coming up with all the time.
The second area, after monetary policy and the role of our financial institutions, which I believe we must study in order to create a favourable type of economic environment for a recovery is our regulatory environment. The Task Force on Regulatory Reform made numerous recommendations as to the ways by which we can reduce the burden of regulation on the private sector. I am pleased to say that the former President of the Treasury Board and his successor have succeeded in implementing many of those reforms. I am delighted with the commitment of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to continue on that path and to bring in additional reforms which will increase the consultative process and the opportunity for business, for labour and for environmentalists to participate with the Government in determining what types of regulations would best serve the needs of all Canadians.
Fiscal policy is the third arm of the trio of areas we must study in order to help restore and bring about the type of economic environment we want in Canada. We face a dilemma in this area. Business investors need fiscal certainty. They must
be able to compute their cash flows, their return on investment, for a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, one cannot expect them to make the investment or commitments we need from the private sector. We must ask ourselves, is this need for fiscal certainty, a climate for fiscal stability, incompatible with the concept of tax reform? I do not believe it necessarily is.
The answer, I believe, depends on how one goes about the process of tax reform. First, there are many areas in our Income Tax Act, in our codes, which require rethinking. If we go about rethinking these changes in close consultation with the private sector, in co-operation, where we do it openly and allow much opportunity for input from those who will be affected in the short term and the long term, we will have the ability and knowledge to avoid changes which would upset that climate of fiscal certainty which is a key to economic recovery.
[DOT] >1140)
Secondly, for those who might be affected by reform, we can have generous resort to grandfathering clauses. In other words, we can say: "We are going to change the law, but since you made your investment and business decisions under the former law, you can continue for a reasonable period of time as if the former law under which you made your decisions continues to apply". I believe that type of spirit and co-operation can create the necessary fiscal environment.
What are some of the areas which I believe we, as Members from all sides of the House, should be looking at for reform? One is capital gains. Have we taken a good look at the effect inflation has on capital gains? How much of the gains people experience on their investments are merely inflationary and do not represent real gains? What about the farmers? Should we be reconsidering more realistic valuation dates for farms? What role do farms play in providing the retirement income of people who choose to leave their farms?
I would also like to ask, what about the role of investors and entrepreneurs? If, for example, a business person takes his small savings, say $5,000, and through diligence and entrepreneurial flair builds that operation up into a million dollar company and then wants to sell it, there would be taxes payable in the area possibly of $250,000. We have to ask ourselves, should we leave that $250,000 in the hands of the entrepreneur to reinvest in Canada and create more jobs, or should we leave it in the hands of the Government? Who can best go out and bring about economic recovery by creating new jobs? I believe that one of the things we should reconsider is the possibility of a rollover where an investor reinvests in Canada to create jobs here in Canada.
Another area I think we should look at is tax simplification for small businesses. Some of the most difficult and complicated provisions in the Income Tax Act relate to small businesses.
I do not think that only accountants and lawyers should make money out of these types of provisions.
Research and development is the key to our economic growth in the future. We believe we should take a very expanded view of what research and development involves. There are companies in Canada who do not fall within that traditional concept of research and development. They have
January 31, 1983

perhaps made design changes to such things as furniture. I know of one furniture company which has come up with new designs, and in spite of the fact that the furniture business is in difficulty in Canada, this one company is selling around the world. Their new designs and new products create new jobs for Canadians.
I think we should, in consultation with the private sector and the Opposition Parties, look at our incentives. Right now, under certain circumstances the private sector pays only 20 per cent of new research and development undertakings and initiatives. That is, in some cases, if they are increasing over the previous couple of years the investments they are making in these areas. Maybe we should get rid of that requirement for incrementality. Let us start talking about this and examining it together.
What about new venture capital for research and development for the new high tech, for the new sunrise industries? We have instruments called scientific research investment contracts which have been the brainchild of the private sector. Maybe we should be creating new types of investment vehicles on a federal basis that individuals can put their money in. There would be a tax conduit principle so that these types of operations can be institutionalized.
We know from the past what we have been able to do in terms of MURBs to help housing and create rental housing for Canadians. We know what we have been able to do with drilling funds in order to spur that type of investment. We know what we have been able to do for films. To me, one of the most important areas is to get this new technology operative and create new jobs. We should be looking at new mechanisms for facilitating that type of investment.
I also believe we have a tremendous opportunity in Canada because of the infrastructure that we have. The service industries that we have in Canada, our financial institutions, our accounting firms, our legal firms, our banks, our insurance institutions; all of these have given us a tremendous advantage when it comes to international competition. Should we not be looking at the possibility of expanding Canada's role as an international financial capital?
We should be looking at provisions in our tax treaties and in our Income Tax Act. This would enable foreigners to seek the stability of the Canadian environment, of the North American climate, to come here with their money, bring their money in, have their investments serviced here, have headquarters here for international operations and have the multinational corporations situate here in Canada using our service industries, using the stability that we have brought in the past to this type of circumstance.
These are just a few of the approaches which 1 believe we should consider on a non-partisan, non-confrontational basis, as Members of this House and in consultation with the private sector, with business and with labour. We are going to get a consensus for economic action in the 1980s by working together, government, business and labour, and I welcome the
Income Tax
breakthroughs that have been made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), particularly in building the bridges of communication to the labour leaders in Canada. He deserves tremendous credit for having done this. He deserves great credit for having responded to the representations made by numerous people in the private sector in the drafting of his mini-budget of last October. This type of consultation, this type of input, this type of co-operation is critical to our future.
I commend the Minister of Finance. It is the path and the process of the future. It is what we need.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, the Standing Orders provide for a ten-minute question and answer period. Are there Hon. Members seeking to ask questions?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Peterson) was very eloquent about the fiscal certainty that is required, and I would ask him if he feels that the introduction of a budget in November, 1981, followed by a retreat in December, in April, and various retreats from that budget, plus the introduction of enabling legislation 15 months later, contributes to or detracts from fiscal certainty for the lawyers and accountants that he talks about?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, a great deal of consultation went on immediately after that budget came down so it is very unfair for certain Members of the Official Opposition to suggest that Liberal backbenchers were sitting there unaware of what was happening. We were in the vanguard of bringing to the Minister's attention-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I bet you were.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We have been listening, Mr. Speaker. We were the ones who went to the Minister and brought the concerns of the private sector to him, and there is nothing new about this. We have taken our role in these areas extremely seriously.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has also alluded to the fact that there has been a delay in bringing in these types of measures. Let me say this. His finance critic, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), said in his speech on this particular Bill at page 21531, and I quote:
As I said earlier, the Government House Leader wants the Bill passed in eight sitting days, by December 22. That is totally irresponsible. Let us not forget that it is basically the same bureaucrats-
He also said that we, "do not need this legislation before mid-February next year".
This is what the Member for Etobicoke Centre said. He is proposing a filibuster by the Opposition rather than getting these things through, as the Member for Simcoe North has quite rightly suggested. We should be working together to get these measures through, to create a tax certainty; I welcome him and I hope he will talk to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre to ensure that happens.

January 31, 1983
Income Tax


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just one other question, if I may, Mr. Speaker, on a different matter about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the original concept of the Small Business Development Bond was debt consolidation for small business. It has now been changed so that small businesses have to be going broke before they can get a small business development bond, if they can get one. Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary meant when he said the Government created the environment for the Small Business Development Bond?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The point which the Hon. Member is bringing up is exactly the one which I was making-the necessity for our financial institutions to utilize the Small Business Development Bond and the Small Business Bond to provide help, as a bridging mechanism, for those small businesses which are in difficulty and have to weather the recession. We want them to be whole, to come out of this recession. We want them to maintain their employment levels. We want them to be poised for a "take-off'. This type of approach is critical to helping those small businesses which have cash flow difficulties.
I suggest there is no magical solution that we in Ottawa are going to be able to bring about to do this. We can help try to create the instruments and the climate under which these things can go; but let us face it, it requires the co-operation of our financial institutions which are in the lending business as well.
I called today on the financial institutions, and I hope the Hon. Member for Simcoe North will as well, to work with our small businesses to help them get through this recession, whole and ready and poised to take off in the future.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, the November 12 budget created a number of monsters, and now we are removing them two years later. The point raised by the Hon. Member, that the Government had nothing to do with creating or worsening the depression, is very difficult to understand. For instance, the November 12 budget virtually stopped the sale of farm lands in Western Canada because it made it necessary for a person who was selling by instalments to pay the total capital gains on that land before he even received the money. How can the Hon. Member say that the Government's programs did not worsen and deepen the depression in this country?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I do not quite understand exactly what the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is getting at. The statement by the Hon. Member was to the effect that our programs stopped the sale of lands in Western Canada, but I seem to remember he stood up in this House a month ago to complain of sales which took place in his riding. But that is neither here nor there. What we have-


Gordon Edward Taylor: The sale of park land in Banff to an ex-Cabinet Minister has nothing to do with the sale of farm lands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I suppose the Hon. Member for Bow River is referring to the capital gains reserves that people who sold land and did not get cash for the entire amount could take advantage of, and the changes which have been made in this particular provision. The Hon. Member will realize, that, perhaps as part of his representations in this area, the reserves for farms and for small businesses have been increased. Therefore, for one who is going to sell land, we have increased the reserve period in order to try to make the reserve provisions and capital gains conform to what would be the normal business practice in these areas.
If the Hon. Member has specific examples of where a sale would take place in the ordinary course, on an arm's length basis, say, but that reserve is not adequate, then I ask him to benefit all of us with his research and thinking in this area and sit down with us in order to come forward with some constructive alternatives. There is one thing I can assure the House of. The Minister of Finance has been extremely open to good, concrete suggestions as to how we can make our tax system work more productively for Canadians.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Peterson). I would like to return for just a moment to the issue of Small Business Bonds, and in particular his statement that the Government today is trying to create an atmosphere which will allow the economy to come out of its present recession. I am sure the situation in the Parliamentary Secretary's riding is no different from the situation which I find in Peterborough, and that is that farmers and small businessmen-and I have the letters to substantiate it-cannot obtain Small Business Development Bonds in order to come out of this recession because the banks will not make them available. The Government has the power, does it not, to demand that the banks make these Small Business Development Bonds available to farmers and businessmen who are going out of business at an ever increasing rate? When will the Government act?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has raised a couple of points; one, have we in effect, through that budget, driven Canada into recession? Let us not get involved in hyperbole. The western world is in a recession. If the Hon. Member wants to deal with specific examples of issues, I think that is the constructive way to proceed.
With respect to small businesses, we have introduced the small business investment grants for new capital purchases as well, but let us get down to the SBDB and the SBB, which I raised and which I am concerned about. The Hon. Member has quite rightly pointed out that small business persons have come to us and said; "We just cannot get any from the bank. Small branches of the bank do not know what they are all about or just don't tell us about them."
January 31, 1983

Is the Hon. Member saying that we, as a federal Government, should go to those institutions and legislate that they have a responsibility to give an SBDB to every person who asks for one? I do not believe, the way our system works, that we want Government interfering to that extent, because I do not know how we could do it. There is a credit judgment to be made. I believe, therefore, the proper approach is the one which I have been calling for. Let us let our financial institutions know that we consider they have a responsibility-
Mir. Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but the ten-minute period of question and answer has expired. At this stage the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the tax Bill before us today and to stress one theme, and that is that we have a taxation system in Canada which is very unfair, one that generally gives the breaks to the wealthy people, to the big corporations, at the expense of the poor, the ordinary working person, farmers and small business.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear a Conservative Member saying nonsense to that. I would like to see that Party back up that kind of statement. Perhaps the Hon. Member says nonsense because the Conservative Party over the weekend has invented a new math where you can win a game 67 to 33, but all of a sudden the team getting the 33 per cent wins the day. I find that is very sad for a political Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -which wishes to govern this country some day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, the issue before us is a budget resolution and I believe the Hon. Member should confine himself to the subject.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I was responding to some of the Conservative Party heckling when I referred to the fact that our taxation system is one that favours the rich in this country and the very large corporations, and I would like to see any Conservative Member of this House get up and explain the contrary. Indeed, it is the ordinary citizens, the poor people in this country, who pay more than they should be paying. It is the ordinary citizen in this country who historically is getting shafted by Government policies.
In fact, the Bishops' report of January 5 stated that the lowest 20 per cent of the people in this country in terms of income received only 4 per cent of the country's income while the top 20 per cent got over 40 per cent. If that is not proof of the allegation that I am making, that the tax load and the whole system of Government in this country is unfairly on the
Income Tax
backs of the poor and the ordinary citizens, I am not sure what is. I invite the Members of the Conservative Party, if they want to govern this country some day, to think about compassion, justice and a sense of-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the information of the Hon. Member, the Progressive Conservative Party did not bring in either of these budgets. Follow the rules. We did not bring in the budget. We did not even support it. Blame the people who brought it in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that there is a ten-minute question and answer period provided under the Standing Orders of the House at the end of the Hon. Member's speech.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I guess that proves the point that the Conservative Party are really Liberals in a hurry.
When we deal with a Bill of this sort, we should be out to change the system and change it radically so that the ordinary citizen of this country gets a fair break from the tax laws. That has not been the case historically.


An Hon. Member:: That is what MacEachen says.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have a Conservative Member saying "That's what MacEachen says". If he wants to believe MacEachen, he can believe MacEachen. We in this Party do not. We want to present some alternatives to the Canadian people.


Miss MacDonald:: Whoever believed MacEachen?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not know whoever believed MacEachen, but one Member of the Tory Party apparently does.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the usual practice is to refer to Members of the House by constituency, or their function in the case of Cabinet Members.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As I was saying, we have a very unfair taxation system in this country. The Bill before us today will make it even more unfair by loading more and more on the ordinary income person. For example, there is the provision for a partial deindexation, applying the six and five program to indexation in Canada. According to calculations, that will raise $1.7 billion in 1983-84, depending on the inflation rate. The tables I have show that when you partially deindex the taxation system, the lower income person pays more than his or her fair share. The wealthier person will get off much easier.
Let us take the example of a single person earning $7,500 a year. When you partially deindex the taxation system to take into account the six and five program, that person will pay an extra $113 in income tax in 1984, which means a tax increase for that person of 15.7 per cent. The person earning $10,000 will pay an extra $119, for an increase of 14.7 per cent. The person earning $50,000 will pay an extra $591, which is an

January 31, 1983
Income Tax
increase of only 4.1 per cent in that person's income tax. A person earning over $100,000 will have an increase in percentage terms of only 2.5 per cent. Is that just and fair? I maintain that it is not. We need a taxation system in this country based on the ability to pay. As the Bishops pointed out, those who earn the least, the 20 per cent at the bottom, earn only 4 per cent of the national income. They should get hit less hard than those earning $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 or $100,000 a year.
The same applies to the married taxpayer. A taxpayer earning $20,000 a year, with two dependants under the age of 18, with partial deindexation will have to pay an extra $254, an increase of 21.7 per cent. A wealthy person making over $100,000 a year, with the same two dependants, will have an increase of 3.2 per cent. I maintain, and suggest to the Government and this House, that it should be the opposite way. Someone making over $50,000 or $100,000 a year should pay even more income tax. Someone earning under $30,000, $20,000 or $15,000 should pay less income tax. That is the only way if we want a fair taxation system, one that is based on compassion, reason and ability to pay. That has not been the case in this country under Liberal and Conservative Governments for the past 100 years.
Let us look at the corporate tax rate. A few minutes ago we heard from the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He shed a lot of crocodile tears because of companies that are paying so much in taxes. He said that because they paid so much tax, they will not expand and they will not invest. He asked what this would do to the job situation and so on. If you look at the record, Mr. Speaker, you find that corporations in Canada have paid less and less in taxes over the last five or six decades while the individual has had to pay more in taxes. I maintain that is not fair.
Let us look at the statistics. In 1952, 53.7 per cent of federal Government revenue came from corporations and 43.6 per cent from individuals. In 1962, ten years later, 40.1 per cent comes from corporations and 59.9 per cent from individuals. In 1980, just a couple of years ago, 30.5 per cent came from corporations and 69.4 per cent came from individuals.
The share of taxes paid by ordinary citizens in this country has increased from 46 per cent in 1952 to 69.4 per cent in 1980, while the share paid by corporations went down from 53.7 per cent in 1952 to 30.5 per cent in 1980.
I suggest that the priorities of this Government are the wrong ones. Instead of trying to redistribute the tax load in Canada in a more fair, equal and compassionate direction, the Government has redistributed the tax load in the opposite way by bringing in all kinds of incentives, tax cuts, tax credits and tax loopholes for the very wealthy and the corporations in this country. Time and again it has loaded it on to the ordinary citizen.
It strikes me as strange that whenever the country is in trouble, the solution is to give more incentives to the rich so that they will do better, and the solution for the poor is to tighten their belts so that they will do better. That is not fair. It is not the kind of Canada that I, and I suspect the majority of Canadians, want.
It is not only the federal Government; we must take into consideration the provincial Governments as well. When we look at their taxation system, such as unemployment insurance contributions and so on, we find the same trend developing. In terms of federal and provincial revenues, in 1950 corporations paid 49.2 per cent. In 1980, corporations carried 23.3 per cent of the national tax load. In 1950, individuals paid 50.7 per cent; in 1980, their share had risen to 76.6 per cent. That is neither fair nor just. The principal thing that we in this House should be doing is to change that kind of tax system, bringing in many of the recommendations made in this country over the years for a more fair and just tax system.
If we change the tax system so that the poor, the ordinary worker, the farmer and the small-businessman have more income, they will spend it. They will buy consumer goods. They would buy the necessities of life in order to look after their families. In the process, this would create jobs. We must stimulate consumer spending in this country. We need a tax cut, not for the large companies, but for the ordinary citizen. Large companies have never in the past responded to that kind of incentive and never will. We must get rid of a tax system which is a system of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. It is socialism for the rich because, year in, year out, Governments in Canada have given millions and millions of dollars to large companies. In fact, if we had taken equity in the CPR every time we gave it millions of dollars to upgrade rail lines, improve facilities and purchase hopper cars, we would own and control it now. The same is true of many other corporations in the country. We do not give that kind of assistance to ordinary people. We do not give that kind of assistance to the single mother, the unemployed, or the small-businessman or small farmer unfortunate enough to go bankrupt. That is the kind of thing we want to change.
In 1982 the budget levied a corporate surtax of 5 per cent which will be reduced in 1983 to 2.5 per cent. That perpetrates the kind of unfairness and lack of compassion that the country shows for the ordinary citizen.
On the other hand, only about .07 per cent of our GNP is in the form of a wealth tax. In the United States, about .42 per cent of the GNP is taken up by wealth tax, while in Switzerland 1.02 per cent goes to wealth tax. If we want to base our taxation system on fairness, then I suggest we examine what other countries are doing to help the ordinary citizen. But so far that has not been done.
Another point I want to raise has been referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is whether the valuation day for farmers should be changed. In 1980 the Liberal Party promised that it would be. I am sure Hon. Members opposite recall that they were to change valuation day from December 31, 1971 to December 31, 1974 and that it was to be indexed so that there would be a more appropriate reflection of the inflation in land prices. Nearly three years have passed and that promise has not been fulfilled. 1 do not think it is a question of whether it should be fulfilled. The Government
January 31, 1983

made a commitment and it must deliver. This is very important because land prices are being inflated day in and day out. If the valuation day is not changed and some form of indexation adopted, then small and middle-sized farmers will be paying the largest increase in taxes, in this case through capital gains.
Those are a few of the points that should be made, Mr. Speaker. In Canada we have a taxation system that is extremely unfair and regressive and which loads taxes on the ordinary citizen, the ordinary worker, the farmers and the poor in the country. They pay all kinds of consumer taxes and sales taxes which are regressive. At the same time, we allow the wealthy all kinds of incentives and investment tax credits and allow large corporations to pay less than their fair share. That is not the kind of Canada I want. I want a Canada based on freedom for the individual to do his utmost. That cannot happen while he is saddled with extremely high taxes.
We have an immense deficit and I am afraid that, as it increases, the ordinary person will have to pay the price, through increased taxes and programs like six and five which will hit him the hardest. The six and five program is a good example of what happens. If someone is making $10,000 per year and is limited to a 5 per cent increase, that amounts to $500. But if someone is making $50,000 per year the increase is $2,500. Where is the equity in a program which was supported by the federal Liberal and Conservative Parties? There is no equity in it, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that neither Party is willing to stand up for the ordinary citizen or to represent him in this House. We should be making some real changes to benefit the ordinary citizen, rather than throwing more and more to the big companies and the wealthy people in the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members who wish to put questions to the Hon. Member who has just spoken? The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seemed to say that we have to do two things; first, we have to get more taxes from large corporations, and second, we have to reduce the federal deficit. I wonder if the Hon. Member would support the principle that we should not be giving interest-free money to PetroCan and that, if it paid its own way, that would help reduce the deficit?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of PetroCan. I think it should be a much bigger oil company than it is today. We should be doing what other industrial states have done long ago, and that is, have a national oil company that would expand and keep oil money in Canada. I believe Crown corporations should pay their fair share, as is done in Saskatchewan. In that Province they make their fair contribution to the provincial treasury. The Government moved very late in the oil industry. By now, PetroCan should be the largest oil company in Canada.
I believe that foreign ownership in general has made this country poor and has cost many, many jobs. Government
Income Tax
statistics show that foreign companies import four times as much as Canadian firms. Foreign ownership has prevented us from having a rational and planned industrial system. It has fragmented the industrial base that we do have and has allowed a good deal of R and D to go south of the border and into other countries.
We are the only industrialized country in the world that has allowed so much foreign ownership and I think the time has come when that should end. It can be ended in the oil industry by making sure that Petro-Canada expands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher).


Mr. Fisher:: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will allow a short supplementary to the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member intentionally skirted the question. He delivered a fine speech today about reducing the federal Government deficit and collecting more taxes from Crown corporations.
My supplementary question is the same as my original question. Does the Hon. Member support interest-free Government money going to Petro-Canada in order that it can expand, thus reducing the viability of the federal Government and, in other words, increasing our deficit? Is he giving a speech of accountability-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the Hon. Member's question should be short and to the point.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Surely a minute, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is trying to apportion time among Members. The Hon. Member has been permitted an original question and I have invited him to put a supplementary question. I think he has put his question and I am inviting the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to reply.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I support that, Mr. Speaker. I think we should use the taxation system and the resources we have in the country to Canadianize. We must make sure that Canadians control their destiny. I do not see what is wrong with that. If the Hon. Member wants to stand on the side of foreigners owning and controlling vital parts of our economy, that is his business; but I do not believe in it.
I made a speech today saying that private corporations have been paying less and less, and I said that system must end. In 1952, foreign corporations contributed 53 per cent of the revenue and today they contribute 30 per cent. We must change that system, and fast.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, in September the Finance Committee held eight public sessions, many of them double sessions and several additional days were made available for private

January 31, 1983
Income Tax
discussion. Later, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) acknowledged the good work done by the Committee and many public groups acknowledged the important forum it provided.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said that he and his Party are standing up for the ordinary citizen against the undue advantages given the rich. May I ask why he and his colleagues made only one appearance at the Committee since September? I believe the transcript will show that standing up for the ordinary citizen amounted to one brief, 20-minute discussion with one witness. Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell the House why this standing up was not a little more forceful.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am not a member of the Finance Committee. I am just saying what is the position of my Party and what is my position as a Member. We have a taxation system which is very unfair. I think we will have to change that system, but I cannot answer the question because I am not a member of the Committee.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary question. I applaud the Hon. Member's position. It is a logical one; it is well-stated. Why does he not do something about it?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We would love to have a chance to do something about it. Perhaps the day will come very soon when we will have a people's Government in charge of things here in Ottawa.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). In his remarks he stated that the thought we should have an expanded Petro-Canada operation. Only last week I received a telephone call from a small gasoline outlet operator in my constituency. He asked me just what he could do with regard to our state-owned oil company. I asked him what was the problem. He said that he was operating a small service station and that one of his customers was a small taxi operation which had a fleet of five cars. The Petro-Canada operator adjacent to the man who called me contacted the taxi operation and said: "Look, we will put in a tank which will provide gasoline for your fleet at the wholesale cost, providing you buy your gas from Petro-Canada". Of course, the taxi company followed that route and as a result the small, independent operator, his wife and two children, lost that taxi business. This was the straw which broke the camel's back. Not only did the small operator lose the taxi business, but he lost the oil business and the servicing of that fleet.
I see Mr. Speaker motioning. I am coming to my question. Why would the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville and his Party want to see the expansion of Petro-Canada which, in
effect, is putting small, independent businessmen out of business-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to make a speech later, if he wishes. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there have been hundreds of cases where the Exxons of the world have trampled over small, independent people for many decades.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: But this is not Exxon; it is Petro-Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not see the Hon. Member's point. I think this country needs a Canadian-owned oil company which controls the majority of the Canadian petroleum business. This is what most enlightened countries in the world have done. It works very well for them and it could work very well for us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is having great difficulty apportioning time to Hon. Members seeking to be recognized. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments. I agree that some form of indexation of capital value about which he was talking for farmland would definitely be appropriate. He also said something about the fact that there should be a wealth tax and that tax policy should reflect the needs of the less fortunate as well as average Canadians in our society. Could he tell us what is the average value of a grain farm in his riding? Would he be suggesting that a wealth tax be applied to the sale price of farmland in his riding? I understand that farms sell in his riding in the range of between a quarter and half a million dollars.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call to the Hon. Member's attention the fact that questions should be short. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has a very brief opportunity in which to reply.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think that any wealth tax should be placed basically upon the wealthiest 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the Canadian population. Many years ago the Saskatchewan Government removed the estate tax for over 90 per cent of Saskatchewan farmers. I am talking here just about the very, very wealthy in society. Those people should be paying a much greater share of the income tax.


Mr. McDermid:: What is your definition of wealthy?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What is my definition of wealthy? I have given you several definitions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member but the ten-minute period of questions and answers has expired. At this stage the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson).
January 31, 1983


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 believe the debate commenced this morning with a speech from this side. Then there was one from that side and one from the NDP, so in the natural rotation I would presume that you would return to this side of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is having some difficulty with the business of time allocation, but in this case the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex and then the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to pay tribute to the Members of Parliament who joined with me during the month of September and sat on the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to listen to businessmen, construction people and professionals from across Canada make proposals that would lay the groundwork for, and give us insight into, the changes required in order to come up with a more equitable tax system. I am referring particularly to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), and the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who certainly had a tremendous input into the Committee and was a very active participant on a regular basis.
I was somewhat disappointed. I hoped perhaps there could have been more regular attendance before that Committee because the calibre of submissions was extremely good and each was backed up by a level of common sense which made it easily understood by all involved. I could not help but be somewhat alarmed by the lack of knowledge of the Small Business Bond. Under the Small Business Bond Program banks do not pay income tax on interest earned. If they are in a non-profit situation-and their profits have been dropping badly because of the recession in the western world for the last several months-naturally they will not have as much profit to invest as they had, for example, a year ago when many bonds were negotiated between the borrower and the lender. I know there is a great need for this, but in fact they are not in a taxable position. We as a Government cannot force them to make loans even if they are in a taxable position because it has to be negotiated, I say again, between the borrower and the lender.
Also I should like to comment briefly on some of the submissions that were made. Some of them pointed out to all members of the Committee that there were sectors of the economy where perhaps the capital cost allowance factor needed adjustment due to the short life period of the particular equipment purchased. I am talking here about submissions that were made and the cross-examination of the persons from the Canadian Construction Association.
Also I should like to touch upon the issue raised by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) concerning the application of the capital gains tax. This is another issue which was raised within Committee. I believe it was the Canadian Chamber of Commerce which made the proposal that perhaps one of the most equitable ways of applying a tax in that
Income Tax
particular area would be to tie it to the length of tenure or the length of ownership.
I sympathize with the situation the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has described of a farming operation on which perhaps a farmer or his family have worked for several generations to build up an equitable and viable operation, only to be faced with a system of taxation that in the last few years, during an inflationary spiral, has made it very difficult to cope with the transfer or sale of that property. In one sense, perhaps it has slowed down the takeover of Canadian land by foreign owners. But in the other context we have to be very careful that we do not destroy the family farm concept.
I would like to see consideration given not only to the suggestion made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce but also to an alternative system of indexing in this same situation. Indexing has already been accepted by our country. We index our personal income tax base, our pensions and various other aspects of our economy that affect people's lives. This may be a good time to look at this.
If we look back over the last several months, in particular the four months prior to December 1, the rate of inflation on a monthly basis has been running at approximately one-half of 1 per cent. In contrast to the way the inflationary impact is calculated in the United States, we calculate ours on the 12-month moving average. Consequently, if we consider inflation in the four months prior to December 1 to be at a rate of approximately one-half of 1 per cent, then we realize that Canada's inflation rate has been running at 6 per cent during that time, and there was negative inflation during the month of December, then we have achieved our purpose as far as the inflationary spiral is concerned, although it may not appear that way when one looks at the 12-month moving average and compares it to the monthly averages in the United States.
However, there is another area that perhaps we should examine very closely. Canadians are great savers. In the year 1981 I believe Canadians salted away something like $17 billion in savings as far as private investors are concerned. This money is badly needed in the small business and farming sectors.
Another possible vehicle to examine is that of finding another way to channel some of these savings back into the investment sector, particularly into those areas where it is so badly needed. Perhaps this could be examined in committee. Maybe we can come up with a vehicle that would ensure security to the investor and stability to the owner. I believe this can be done. I speak as a private Member of the House of Commons when I make this suggestion.


Mr. Nickerson:: You can't; you are a Parliamentary Secretary.


Ralph Ferguson: I believe this suggestion would give us a boost in the arm. We have resources in Canada which are not available in other countries in the world. We are the second
January 31, 1983

Income Tax
largest country in the world as far as geographical area is concerned. This huge diversity in our economy spread over such a large country has made it very difficult to apply a tax system that is completely equitable to everyone.
It is in this context that I am most appreciative of the way organizations submitted briefs to us during the month of September. There were those of us who did not take any holidays but stayed to work to ensure that the proposals coming from the business community could be closely examined in committee and the appropriate suggestions sent on for consideration for the upcoming budget later this year.
I mentioned earlier briefs were submitted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Construction Association. We also had briefs from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Institute of Professional Accountants. All of these organizations had something to contribute.
One of the problems we have as a governing body, and I speak in this context for all Members of the House of Commons, is the diversity of our economy here in Canada. We have to work toward a solution that is fair and applicable to all of Canada. After the committee ended its work and Parliament resumed sitting, we had a submission by the Canadian Federation of Retail Farm Equipment Dealers in Canada, who asked for consideration of the proposal that the investment tax credit be applied to used equipment. This was an area which the dealers found was creating problems for them. They were carrying huge inventories of farm equipment which were not moving because of the investment tax credit on new equipment as well as the half-year depreciation allowance, and coming toward the end of the year it is to a person's benefit to buy new equipment instead of used equipment.
With all of the input we have had to date and the adjustments made in the budget papers, I think it accurately reflects the requirements that will be in place as our economy starts to turn and we achieve the level of stability required in the small business, agricultural sectors and other sectors that contribute to the welfare of this nation.
I was interested to note that, as of November 20, there were more oil wells drilled and completed in Canada from January 1, 1982 to November 20, 1982 than there had been in any other year since 1977, with the sole exception of 1980. That is an indication that the oil and energy sector has started to turn.
I see some puzzled looks on the other side of the chamber, but bear in mind that I said oil wells drilled and completed, not oil and gas wells. I see an Hon. Member looking at me curiously, but I would have to ask him why drill another gas well when we have so many drilled and capped for which markets are not available? I notice that the National Energy Board has provided permits to increase our exports that I hope will bring those capped wells back into production and give some new life to the economy in that sector.
It is also interesting to note that the plans announced toward further development, not only in the Arctic and the Beaufort but in the offshore, show that very large companies have faith
in our Canadian tax system and are willing to make those kinds of expenditures that will create additional jobs and bring our economy back to the level of prosperity that we had a few years ago before the world recession set in.
In spite of the fact that we in Canada think we are very hard pressed-indeed we are; our unemployment figure is far higher than we would like to see it-when we compare our situation to other industrialized nations in the western world, we do have the basic human and natural resources that should allow us to take advantage of the quick recovery that we hope will start this coming summer.
In closing, I want to point out that we have made a tremendous number of changes to the Income Tax Act. I believe these changes are well spread out and cover a wide range of concerns, from the automobile standby charges to the liabilities of directors of corporations, withholding tax and so on. These changes have been brought about as a result of the Government consulting with concerned individuals as well as from the representations made to the committee by the people of Canada when it sat in the month of September.
We hope that consideration will be given in the budget later this year to some long-term proposals which will have to be implemented over the next few years in order to meet the needs of a changing society and a changing business world.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Again, we have a period of ten minutes for questions and answers. Are there Hon. Members rising to put questions?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) is in position now and I have a question for the previous speaker. The previous speaker referred to large inventories of farm implement dealers. Does the Hon. Member feel that the reduction of capital cost allowance to one-half of the amount that is normally allowed to purchasers in the year of acquisition will stimulate or reduce the sale of farm implements?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Equipment Dealers' Association indicated that any adjustment to the capital cost allowance with respect to used equipment would have a neutral impact on that used equipment. They were more concerned about the application of the investment tax credit being extended to used equipment so that they would be able to sell it off of their lots and not have to carry it as inventory.
I should point out to the Hon. Member that it is normal for the manufacturers of farm equipment to carry the cost of new equipment on those lots until the day of sale or until a buyer makes an offer through a rental agreement. If this happens, the liability is assumed by the purchaser at that point. However, if that dealer takes in a trade on that piece of equipment, that is his liability, of course. That is their concern. They wanted to ensure that the investment tax credit provision was extended to cover that used equipment in order to lower their own inventories. I have to agree that it will clear their lots and
January 31, 1983

resolve a very heavy debt burden that they are carrying at the present time. Obviously, the Hon. Member does not understand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) that questions and answers should be short.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question referred directly to the purchase of new farm equipment. Does the Hon. Member feel that by taking half of what was normally the capital cost allowance, the sale of farm implements will be stimulted or reduced?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have to emphasize again that the retail farm equipment dealers themselves said that it would have a neutral impact upon used equipment.


Thomas Edward Siddon: On used equipment. We are talking about new equipment.


Ralph Ferguson: Naturally, if the capital cost allowance was left as it was, it would have a positive impact on the purchase of new equipment. There is no doubt. But the way it was being applied was very unfair, because if 1 were to purchase a new combine late in December at a cost of $120,000, I could not use it until the following August. I would be glad to meet with Hon. Members opposite to explain farming operations to them. You do not harvest wheat in December, January or February; you harvest in July and August. Consequently, 1 hope the Hon. Member would realize this situation, and if there is any adjustment to be made, perhaps we should be considering a different rate for the first part of the year and another for the last half of the year, or the time when the equipment is being used.
1 wish to point out as well that there was a great abuse of capital cost allowance by some sectors of business, where they were buying a fleet of equipment, trading it in after three months of operation and taking the full depreciation. As a result, the ordinary taxpayer was, in fact, having to absorb this loss of revenue which the Government was not receiving.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member concerns the capital gains tax and valuation day. Why has his Party not kept the campaign promise which it made in 1980 that the valuation day would be changed from 1971 to 1974 and then indexed? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said on Thursday, I believe, that the Government would be keeping the promise very soon.
My question is two-fold. Why has his Party not fulfilled its promise up to now; and how soon can the farmers of Canada expect the Liberal Party to deliver on that promise?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated in my remarks that there is diverse opinion as to how this should be applied. The Chamber of Commerce suggested that it should be tied to the length of tenure. This is one aspect which they suggested should be carefully considered and it is being examined very carefully. The other suggestion was for a system of indexing or a change in valuation day. This affects
Income Tax
various sectors of farming in different ways. As the Hon. Member is aware, the land tenure period in the Prairies where a lot of grain is grown will be much different from a cash crop area or a tobacco growing area where the farmer usually works very hard for 12 months of the year, rather than having a period of holidays during the winter months or at least taking it easy. They have to work all year round, as a livestock farmer does. We have to examine how this plan will be applied and what its impact will be. I have been working on it.
I am sorry that there was not a representative of his Party in the committee when this was discussed with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. This was one of the points raised by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I trust that a solution will be found shortly that will apply in an equitable manner to all Canadian farmers.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member why a farmer would buy a combine in January when he does not use it until August or September. As well, both the Hon. Member and his Minister have stated that the Small Business Bond was brought in to help the farmer. How can it help the farmer if the banks will not issue it?


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) raised a very valid point. I was explaining to his colleague that one does not harvest wheat in December, January or February, but it has sometimes been the practice to buy a piece of equipment in the last month of the fiscal year in order to take advantage of the depreciation rates. This is one of the abuses of the system that was taking place and is why we had to make an adjustment in the capital cost allowance. If we study this, there may be some sectors of the economy for which we may have to make a further adjustment, as we did for the automobile companies. I quite agree that it is not often that we harvest wheat or anything else in January or February.
However, just to give the Hon. Member a little further enlightenment, I must advise him that I am a farmer from southwestern Ontario and in some years I have had to harvest corn and soybean during the winter months because we had a very wet fall and we had to wait for the ground to freeze. One year I bought a combine-a used combine, incidentally- during the month of December because the fields were so soft that we could not use a conventional machine. Therefore, I bought one with huge flotation tires in order to rescue the crop and feed the people of Canada, which would not have been possible otherwise.
With respect to the second part of his question concerning the Small Business Development Bond issue, I share his concern. The Small Business Bonds were a good instrument when they were brought in and served a very useful purpose. However, when it came to the point at which the banks were not making profits as large as they were when they were first implemented, the banks withdrew. It was only business sense to them that if they were not paying income tax, the Small

January 31, 1983
22328_____________________________
Income Tax
Business Bond was of no advantage to them. Consequently, they became very difficult to obtain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of question and answer having now expired, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, while the frustrations of these question sessions are most felt by the Hon. Member next expected to speak, 1 must say that I believe these exchanges are very valuable to the House and to the people of Canada. In particular, they reveal the difficult dilemma of Members of Government in being faced with questions which the Canadian people have been asking with regard to the November 12 budget for more than a year. The answers appear to be the same today as the Government has been giving all along.
When we asked about the impact of reducing first year depreciation by 50 per cent on an item which is on the fast depreciation rate of three or five years, for example, it was impossible for Government Members to argue against the fact that this measure of the budget of November 12, 1981, included in Bill C-139 before us, does not destroy jobs. In fact, some 20 per cent of the automobiles manufactured in Canada are purchased for lease or rental and are normally written off over three years. Suddenly, the operating costs of a lease or rental equipment business have been increased by imposing this change. Therefore, the turnover rate of these vehicles is slower and the output from our Canadian automobile and equipment manufacturing industry is reduced. That means the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Therefore, I am very pleased that we are giving Government Members, backbenchers in particular, an opportunity to reveal some of the hypocrisy in the position the Government has taken under the leadership of, first, the former Minister of Finance, who introduced the budget over a year ago, and now, more recently, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who has had to jump through hoops and try to justify the introduction of Bill C-139 at such a belated stage of this process.
This particular budget has now been changed 47 times. The Liberal Government has had to retreat from many of the measures and the basic principle on which it was predicated. In fact, it is no longer anything like the budget first introduced on November 12 of 1981. Nonetheless, the major and damaging elements of the budget have largely been retained. This is why members of this Party in particular do not intend to see this budget measure, the Ways and Means motions, go through the House in great haste.
I, for one, resent the implication given in a letter sent out by the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada to my constituency office suggesting that we tell taxpayers that they should urge their Members of Parliament to get this Bill through expeditiously, otherwise they will not be receiving their tax rebates in a timely fashion. I think that is a form of intimidation and blackmail which is absolutely unacceptable to Members of the House.
As we well know, the Government has already been busily collecting tax in accordance with the provisions of the budget of a year ago for a full year. In terms of the tax year ending April 30, 1982, those measures were implemented without the support of legislation or the consent of this House. Now the Government intends to tax in the present taxation period, applying the rules which we again have not adopted as law. Nonetheless, the Minister of Finance has the gall to tell Canadian taxpayers that if Members of Parliament do not get this Bill through the House quickly, then their tax rebates will not be received by April 30, or perhaps not received at all.


Mr. Cosgrove:: That is a fact.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is the double standard which the Government regularly applies. If the Government takes, it takes without the benefit of the law. If it is required to give back, it also disregards its moral obligation to do so and then tries to accuse Opposition Members of being the problem.


Paul James Cosgrove: Followed your leadership.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is important that we very carefully study the provisions of this enabling legislation, Bill C-139. It is very interesting that, in fact, the Canadian Tax Foundation is due to start work on the major issue of restructuring Canada's taxation system. Therefore, one must ask the question, given all of the blunders and retractions of the measures of the original budget, why we are now in such a big rush to implement some of the remaining features which are so damaging to the Canadian economy?
When people in the New Democratic Party and Members of Government say, "We are only trying to be fairer to the ordinary Canadian and extract more revenue from corporations and the wealthy", they do not realize that many of those large corporations have declared a 50 per cent reduction of profits in the past year, that that has a direct relationship to the hundreds of thousands of people they have been laying off, that many of the small businesses and individuals of Canada have declared bankruptcy, personal and corporate, at a rate which is 50 per cent larger than it was in 1980, and that this all translates into the loss of employment.
Therefore, although we argue that our economy is in rough shape because of world oil prices and other factors, Members on the Government benches opposite evade the truth. The truth of the matter is that the November 12 budget was the trigger for a colossal decline in the Canadian economy. The Government now has no right to blame the Opposition for delaying this Bill when we feel the measures contained within it have been the trigger for the economic catastrophe that is unfolding in our country.
On November 12, 1981 the Government projected $66 billion of revenue. The projection of October 28 of last year was $55 billion. In other words, the Government's revenue predictions have dropped by $ 11 billion in one year. At the same time, because of additional unemployment and job program costs, we have seen the financial outlay increase substantially. The budget of November 12, 1981, which was
January 31, 1983

supposedly to raise $9 billion of additional revenue from Canadians over the previous year, has in fact destroyed the revenue base of the Government of Canada.
That confirms a theory that we on this side have discussed in the House several times. In an academic sense, it is called the "Laffer hypothesis", but for ordinary-minded people, this theory merely says that if one continues to raise corporate and personal taxes without limit, one will pass a point beyond which one will reduce the total revenue flow to Government. This theory, this down-to-earth, practical fact, is at the heart of our present economic dilemma. The Government has passed over the peak on what is called the "Laffer curve", and we are now taxing businesses and corporations to the extent that it is no longer worth being in business. That is why the revenues of the Government of Canada have fallen $11 billion over the last year and expenses have increased some $11 billion, so that, for the financial year 1982-83, we will see a total deficit approaching $30 billion. This confirms the theory that Government cannot continue to tax and increase tax without limit.
I read that when the Minister of Finance introduced this Bill shortly before Christmas, he said: "Canadians, as a whole, understand that their Government cannot continue to spend more and more while it taxes them less and less", the implication being that the Government had to raise taxes to pay for spending. Of course, the true nature of the problem is that the Government is spending far too much and doing little about reducing the extravagance and waste for which it is responsible. It is not taxation which is in dispute so much as the lack of fiscal restraint.
I think that if we merely consider the recent Auditor General's report-may I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, you may find this hard to believe, but there were other interviews being broadcast and statements being made over the weekend that did not emanate from Winnipeg.
News reports of the interview of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) with Standard Broadcast
News indicate that nothing has changed about the warm and cozy relationship between the Socialist NDP and the present Liberal Government.
The New Democrats are saying that energy agreements should not be renegotiated in order to bring down the cost of gasoline for consumers to reflect the falling world price. Canadians today are paying $2 a gallon for gasoline. According to Newsweek magazine, on the American side of the border they are paying $1.50 for a similar amount of gasoline, even considering the exchange rate. In spite of the fact that Americans are paying for their oil at the world price, Canadian consumers are paying more. Obviously the system put in place by the Liberal Government is not working, or the Government is perpetrating a fraud on consumers. Yet here we have a prominent spokesman for the NDP, that Party's former energy critic, urging that that system remain in place and that Canadian oil prices should not be renegotiated, even though the world price is falling.
The NDP cannot resist attacking the Conservatives for voting with the Liberals when there are useful amendments to be made and worth-while legislation presented. But when it comes to being in bed with the Liberals to perpetuate this fraud, the NDP believes it is perfectly all right to bilk Canadian consumers at the pumps, when the reality is that gasoline is considerably cheaper in the United States.



COMMUNICATIONS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, when granted its licence as a national Pay TV network, First Choice Canadian Communications Corporation undertook to ensure a Canadian pay TV system that would benefit Canadian viewers and the Canadian program production industry.
At the public hearing in connection with the application of First Choice for licensing, their expressed philosophy of Canadian programming focused on "quality" and "high production values", with a stated aim to increase the amount of Canadian drama. This was called into question when earlier this year First Choice signed a one-year contract with Playboy Enterprises and when they advertised themselves as "the Playboy Channel".
Members of this House, as well as the many Canadians who expressed their concern about this issue, are greatly encouraged by the response of the CRTC. The CRTC is empowered by Parliament under the Broadcasting Act to review the performance of licensees and to call them to account for indications of failure to meet programming commitments or conditions of licence.
I am pleased to see that the CRTC has reiterated its support of the recommendations of the Task Force on Sex-Role Stereotyping-particularly Section 3, which opposes "the

January 31, 1983
portrayal of gratuitous violence to women", and that the CRTC is reviewing its Pay TV regulations to take into account concerns relating to sexual exploitation.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, western farmers are faced with one of the most difficult economic periods in the history of farming. Increased costs of production and falling grain prices will pose major difficulties for grain producers. It would be absolutely impossible for western farmers to pay increased freight rates at this time. Considering the economic problems they face, I call on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to announce in Winnipeg tomorrow a positive plan of action that will not put farmers in western Canada at an economic disadvantage which they cannot afford to face at this time.



PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, with considerable astonishment and consternation, Canadians this weekend witnessed the final moments and tragic end of the political career of a party leader. A political organization which claims that it alone has the God-given qualifications for leading the destinies of Canadians, has chosen at a time when it is fifteen points ahead in the public opinion rolls, to sacrifice in fact to literally assassinate its leader.
After sailing in troubled waters for the last two years and after weathering the storm, so to speak, now that better days are on the horizon, the captain is being asked to leave the helm just when he is about to deliver his cargo.
As politicians, we are all fully aware of the precarious position we are in. However, I am sure that I shall be interpreting the feelings of many Canadians in expressing my sympathy for the person who bore the brunt of these actions, and that whatever his future political orientation may be, we shall always recognize his tremendous sense of fairness, his search for justice and his profound understanding of liberalism-qualities which, in fact, cost him the leadership of his party.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I might say at first that the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) completely misinterpreted our position on energy prices. We want low energy prices; that is why we want to keep the Alberta agreement. It provides for 75 per cent of world price. I suggest that the Hon. Member read that agreement and read what I said yesterday to the press. I think we have a good record in that we have been pretty consistent on our position there.
The Liberal Government has deliberately created unemployment to fight inflation over the last few years. It has done this on the backs of working people. Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is true. That is the policy. Canada needs new direction. The first priority should be job creation. We need a long-term direction involving better control of our investment process; we need more, not less, Canadianization, and so on. In the short run we need immediate job creation.
The Government has spent $1 billion to create 70,000 jobs in 13 programs. These are part-time, restrictive jobs that pay the minimum wage and just put people back on UIC at lower rates. We need a long-term job creation program. If the federal government is serious about job creation it would opt for long-term meaningful jobs and not this short-term job creation which is merely a drop in the bucket.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, teaching positions in the Department of National Defence's dependants schools overseas provide unique cultural, social, and educational opportunities, according to the Department's own literature. For this valid reason, there are often more applicants than there are positions available.
Although the Department of National Defence maintains that it makes every effort to comply with the stated policy of providing geographic representation in overseas assignments of teachers, a simple review of the statistics shows that this is not the case. Despite many applicants with excellent qualifications only one teacher from the Northwest Territories has been selected in the last ten years. It is evident that systematic discrimination is being practised against teachers from the N.W.T.
The selection committee is to meet in a couple of weeks or so, and it is imperative that the errors of the past be remedied at this time.
January 31, 1983

Despite the slightly higher costs of hiring teachers from the North, Territorial teachers must be judged on their own merits and given the same consideration and opportunity as teachers from southern Canada.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam
Speaker, since it appears to be the intention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to propose changes to the Crowsnest Pass grain rates in Winnipeg tomorrow, I would like to make the point again today that my Party objects to the opening of an agreement that was to have remained in force in perpetuity.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has assured the House on several occasions that changes to Crow would occur only if consensus was reached among the affected parties. We heard the Minister of Transport report last week in this House that no consensus had been reached. Apparently the Government has decided to reverse its policy, change the rules, and act unilaterally without a consensus.
The existing Crow rate contract was never opened up and placed on the table for renegotiation. The vast mineral wealth in the Crowsnest Pass region that was a part of the original agreement was not on the table. No recognition has been made of the gifts of money, land and equipment that went into the original contract. Neither is any recognition given to the extreme cost increases already faced by farmers, or has any recognition been given to the great economic disincentives to grain export, under the analysis of either Gilson, Argue, or Snavely. Because of the contradictory and disruptive nature of the proposals on the table, I urge the Government to maintain the Crow rate and implement the Hall Commission proposals for rail upgrading instead.

O)



SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY TASK FORCE TO EVALUATE FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker-
[Editor's Mote: And the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) having entered the Chamber. ]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Thank
you.


Ursula Appolloni: -we on this side of the House are deeply conscious of the need to encourage the participation of youth at all levels of Canadian society, to respond to youthful idealism, to study youthful aspirations, and to give recognition
to what young people are saying and doing. Rapid technological and sociological change present to today's youth a challenge, the magnitude of which has probably never been experienced by past generations. We believe Canadian youth can and will respond to this challenge, but our duty is to listen to the youth constituency, and to elicit its views.
We, therefore, recommend the setting up of a parliamentary task force on youth which would serve to update the 1970 report by the Secretary of State, to investigate and evaluate federal programs affecting youth, make appropriate recommendations, and which would prepare a plan and submit its recommendations for the International Year of Youth scheduled for 1985.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, the chaos, uncertainty and delay in 1982 tax refunds because of the current tax situation will certainly rate as the greatest monument to confusion since the Tower of Babel. Millions of Canadians are now being asked to complete personal income tax forms which are not in accord with existing tax law. They are being asked to complete the forms when the levies have not been approved by Parliament.
My sympathy goes out to the millions of taxpayers who are owed refunds and who will have to wait months for their money. My sympathy also goes out to the employees of Revenue Canada who will be forced to examine each and every return individually because of needless inefficiency and bumbling on the part of the Government. In future, when tax forms are being drawn up and printed, the bureaucrats should interpret tax law as it is, and not what they think it is going to be at some point in the future.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, at the present time short-term cyclical employment at National Steel Car in Hamilton is followed by periods of mass lay-offs. This causes incalculable hardship to the workers and their families, and also leads many experienced workers to look for employment elsewhere. In the near future Government will have to make a concentrated effort to expand the rail network in western Canada in order to allow the production of a larger number of freight and tank cars to move grain and raw materials to port.
In order to smooth out the peaks and valleys in the demand for railway freights cars and tank cars in Canada, I would like
22332

January 31, 1983
Oral Questions
to suggest that the federal Government give due consideration	mistaken. The policy is not that the commitment is that the
to a recommendation made by the United Steelworkers of	price of oil in Canada will be 75 per cent of oil prices. There
America which proposes that all orders for such freight cars in	are three components in the price of oil in Canada. There is
anada be routed through a national procurement agency,	the international price for international oil, and for new oil
Such an agency would be able to identify opportunities for	and 75 per cent of the world price for old oil. This is the policy
import replacement and increase efficiency. Standard specifi-	of the Government, and it still applies
cations for various types of cars could be developed. Smaller
orders would be combined to enable manufacturers to operate Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth): It seems that, every time with longer production runs. Such an agency could project and we ask a question on this subject, the Government blames plan orders months and years ahead.	everybody else for the high price of oil, OPEC, the Provinces,
Alberta, the weather. The federal Government never has
anything to say about taking action to offer relief to the
consumers.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: A few days ago, Madam Speaker, Canadian National Railways announced plans to move most of its Prince Edward Island carload centre to Moncton as part of an over-all rationalization of heavy freight operations in the Atlantic region. A mere holding operation will be left behind in Charlottetown to administer the movement of heavy freight to, from, and within the entire Province. Only a handful of jobs will be lost, but much more than employment is at stake. The demise of this important service to P.E.I. shippers constitutes yet another body blow to what little remains of the railway system in the very Province which entered Confederation in 1873 to save its railway.
1 implore the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to do all he can personally to convince CN to reverse its decision concerning the P.E.I. carload centre because that facility is a necessary part of the economic base of the Province and we cannot, therefore, afford to lose it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English J

Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. It is my understanding that, under the federal Government's oil pricing agreement with the producing Provinces, if world prices fall there is supposed to be a corresponding drop in Canadian prices. According to Newsweek magazine, world prices are falling. Is the Government still committed to the contract that Canada is going to be at 75 per cent of the world price, no matter what the world price is? And, if so, when will Canadian consumers see a corresponsing drop in the price of gasoline at the pumps?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is


PETROLEUM COMPENSATION CHARGE AND CANADIAN OWNERSHIP TAX
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, let us deal with one area the federal Government can do something about, and that is the petroleum compensation charge and the Canadian ownership tax. Should world prices continue to drop, will the Government make a corresponding reduction in the petroleum compensation charge and the Canadian ownership tax, or drop those taxes altogether?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware that since the beginning of the month the petroleum compensation tax has been dropped by $4 a barrel. On top of this, in terms of the Canadian ownership charge, when the payments for the acquisition of Petrofina are terminated sometime at the end of March or mid-April, perhaps some of the money will be kept there for the investment which we had proposed to make in Dome Petroleum in order to ensure this corporation remains a viable corporation in Canada.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, the fact remains that my constituents do not understand the Government's policy of protecting us from the world price when all they need to do is drive across the border into New York State and fill up their tanks with gasoline at a cheaper price than they can do so in Ontario. Is the Minister of Energy offering no hope to Canadian consumers that there will ever be a reduction in the price of gasoline at the pumps in this country? Or is he going to take the advice of his friends to the left here not to negotiate any new oil-pricing agreement?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the electors of the Hon. Member do not know the policy of the Government, because he does not know it himself. He should know, if he is a little informed, that the average price of a gallon of gasoline in Canada is about the same as in the United States, and sometimes a little lower. There is a major variation in price, depending on the provincial sales tax and the same
January 31, 1983

thing exists in the United States. The level of tax varies from state to state. This applies not only in Alberta, but there is a fantastically high level of tax in Quebec. Ontario taxes might be too high, but you should talk to Bill Davis about that.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On July 15, 1982, and November 19, 1982, I asked the Minister about the possibility of raising the casual earning exemption for recipients of the War Veterans Allowance. The Minister assured me that he expected a report very soon and that it would be responded to immediately. Tomorrow is February 1, 1983, and I would like to know what the status of the alleged report is, and when its recommendations will be made public.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the report that I referred to has been received. A proposal has been presented to Cabinet and is presently under consideration.


REQUEST THAT INCREASED EXEMPTION APPLY RETROACTIVELY
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. I am concerned as to whether the recommendations in the report, if they do recommend increased earnings for war recipients, will be made retroactive to 1982.


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the proposal which I put forward does make a provision for retroactivity.


PIPELINES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is with regard to the proposed water pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to Buffalo Pound. Last November I asked the Minister about federal assistance to help finance the pipeline. He agreed then that the pipeline was an important project for Saskatchewan and that the federal Government would be prepared to discuss funding with the Province as soon as the provincial task force completed its study. That report
Oral Questions
has now been made public. It has recommended the pipeline as the best solution to the Regina and Moose Jaw water problem.
Has the Saskatchewan Government contacted the Minister regarding the pipeline? What is the status of the negotiations? Has the federal Government changed its position in support of funding for this project?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I do not think it was my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who responded to that question. I believe it was myself. I had requests from two provincial Cabinet Ministers in Saskatchewan with respect to assistance in dealing with the water problem in Saskatchewan several weeks ago. I stated at that time that If they decided on a pipeline, it will be left to the Province of Saskatchewan to make a request. We indicated that we would consider any proposal that they put forward.
I understand through the media that the Saskatchewan Government has now put a proposal forward using a pipeline rather than an open canal, which was favoured by some other people in Saskatchewan. We will look at that proposal when and if it is submitted, however, I have not received any specific information from the Province since they made their decision last Friday.


FINANCING OF PROJECT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan has offered a proposal which the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw cannot afford to accept. It would completely tie up the capital budgets and borrowings of those cities for the next 20 years.
This is an important project. It would not only guarantee an adequate supply of good clean water, but would also create much needed jobs. It would be a shame if this project were lost because of a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial Governments. Will the Minister provide some leadership in attempting to work out a realistic financing scheme with the Province and the cities?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in a letter to the Mayor of Regina, as well as to my counterpart in Saskatchewan, we are prepared to look at any particular project. I do not want to get into a jurisdictional battle between the City of Regina and the Province of Saskatchewan. Clearly, this is the responsibility of the municipal and provincial Governments. However, because it is of importance to the people of Saskatchewan, we have indicated that we will look at any proposal and decide accordingly.

Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Province of Ontario has indicated that it will attempt to enter a United States lawsuit over the S-Area chemical dump unless the federal Canadian Government receives assurances from the United States that our concerns about the pollution will be met. When will we get those assurances?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I have seen the same reports on which I gather the Hon. Member is basing his question. They puzzle me a little bit. There are negotiations under way which are taking place within the context of a court ordered process in the United States. Those are negotiations between the United States Government and the company in the United States. We are in touch with the American Government on those negotiations. We are pressing on them concerns which we would wish to have the company take into account, in the hope that the company and the United States Government will reach the proper safeguards in a proper negotiation.
There is not a negotiation between the Canadian and American Governments, as the newspaper seemed to imply. There is a process of communication and consultation.
I have no objection whatsoever to the provincial Government entering the court process. My only concern, when they undertake that kind of activity, is that they make sure they touch base with other people who are concerned, to ensure that the action is one that will be useful. I hope in this case that they will be concerned not simply with whether their action might affect the federal Government's interest, but that they will make sure that they are in touch with the public interest groups, the pressure groups in the Niagara area who may endorse an intervention by the Ontario Government or have some concerns about it. That is the area they should be concerned about, not about whether there will be some specific results within the next seven days or so on the part of the federal Government.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON DUMP HAZARDS
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. It has been indicated that a confidential agreement exists between the United States Government and the American firm Occidental, formerly Hooker Corporation, that is keeping information about the hazardous dump from Canadians. What effort is being made to acquire this information?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, my answer would follow on my first one. It seems the Hon. Member is referring to negotiations which are under way, which are directed by the court and which are inherently
January 31, 1983
negotiations between the company and the American Government, which is a confidential process. We are being kept in touch with the development of those negotiations.
The Hon. Member has talked in terms of some agreement holding back information, or some secret agreement. I am not aware of what he is referring to, unless he is referring to the negotiating process which has been encouraged by the American Court authorities. The nature of that legal discussion is such that it is not a public discussion, but a discussion going on between lawyers at the present time. We are in a general way aware of what is being discussed. We are not a party to those negotiations.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Last fall the Minister attended a NATO meeting in Brussels where the allies agreed to increase their conventional capabilities and invest more money and effort in high technology weaponry. Will the Minister tell the House what Canada will be doing to improve its NATO capability in the area of high technology weaponry, or must the Canadian navy continue to look on NATO exercises as a spectator sport?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I would think that, as an ex-Defence Minister, the Hon. Member would have respect for the navy. Our navy is doing a very good job with NATO. The communication I have received from most NATO people in charge of naval operations is that the Canadian Navy is doing a very good job in so far as helping NATO in its anti-submarine warfare roles.
The Hon. Member knows very well that we are in the process of examining how, in the next few years, we can rebuild our navy. As he knows, the program calls for six new frigates to replace the older ones. The Government is doing a considerable amount. Actually, we are in fact following what the former Minister of National Defence was proposing when he was Minister.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Minister knows very well that the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy are second to none. However, their equipment lags far behind.


MODERNIZATION OF VESSELS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. We are spending over $200 million on a destroyer life extension project, as he knows, to extend the life of 16 ancient destroyers.
Gatineau has just come out of the DELEX Program, a 24 year old vessel having its life extended another eight years. It does not provide for, nor has it had installed any form of anti-
January 31, 1983

missile capability. The lessons of the Falklands point to the necessity of that. These ships will not be able to defend themselves in the event of hostilities. Will the Minister tell us why they are only doing half the job of modernizing those vessels?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that behind the policy of the DELEX Program, which is a program to modernize our vessels, we are cognizant of the time that we will in fact be able to use these vessels. For the old class of 56 or 57, for example, we will refit them so that they can be used for another seven or eight years, until the new frigates are in service. There is no use spending millions of dollars on something that we will not be able to use in five or six years. However, on the newer class frigates there will be a more complex DELEX Program so that they will be useful for a longer period of time. It is just a question of judgment.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It has to do with the problems we all face respecting the new Canada Post Corporation, both with regard to urban and rural deliveries. We know that the tampering with Saturday delivery in rural areas has not been acceptable and is not satisfactory. I know from speaking to people in the west and in the Atlantic Provinces that there are some very serious problems.
We know that there has been a lot of humour, and that a lot of stories have been told, about the reasons for the problems. Speaking on behalf of many Canadians, I feel that it is time we looked at these problems seriously and try to determine what the direct, effective solutions are, rather than creating a number of groups or carrying out additional studies.
In my own area there are a number of what I consider to be minor problems, but it has taken two years to settle them. I have called this week "Post Office Week" because I want officials of this new corporation to attend to these things. I would ask the Postmaster General to look into these matters personally. 1 am concerned especially with Saturday delivery and with post offices being closed at 5 p.m. rather than 6 or 7 p.m.-


Madam Speaker:: Order.
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the frustration of the Hon. Member and will convey his remarks to the officials of the new corporation. 1 am sure they will follow up on his recommendations.
Oral Questions RAILWAYS


CROWSNEST PASS RATE-LEGALITY OF PROPOSED GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the terms of the Transport Act, and in view of the plans to make a statement on the Crow rate tomorrow, would the Minister, even at this late date, give serious consideration to asking the law officers of the Department of Justice whether the whole procedure is legal, keeping in mind the recent decisions of the Supreme Court?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice has been involved in the process and is now involved in drafting the legislation that will follow our actions of tomorrow. If there were something illegal in what we are about to do, I am quite sure they would have brought it to our attention.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At the outset I should like to express my appreciation for his action in reactivating the business plan for Sydney Steel.
Further to the statement that his colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West, made a few minutes ago, may I ask the Minister what kind of action we can expect to have on allocation of railway rolling stock in order to relieve the very serious economic problems that exist in the Hon. Member's constituency in Hamilton West and mine in Nova Scotia. Economic conditions are very serious in both places and a substantial order for railway rolling stock for Hawker-Siddeley would have enormous economic leverage.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's compliment with respect to Sysco. Concerning the potential for the rail transportation sector in terms of industrial benefit, 1 think that tomorrow when my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, announce changes in the Crow Rate the Hon. Members will see substantial benefit possibilities for the whole industrial sector in Canada. Also he will see that there will be substantial opportunity for the rail transportation oriented industries in Nova Scotia.
As well, Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, is also working on a couple of projcts around the world, one in Nigeria, for example. These

January 31, 1983
Oral Questions
are some of the possibilities for the company in his riding to sell rail cars.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that answer.


PROSPECT OF ORDERS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, 1 gather that the Minister is telling us that there is a definite prospect of some orders in the not too distant future?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, there are definite prospects, but I want to introduce one caveat. The most important aspect to ensure success, and the main reason for the six and five program and many of our other programs, is that our industries must be competitive. There are tremendous prospects in the transportation sector all around the world. That is one of the reasons why we have been trying to encourage Canadians to be competitive in order that we maximize the potential benefits to employees all across the country.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Applicants for the RAPP-P Program for rental units in my constituency have been told that their proposal falls within the rules and guidelines but that no funding has been allocated for the Victoria area office in 1983. Could the Minister tell the House why no funds have been set aside for this kind of labour-intensive program on Vancouver Island during a time of record unemployment?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not have those facts in my mind at the moment, but I will check and inform the Hon. Member.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Minister would look into this.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK FUNDING
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the RAPP-P Program does two things. It improves housing conditions for Canadian people and it stimulates the economy by promoting sales of goods and services and by providing employment.
If the Minister believes in the value of the RAPP-P Program, is he willing to go back to Cabinet and get decent funding, not only for Vancouver Island but for all Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely committed to the program of home renovation. In fact I think it is a very useful economic tool in
terms of job creation. It is for that reason that, in a statement he made in the House in October, the Minister of Finance allocated more money for it. The budget is allocated very fairly by region by officials of the corporation, but there are cases where that budget has been fully committed for the present fiscal year.
I will look into this and report to the Hon. Member, but surely his question should not reflect a lack of commitment on the part of a Government which has put almost $1 billion into housing in 1982-83.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that a number of farmers are facing bankruptcy and that a number are financially burdened by the difficulties they face. Included in this are a number of dairy farmers who have lost their market share quota, in many cases through no fault of their own. These dairy farmers are heavily penalized, to the extent of approximately $28 per hectoliter for any production outside the market share quota. This further exacerbates their difficult position.
Is the Minister actively looking at this serious problem? Does he propose any interim measures to alleviate this very difficult situation for the dairy farmers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I do not think we have received any official representation. I saw a report that the Hon. Member had met with dairy farmers in his constituency office. The administration of that Board comes under the authority of the Alberta Government, and the Alberta Marketing Board administers that program.
I understand that this is the first time in 12 years that they have faced a cutback in milk production in the Province of Alberta with the Board quota and the traded quota to other provinces before. That is strictly an administrative problem as far as I am concerned. They are saying that supply management does not work, but 1 am sure the Hon. Member knows that his Premier runs supply management. He will remember how he turned the valves down on oil and gas at one time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine how the Minister of Agriculture can bring oil into a very difficult problem faced by the dairy farmers. The fact is that, whatever role the Dairy Board has in the Province of Alberta, it is functioning within the ambit of the total supply management concept.
January 31, 1983___________________________COMMONS DEBATES


ROLE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that this particular problem affects between 30 and 40 per cent of the producers in northern Alberta, would the Minister exercise a little compassion, look at the problem, and try to come up with some recommendations to his Department? Would he ask them at least to make recommendations to the financial institutions that finance these particular producers, so that there could be some leniency in that particular area?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that, when it comes to the needs of farmers, no one could be any more compassionate than I can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You talk about it and do very little.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member also knows that the industrial dairy program is one that we have something to do with. It is an organization put together at the request of the Provinces. The Canadian Dairy Commission administers this program.
Every farmer producing industrial milk is being asked to share in the cutback across Canada. If it is brought to my attention that there is some area where people are suffering undue hardship, naturally I will make that kind of representation.
It has been reported in the press that they are suggesting that we should withdraw the program. Surely they do not want to go to what is the case in the United States where it costs $250,000 per hour in subsidies, and where they are piling up mountains of skim milk powder surplus and butter surplus. They do not know what to do with it. They are putting it on the world market at depressed prices and taking our markets away from us. I can think of one country to which they sold
60,000	tons of skim milk powder and gave it 20,000 tons as well. Yet they do not call that cutting prices. We are in rough competition, but we have a good program and we want to keep it good.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. Two iron ore mines in Timiskaming, the Adams Mine and the Sherman Mine, will each be shutting down for a three-month period during the spring and summer. This will be the third shutdown for the Adams and the second for the Sherman.
Oral Questions
As well as the 800 permanent jobs involved here, there will be a complete loss of any summer job opportunities for students. The Minister has said repeatedly that action is being taken to help the mining industry. Just what action is she taking now to resolve the problems in the mining industry?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I advise the Hon. Member to contact our Department to see what programs we can put into effect in those areas. Through Section 30 and NEED we have put a great many out-of-work miners back into the work force. I would suggest that he contact us as soon as possible to get those programs which will put them to work moving into those areas of the country.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, that is short term; we are looking for permanent employment.


REQUEST FOR TAX INCENTIVES TO ASSIST INDUSTRY
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The mining industry needs more than assurances. It needs action now. Will the Minister please make provisions in the new budget to provide incentives and assistance to our mining industry?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I have heard the representations of the Hon. Member. Obviously I will put them together with other representations I have received, and examine them seriously.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On the weekend I visited the communities of Guelph and Waterloo, part of the so-called Golden Horseshoe in southern Ontario. In that area 31,000 jobs were lost in the month of December alone. A man in Guelph, who had heard the Minister speaking earlier in the week on the news about the need for more stimulus in the economy, put the following question to me. He asked me to ask it of the Minister, which I should like to do. He said, "If there is a need for more stimulus, why does the Government not do it now instead of waiting another two months for a budget?"


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is travelling a little bit in the country and that he keeps us informed of his visits and travels. I suspect the question he asked today must have been heard by the citizen to whom he referred from his own mouth last week, because it is the same as the one he asked then.

January 31, 1983
Oral Questions
The answer I am giving him is that there is over $2 billion of stimulus resulting from the budget of my predecessor last June and my economic statement of October 27. That stimulus of over $2 billion is being injected into the economy at the present time. If my friend wants to show a little patience, he will see later this week other announcements which will have significant impact in terms of activity in the economy.
As far as additional stimulus which might be required is concerned, one way we can ensure the economy will recover faster is to ensure passage at the earliest possible opportunity by the House of the very important Income Tax Act that we started to consider this morning. In all my consultations across the country I have received one clear message, that the private sector wanted certainty and stability, and that it wanted this legislation to be implemented without further delay. I hope the Conservatives in particular will now see the light and realize that it is in the best interests of the economy to pass that legislation without delay.


John Edward Broadbent: I am sure the private sector, like other Canadians, wants certainty and stability, but it does not want the senility-


An Hon. Member:: Then resign.


John Edward Broadbent: -or sclerosis that we are getting on the other side of the House.


REQUEST FOR MONEY INJECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister talked about the amount of money the Government is spending so far. I do not know why he would take pride in the fact that this money was injected when we lose, as I mentioned, 31,000 jobs a month in one small part of the country. Since it costs us some $45 million a day in terms of lost revenue to the federal Government alone, with current levels of unemployment, this will mean that if the Government takes no further action in terms of stimulus for job creation for another two months, when we are supposed to get a budget, we will lose $2.7 billion. I ask the Minister to inject some of that money into the economy now to provide jobs for people, so that they will be paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment insurance out of the country's financial resources.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I agree. It makes a lot of sense to inject additional funds into the Canadian economy at the present time. In fact, that is what the Government is doing. As I have said before, since last June, the Government has allocated more than $2 billion in additional Government spending in our economy to help the unemployed. These funds are now being spent and have not yet been completely used up. The Minister of Employment and Immigration and other Ministers are doing everything they can to ensure that these funds will be used as quickly as possible by Canadian and especially by the private sector. In fact, I would ask the private sector in Canada to co-operate
with our efforts in this area, and I hope that we shall have the support of the Hon. Member for an expeditious passage through Parliament of the tax legislation now before the House, measures which should help get us on the way to economic recovery.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister mentioned what his Government has been doing since last June. I can tell him that we have been losing thousands of jobs almost every day since then. In the past 16 months we have lost 450,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone.


SASKATCHEWAN WATER PIPELINE PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to take another specific project and see if I can at least get a commitment from the Minister on it. The communities of Regina and Moose Jaw need improved water facilities. Just prior to the weekend the Government of Saskatchewan announced a proposal to these cities to provide a pipeline which would, in fact, put an unbearable financial burden upon the municipalities, and under present circumstances they cannot abide by it. Since such a pipeline in these communities, where unemployment has risen by 55 per cent in the past year, would provide at least 400 jobs in the steel building part of the project alone, will the Minister of Finance show some financial long-run sense and some short-run compassion and offer these municipalities and the Province of Saskatchewan substantial amounts of federal funds to get the project under way now?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is a cruel judgment on 15 years of NDP Government that these towns are short of water at the present time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You are getting pretty low, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: I urge the Hon. Leader of the NDP to listen to my answer as I listened politely to his question. If we look at the fiscal capacity of a town like Regina or Saskatoon and compare it with the fiscal capacities of most cities in the country, and if we take the fiscal capacity of the Government of Saskatchewan and compare it with the fiscal capacities of most provincial Governments in the country, I would urge my hon. friend to realize that those cities and the provincial Government of Saskatchewan are indeed in a very good fiscal position. They can go into the market and borrow money on their own for those public works projects, without necessarily having to wait for the "great white father" in Ottawa to come with money.
Discussions with my provincial colleagues, the Ministers of Finance, have shown in that respect that they have a greater sense of responsibility than the Leader of the New Democratic Party. They have recognized that they themselves also have a responsibility to participate in ensuring that all Governments
January 31, 1983___________________________COMMONS
contribute to the stimulation of the economy. They have recognized their own responsibility in this regard.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the Minister determined how many treaty Indian World War II veterans, who were denied full veterans' benefits because of their treaty status, are presently making representations to his Department for their lost benefits? How much longer will these treaty Indian veterans have to wait for what all other veterans received automatically?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have met with representatives of the Saskatchewan Indian Veterans Association as well as having exchanged correspondence with the Alberta Indian Veterans Association. I have asked both parties to bring forward all of the cases where there are concerns. We are now analyzing each individual case and providing a detailed response to everyone of them.


REQUEST THAT OFFICIALS INVESTIGATE SITUATION
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Would the Minister consider sending two or three gentlemen from his Department across the country to search out the veterans who served their country in a time of need but who have been denied their veterans allowance and benefits because of their treaty status? Many of them, from every reserve across Canada, are without these benefits and do not know that they were even entitled to them. Will the Minister have people from his Department, which is responsible for veterans affairs, assigned to find these men and give them the recognition they deserve?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, the Indian Veterans Association in both of those Provinces has been working with treaty Indian veterans on the reserves. We also have two counsellors working out of the Saskatoon office who are working specifically with reserve Indians.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he
DEBATES________________________________________22339
Oral Questions
explain why he is making an announcement in the City of Winnipeg on Tuesday regarding the statutory rates for the movement of grain instead of making that announcement in the House of Commons where it should be made? The Minister should be questioned in the House of Commons where he can respond to those who want to ask him questions, instead of hiding in the City of Winnipeg making that announcement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure the people of the City of Winnipeg will not welcome that question. Winnipeg, of course, is the centre of the world when it comes to grain matters!
The announcement will be made in Winnipeg by two of us, the Minister of Employment and Immigration being one. The announcement will be made in Montreal also. The Minister of Agriculture will travel to Halifax, Toronto, and Montreal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Who will make the announcement in the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Minister of Regional Economic Development will be making the announcement in the House and answering questions. I am sure the Prime Minister will answer quite a few as well. We are not neglecting any major city of Canada, or the House of Commons.


FISHERIES
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Today is the last day of January, and the Minister knows that the Kirby Task Force report was promised to be released in November, then in December, and again in January. The Minister also knows about the crisis in the Atlantic fishing industry. The industry is on hold, waiting the release of that report and the critical recommendations contained in it. When will the report be released? I hope the Minister will not be content with saying "Soon."


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I can say to the Hon. Member, the former Minister of the Department, that his impatience will end in the very near future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I will not limit myself to what the Hon. Member has suggested, that is, to table the Kirby report. I will propose a policy to the Atlantic fishermen which has been adopted by the Canadian Government. I will go even further than the recommendations-


Mr. Crosby:: They are already tabled in The Globe and Mail.

January 31, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre De Bané: -by assuring the Hon. Member that his impatience will end very quickly.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS WITH BANKS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister-and I hope the banks will exercise the same patience that he is expecting from me-whether he has discussed the implementation of the recommendations in the report with the Atlantic provincial governments and with the banks? Has the Minister taken a decision, and has he discussed with the banks one of the recommendations, that of setting up Crown corporations to operate some of the major companies that are having financial difficulties?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I can say to the Hon. Member at the outset even today that the involvement of all the participants in the fisheries in the implementation of any policy is a prerequisite for the Government. I can assure the hon. Member that every participant in the fishery will have much input in the implementation of the policy.


FORM OF REPORT
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It has been asked before, and his answers have been equivocal. Will the Minister release the Kirby report in the exact form in which it was submitted to the Cabinet, so we can test what the Government has decided to accept from it as against the recom menda t ions ?


Pierre De Bané: Absolutely, Madam Speaker.


HOUSING
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. He is aware, I am sure, that there are significantly large numbers of Canadians who are locked into mortgage interest rates in excess of 18 per cent as a result of the extraordinary increase that took place in interest rates over the course of the last year. Has the Minister considered a program that would allow those people to get out from under the tremendous burden that has been placed upon them? Will he bring forward some recommendations, as to how the Government or the private institutions which loaned the money will deal with those individuals who had to sign for the renewal of their mortgages or lose their homes?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, generally in those cases there
is a way of getting out of those commitments except that obviously there is a penalty. That a penalty is incurred is the problem in most instances.
It is a complex issue, and we are examining it. I have received representations from Liberal backbenchers in this regard, and I am examining this matter with my colleagues to see, whether anything can be done. I want to stress, however, to my hon. friend a problem arises from the fact that, in many instances, financial institutions have also been borrowing money at high rates in order to finance those mortgages. Some institutions will find themselves in difficulty if they re-open those mortgages having gone into the market selling medium-term bonds on which they have to pay 17 per cent or 18 per cent interest. There is a real difficulty there. I do not want to leave my friend with the impression that it is an easy matter and we can just say, "Cancel those mortgages and no problems will arise''. There are difficulties.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns the recently announced allocation of non-surplus stock to the European Economic Community, without obtaining a commitment to market access in the Community. As the Minister is aware, many people feel very strongly about allocation of non-surplus fish for any reason, particularly without a true market concession. Does this mean that the Government will be allowing further encroachments in the future by foreigners on our non-surplus fish?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, as we know, a long-term agreement was signed over a year ago by my predecessor and the Common Market Commission. In the last year it was obvious that the Common Market had not lived up to the obligation to which it had committed itself. Recently I met with the head official of the Common Market here in Ottawa. He readily agreed that the Common Market has not lived up to its commitment.
The policy devised in consultation between myself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that we will calculate exactly the percentage to which the Common Market did fulfil its obligation, which is to give us access to that market in return for fishing allocations. We will give the Common Market exactly the percentage to which it had committed itself. Furthermore, I hope in the very near future, in the context of the new fisheries policy, to be able to announce what our policy is concerning foreign fleets in our waters.
January 31, 1983

Time Allocation


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the three hundred and seventy-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata on Thursday, January 27, 1983, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Striking Committee, in both official languages.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
She said: In opening the debate, Mr. Speaker, on our motion to allocate time for Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), 1 have a few comments I would like to submit to the attention of the Members of this House.
1 believe it would be useful to recall, briefly, that the purpose of debate is to give all Members an opportunity to submit their opinions and put forward their arguments regarding a bill-usually tabled by the Government-to say whether they are for or against, and to explain their reasons, thus enabling this House to reach a decision on the bill, to amend it if necessary and then proceed with the next stage of public bills.

The debate on Bill C-131 which has already taken place in Parliament has achieved this purpose. The proposal to limit indexation of the Old Age Security Pension to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984 was first announced in the budget at the end of last June as part of the Government's six and five program. Bill C-131, which follows up on the intention stated in the June budget, was introduced in the House in October, 1982. This five-page Bill consisting of two Clauses explains quite simply and clearly that instead of the usuaal full automatic indexation according to the cost of living, we will reduce the indexation to 6 per cent as of when the Bill is passed this year and 5 per cent next year. This notifies senior citizens that all those who are in receipt of the supplement, even a small portion of it, will see that fully indexed, to make up for the small loss on their basic pension.
The debate on this Bill began on November 18, when second reading debate started. The Bill was approved in principle. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where it was studied in detail for another four days. The Committee considered briefs and heard witnesses. In total, 71 Members have spoken at various stages of debate on this Bill.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of repeating the arguments pro and con made on both sides of the House with respect to this bill. Its purpose is to reduce inflationary expectations and to make a joint effort to bring the rate of inflation down to the lowest possible figure-when the Budget was brought down six months ago we had double-digit inflation-that is, we want to restrict the indexing of Old Age Security pensions of approximately 1.1 million pensioners, and this means only those who have other sources of income and do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
I have said time and time again-in the House, in committee, on radio and television, in correspondence and in meetings with the general public-that this Bill will not take away even one penny from the fully indexed pensions and the supplement of pensioners who are in need. I want to make it perfectly clear that all pensioners receiving the supplement, even if it is only $2 a month, as well as all pensioners receiving the Spouses Allowance, will continue to receive fully indexed pensions and supplements.
I think the case for time allocation for the remainder of the debate-a measure we were unfortunately obliged to impose- is easily made if we look at the content of the speeches reported in Hansard. Government Members who spoke in favour of the Bill clearly confirmed, in their own words and according to their respective points of view and perspectives, that the Bill would not have the slightest harmful effect on the majority of pensioners receiving the supplement and would only mean a

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
very small sacrifice, less than 50 cents per month, for other pensioners in Canada who are not receiving the supplement.
Although it is obvious the Bill contains very clear assurances to that effect, Opposition Members who spoke to the Bill generally had a list of horror stories that were supposed to result from this legislation. They mentioned elderly Canadians who would be losing their homes or their apartments, or would be forced to move because they would no longer be able to pay the rent, and so on. Some stories were even more dramatic. All this cannot be taken seriously. It is very easy to get public sympathy for the problems of the elderly, but it is a little harder to convince people who do not need the supplement that 50 cents less per month per cheque will mean that they are going to lose their homes or will have to move elsewhere. This is the kind of exaggeration that has lost the Progressive Conservatives, especially, their credibility in this debate. They did all this in letters to senior citizens' clubs and in paragraphs published in the parliamentary bulletin which they can get free since it is paid for by the House of Commons; they can send it to their constituents, and describe the so-called horrors and catastrophic consequences of this Bill.
The fact remains that the pensions of all senior citizens who do have alternate sources of income have been increased. People received their pension cheques about a week ago and they got $3.70 more. Furthermore, only about 50 cents will be subtracted, once the Bill is passed, from the cheques of those who do not need the supplement. I know that for some people this is a lot, and that every cent counts. I know, especially in the case of senior citizens who are just above the cut-off point and are therefore not eligible for the supplement. I think we are all quite aware of this, but the decision we have to make is not about the cheque for February or March, but the increasing lifespan of each of these senior citizens, and what they will need to live on.
I have been Minister of National Health and Welfare for only five years, but during that time, I have seen indexing increase rapidly from year to year. This year, if the predictions made in June were correct and remain consistent, we would probably have had to give something like 11 per cent. Well we were lucky, because since June, since that Budget, the average inflation rate has dropped to 7.6 per cent. But am I doing senior citizens a favour by giving them an 11-per-cent indexation? No. Indexation is not an increase, it is only a way to maintain the value of the dollar. So-
I would just like to remind all Hon. Members that this Bill would do the most, in the long run, for senior citizens as well as all other Canadians, in winning the six and five battle against inflation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you have noticed that just about every time a Liberal Cabinet Minister stands up these days, it is to
impose closure. That seems to be the major reason for their being in the House, to enforce closure on one piece of legislation or another. Closure has indeed become such a commonplace procedure with the Government that we now actually expect, each parliamentary week, to start out with a closure motion, a Government motion to limit debate, such as we have seen concerning Bill C-131. This is legislation which is aimed against the senior citizens of Canada.
I was interested to hear this afternoon that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) had so convoluted her argument that she has now convinced herself that this Bill will be of benefit to the senior citizens of Canada. She said: "This will benefit them". I would like her to go out and actually speak with some of the senior citizens of this country.
The Bill will reduce the income which hundreds of thousands of senior citizens would have received had this piece of legislation not been introduced. At second reading we had 17 hours of debate on the Bill. That is less than three days in the House of Commons to consider what the Government is doing to senior citizens. At that time, a number of Hon. Members spoke. Fourteen Liberal Members rose to speak in praise of the Bill. They agreed with the punitive measures being taken by the Government against citizens in this country. Twenty-three Conservatives and eight New Democratic Members opposed it, as it ought to be opposed.
In committee we had only four sessions to hear witnesses. Every single witness and every group and organization appearing before us, crowded into those four sessions, violently and strenuously opposed the measures in the Bill. Therefore, after condensed committee hearings and limited debate at second reading, we now come back to the House for report stage, the stage at which important amendments can be intorduced and when the Government can perhaps be persuaded to modify this punitive legislation, and when it might also be persuaded of the error of its ways.
However, what has happened? Even before we reached report stage, even before we had a chance to introduce amendments and debate them, the Government moved to cut off debate, to limit it. It does not want to hear arguments against this atrocious piece of legislation and obviously does not want to consider any measure whatsoever which could possibly improve it. Therefore, once again this House faces closure. Once again, the heavy hand of the Government sweeps down to cast aside all opposition to its point of view. Once again, any semblance of respect for the principles of our parliamentary system, parliamentary democracy, is just scattered to the four winds.
This is not a new spectacle. Certainly, it is not a new spectacle as far as the Government is concerned and it is not a new experience for the House or, indeed, for the Canadian people. We are becoming very well acquainted with the Government's methods, its manipulations and its use of closure over and over again. Over and over again, it seeks to enforce its will by the imposition of silence, because it fears the expression of debate.
January 31, 1983

It says: "You do not like what we are doing. You do not like why we are doing it. You do not like how we are doing it. Therefore, we will cut debate off. We will limit debate. We will have our way and no other." However, seldom have we seen this particular means, closure, imposed on such a petty Bill as Bill C-131. Seldom have we seen the Government so determined to act, and for what? Is it to reduce its massive deficit? Is it to cut the waste and extravagance which it created? Is it to get Canadians back to work? Is that the reason the Government is introducing this measure? Is it really to cut back on its massive expenditure?
The Government now has a deficit of between $25 billion and $30 billion. The passage of a Bill like this would give the Government an additional $15 million, a mere pittance compared to the $70 million which it spends on self-serving Government advertising to puff itself up. But it is not a pittance to senior citizens. I would very clearly tell Government Members and the Minister, if she had thought to remain in the House, that the $15 million which she is grabbing from the senior citizens of the country is not a pittance to them.
The Minister for National Health and Welfare has told us, as she did in the debate following the introduction of the Bill, that it was up to senior citizens to lead the fight against inflation, yet the Government has just finished an orgy of self congratulation for having brought down inflation, for having brought it under control, as it said. If it believes that it has brought inflation under control, why does it think it is necessary to proceed with the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Perhaps, because of closure, we will never know the answer to that question. We will never know why it says one thing and does another. There will be no chance for it to explain-and perhaps that is the reason for closure, because it cannot explain and certainly does not want to make the effort. Therefore, we are left to wonder why the Government is proceeding with Bill C-131 and the other Bill in that unholy trio, Bill C-133. We are left to wonder, too, how Hon. Members opposite can actually support these measures taken against senior citizens and the women and children of Canada.
I wonder, when 1 look at this Bill, if it is only Members on this side of the House who through their actions are shown to represent the senior citizens of this country. I know that all Members in this House on both sides represent senior citizens, but obviously it is only the Members on this side of the House who feel they have to stand up and speak out on behalf of the elderly of this country.
The Minister said in her comments that this Bill was easily explained to the senior citizens of this country. I invite her to come to any of the senior citizen organizations in Kingston and the Islands and give them that easy explanation that she is talking about.
I wonder if backbenchers opposite who are standing up and supporting this Bill can really be unaware of the impact that it is making on the lives of the elderly in this country, the impact on those who live just on the threshold of the Guaranteed
Time Allocation
Income Supplement, or who live just outside of it, but who are going to have to bear the burden of this particular legislation. Or is it because the Liberal backbenchers have been deceived by their leaders, by the people sitting in the front benches of the Liberal Government? Have they been deceived as the nation was so clearly deceived when the Minister of National Health and Welfare promised on November 4, when she spoke on national television, and I quote:
All social programs, that means in particular pensions and all benefits for children, will remain the way they are.
Well, they have not. She made that statement and in the next couple of days she moved to change it. Let us make no mistake. This Bill was conceived in deceit and it is being born in deceit. The legislation is a deceit and closure is a deceit.
Now, these may be deceptions that the Hon. Members opposite can swallow, but Members on this side of the House, Members in the Progressive Conservative Party, cannot swallow this kind of deceit which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is seeking to impose today.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it will be news to you or to Members of the House who are here today to find out that we do not intend to support this proposal of cutting off debate on Bill C-131.
I do not understand why the Government continues to force these measures on the public of Canada. I do not appreciate at all the arguments put forward, either by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on behalf of this Bill, or last week by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) on behalf of the legislation which cut the incomes of public servants who are on pension.
I do not understand what it is that the Government is attempting to achieve. On the one hand, they claim, and I think quite rightly, that the amounts of money they are taking away from people are insignificant. An insignificant amount to the Government may not necessarily be an insignificant amount to an individual or to a couple trying to survive on an old age pension and some earnings from other sources.
It may well be-I say this but I do not believe it-that last year, when the Government brought forward the six and five program,there was something somewhere to justify it. That is entirely possible. I personally did not believe it then, and my Party did not believe it then. We still do not believe, even with the benefit of hindsight, that last late July and August there were conditions which justified the six and five program as it was laid before Parliament at the time, which resulted ultimately in the legislative changes to the old age pensions, to the superannuation fund and to Family Allowances.
Let us assume for the moment there was some reason. Let us be generous and think that perhaps last summer there were conditions which existed which justified that particular course of action being followed. Those conditions certainly no longer exist. By almost every single standard you can apply, taking into account every social and economic commentator who comments on the Canadian economy and the social standing of

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
people within the Canadian economy, they now agree that what we need in Canada is to stimulate the economy. What we need in Canada is to provide more purchasing power, more consumer purchasing power, to stimulate Canadians' ability to purchase while at the same time improving their sense of optimism about the future of the country.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to cut the incomes of those who are in receipt of the lowest incomes in the land, to cut the incomes of those who served this country hard and well and long for their entire life, to use them as the scapegoat, so to speak, for the inadequacy of past Government performance, is just unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians today.
We have to realize who it is we are speaking about. We are speaking about people who came through the Depression and who, for the most part, were unable to garner any savings in their lifetime, who generally speaking worked at a time when pension plans were somewhat less generous than they may be today, for some who worked at a time when there was not the opportunity to get into an RRSP fund, if they had the money, and salt away a little bit, tax-free, for the future. We are talking about people on whose backs and as a result of whose work this country was built.
We give them little enough in return for their contribution over the years. The amount that they receive now from the Old Age Security program that we have in place is woefully inadequate when measured against the cost of surviving in this dog-eat-dog atmosphere that has been created by successive Liberal and Tory administrations, federal and provincial, over many, many years. To contemplate reducing even that income is to do them a grave disservice but, more importantly, it will undoubtedly work a serious hardship on many of them.
The action that the Government took last year in August, followed up by its proposals for reductions in the cost of living adjustment on old age pensions, Family Allowances and superannuation for retired civil servants has had such an onerous effect on the vast majority of those who would have been in receipt of it. How do you say to someone whose income is $300 or thereabouts that they are not able to receive an increase commensurate with the increase in the cost of living, that they will simply have to absorb any shortfall? How do you say that to people in that category when you know full well that their municipal taxes will rise, that that will reflect itself in their property tax if they own a home or in their rent if they happen to live in an apartment? How do we say that when we know full well that the cost of heating oil and natural gas will rise, and those people, whether they have to share that cost with others in rental accommodation or pay it themselves if they own a home, will not be able to recover an equal amount from their cost of living adjustment? How do you tell those people that the inadequate amounts that they had previously will be even less adequate after we pass this legislation?
What worries me about the Government's move to restrict debate is that 1 am convinced that if the Government would open up its mind, its ears, and listen, and if it would analyze more carefully both the benefit to the Government's tax
coffers from the saving, and the cost to be borne by the senior citizens who will be affected, it would come to the conclusion, as I have, that with the changing economic conditions, to put in place this kind of legislation now is unjustifiable. To suggest for a moment that we ought to pass it post haste in order that we can somehow or other impose it immediately without debate, is to deny that the conditions and the minds of the people in this country have changed.
I do not want to harp on the position put forward by the Bishops, but it is worthy of note that the Bishops, representing significantly large numbers of Canadians, have said that we have to pay more attention to the inadequacies of our social service system. I suggest this would be a good place to start. The presidents of the major banks have said that the direction being followed by the Government of trying to squeeze the economy back into shape is no longer an appropriate direction to follow, that we have to move toward a more stimulative direction in order to generate economic activity, and in that way improve the economy of the country as a whole, the job opportunities, the tax flow to the Government, and the Government's ability to meet its commitments. When you take a look at the two groups of individuals as far apart in their responsibilities as the Bishops, on the one hand, and the presidents of the banks, on the other, and you find them coming to virtually the same conclusions about the direction in which we should be going, and you compare that with the direction followed by the Government, you find that the Government is going in exactly the opposite direction from the recommendations made by both of these bodies. You cannot help then but feel there is something wrong with the way the Government is pursuing its policies, there is something wrong with the methods it is using in developing its policies, and something drastically wrong with the Government's understanding of what is happening in this country as it is affecting the majority of Canadians.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I started, I end; this is no way to deal with the people who built the country. We can afford to give them adjustments in their incomes commensurate with the cost of living, and we ought not to tolerate interference of the type the Government is bringing about, both in the pension programs and in the processes of Parliament in dealing with them.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I find it utterly incomprehensible that we are once again going through this rather ridiculous procedure of establishing a time at which this House can come to a decision on a Government measure. 1 listened to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). She did not talk to the motion. She talked to the Bill. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) did the same thing. In the case of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, I must admit I was not surprised, but I was somewhat disappointed in the case of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain because he is a Member of the Committee which is looking at the regulations of this House. I feel I will be speaking precisely to the motion which
January 31, 1983

is to limit debate, and I object strongly to the fact that we have to go through this ridiculous exercise.


An Hon. Member:: We do not have to.


Harold Thomas Herbert: If the Hon. Members had spoken to the motion, I would perhaps understand why they are now alleging we do not have to go through this exercise. In any civilized democracy, Mr. Speaker, it is generally assumed that the Government has the right to pass its legislation and to pass its programs. The Opposition Members are supposed to bring to the attention of the public their objections to the Government programs, and should try to get the public to force the Government to make changes. That I understand. But, particularly in this Canadian Parliament, which most of us say is modelled on the Mother of Parliaments, Westminster, there is no effort made on the part of the Opposition to come to a mutual agreement to limit debate on a Bill. It is not a matter of how many days. They just say, "We are not going to let the measure pass", thus obliging the Government to bring in the measure to limit debate.
I feel that this House is in disrepute in the minds of the public. I received a call last week from a lady who was angry because the pension cheque of her husband, who was not well, is going to be delayed. But she was blaming the Government. I understand her point of view, and I tried to point out to her, as a Government Member, that our antiquated procedures here are such that the Government, instead of passing its legislation in December, when it wanted, was obliged to come into this new year of 1983, and then had to go through this crazy procedure we have this afternoon of wasting time debating a motion which will bring the issue to a vote on the floor of the House in one or two days' time. The lady, frankly, did not understand. She turned to me and put a question which I found most difficult to answer. She said, "But you are the Government." In other words, she was saying, "Why don't you do something about it?" That is what I want to address my attention to here.
It should not be necessary in a civilized society for us to go through this exercise every time we want to bring a matter to a concluding vote. If Members of Her Majesty's Official Opposition really believe that one day they may form the Government, then they ought to start thinking about changing the regulations of this House. As I said to some friends of mine in the Social Credit Party a few years ago, "Give me half a dozen stalwart MPs in this House and I will tie up this operation so it will never work." They said, "But we don't want to do that because we believe the Government has the right to govern." I said "I'm glad to hear that from a small minority Party." If I can now get that message through to Her Majesty's Official Opposition which always talks about its hopes of forming a Government, I would suggest to them that unless they look at these rules under which we are presently operating, they are going to find themselves in the same position in which the present Government finds itself. It makes absolutely no sense that we should be spending time this afternoon debating a
Time Allocation
motion to limit debate when we should be debating, instead, the merits of the Bill.
I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only way we could be debating the merits of the Bill this afternoon is by reaching mutual agreement among the Parties in this House that the matter will come to a conclusion at a specific time. I also suggest that the motive of the Hon. Members of the Official Opposition is somewhat self-serving. They want to go on the record in the House not because anyone is listening, any more than anyone is listening to me right now. They want to go on the record because they want to be able to pass on their comments in their mail-outs to their constituents to illustrate what they have been doing and what their point of view is. We have a way to resolve that. Let us follow the process at Westminster. When there are a lot of Members who want to speak, by mutual agreement they carry on past the normal closing hour until midnight, until two o'clock, until four o'clock in the morning, but the Opposition accepts that when they finish talking at four o'clock, there is a vote and the matter comes to a conclusion.
Unless the Opposition accepts that a Government has the right to govern, and pass its legislation, we are going to continue to operate in the way we have been, having to force through on every individual issue, a debate and an unnecessary vote in order to come to the end of the debate on a particular Bill. The most ridiculous part about this, in my opinion, is when we look back at the operation as it existed last year when we had the ringing of the bells with respect to an omnibus Bill.
The Government may have bowed to some pressure here, but I find it strange that it did not put the three Bills, Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133, in the same package. After all, last year we got approval of Her Majesty's Official Opposition for the six and five program and Bills C-131, 132 and 133 are the Bills which carry out that program. I am not discussing the merits. I voiced my objections to one of those Bills in this House. What I am saying is that, because of the objection last year to an omnibus Bill, we were not able to put those three Bills in one package and pass them in a normal, civilized fashion.
As I look at the way we operate in Canada, I find it difficult to come to any conclusion as to where we are going when we talk about changing the rules in order that the Government may be able to assume its role of introducing its program as it has stated, and we are doing now what was stated many months ago, and come to a conclusion. Let the Opposition speak against the measures. Let the Opposition try to inform the public and, if it wants, let the Government hang itself. That is the attitude of the Opposition in Britain. The Government will have its way and the electorate will decide. Maybe we should do more of that in Canada.


Mr. Young:: Why bother having an election?


Harold Thomas Herbert: Why? Because our democratic process says, and the Hon. Member should know, that an election puts in a

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
Government for a period ordinarily of four years. They should be able to execute their program during those four years. At the end of four years the electorate will say whether the Government has done a good job. It is not the business of this House to pass every single measure back to the electorate for the electorate's decision. It is the Government's decision. The Government will stand or fall at the next election based on their program and their ability to pass their program.
At the start of this session, going back almost three years, we discussed the reform of Parliament. So far we have brought in the relatively easy measures. I suggest that we wait no longer, that we get rid of this ridiculous procedure that we have at the present time. We can allow extended debate. That is not an issue. I do not mind if we debate all night, but at the end of a fixed period of time, say a maximum two days of extended debate, we should come to a decision on a particular stage of the Bill, whether it be second reading, report stage or third reading. On that basis, there will be a minimum of six days of extended debate on any Bill. But the Government would know that that is the limit. It would not have to go through the ridiculous process we are going through this afternoon.
I plead with the Opposition, if they feel that they want to form the Government of this country, to recognize that the Government must govern. It must get its program through. Stop this nonsense. We expect the NDP to try to hinder this type of social legislation, but with the approval of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, we would come to an agreement and that would be the end of it.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, you may find this hard to believe. I had to go back and check my figures. However, this is the fifteenth time that this Government has brought down the guillotine during this current session of Parliament. On this day, the four hundred and forty-fourth sitting day of this thirty-second Parliament, we are well into the longest session in Canadian history. At that, the Government is averaging one time allocation foreclosure motion every 30 days, one a month. What this Government wants to do, as stated by Members opposite, is to bring a matter to a vote. They make the decision when the matter shall come to a vote, so they bring down the guillotine. I find this a shocking abuse of parliamentary democracy.
The Hon. Member who just spoke said that we should get rid of this ridiculous procedure. Let us get rid of the right of the Opposition to tell the Government that it is wrong when it tries to close off debate. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), about two weeks ago, now that they average closure once every two weeks, called our opposition to choking off Parliament irrelevant. I call this sickening procedure dictatorial, pure and simple.
Not only does the Government persist in cutting off debate every time it presents obviously bad legislation, but with the recent time allocation just before Christmas with respect to the Canagrex Bill, they really outdid themselves. They moved time allocation on report stage and third reading at the same time. Now suggestions are coming from the other side of the House that we should have lumped Bills C-131, 132 and 133 into an
omnibus Bill and brought down the closure motion on ail of them at the same time. It would be like the omnibus energy Bill on which we had to resort to extraordinary measures to get the Government to act in a democratic way.
What really seems so unnecessary is the way the Government treats the parliamentary Opposition. 1 guess it can only be explained by the Liberal legislators' fear that their Bills will be exposed for the poorly drafted, badly executed pieces of legislation that they really are.
In the case of Canagrex, while there are still some clauses which are meeting with strong opposition, particularly from some of my western Canada colleagues, the proposed Canagrex Bill had had time to be absorbed by those who will be affected by it. Its exposure during the Christmas-New Year's recess, resulted in greater understanding and acceptability of Canagrex, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the farmers have been learning.
The point is that some of these pieces of legislation need a good deal of airing both in this House and across the country. Yes, they take time. However, the Government gets upset when there is mounting concern across the country about an issue that the Government cannot justify. Then it brings down the guillotine.
This is why there is an opposition in a parliamentary democracy. I know the Government does not believe in an opposition. They will get to understand what opposition is when we form the Government. That is why we are here, waiting until we can form the Government. I am talking now about Official Opposition, of course.
This Government, under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has always regarded Parliament as a nuisance and MPs as nobodies 50 feet away. Indeed, the Liberal Cabinet regards MPs as nobodies in this Chamber, including their own Members of Parliament.
Many of my colleagues have dealt with the substantive aspects, the downright niggling, unfair aspects of Bill C-131. I firmly believe this time allocation measure will be regarded by senior citizens across this country as one more nail in the coffin of this Liberal administration. Any MP who votes for this measure to close it off, to choke it off and go for riding on the backs of our senior citizens will, I suspect, find their own contract with the voters annihilated come the next federal election.
What they are doing is using a procedural motion to reduce the income of senior citizens. As I said, my very real concern is the astounding frequency with which this arrogant and dictatorial Government sees fit to lower the boom on this and all manner of other pieces of legislation.
1 confess that in the interests of an efficient Parliament, allocation of time properly used is not altogether bad. An agreement between all Parties might make time allocation desirable for certain pieces of legislation, but is it a proper use of this motion to cut off debate on an issue that will do a great deal of harm to a great many people in this country? I can

January 31, 1983

remember when Standing Order 75C was first introduced in the early seventies by the then House leader, Hon. Donald Macdonald. He is the man now in charge of our economic destiny. At the time the Government was embarrassed to use the full force of the closure motion which, before the rules were changed, was Standing Order 33. Instead, they brought in Standing Order 75A, b and c, all of which constitute time allocation in one form or another. The then President of the Privy Council went to great pains to soothe the fears of the Opposition and of the media who were all wondering what would happen when Standing Order 75C came into effect. He told them that this would not be used as a routine measure but would only be used under very special circumstances. So much for the Hon. Donald Macdonald's commitment to the House. He is no longer a Member of the House and does not have to stand by that commitment, but it is frightening to think that he is now in charge of our economic destiny.
When I first came to Parliament and watched the House of Commons in action, it was the Black Friday in 1956 when the full force of closure was used in the pipeline debate. It also brought down the Government of the day. I remember the flag debate when closure was used. That was also a very special moment in our history.
It is the slow strangulation process which the Government seems bent on, with a fixed bottom line date when everything must be completed according to its desire, its will, its timetable-it is the sheer deviousness of the thing that is making us sick on this side of the House.
Never in the history of this country have so many closure motions been faced by a Parliament. During this Parliament, Members of Cabinet have moved closure 15 times in this House. Closure was moved shortly after the introduction of the constitutional resolution. Cabinet cannot do this, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet cannot deny Canadians the freedom of speech which this House represents unless that Cabinet is sustained by its backbenchers. I say to Hon. Members opposite that they must examine th<*ir consciences on each and every occasion that a Cabinet Minister suggests it is a good idea to move closure. On this side we do not feel that it is ever a good idea, particularly when it affects the constituency that bringing down the guillotine will, in this case.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that this legislation is unfair, and even if the Liberal Government cuts us off, senior citizens will remember how unfair it has been to them.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I think it is important to clear up some of the remarks made by the previous speaker.
First of all, the matter we are debating is not closure and anyone who suggests that it is, does not understand the rules. There is a fundamental difference between closure, which was introduced by the Conservative Borden Government in the naval debate prior to World War I. The closure measure,
Time Allocation
known as Standing Order 33 under the old rules, is fundamentally different from time allocation which falls under Standing Order 75 and, in this particular instance, Standing Order 75C.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) said that under certain conditions, when there is an agreement, time allocation is a proper thing. The first two parts of Standing Order 75 cover the circumstances where there has been an agreement between two of the major Parties or among all three Parties and has never been used. The only occasion on which time allocation has been used Standing Order 75C, has been when there was no agreement.
Of course we would like to have agreement on how much time should be spent debating Bills in the House. The reason we have used this particular provision is that agreement has been impossible. It is very important for the public to understand that to refer to this provision as closure is wrong, misleading and unfair.
Let us see how much time has been spent in debating this Bill, Mr. Speaker. On November 18 we spent two hours; November 25 three hours 30 minutes; November 30, four hours 50 minutes, and December 10, two hours 23 minutes.
When we were discussing what would be a reasonable period of time to spend on a Bill on second reading under the new rules, a lot of us were influenced by what happens at the Mother of Parliaments, in Westminster. On second reading of a Bill, the standard procedure there is that in very few circumstances does debate exceed one day, with no automatic adjournment. If it is a controversial Bill it is usually debated into the small hours. Some Members suggested we should give consideration to that. In view of the fact that we were not going to have evening sittings under the new rules, it was thought it might be reasonable to assume that we could have two days' debate on second reading.
Of course, on second reading the nature of the debate is that the Bill be discussed in general principle. The type of amendments which may be moved at second reading are very limited. That is why, under the new rules, we provided for one round of speeches and then allocate eight hours, with the 20 minute and 10 minute time limit. Eight hours is approximately two full days, when Question Period and Routine Proceedings are excluded.
More than eight hours has been spent on second reading of this Bill. Under the new rules, the 10 minute time limit on speeches would automatically have come into effect some time ago. At report stage, the purpose is not to do again what was supposed to be done at second reading, that is, debate the general principles of the Bill, but to debate the amendments of which notice has been given, and changes that may have taken place in committee. This has been done exhaustively on this Bill.
The only conclusion that a fair and objective-minded person can come to is that the Opposition, for political reasons, has decided to dig in its heels and not allow this matter to come to a vote without time allocation. That is a legitimate political

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
move, but to paint it in other terms is to mislead the House and the public.
We recognize what is going on and we have said that we have an obligation to the public to bring in the six and five program across the board. That is part of the price we pay for being in Government. Sometimes we have to do things that are not particularly popular. If we are to get inflation under control, then certain Bills must be proceeded with. This one is part of the over-all six and five program. I do not expect the Opposition to allow any of the six and five Bills to go through without making us bring in time allocation-which is not closure. I anticipate that we will have to do that.
I think what you really have to decide before this motion comes to a vote, Mr. Speaker, is whether a reasonable time has elapsed for debate on this Bill. Any fair-minded person would conclude that it has and that we are now hearing arguments being repeated for the umpteenth time. This may not be particularly popular medicine, but I submit that it is leadership and it is responsible.
In addition to referring to this as closure, Hon. Members opposite have frequently talked about a decrease. When one caps an increase, that is not a decrease. I think the public are ill-served by that sort of political rhetoric. The motion before us today is reasonable and responsible. It shows that in fact the Government is giving leadership. We are not backing away from or shirking our responsibilities. Under all circumstances, and given the position of the Opposition, we are quite justified in the motion allocating the debate to one day for each of the two remaining stages.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I found the address of the Hon. Liberal Member who just sat down very amusing. He does not agree that a rose by any other name is still a rose. If we follow his logic, instead of going out and buying roses to put on the table, we should go out and buy some stinkweed. Then he would tell us that it was not a stinkweed, that it was a rose.


David P. Smith: A rose is a rose.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He can call it whatever he likes, but it is still closure. He should not forget that he can call a rose a stinkweed but that does not make it a stinkweed, and vice versa. I would hate to have anybody call a stinkweed a rose and put it on my table. I do not like the smell of it, but I like the smell of a rose. I do not like the smell of closure, or whatever they call it. Closure is becoming the tyranny of the majority.
A few moments ago the Hon. Member was trying to justify this debate. As a matter of fact all Liberal Members are doing that. I would like to refer to the debate which we have had on this important issue affecting the incomes, the lives and health of thousands of people of the country. On November 18 we had debated it for just an evening, not a day. On November 25, which was a Thursday, we debated it right through the day. On November 30, which was a Tuesday, we debated it right through the day. Then, after two and a half days of
debating this important issue, the Liberals brought in closure on December 2, and it was a one-day closure at that. Then the Bill was called on December 10, debated one day and closed off. The Hon. Member said that there had been a long debate. If we counted it up, we would see that there has been three and a half days of debate, that is all. That is counting the day of closure. Surely that is not too long to debate a matter which is affecting the people who helped to build the country. We must not forget that. Then we came to report stage. On December 21 we had a full day. Then on Wednesday, December 22, we had just a short day.
I wish the Hon. Member would not leave. He should get these things straight in his mind before he goes out and tells the same type of stuff to other people. There were two days at report stage, and that is all. Now they are bringing in closure again. Do they say that two days is too long a debate at report stage? At report stage there were six Liberal, five NDP and nine Progressive Conservative speakers. That is 20 speakers altogether from the House of Commons which is comprised of 282 Members on an important issue affecting the lives of people who helped build the country. These are the people who made it possible for Hon. Members and me to sit here. The Hon. Member said that that was too much. I say that this is the tyranny of the majority.
When the Hon. Member from Quebec spoke a few moments ago, apparently he was fed up with the Government calling closure and wanted different rules adopted. We live in a democracy, not a totalitarian state. Although sometimes it is difficult to distinguish from the policies the present Government advances; it is still a democracy, and a democratic Government is supposed to reflect the thinking of the people, not tell the people what is good for them. This is not a totalitarian state wherein the Government knows all that is good for the people and tells them what is good for them. The Government should be listening to the people. If the Government would listen to them, it would not bring in this type of legislation in the first place. Also the Government should realize that while it is the Government of Canada, it has representation from far less than all of Canada. It has no representation in the three western Provinces. Surely the Government should be making a special stand in trying to find out what those Canadians think, but it does not want to listen to the representatives of those people. It wants to close us off and not listen at all. Then it claims it is a national Government.
The people of Canada do not want this type of legislation. They do not want closure advanced every time we have an important Bill. If there is debate on a Bill which goes on and on and the arguments become repetitive, that is one thing, but the arguments in this debate have not yet become repetitive. There are many things still to be said about our old age pensioners. That is exactly what the Bill is stopping. It is stopping us from telling what the people of the country want.
I wonder if Hon. Members opposite ever thought about going into a senior citizens' home where there are a hundred
January 31, 1983

people and asking them what they think about these things. We should be reflecting the thinking of the people. If a large majority of the people do not want legislation which denies senior citizens a reasonable living-and I am sure a large majority do not-the Government should not bring it in. That is not reflecting the thinking of the people. It is telling the people what is good for them. That is not my idea of democracy.
Also the Hon. Member for Quebec suggested changes. They have been in power for 40 years or so. Surely they have had lots of time to bring in other changes if they wanted to do so. The people are becoming tired of closure. It has happened twice in this one debate. We had one day and now we have a two-day closure on this one. Government Members are suggesting that because they call it a different name, that because they call it time allocation, it is not closure. They are stopping debate, and to me that is closure.
Indexing was brought in by a federal Government which was representative of all Canadians. This Government is not. It should recognize that it has very little representation in some Provinces and none in others. It should be going out of its way to find out what people think, the people who are not represented on that side of the House. It should not be cutting off debate on this side where the people have sent representatives to speak for them. We are speaking for them. Indexing was brought in so that senior citizens could have a reasonable standard of living. If we cut off indexing, we will affect the standard of living of a great number of senior citizens. I tell the Government that if it cuts off indexing senior citizens will not have a reasonable standard of living.
Senior citizens have already gone through their restraint period. They went through the hungry thirties when they had to scrape for everything they could get. Many of them went hungry in the hungry thirties, but they continued to work to build an economy that would surely recognize the virtues of the pioneers. But now they are being betrayed. They thought that at least when they got a pension they would be okay. Indexing was added by a national government so that when the price of food went up they could still have a reasonable standard of living. But now that is being denied them. A part of their pension is being cut off. The Government is telling them that they are getting too much.
How many Hon. Members opposite have had senior citizens come to them when an overpayment was made by mistake by a Department? The senior citizen gets a letter telling him or her to pay it back. But senior citizens do not have money to pay it back. The Government says, "We will take more from your pension each month and you will have to go without a little bit because the Department made a mistake. You have to pay for it." That has happened to me many times when pensioners in my riding get an overpayment. They think the Department knows what it is doing. They think the Government knows
Time Allocation
what it is doing. Senior citizens spend their money on things that are needed. Their money is not spent on any extravagance. Their money is spent on necessities, and when a mistake is made by the Department, they, the pensioners, have to pay it back. Senior citizens have to cut back again next month. All they are asked to do is cut, cut, cut. Now this Government is asking them to cut more. This Government is also bringing in closure to stop us from even giving Parliament their plea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Tousignant), may I deal with the proceedings of the adjournment motion this evening?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger)-Air Transport- Alleged refusal of permission for Wardair to compete with Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Penitentiaries-Cancellation of university courses-(b) Request that decision be deferred-(c) Provision of free university tuition to inmates; and the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen)-Forestry-Inquiry respecting Government programs and policies.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin:
That, in relation to Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That, Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, to hear the Hon. Members opposite, you would think the

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
world was going to collapse, and to see them raising their arms heavenwards like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, people must think this country is headed for a complete breakdown. Mr. Speaker, this is the worst display of bad faith I have ever seen. It is absolute hypocrisy, and I cannot believe my ears when I hear people talking about rights having been breached and our democratic system being attacked in Parliament. Imagine, since the beginning of this debate, more than 57 speakers have been given the floor during more than 20 hours of debate here in the House, and in the final instance, more than 22 hours will have been spent on debate and we shall have heard about 69 speakers. It is really unbelievable. As my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) said earlier, the way the Members opposite are acting now is indeed an affront to our democratic system. They have found a new weapon to obstruct the proceedings, namely, by using up all allotted time to force us to impose closure. And when we do impose closure, they are all shocked and claim we are preventing Opposition Members from speaking in the House.
Mr. Speaker, just what is the proper procedure in any legally constituted assembly? For instance, in a company, if at a meeting one of ten directors does not agree, can he obstruct the proceedings indefinitely and demand that people listen to what he has to say all night long, or all week, because that is the democratic way of doing things? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. At meetings, people have to finish their business some time. However, the business of the House that should have been finished before the House adjourned for Christmas has not been finished yet. Of course, the debate can go on and on, until the summer recess, and the business of the House can be left to stagnate, and this is how the Opposition is trying to give Canadians the impression that it is defending their interests and that they have nothing to gain if this Bill is passed, especially senior citizens, who they say, will have lost a considerable part of their purchasing power. However, in 1984, full indexation would have meant only $50 more, I believe. So if we consider that by that time, the rate of inflation will have gone down, it is quite clear that people's purchasing power will not have been eroded at all.
The Members opposite are trying to give people the impression they will be in dire straits, that they will suffer and that they will have to tighten their belts. Well, on the radio at noon, it was said that according to an international Gallup poll, Canadians are the happiest people in the world-the happiest people on this planet, Mr. Speaker. Funny that 95 per cent of Canadian respondents said that they were quite happy with their situation, in referring to their jobs, their social life, and so on-95 per cent actually said they were very happy. We are the happiest people in the world. So, when a few moments ago, the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) asked the Government why we were doing this, and whether it was going to create jobs or reduce the deficit, and so on, and when the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) asked the Government to take a serious look at the consequences of
such action, they could not understand how this measure would in the final instance benefit all Canadians. They are wondering why we did this. Mr. Speaker, we merely want to be consistent. We have already imposed the 6 and 5 policy on federal employees, and we know perfectly well this is not going to mean millions of dollars for the Government nor is it going to reduce indexing by 50 cents for all Canadians, but we do not want to give any particular group special treatment. It seems to me this should not be difficult to understand. Legislation is supposed to apply to everyone, and is not meant to please some people and upset others. So we must be consistent, and that is why we must take this action.
Mr. Speaker, pensioners are really not going to be affected the way people are trying to make it seem. Actually, pensioners who are now receiving the basic pension will be capped at 6 per cent, while those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement will receive full indexing. As far as family allowances are concerned, they will be indexed at 6 and 5 per cent. On the other hand, the child tax credit will be increased to $343, which means that people in low-income groups will probably benefit from this arrangement. Canadians seem to understand this quite well, and they are not very worried, but the Members opposite are trying to juggle their figures and juggle people's feelings, with the result that they are spreading fear and anxiety among senior citizens. In fact, as was said earlier, this group has known poverty, the depression and the rest, and the Government is certainly not trying to breach their rights- on the contrary. We appreciate the work they have done for Canada, and we want to maintain, and if possible improve, their situation from year to year.
It is therefore clear, Mr. Speaker, that the duty of elected representatives and governments is to make themselves the voice and the agents of justice for the benefit of the community. The Government intends to proceed in this fashion and will continue to do so.
Since my time has now expired, I shall step down, as I see the Speaker is going to cut me off.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is with no great pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion to invoke closure once again. It appears that it is becoming a regular habit of the Government to get all its legislation through the House by closure. I think it is particularly tragic that the Government seems to be moving a series of closure motions on a group of Bills through which the Government has decided- hard to believe as it is-who will suffer because of its mismanagement. Last week, it was the retired civil servants and retired Armed Forces personnel who were made to suffer. This week it will be the old age pensioners. I do not know who it will be next week. The Government may think of taking its troubles out on crippled children or someone else. However,
January 31, 1983

the Government's bad humour over its incapability to run the country in a logical and sensible fashion is getting to be almost more than a person can stand.
I would like to deal with the subject of closure. The Parliamentary Secretary wishes to indulge in semantics by saying that this motion does not constitute closure but simply stops debate. It is interesting to look back and see the opinion that was held in what might be said the olden days, before we had the likes of this Government. I was reading an old Hansard dated May 21, 1956. The debate at that time concerned the northern Ontario pipeline. Mr. George Drew was speaking. He said, as reported at page 4160 of Hansard:
There has never been a similar application of closure in this Parliament or at Westminster. On the first occasion when closure was applied here the bill was introduced on December 5, 1912, and closure was applied on April 10, 1913.
That is four months later. That is how the Canadian Parliament functioned for a long time. The House was given a very reasonable amount of time before the Government swung the axe of closure on a debate.
This is no longer the case. The Government announces closure ahead of time. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced closure when he did not even intend to use it. I suspect the reason why the Government rushes into closure motions now is that it becomes a habit-forming.
I would like to quote from an old Hansard once again. On May 29, 1956, as reported at page 4422, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker said:
Yesterday the Prime Minister, endeavoured once more, by a technique so crude as to be transparent, to return out of the kindness of his heart a portion of the rights of parliament. The Prime Minister has always been a great student of history. One has to go back to the days of James or Charles in order to see similar conduct, conduct which was generally believed to have ended for all time; but that spirit of tyranny came back during the days of John Wilkes in the mideighteenth century. It is, therefore, interesting to read that in 1621 parliament, then dominated by the sovereign, not by the sovereign's chief minister, asked that something be done to restore freedom to parliament, and that at that time this was said:
-in the handling ... of those businesses every Member of the house hath, and
of right ought to have, freedom of speech to Profound, treat, reason, and bring
to concusion the same.
However, we do not have that freedom or right any longer. We do have the right to come here and debate for two or three days a vicious Bill such as this which cuts the standard of living enjoyed by old age pensioners in this country.
I listened very carefully to the speech given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I would like to give her notice now that I will have a question for her during third reading about her statement on how this Bill will not hurt those people on the Guaranteed Income Supplement, even if that GIS payment is as small as $2 a month. While I do not have the exact figures, let us use the figure of $250 a month for old age pension, and $250 for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Let us say, for example, that someone had a private pension of $248 a month and the old age pension. Those pensions combined would total $498 a month. That person would then need a $2 Guaranteed Income Supplement. According to the Minister's remarks today, does this mean that the pensioner will get indexation from then on of his or
Time Allocation
her old age pension, plus full indexation of his private pension, plus whatever it takes to get him to the limit of the minimum income? I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that for us tomorrow because many people in my constituency are worried about it.
I might say that I have the honour to represent a wonderful group of people in my constituency, of whom 23,295 are old age pensioners. A great majority of these pensioners are women. There are 6,385 widows in my constituency of Victoria. These pensioners do not understand what the Government is doing. They are scared to death of what they hear the Government is doing. Frankly, I would appreciate it if someone on the Government side would tell us if the Government will even allow pensioners to live at a standard of living which is 5 per cent lower than it would have been, had this Bill not been introduced. The result of this legislation is that people will have to lower their standard of living this year by 5 per cent.
I would like to quote from a letter which I received. I am glad to be able to read it into the record because this gentleman misunderstood the Government's intention, as one easily can with a Government like this. In his letter, dated October 14, 1982, he said:
I have heard over the radio that the Government may not be able to continue payment of Old Age Pensions and if this happens I will be in deep trouble.
My wife Kathleen has been in Central Care Home, 844 Johnson Street, Victoria, B.C. nearly three years now and 1 use her pension and my own to pay for her care. We are both over 80 years of age.
He continues his letter, but I think you can understand from that that the people who write to me are worried. That letter is from Mr. John P. Wyseman of Stafford Street in my constituency.
I just cannot understand why the Government is proposing this legislation at this time. I am sure Members on all sides are pleased that inflation is going down. Surely it will not be long before we experience 6 per cent to 7 per cent inflation. Why scare the people? Why go after the people the way in which the Government is doing? It is really beyond me. Why not wait a few months, perhaps with a six month hoist, and if the promises of lower inflation that are given on the financial pages these days are true and if the United States gets down to their target area of 2 per cent or 3 per cent inflation, the Bill would not be necessary. We could then continue to do what is right and fitting, which is, to treat our senior citizens with the dignity and generosity for which Canada is noted. Instead of that, we seem to be seized with the idea of hurting the most defenseless people in our society. I wish that it would stop.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us deals with our senior citizens. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) has indicated to us that many senior citizens are apprehensive concerning the intentions of our Government

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
toward them. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity of explaining in brief what the six and five program is and how it relates to Canada's senior citizens.
There can be no doubt but that we are asking Canada's senior citizens to engage with us in the process of helping to build a stronger economic future. That is why there is a capping of certain payments going to senior citizens, but we have not capped nor put any limit on the amount of Old Age Security benefits which are related to a test of one's income, that is, the Guaranteed Income Supplement.


Dave Nickerson: That is called welfare.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It is not limited. Therefore, we can ensure that those senior citizens who are most needy will have the benefit of full indexing.
The Hon. Member for Victoria, quite correctly, pointed out that inflation is falling. We hope very much, fervently, that it will fall to 6 per cent or an even lower level. That way we will all be able to move ahead and there will be no one who falls behind.
A number of Hon. Members opposite have spoken of closure. We are debating time allocation. They have called it a draconian measure. I believe that when one takes away the hyperbole and the partisan rhetoric, one finds that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in that statement. Hon. Members in the Official Opposition did vote for our six and five program in this House, and all the constituent elements were before all Hon. Members when it was voted upon. However, if their concern is for senior citizens, then let me tell Hon. Members that I join in that concern and so do other Hon. Members on this side of the House.
There are far too many senior citizens in our country today who are below the poverty level. Sixty-five per cent of senior citizens living below the poverty line are women living alone because they are single, separated, divorced or widowed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It will be lower next time.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I do not think it is anything of which anyone in this House can be proud.


An Hon. Member:: It is the Liberal legacy.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when Hon. Members opposite start to shout partisan, stupid rhetoric rather than helping us to address the problems and get on with the issues, then I think they are doing a disservice to our senior citizens. I humbly submit that those people will not be raised above that poverty line simply by an indexing or deindexing measure relating to the Old Age Security payments which will probably be anyway at the 6 per cent level in terms of inflation. It requires a much more massive assault on our entire pension system.
I welcome the efforts of Hon. Members opposite to join with us and deal with the very serious issues concerning retirement income for Canadians which are before us and which have been tabled in a Green Paper on pension reform.
Pensions funds developed by the private sector cover very few of our pensioners. Only about 10 per cent of retirement
income is derived from private pensions plans. In particular, these private plans do not meet the needs of women in our work force.
Women are inclined to work part time in certain circumstances. They will often have to move from one job to another in order to accommodate their spouses. Women often drop out of the work force in order to bear and raise their children. Women in this country earn a disgraceful level of income when compared to that of men. It amounts to about 60 per cent. We have not achieved equality, equal pay for work of equal value. We must look on pensions as being joint family assets and not simply the asset of the contributor who, under most plans, receives more benefits than the survivor who, in most cases, is the spouse.
Therefore, I ask Hon. Members opposite to join with us in this serious process we have started of looking at pension reform, particularly to help the people about whom I have spoken. That is the real way of dealing with the big problem before us. We should not simply nit-pick the six and five program.
Another aspect which we must also consider very carefully involves the very important role played today by senior citizens in our society, one which I believe can and should be vastly expanded.
The 1980 report by Statistics Canada on voluntarism in our country showed the very big contribution made by volunteers in Canada. In the one year considered, 2.7 million adults worked as volunteers. They donated over 373 million hours of work, which boiled down to 212,000 person years which, if we had to pay for it at going rates, would have constituted additional wages of $3.5 billion in that particular year.
I hope that because of our amendment as well as the Charter of Rights, we will see women and women's groups becoming much more active in enforcing their rights which are on the books and to which they are entitled as human beings and as Canadians.
We also find that because women have lower incomes, they have much lower pensionable earnings. This is what creates the problem for women who are retired and who must live on this type of low income. This is why so many of them live below the poverty line. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace. This is why we must consider very carefully many improvements in terms of pension reform. We must worry about earlier vesting, improved portability and better protection for spouses under our private sector plans. Under the Canada Pension Plan, we must consider increasing the maximum pensionable earnings which can go into the plan and also consider child rearing and drop-out provisions. We must be concerned about survivors' benefits and the consequences of separation of marriage breakup and credit splitting between spouses.
Senior citizens have a great deal to contribute in our society. Just because a person reaches retirement age does not mean that he or she should be put on the ash heap of humanity. Senior citizens should not be forgotten immediately, because

they have much to contribute from everything that they have learned through their education, from on-the-job training and from life experience. Many of our volunteers are senior citizens. This type of effort must be given the recognition which it deserves. We could not do without them and we want more from them.


Mr. Darling:: You sure do!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It calls for a changed attitude.


Stan Darling: You sure do! You want your other 50 cents!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It calls for a changed attitude by us toward our senior citizens and toward the useful and constructive role that they can play in developing our country. It calls upon us to make better use of the talents that are there. I cite to Hon. Members one program only. It is the Canadian Executive Service Overseas under which retired people who are experienced can go to developing countries. They get no salary for it. Transportation is paid. They will have accommodation in the host country, and they will be able to bring to bear their skills there, to work. I think that type of program is one that we should all work on expanding, taking advantage of the talent and particularly the compassion that these people have.
Our senior citizens have seen tough times but they know how to cope with them as well and they can bring a great deal to the way we want to build our society. We could never afford their services if we had to pay for them on a full-time basis.
Let us join together to give senior citizens the due recognition that they deserve and, more particularly, their due place in our society so that they can continue their valuable contribution.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, No. 2, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received from Government House as follows:
Government House Ottawa
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Julien Chouinard, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
Time Allocation
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 31st day of January, 1983 at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
1 have the honour to be.
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin:
That, in relation to Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the contributions that have been made on this debate by Members on the Government side of the House. One of the more interesting ones was the one just made by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) on the benefits that society derives from those individuals who volunteer their time to work, within society. If I may, I do not mind suggesting to the Member for Willowdale that it would be a great idea if he were to sit down with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and have a chat with her about the things that he just said, because I think she could benefit from that.
I also listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who complained at great length that Members of the Opposition perhaps did not act in a very civilized manner by allowing the Government to get its own way in terms of allowing the legislation that they perceive to be important to go through expeditiously in this House. He seemed to indicate that the Opposition should in fact only oppose to the extent that the Government desired any form of opposition. Quite frankly, after listening to the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil, I developed a new appreciation for the need for a strong opposition to the Government in this particular House, because the kind of democracy that he perceives is certainly not one that I would desire or indeed that I believe the vast majority of Canadians would desire to be put in place in this House.

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation
Also, in listening to the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), in this particular debate, I found that he took the tack that I have heard for so many years coming from the Government side, which is that there is an increasing tendency to blame everyone for the country's ailments. Whether it be on economic questions, whether it be on oil pricing, it is never the Government that accepts the blame for all these things. It is always international markets, international conditions that are to blame and the fact that inflation is an international phenomenon. Now what we hear from the Government side is that senior citizens are to blame for inflation, and they are asking senior citizens to mobilize to bring down the country's inflation. One of these days I would hope, and I am sure most Members on this side of the House and most Canadians would like to hear it, that the Government just for once would stand up and accept some responsibility for its own actions, rather than try to blame everyone else, as I said, in this case senior citizens, recipients of Family Allowances, public servants, for the high inflation in the country. Just for once 1 would like to hear them stand up and say, "Perhaps we had a role to play in bringing about inflation".


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Admit a mistake!


Neil Young: They could say that perhaps it is through measures that they could implement in the House and in the country that inflation could be brought down. But I think I am going to wait a long time before I hear this Government make that kind of concession both in this House and to the Canadian people.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) correctly pointed out that she did not understand why the Government was initiating this indecent haste to pass this legislation through, what we like to call closure and what the Government complains is not in fact closure, it is something else. But by any name it is closure and designed to cut off debate on this extremely important Bill and in effect put a gag on Parliament, and especially the Opposition Members, who have a responsibility to express the views of those Canadians who strongly disagree with what this Government is trying to do. In my view I was elected to do exactly that, and I deeply resent any measure on the Government side which says, look, you guys are opposing this to such an extent that it is hindering us in implementing this piece of legislation, albeit bad legislation. I think that is my right to do that as a person who represents the constituency of Beaches.
One of the reasons why I really resent this Government measure at this time to limit debate on this Bill is that I sat on the committee, as did other Members present in the House, and we took a look at this piece of legislation. We said to the Government, "You have had this intent since last June, and the legislation was finally referred to committee last December". I believe it was referred on Thursday or Friday and went into committee on Monday. The Opposition Members said to the committee, "This piece of legislation has such serious implications for the seniors in this country that we believe they should be given the opportunity to appear before this Committee." They can then give us their views on this legislation and
tell us what impact, in their view, this legislation would have on their future incomes.
We said that simply giving this committee one week to study this piece of legislation will not give people the right to do that. As a result, we submitted a list of people who we thought should be called because they represented large segments of the population. Those people were contacted and we heard from many of them. We certainly did not receive a wide input from many Canadians who may have wished to appear before that committee to express their concerns about this piece of legislation. I think that is a crying shame because I know of many individual Canadians who have spoken to me since then who said that they felt badly because they would have likely to appear before the committee to talk to us and, hopefully, to make the Government Members understand what the true impact of this legislation was going to be on them.
There certainly seems to be an awful lot of confusion about the impact of this legislation. The Member for Willowdale, in his contribution to this debate, told us that in his view this would not add to any great numbers being driven into poverty as a result of the 6 and 5 legislation. He is totally off track with most other Canadians who have taken a look at this piece of legislation. Some very authoritative organizations which have studied the impact of the 6 and 5 program on seniors have estimated that at the end of the two-year period there will literally be a couple of hundred thousand elderly Canadians, who now have incomes above the poverty level, who will have incomes below the poverty level at the end of the two-year period. If the Government reintroduces full indexation of pensions at the end of the two-year period, and that is a big "if', because I have never heard any assurance that it will do so, the indexations on which the pensions are calculated will be much, much smaller than they would have been without the six and five program. We have pressed the Government to give us figures to show what the true impact will be, and the Government still has not done that. Surely, if they are imposing this kind of legislation on over two million senior citizens in this country, at the very least they should have done the calculations which would have clearly shown what the impact will be at the end of the two year period, and they have failed to do so.
Until such time as they do that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to stand up and protest any attempt by this Government to gag the Official Opposition or the Members of my own Party. 1 totally disagree with the concept and I will oppose it today, tomorrow, next week and over the next two years. In fact, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we in this Party, and 1 am quite sure I speak on behalf of the Conservative Party, intend to make this issue a major issue in the next election campaign.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this debate today has ranged far and wide, but the major reason for the debate is
January 31, 1983

to talk about the reasons for time allocation, and to debate on the use of time allocation. 1 will reverse the words of the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) and say that obstruction is a shocking abuse of the time of the House and that the tyranny of the minorities is what we see in many of these cases preventing good legislation. I would like to draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that a Member of his own Party suggested that time allocation is a gentle form of ending debate.
Why do we have to have time allocation? Presumably, it is to make better use of the time of the House of Commons. I can appreciate the fact that when people have something to say, they should have an opportunity to say it, and that we should be able to see Bills going through the proper stages and eventually coming back to the House for passage.
I would just like to quote to the House the exchange which followed the introduction of time allocation on second reading of this Bill. The Hon. The House leader of the Official Opposition made the statement that whoever it was in the New Democratic Party who made the accusation that they are Liberal stooges is wrong because their sympathies with respect to Bill C-131, the Old Age Security Act, are precisely the same as those of the NDP. He then went on to say, "We intend to vote against both of those measures", which are Bill C-131 and Bill C-132. Then the House leader for the New Democratic Party said as reported at page 21173 of Hansard:
However, voting against a piece of legislation is one way to indicate opposition. We are not only opposed to the point where we want to vote against it, but we are opposed to the point where we do not want to facilitate its passage in any way.
I would gather from that, that even if there were amendments which were acceptable, they would not be willing to see this Bill passed. Therefore, I think that we have no alternative but to look toward some reasonable use of the time to get this Bill passed. 1 would like to read you something from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which I found quite interesting. It is entitled "Parliament's pique". However, most of us would like to think we would always be referring to it as "Parliament's peak". It says this:
No one would deny Parliamentarians their support of political prerogatives, steadfast stands on principle, and opportunities to make their opponents appear to be the progenitors of weak or defective thinking. It is, after all, an adversarial forum whose members have long held opposing views on many matters.
But one expects-
And this is what is important. It says that one expects the Government to govern, and they expect it to govern well, while the Opposition opposes-and I think the important words 1 am going to bring out in this next message read:
-while the Opposition opposes for an allotted period before the majority proceeds to approve the issue it has raised.
I will read that for you again. You were not listening. It reads:
-while the Opposition opposes for an allotted period before the majority proceeds to approve the issue it has raised.
What happens, of course, is that in normal debate, the Government claims the Opposition delays passage, and it has been suggested that the Government has the majority and has
Time Allocation
the Speaker, and one assumes that it could easily make the rules of procedure work. But that is exactly what we are not able to do. We are not able to make the rules of procedure work. The Opposition Members have vented, overly so, considerable rage over the proposal and have squandered their consideration with procedures which have long strayed from the point. There are many matters which demand the earnest attention of the House, but they are being similarly mishandled. Therefore, if there is any reason for having time allocation and trying to put the debate in proper perspective, I hope you will appreciate that that is the argument I am trying to put forward.
What has happened with the time spent on this Bill? You have already had the numbers of those who have spoken on this Bill, how many speakers we have had, how much time we have had, but the important thing is that although it is time allocation, we are still discussing the Bill, and by the end of the day there will be approximately 70 speakers on this Bill. What really bothers me is that we seem to be talking about the senior citizens as if they were a sort of mindless body, and we have not only to speak for them but also to think for them. I would like to read you something which was in the Ottawa Citizen, written by Marjorie Gillies on January 25, 1983. She says, the following:
Although some seniors have expressed dissatisfaction with the government's imposition of a six and five per cent restraint increase on retirement income for the next two years, Bert Hanmer-
Mr. Hanmer is a retired Canadian Legion national service bureau director.
-says the majority of pensioners aren't upset by the limitation.
Mr. Hanmer is vice-chairman of the Council on Aging in Ottawa and Chairman of the Economics of Aging Committee. He is a pension specialist. He goes on to quote figures which we already know, that 54 per cent of Canadians over 65 will not even be affected by the restriction. Then he continues:
You know, most elderly Canadians will tell you they have little to complain about today-
It is interesting that when one hears the other side of the story, one is told that really it is not the truth, it is not right. But I also receive letters from my constituents and I also see people in my constituency. I have yet to see the pressure that has been told is there by Members of the Opposition. I think most seniors are grateful to take some part in this battle against inflation.
What happened in committee? That is interesting. This was one of my first experiences in trying to organize debate in committee. Actually we had to go out and seek out people to come and make presentations before the committee. Most said they had read about the Bill, examined it and chosen not to make any kind of presentation to the committee.
In any event, we had five groups appearing before the committee. They spoke mostly-[DOT]

January 31, 1983
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Dave Nickerson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me at this point in time. According to my calculations, I have two minutes in which to register my indignation that for the fifteenth time this Government has used closure during this single session of Parliament.
The reasons on this particular occasion are ones which we cannot possibly condone. The explanation given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was that she had heard enough from Opposition Members of Parliament, that in her consideration there was no necessity for debating the matter any longer. 1 remind the Minister that it is not up to her to decide whether debate has gone on a sufficient length of time. These matters are covered by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. They are for no one individual to decide.
I was disappointed with the presentation by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). He proposed that we have a permanent system of closure in this House, that once a Bill is presented, it automatically be subject to the guillotine, that it automatically be cut off. It is my submission that three and a half days is not sufficient time to debate this issue, namely, the hidden policy in this Bill which is the end of universality. Unless we are prepared to accept and condone the tyranny of the majority, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) so succinctly put it, we must vote against closure on this occasion when it is so completely unwarranted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 5:03 o'clock, the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 82, have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. Motion (Miss Begin) agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,320, 4,537 and 4,543.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	What was the total amount of revenue collected from saltwater fishing licences from (a) Canada as a whole (b) the East Coast (c) the West Coast in 1980 and 1981 and what are the projections for 1982 and 1983?
2.	What were the total number of licences issued in (a) Canada as a whole (b) the East Coast (c) the West Coast in 1980 and 1981 and what are the projections for 1982 and 1983?
3.	What was the total cost of administering the collection of these fees in (a) Canada as a whole (b) the East Coast (c) the West Coast in 1980 and 1981 and what are the projections for 1982 and 1983?
Order Paper Questions 2. Number of licences issued:
(a)	1980-149,393	
	1981-410,815	(large increase due to introduction of tidal sportfish licence on West Coast)
	1982-141,464	(projected-East Coast only)
	1983-141,464	(projected-East Coast only)
(b)	1980-	141,517 1981-	141,464	
	1982-141,464	(projected)
	1983-141.464	(projected)
(c)	1980- 7,876	
	1981-	269,351 1982-	not available 1983-	not available	(large increase due to introduction of tidal sportfish licence)
3. Cost of administration:		
(a)	1980-	$1,320,000 1981-	$1,874,500	(estimated)
	1982-$1,600,000	(projected-East Coast only)
	1983-$1,600,000	(projected-East Coast only)
(b)	1980-	$1,300,000 1981-	$1,600,000	
	1982-$1,600,000	(projected)
	1983-$1,600,000	(projected)
(c)	1980-$ 20,000	(estimated)
1981-	$ 274,500
1982-	not available
1983-	not available
Non-resident sportfish licences were sold during 1980 in local district fishery offices, Vancouver Headquarters and through a limited number of independent agents. The new tital water sportfish licences are now sold through contracted agents.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Were transportation services provided by the Government to the IMF Conference held in Toronto in September, 1982 and, if so, what were such services and what was the cost of the services?
2.	Were private firms hired to provide transportation services and, if so. were tenders accepted for those contracts?


Pierre De Bané: 1. Revenue collected from saltwater fishing licences:
(a)	1980-$	910.990.00
1981-	$4,083,511.50
1982-	$3,460,000.00
1983-	$3,460,000.00
(b)	1980-$	657,460.00
1981-	$2,476,170.00
1982-	$3,460,000.00
1983-	$3,460,000.00
(c)	1980-$	253,530.00*
1981-	$1,607,341.50
1982-	not available
1983-	not available
(projected-East Coast only) (projected-East Coast only)
(projected)
(projected)
* A tidal water sportfishing licence was introduced in April, 1981. Prior to this date only foreign vessels were required to purchase licences. After April, 1982 personal licences both Canadian and non-Canadian fishermen were required.


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.
The following transportation services were provided to the joint annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in accordance with the standard requirements of these organizations.
(a)	180 official cars for Governors and senior IMF/IBRD officials for official use within Metropolitan Toronto. Cars were leased from General Motors Canada for $1. The cost of gas, maintenance and parking was approximately $68,125.
(b)	Rental of five cars and two vans from Avis for use as pool cars and standby replacement cars-cost $8,626.
(c)	Rental of three minibuses for 29 days to transport small groups between Toronto International Airport and the Sheraton Centre Hotel-$29,025.

January 31, 1983
Order Paper Questions
(d)	Fifty-four 40-passenger buses for seven days to transport delegates between Toronto International Airport and downtown hotels-$17,050.
(e)	Shuttle service (40-passenger buses) for delegates between hotels and to official functions-$98,440.
(f)	Signs for buses and cars-$5,051.
(g)	Costs for drivers recovered by Department of National Defence for salaries and travel costs of militia personnel and for travel costs of regular force personnel-$400,000 (estimated, final costs not yet known).
(h)	Accommodation for drivers and support staff-$110,000 (estimated, final costs not yet known).
(i)	Two-way radios installed in ten vehicles-$8,475.
2. Department of Supply and Services invited tenders for all cars. All buses were rented through Gray Coach lines or the Toronto Transit Commission as these are the only services allowed to handle such assignments on the streets of Toronto.


Mr. Gustafson: 1.	Will the Government consider allowing farmers to opt out of the Western Grain Stabilization Program and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Since the inception of the Program, by year, what amount was paid out to western farmers?


David P. Smith: 1 am informed by the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Wheat Board as follows:
1.	At present, the Government is not considering a change in the Western Grain Stabilization Act to permit producers to opt out of the program in an unrestricted manner. Provisions in the Act allowed participants to opt-out within the first three years of participation. Producers who participated in the program from its inception had until December 31, 1978 to opt out. Participants who joined the plan since its inception may still opt out if they have not reached the third year of their participation.
Provisions in the Act to limit opting out were put in place to prevent producers from only participating in years when a payout is projected. If opting out was left unrestricted, this could affect the actuarial soundness of the program in that funds would not be built up to stabilize producer incomes as provided in the Act.
2.	Since the inception of the program in 1976, two payments have been required, one of $115 million in 1978 and one of $253 million in 1979 for a total of $368 million.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,579
could be made an order for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 4,579 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lewis: By month, for the fiscal year (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81 (c) 1981-82 (d) 1982-83 to date, what were the income tax gross collections and refunds for (i) corporations (ii) individuals (employer remittances plus direct payments)?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Question No. 3,628 was asked on January 25, 1982. It has not been answered. It is a rather easy question although it does have nine specific points to it. It is in regard to the budget of November 12 and the way the present Bill C-139 is to be proceeded with. The answer should have been produced. It has been over a year now since it was placed on the Order Paper. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the answers have not been forthcoming?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not know the exact stage at which the answer is in preparation on that particular question. But, of course, as of today we have answered 83.3 per cent of all questions asked in this session. I will be delighted to look into that matter on behalf of the Hon. Member to see what I can find out for him.
I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 13, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-139, to amend the Statute Law relating to Income Tax (No. 2), be
January 31, 1983
[Stage Direction]
read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, before the Elouse rose before lunch I was commenting on a statement which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) made when he introduced the Bill for second reading debate. He said, as reported in Hansard at page 21521:
I believe that Canadians as a whole understand that their Government cannot continue to spend more and more while it taxes them less and less.
I was making the point at one o'clock today that it is not merely adequate to try to raise revenue, particularly when one realizes that there is no more revenue left in the pot. The more important objective which this Government has failed to pursue is to reduce the waste and extravagance in the Government's spending program. 1 was about to remind the House of the $100 million thrown away to bail out Consolidated Computer; the failure of Eldorado Nuclear and the massive amount of waste in that connection; the $600 million annual subsidy to Canada Post and to Air Canada; the lack of financial control and accountability on the part of Crown Corporations as well as the bail-outs of Dome and Maislin which are completely inexcusable. If we do not bring this kind of excessiveness and waste under control, this country is indeed doomed. We cannot continue to rearrange the income tax system and raise new tax levels levied against corporations and businesses. In fact, if we look at the 50 per cent increase in bankruptcies and the 50 per cent decline in corporate profits over the past 12 months, we can see that the only way our nation's economy will be brought back under control is to introduce a much higher degree of awareness in the importance of restraint.
I would like to note that the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) herself has some accounting to do to this House. Her travel budget increased from $28,000 in 1981 to $58,000 in 1982. That is a 109 per cent increase. The Minister of Energy's (Mr. Chretien) travel expenses were even worse. His travel expenses went up by 263 per cent over the previous year.


Stan Darling: He is energetic.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Minister of Energy is energetically travelling the country from one end to another. The Minister of State for Mines has a departmental budget which increased from $171 million in 1981-1982 to $223 million in 1982-1983. In fact, the amount is $230 million if you add the supplementary estimates. There is a more than 35 per cent increase in spending by that Department alone. Although the Minister's officials did a very ambitious review of mineral policy in the 1981 period, they now admit the report which resulted from that review is very much outdated. Some of the initiatives it recommended were totally contradicted by initiatives of the November 12, 1981 budget. Certainly that report totally ignored the declining competitive position of Canada with respect to other major world producers of minerals.
The Auditor General commented on this serious deficiency outlined in that report entitled "A Mineral Policy for Canada." It is this kind of misdirected energy and misuse of financial resources that now leads the Government to come
Income Tax
before this House to ask for further changes in the income tax laws which were originally intended when the infamous November 12 budget was introduced a year and two months ago to increase Government revenues by some $11 billion. The consequence, of it, because of many of the adverse effects of that budget, was to reduce Government revenues by some $10 billion. Yet here we are debating measures which have already proved to be failures and the Government wants to implement them and make them law. The Government also has the audacity to tell the Canadian people that if we do not make these measures law, those who would otherwise receive income tax rebates will not get them after the taxation year-end on April 1 arrives.
Here is a double standard in telling Canadians that they cannot have their income tax rebates because the budget may not become law at that point while at the same time insisting that tax returns be filed according to the provisions of the November 12, 1981 budget and subsequent corrections. That double standard is absolutely inexcusable.
I would like to discuss some of the specific measures of the Bill as they pertain to Canada's mining industry. At the very beginning, at page one of the policy analysis undertaken by the Minister of State for Mines, we are told that the junior mining industry of Canada is in severe economic difficulty and that, "Unfortunately, this sector of the mineral industry has fallen on hard times because of technological changes which have increased the cost of exploration and taxation changes which have reduced the after tax profitability of new mine investment for junior mining companies."
We can then compare the measures of the November 12 budget with the Minister's recognition that the mining industry is already being excessively taxed, particularly the junior mining sector. We see that the Government is penalizing people further, those who would invest in IAACs, Registered Retirement Savings Plans and other investment instruments, and people who would want to capitalize mining ventures are penalized with the withdrawal of one-half year's depreciation in the first year of acquisition of a capital asset. We see that the Government, through the November 12 budget, is making it much less attractive for Canadian investors to take some risk in helping to provide increased employment for those in the mining sector.
Early in 1982, a team of Revenue Canada tax auditors went to Vancouver and began to audit and reassess a large number of mining company employees who had been taking stock options in return for services rendered to those mining companies. These were professionals such as engineers, geologists, managers, surveyors and the like. While previously, these types of stock options were only to be taxed at the capital gains rate, 50 per cent of the return, Revenue Canada is now taxing these earnings at the full income return and taxes them retroactively, going back as far as five years.

January 31, 1983
Income Tax
The Minister of State for Mines has been contacted by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. It has been pointed out to her that this measure alone which has been taken by Revenue Canada will extract some $600 million in anticipated revenue that those companies and shareholders would have enjoyed when those stock options were converted to legitimate shares in the subsequent mining companies that materialize from these junior exploration ventures.
In fact, this change of rules runs completely contrary to the kinds of ideas that appeared in the Minister's policy paper. They are detrimental to development of mining and opportunities in that industry. In fact, as the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines has pointed out, rather than strengthening the mining industry at a time when it needs to be strengthened, the Government is making it much more difficult for such companies to operate.
There are problems with the roll-over of one mining company, a junior mining company, to an operating company. The Government implied in the November 12 budget that it would make those roll-overs subject to capital gains tax. It has now decided that this is not such a good idea. However, it is not prepared to say it will rescind the measure. It will now study it in a special committee for many more months.
That is the other major difficulty with many of the measures that were first introduced in the budget of November 12, 1981. They have never been withdrawn. Many of the measures are being studied to death. In the meantime, there is a tremendous reluctance on the part of investors and companies to take any investment risks and expand their capital worth because they do not know what the rules will be a year or two from now. The instruments for saving for retirement such as LAACs, RRSPs and registered profit-sharing plans are also having a serious impact on many of our constituents. The change from the use of the income averaging annuity contracts to the other mechanism that is being proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is, in fact, costing many investors much additional taxation on revenue that they have not yet received.
I see that my time has come to an end. I just want to say that as long as we have an opportunity to debate this important measure in the House, we must continue to point out a number of the deficiencies which are having a very detrimental effect on the economy of Canada at the present time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to ask questions of my colleague. Did you intend to give the House the opportunity to ask questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the Hon. Member. It is a problem for the Chair, under the new rules, to determine whether Members are rising for the purpose of exchanging questions and answers or to debate. Perhaps I could ask if there are Hon. Members who are seeking the floor for the purpose of exchanging questions and comments. Otherwise, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) for debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have an opportunity finally to address a few remarks to Bill C-139. I think it will be useful to review the process through which this legislation finally came to the House of Commons after 15 months of controversy.
The House will remember that in November of 1981 the then minister of finance, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), brought in a budget which was completely wrong for the times. That budget created and caused a greater recession than we had as a result of the efforts of his colleagues in the Cabinet. It created quite a stir in the country amongst small business people, farmers and employees, all of whom were adversely affected by this disastrous budget.
The House will also remember that in an almost unprecedented step taken by the Government, the Minister came into the House on December of 1981 and made a statement on motions in which he withdrew several of the measures in the budget which were completely out of step with the times and out of step with what was required to rejuvenate the Canadian economy. Through the spring of 1982 there were further retreats and, finally, another retreat in July. As responsible Members of the Opposition, our reaction was to send some 65 Members of the Progressive Conservative Party across Canada to hear from the public. We took briefs from several dozen interested parties, including individuals and organizations consisting of labour unions and the business community. We received a very representative opinion from the people, which is something the Minister of Finance neglected to get. As a result of the pressures from the Progressive Conservative Party, several revisions were made to the budget.
We were then treated to an amazing act when there was a Cabinet shuffle in the fall of last year. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) returned from an extensive investigation of western Canada, travelling in a private railway car, and shuffled the Cabinet. I should mention that this Cabinet shuffle per se put the then minister of energy, mines and resources in the position of Minister of Finance. In my riding, several hundred of my constituents are farmers. One of them noted that the Cabinet shuffle was rather like rotating one's crops in a dead field. In any event, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) spent the fall gaining credit for consulting with the financial community and withdrawing things that his colleague, the previous Minister of Finance, had said that he would do. It was rather an unusual way to gain political points, but we on this side understand that the Minister of Finance was trying to undo some of the disasters of the previous Minister.
At this point we should zero in on one thing with respect to Bill C-139. After 15 months, the Government has finally brought into legislation, which we can debate in the House of Commons, a disastrous budget. Throughout the 15-month period, there has been a great deal of uncertainty and my
January 31, 1983

colleagues, both in the accounting and legal professions, find themselves in the position of being unable to advise clients with any certainty whatsoever. That delay is unacceptable to the Canadian people.
I suggest to Your Honour that we would do well to take a hard look at the method used in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the budget is normally brought down in March. It goes through six days of debate. At the same time, the enabling legislation is introduced in the House of Commons, and after the six-day debate, there is a vote on the acceptability of the budget and, within three to four months, the legislation must be passed. I suggest to the House that the Government should have to bring in its legislation, which is bad, a little quicker, because I do not think there is any way that the Canadian people should be forced to put up with what they have had to put up with as a result of the delays of the Government.
I want to address certain specific items in Bill C-139 which are completely wrong for the times. The Government has decided, in this country called Canada, that it will restrict shareholder loans for employees to buy homes. On the one hand, it is very proud of enforcing mobility rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while, on the other hand, through its inability to understand this country, it is bringing in taxation adjustments which militate against companies being able to send their employees around the country.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-98, An Act to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act-Chapter No. 133.
Bill C-620, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Missisquoi- Chapter No. 134.
Bill C-647, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Saint-Michel-Chapter No. 135.
Bill C-133, An Act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (No. 2)-Chapter No. 136.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, in an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on January 11, a journalist for that paper wrote that the Government intended to refuse permission for Wardair to compete with Air Canada and CP Air for certain regular flights. I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for his comments, to Find out whether a decision had been made, and if so, how it would benefit the Canadian user and Wardair. The Minister's answer was rather disappointing, especially since I had taken the trouble to give him notice of my question. In fact, the Minister merely answered that he had had a meeting with the president of Wardair, and that details about the future of this company would be disclosed very shortly. In his short reply, the Minister did not mention the article in The Citizen, so I imagine that there is still some hope. This is why I want to confirm this evening my support to Wardair and re-emphasize the need to deregulate the industry.
At the present time, Canadian air policy is a failure. It benefits a few national carriers and a couple of regional carriers, at the expense of Canadian consumers and businesses and Canadian businessmen interested in air transport. Let us consider the case of Wardair. Its main competitors, Air Canada and CP Air, now have full access to its chartered flight market, while it has no access to the markets of Air Canada and CP Air, which of course distorts completely the rules of the game. The result is obvious. Wardair cannot compete, just as Quebecair could not compete against Air Canada for the rich Florida market. In fact, I believe that Canada is the only country which still differentiates between chartered and regular flights. This is why Transair went bankrupt and Wardair and Quebecair are in serious Financial difficulty. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the United States have long abandoned that distinction. In the case of Wardair, there are only two solutions. The First would be to allow the company to become a regular carrier on certain routes or to prevent certain carriers or their subsidiaries from offering chartered seats in addition to their regular seats. The second solution would be to limit competition and is therefore unacceptable in my opinion. The First solution is the only valid answer to the problem of our nonsensical air policy.

January 31, 1983
Adjournment Debate
1 wonder whether the Minister realizes the trememous damage caused by the status quo to certain carriers and to Canadian consumers.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that the Canadian air industry no longer needs crutches. Federal regulations should be limited so that any new airline can enter whatever market it wishes and established companies can decide what type of plane to use or what market to serve without any federal restrictions. We should allow strong competition for prices and not impose any restriction as to service quality. Such a policy, Mr. Speaker, would enable Quebecair and Wardair to survive if they deserve to do so because of the quality of their services and attractive rates. Passengers of these airlines will determine their future. If not, the rules of the market will apply and the competition will take care of these carriers. Whether such companies prosper or not will be decided not by regulations, but by the people using them.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that these comments will not fall on deaf ears because they should be considered before a final decision is made concerning the future of Wardair.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, 1 wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) for taking advantage of this period in our Parliamentary process to highlight certain policies in which he believes. I also want to congratulate him as he, in his capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, had great input in developing Canada's domestic air policy. For this, my thanks to him and his constituents.
As the Hon. Member knows, Wardair has asked for Government approval to become a scheduled domestic and international airline. He will recall that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) stated in the House on January 19 that he has met with the President of Wardair to discuss Mr. Ward's concerns, and that a response would be forthcoming in due time. Since the matter is still under consideration, I cannot say what the final decision will be.
Some claim that granting Wardair's request to become a scheduled airline would be a good idea because this would help to lower fares. On the other hand, the addition of more widebodied aircraft capacity in search of passengers already comparatively well served in terms of price, capacity and frequency, may result in carriers dropping scheduled services in their smaller markets and increasing prices because they have been driven to smaller aircraft with higher unit operating costs.
Wardair is undoubtedly facing difficult financial times. Despite advice to the contrary, from a number of sources, it has added substantially to its fleet of large aircraft, at high interest rates, in anticipation of traffic growth which just did not materialize. All airlines have found that traffic demand has grown much more slowly than expected. :n some scheduled
markets traffic has dropped drastically in the past year. To adjust, airlines have mothballed, sold or leased out some of their larger wide-bodied aircraft. They have cut back on their schedules, reduced staff, and have tried to stimulate traffic with attractive promotional fares. Despite all this, Mr. Speaker, major Canadian carriers probably suffered about $85 million to $100 million in net losses last year.
In short, it is unclear whether the public interest would be met by allowing Wardair to compete for the high density long-haul domestic and international scheduled markets for which its large aircraft are most suited. The matter is being carefully considered. As soon as the Minister makes a decision, he or I will notify the Hon. Member for Laprairie accordingly.


PENITENTIARIES-CANCELLATION OF UNIVERSITY COURSES. (B) REQUEST THAT DECISION BE DEFERRED. (C) PROVISION OF FREE UNIVERSITY TUITION TO INMATES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to pursue a question which I asked of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) on January 24 last in which 1 was critical of the apparent decision of the Solicitor General to cancel all postsecondary university education programs in the federal penitentiary system. At the time the Minister indicated that his decision was final and that he was not prepared to entertain any further consideration of the very great advantages of this program.
Since the announcement of the termination of these programs, effective at the end of the contracts in question, there has been widespread criticism of this decision right across the country. I want to emphasize that this criticism has come from all sectors of the correctional community and, indeed, from even beyond that. It is by no means a partisan question. For example, even the leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party, Shirley McLaughlin, has taken the Government and the Solicitor General to task in a telegram sent to the Solicitor General, urging him to have another look at his wrong-headed plan to cut post-secondary programs for federal penitentiary inmates.
The programs in question are offered through four institutions at a number of prisons throughout the country. By far the most successful and popular program, the one affecting the greatest number of prisoners, is the program which is offered through the University of Victoria affecting some 150 prisoners as well as a number of support staff. It is offered at four institutions, Matsqui, Kent, William Head and Mountain Institution.
As well, other programs affected include the program offered by the University of Manitoba, the Stony Mountain institution; the program offered by Queen's University at Collin's Bay Institution; and, finally, the program offered at Laval Institution by Laval University. All of these programs are going to be terminated, effective some time this year, unless the Minister can be persuaded to change his mind.
January 31, 1983__________________________ COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________________ 22363
The decision to terminate all post-secondary university education programs in the federal penitentiary system is a profound mistake. As I said in the question which 1 asked of the Minister on January 24 last, it represents an exercise in colossal correctional stupidity. Not only are these programs which I just enumerated going to be cancelled, but as well all paid for university level correspondence courses are going to be cancelled. In other words, effectively we are seeing the gutting of all post-secondary education programs within the federal penitentiary system.
The response has been immediate and angry. I am just going to quote a number of people involved. Even the Minister's own director of academic education indicated to me that this was certainly not a decision he made; it came down from on high. As he said, the programs in question are the finest programs of their type in North America. That was Doug Griffin, the chief of academic education.
As well, the co-ordinator of the program at the University of Victoria, Douglas Ayers, stated that the decision in question by the correctional services was a mistake, cancelling probably the only program shown to have a positive effect on prisoners. The unemployment rate following involvement in this program, the rate of recidivism, which is considerably lower than that for other prisoners, changes in residential, marital, friendship patterns, and a number of other indicators, all make it very clear that this program is by far the most successful program with the federal penitentiary system.
A gentleman who evaluated the program, Mr. Ross, although he was somewhat critical of the methodology involved in Dr. Ayers' study said, and I quote:
My observation of the program and my discussions with the prisoners and faculty lead me to think that the UVIC program actually epitimizes many of the principles and practices involved in the vast majority of effective correctional programs.
He further said:

I consider the principles and goals of the UVIC program to be eminently reasonable and the strategies to be, if not entirely unique, innovative and thoroughly in accord with information currently available about strategies for effective correctional intervention. Given the type of offenders, the length of their sentences and the nature of the setting, it may even be said that it approaches the ideal in its theory and practice, if not in its evaluation.
I do not have time to read from the evaluation of Doug Drouillard who did an evaluation on behalf of the Department of Supply and Services. His assessment was that the program was positive and beneficial.
The Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Committee at the William Head Institution said that programs that contribute to reduced crime should not be the first to be axed in a costsaving effort.
The Warden of the institution has made his views on the subject very clearly known and has stated that the axing of the program was a mistake which could have very serious consequences on prisoner morale and could lead to incidents and disruptions within the prison. He and other federal prison
Adjournment Debate
directors tried, apparently in vain, to persuade the Government that this was a mistake.
There was no consultation whatsoever either with wardens or with the Citizen's Advisory Committee before the decision was taken. I emphasize that the decision reinforces the worst kind of warehousing concepts within the federal correctional system and flies in the face of the unanimous recommendations of the 1977 Subcommittee on Penitentiaries. If the Government wants to cut costs, and certainly that is an understandable objective, there are many other areas where the costs could be cut within correctional services.
I was pleased to be able to attend the graduation ceremonies at Kent Institution and the Matsqui Institution in 1981. All persons involved in the program expressed their pride in an obviously successful and positive program.
This is an example of a decision which, if not reversed, in many ways represents a threat to the community that is supposed to be protected. The recidivism rate of the people involved in the program is 14 per cent as opposed to an over-all recidivism rate of well over 50 per cent. While we are talking about saving money, we should seriously consider the fact that we may very well end up spending more money if the people no longer involved in the program return to the federal penitentiary system at a cost of $20,000 or $30,00 per year.
The cancellation of these programs is a profound mistake which reinforces the most backward and archaic correctional principles, namely that prisoners are there to be warehoused and nothing else. It does nothing whatsoever to protect the community and ultimately may have the opposite effect.
I should like to close by quoting from a letter sent to the Solicitor General by Keith B. Jobson, Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Committee. His concluding paragraph reads as follows;
Considering the morale of the institution, the contribution the program makes to dynamic security, the success of the program in terms of reduced recedivism, the need to keep an open door to CCC's and CRC's in times of overcrowded conditions, the contribution of the program to reduced prison costs generally, the importance of the Program in meeting CSC objectives respecting improved community-prison contacts and relations, the contribution of the program to CSC objectives of providing opportunities for inmates to come out of prison better citizens than when they went in, considering its low cost ratio per inmate at William Head, and the large part of the prison population involved in the program, we urgently request your reconsideration of the decision to eliminate post secondary education programs at William Head.
I urge the Minister to take that plea very seriously, Mr. Speaker.


Jesse Philip Flis: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) likes to reply to questions in person. Unfortunately he is not able to be here tonight, but has asked me to reply on his behalf.
On January 24 the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) raised questions pertaining to the recent cancellation, by the Correctional Service of Canada, of post-secondary educational contracts in federal penitentiaries and asked whether the
22364

January 31, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Solicitor General would agree to defer a final decision on the matter.
As the Minister has previously stated, the post-secondary educational programs were good programs-he agrees with the Hon. Member-and the inmate students did benefit from them. But they have also proven to be too expensive to maintain. The programs cost $3,500 per inmate per year and 232 inmates or 2.3 percent of the inmate population are involved in them. As you know, Mr. Speaker, these are times of economic restraint and the Correctional Services of Canada must also exercise restraint. Cancelling these programs will mean savings of $541,428 in 1983-84, and $744,062 in 1984-85, for a total saving of $1,285,490 in 1982-83 dollars.
Although funding for post-secondary programs has been cut, inmates will be able to continue taking correspondence courses at their own time and expense. 1 hope these inmates will also rely on group meetings and self-help as learning methods. The service is undertaking to explore alternative sources of funding post-secondary educational programs. This could include grants from private foundations, loans, bursaries and scholarships for current students who might qualify.
The service will also continue to enhance primary education training, to raise the base level of literacy and to focus greater attention toward functionally illiterate inmates. Approximately 66 per cent of the CSC inmate population has an education of less than grade ten; of these about 18 per cent are functional illiterates.
As the Solicitor General said on January 24, he believes that the federal Government has a responsibility to rehabilitate offenders who are behind bars. We will continue to exercise that responsibility, but when programs across the country are being cut back for people who are not in prison, inmates and others who support inmates have to understand that restraint also has to be applied within the correctional service. Accordingly, the Minister is not prepared to defer his decision.
Finally, even though this funding is being cut, the Solicitor General believes that the inmates who have been benefiting from the programs will have the initiative to find other ways within our system to achieve a higher education.


FORESTRY-INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 1982, I directed a question to the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) regarding what plans the Government may have had for assisting unemployed people in the forest industry across the country, particularly action in terms of assisting both employees and the industry in which they normally work. I asked what proposals they were putting together to ensure that more of those people could be employed constructively during the spring just immediately ahead of us. The answer from the Minister at that time was most inadequate and very generalized. I hope this
evening we may have some clearer answers as to just what is taking place.
Under the Employment Bridging Assistance Program, we have had a series of problems. 1 know the Government is aware of these problems and has made some attempts to resolve them, and I refer to people being dropped from the UIC rolls as they enter EBAP. Sometimes their benefits are mysteriously stopped, as was the case for many last December, and are restarted after they have been enrolled in the program. This is causing some demoralization on the part of many unemployed forestry workers who were hoping to make contributions, not only to themselves but to the long-term welfare of their own industry. Why get off UIC with a regular cheque and go to something more constructive if one ends up with no income at all? They also have their families' interests to look after.
In my own constituency the Salmo Workers Employment Society was formed. In fact, it was the first program under EBAP in the forest industry in British Columbia. Over the past few months they have developed a considerable amount of expertise, with the continual employment, on a revolving basis, of some 50 unemployed woodworkers in a variety of projects. What they are concerned about now-and I suspect this will happen in many similar programs across the country-is that as their benefits expire they will no longer be eligible to stay on the program. While we have talked about NEED as a separate program to be utilized by people who run out of UIC benefits, we need a better system of integration so that we do not lose the potential worth and expertise these people have gained through some of the worth-while programs which have been conducted.
Unfortunately, in terms of numbers, we still have a problem. There is still a problem in that while there is an increasing emphasis by the federal Government on getting involved in some of the reforestation and forest management areas, recently the provincial Government, at least in British Columbia, cancelled and wiped out its long-term forest management program, despite the fact that there is a new forest subsidiary agreement between the federal Government and that Province. How do we guarantee in both situations that we come out of the downturn with a stronger resource base for the industry than we have had in the past, instead of making it worse as is now happening with many companies trying to highgrade the little timber we have left in some of our areas?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made a statement that the Employment Bridging Assistance Program has created only 15 per cent of the projected 10,000 jobs. I am pleased that he has given me the opportunity of correcting his statement on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Ethier).
The Program has not yet run a full year but already it has produced more than 5,000 jobs in the forestry sector. Across the country we have approved 9,300 potential positions.
January 31, 1983

Interest in the Program is steadily increasing now that the normal growing pains and birth pains of the Program are over. The Government has recently acted in a number of ways to increase the effectiveness of the Program. For example, we have recently taken action in co-operation with CEIC to accelerate payment to the workers.
The Canadian Forestry Service has also increased its level of contributions to overhead costs which has allayed some particular concerns of potential project sponsors in British Columbia. We are working in co-operation with the majority of unions and with the Workmen's Compensation Board, to achieve the best possible success for the Program. Productivity on Section 38 Projects is very high, and we are satisfied that the Projects provide high quality forest management work in British Columbia.
In addition to the very successful Programs carried out under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), along with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), is promoting new programs that will allow the participation of unemployment insurance exhaustees, and will provide for useful forestry work. I will mention here the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission's new NEED Program, the New Employment Expansion and Development
Adjournment Debate
Program, to which the Hon. Member referred, and the extension of the Canada Community Development Program, CCDP, which will support local organizations in the development and management of short-term employment opportunities for unemployment insurance exhaustees. As well, the Canadian Forestry Service is looking into new programs that will ensure long-term employment in the forestry sector.
The Hon. Member inquired about new policies regarding employment and forest development to meet Canada's wood supply needs and to ensure market expansion. On September 2, the Minister announced a policy for forest renewal which provides an assessment of forestry expenditures and responsibilities and emphasizes the need for renewal in order to meet future timber production goals. I see, Mr. Speaker, that I must now conclude.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry, I must interrupt, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the rules for the late show are rather rigid.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 1, 1983