1983-12-21

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, a meeting was held yesterday from 11.00 a.m. to 1 p.m., as scheduled by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which I have the honour of chairing. Present at the meeting were the Members for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), Jonquiere (Mr. Mar-ceau). Saint John (Mr. Landers)-

-myself, the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and four Members of the Official Opposition who are on this committee. Those four Hon. Members went out, and 1 suppose that they came here to vote during the vote which is the subject of controversy, and I do not blame them for that.

However, Madam Speaker, I have every intention of blaming the joker who stage-managed this procedural wrangle. Let me explain. Common Law refers to abuse of process. The procedures of the House exist to simplify our work, not to turn it into a circus, and as a Member chairing a committee of this House, 1 object to a practice that prevented me from taking part in a vote, and to the fact that the impression was subsequently given that a number of Members were not doing their work. Madam Speaker, Members attending this committee meeting were carrying out a mandate given them by the House, and if the clowns on the opposite side-


Some Hon. Members:: Cry baby!


Claude-André Lachance: -if those clowns go on with this kind of circus, Madam Speaker, they don't deserve to pursue the aspirations to which they are so eager to aspire, using disgraceful tricks and stratagems.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge of old, the Department of National Revenue is making life miserable for the taxpayers of St. Catharines. I have one example which is typical of many.
A woman started a small business because her husband is unemployed. Her income tax bill was $1,900. She paid $500 on account and promised to pay the balance by way of instalment payments. Revenue Canada responded by making a demand for payment in full, so she paid a further $200 on account. Then, Madam Speaker, without any forewarning whatsoever, my constituent was advised by her bank that Revenue Canada had garnisheed all the money in her savings account and in a joint checking account she had with her husband. These accounts totalled $2,049, meaning that Revenue Canada had seized almost $850 more than was owing. Some $1,300 of the money garnisheed in fact belonged to her husband.
This constituent now cannot pay her bills, let alone buy for Christmas, and Revenue Canada is estimating a six weeks wait until her money is refunded. Some Christmas my constituent will have, simply because the Minister has no control over some over zealous bureaucrat who was probably trying to make up his or her quota. This is intolerable behaviour on the part of the Department. Let the Minister clean house or resign.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 realize 1 am now seventy-five and a half years of age. I guess that makes me the oldest Member of this institution. I may also say that I was first elected here in 1942, which is 41 years ago. In view of all that, I feel maybe I have the right to say something important to Hon. Members of this House. Do you wonder what I am going to say, Madam Speaker? I am happy to stand here and wish everyone a very happy Christmas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is, of course, our usual practice to wish people the very best in a New Year. I do the same here, in

December 21, 1983
1984. Maybe 1985 will be a better year. But I suggest if we are to have that, we must work hard on what is important to the people of Canada, such as old age pensions, medicare, employment, and the economic conditions which face all of our people. For heaven's sake, let us get at these things as hard as we can, and make it the best possible year. God bless you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, today the House will be dealing with third reading of the Income Tax Bill. This is a matter which will directly affect many, many Canadians. Any tax regime must be fair and equitable amongst all the citizens exposed to such a taxation regime.
A very fundamental principle of taxation justice is that taxes by a senior level of government should not have to be paid on taxes paid to a local government. The property taxes paid on a principle place of residence to a municipal government should be deductible from income for income tax payable to senior levels of government. This is fundamental to taxation equity and justice. Indeed, limits to such deductibility up to, say, $1,000 per house per annum, increase the equity between home owners. Some will argue that such a deduction is not equitable to renters, but that is untrue because all owners of rental properties are allowed the deduction, thereby affecting the rents directly.
I am surprised that this House does not advocate and support this principle unanimously. It is certainly the case in the United States of America.
I wish everyone good holidays, Madam Speaker.

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Opposition was holding up the business of the House. Today, I would therefore like to speak on behalf of the 293 people who are still living in Schefferville. It was forty below this morning in Schefferville, and the company is refusing to conclude agreements with the federal Government concerning people who were supposed to be leaving their jobs with compensation payments from the provincial and federal Governments and from the mining company as well. Madam Speaker, once again, I would ask the Minister of Employment
and Immigration to force an agreement with Iron Ore, so that the people of Schefferville who want to leave their jobs with mobility grants and compensation for the mobile homes they will have to leave behind, for which Mr. Greaves is responsible, will see this problem solved in a matter of weeks.
It has already been one year since the company announced it was closing down the town, and here Hon. Members are talking away while there are people up North, who have been literally abandoned. I therefore urge the Government once again to meet with the company in order to find a formula, because there are some truly desperate situations up there, at a time when everybody down here is wishing everybody else merry Christmas and a happy 1984.


PROCEDURE DURING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE VOTE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, this Liberal Government is dead, and decay is setting in. Yesterday the Government was defeated in Committee of the Whole on a money Bill. Any Government with principle would have resigned, but not this bunch. They wanted to have a vote all over again, which is absolutely against the rules of the House.
The Liberal whip is now rationalizing. Listen to what he says:
The Quebec Liberal MPs were in Quebec fighting the separatists-
Well, well!
"Others had guests up for dinner." "Some were at a banquet in Room 16." "They were called five times but they wouldn't come."
Then the Government whip said the Tories walked in after the vote was being taken. He forgot to mention that several hypocritical Liberals also walked in after the vote started and some had to take the back seats because the front seats had already been counted. He also forgot to tell the people in his interview that, on Monday, when a vote was called on Clause 1, his Liberal Members poured into the House from every door on that side. That was okay because the Liberals did it. The whole truth of the matter is that the Liberals were defeated on a money Bill, but are hanging on to power.
Where were the NDP when we had a chance to throw out this rotting Government? They would not walk out. Oh, no! They were cuddling up to their beloved Liberals. I tell this lame duck Government, resign. Get out before the people of Canada throw you out. You are dead, and decay is setting in. Resign!


Mr. Lalonde:: More.
December 21, 1983


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I will resist the temptation to respond to the previous statement, and simply wish the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) a merry Christmas.
My intention was to comment on the decision of the Government not to proceed against the private corporations involved in the uranium cartel, which I think is an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the need for more accountability on the part of Crown corporations.
One of the reasons we in the New Democratic Party have traditionally been supportive of the idea of Crown corporations is that we wanted to make economic activity more accountable to the people and the public interest, and more accountable than private corporations have been. That is not the kind of public ownership we have gotten from the Liberal Party, and we want to make it clear that our interest in seeing public ownership pursued as an instrument of public policy is to make economic activity more accountable than the private sector. In order to do that, this Parliament and Canadians everywhere need to consider ways by which Crown corporations can be made more accountable to Parliament and, in the courts, made accountable to the public interest and economic ethics in the same way as are private corporations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. On November 29 last I challenged the Minister on the existence of quotas for auditors in the city of Kitchener. At that time he denied quotas in fact existed. He recanted on Monday, saying quotas did exist but that he had issued a directive to stop them. He assured the House, and gave us his undertaking, that quotas did not exist anywhere else in Canada. In the two days since last Monday has the Minister had time to reflect on whether or not quotas still exist? Will he give us an undertaking today that there are no quotas for auditors in Canada?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated to the House before, it is not departmental policy to set quotas for amounts to be assessed by auditors of the Department of National Revenue. As I have also had occasion to inform the House, an unfortu-
Oral Questions
nate initiative, the only one of its kind, was taken in a district office, and as soon as it was brought to the attention of senior departmental officials, the latter asked the person who took the initiative to stop this procedure immediately, and this was even before the Hon. Member had an opportunity to raise the issue in the House, that is to say, at the time the Hon. Member brought up the subject, this isolated initiative had been stopped. Madam Speaker, I have received the assurance of senior departmental officials that our policy not to have such quotas is observed across Canada.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. T-l adjustment and office examination is a sub-section of auditors in the city of Toronto. They deal with unincorporated companies and commission salesmen. I have personally spoken to auditors in Revenue Canada working in that particular subsection. The amount of money which is the quota is $700 per hour.
Last August a petition was raised by the auditors within the Department which said that auditors did not want quotas because they found that it was a disservice to the public, the quality of their work suffered, and the morale of the employees had greatly deteriorated. Is the Minister such a captive of the senior bureaucrats in his Department that he does not understand what is happening on the street, or is he just being wilfully blind? Will he be the first Minister of a corrupt Government who will take an honourable step, and resign because of incompetence?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I informed the House that there was no quota system. I have also informed the House that to my knowledge, an unfortunate initiative had been taken and was immediately stopped by senior departmental officials. 1 indicated earlier that my senior officials had given me the assurance that a policy not to have quotas was the policy that had been followed by the Department, and furthermore, I gave orders to prepare a directive-and this is being done-to ensure, if such unfortunate initiatives had existed or should exist, that they be stopped immediately.


PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORTS ON AUDITORS
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, the Minister, who denies the plight of artists, farmers, fishermen and small businessmen, is the same Minister who is denying the existence of quotas.
I would like to refer to the annual performance statement that each auditor is required to fill out each year on behalf of his employer, Revenue Canada. On the back page there are

December 21, 1983
Oral Questions
quotas from the superior with respect to the performance of the particular auditor. There is one particular instance I would like to read to the Minister, "The dollar recovery of $899 per hour is above the budget of $500 per hour."
The problem with the Minister is that he will not get into the bowels of his Department and find out what is really happening. He is listening to the senior bureaucrats, like the former Minister of External Affairs did with respect to the budget. Will the Minister please do the honourable thing and resign, because he just does not know what is going on?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as Minister of National Revenue, I am aware of my responsibility to provide for equitable and fair enforcement of the Income Tax Act.
To this day I have made every effort to ensure that the Income Tax Act is administered equitably, and that measures taken by officers in performing their audits and collecting taxes are taken in a civilized manner, while also ensuring that people who, because they have no choice, pay their taxes in full because they are deducted at source, should not have to bear an additional burden because others can take advantage of the system with the support of Opposition Members.


PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF AUDITORS IN CALGARY
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, if the Minister of National Revenue were doing his job by inquiring in the field, he might have in his possession a TAM document entitled "Exhibit 83321222" with job title "Business Files Auditor", level "AU1". All business auditors in the city of Calgary received this on November 28, 1982, over a year ago. The performance review expectations included in this document are as follows: quota of 16 files per man-year per AU2 auditors, an average of 76 hours per file, and with respect to the dollars per hour recovery based on the fiscal year, the expectation is $1,438 per file-hour. What will the Minister do? Does he tell us that his officials are misinforming him, or is he misinforming this House?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as I have said before in other replies given in the House, it has been the concern of the Department of National Revenue, and this applies to all divisions of the Department, to ensure the quality of the work done by each employee and the efficiency of his performance. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of accounting practices will know that to audit a business with a turnover of x million dollars, for instance, the normal time, according to the statistics, will bey hours. We want to be sure that while doing a thorough and strictly professional job, the auditor spends a reasonable
amount of time on this activity and does not waste the money paid by all Canadian taxpayers, by the Canadian Government, to pay his salary, by spending more time than necessary on performing a thorough and professional audit. We have standards to measure quality, professional competence and the amount of time an auditor generally needs to do a good job, and we have those standards to ensure that the performance of employees of the Department of National Revenue, like those of other employees of the Canadian Government, compares favourably with the private sector.


WARNINGS AND ADVICE GIVEN TO AUDITORS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of National Revenue confirm that employees in the Calgary office are warned that failure to meet those quotas will result in no promotion?
They are further advised by supervisors and trainers on the best method to bang through an adjustment to recover tax dollars. The techniques include using the most technical parts of tax legislation to confuse taxpayers, operating on the assumption that the taxpayer is guilty and must prove his innocence, and saying that the best idea is to use the 15-day period to send the adjustment out by mail so that it uses up a few days, and to pass up the file immediately for appeal if the taxpayer has not responded in 15 days. Can he confirm that those are the ways to "bang through an adjustment" and recover tax money that the Minister believes is owed to the Government? Is this unfair treatment by tax departmental officials?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, there are three elements in the Hon. Member's question that I would like to consider. The first concerns the promotion system, which according to the Hon. Member is based on the amount of money a tax collector or auditor recovers in one year. However, we are a little broader, a little more liberal in outlook at the Department of National Revenue than the Hon. Member seems to think. I realize he may be inclined to judge the situation from his own narrow perspective, but in my Department, promotions depend on the quality of the work done and the professional qualifications of auditors or other persons working in the Department of National Revenue, and promotions are made on the basis of professional merit. Madam Speaker, the second point 1 would like to consider is the following. It is clear that it may be tempting to react immediately after an audit and an assessment notice and to tell the taxpayer: Now look here, this notice of assessment has been issued, you owe this amount, and if you aren't satisfied, appeal. However, our approach is to try to reach an agreement with the taxpayer that is satisfactory to both parties, and in meetings with departmental officials I stress that employees should show flexibility and try, if at all possible, to
December 21, 1983

settle the majority of cases at the audit and assessment level directly at the district office and with the taxpayer.


REASSESSMENT BASIS INQUIRY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I have a short supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue. As an accountant, what relationship do the number of hours spent on a taxpayer's file bear to the amount the Department eventually reassesses the taxpayer? How does the Minister establish that relationship within his Ministry?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, we do not establish a connection between the number of hours spent on reassessment and the amount to be levied. We do establish a connection between the business volume of a company and the type of company, that is the number of hours spent on reassessing such and such company having such and such business volume.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Minister will be aware of last Thursday's B.C. Provincial court decision in the case of Mrs. Mary Otto versus Regina relating to the so-called long census form. Does the Minister agree with Judge Govan's ruling that such statistical surveys as Canadians are required to fill in under the penalties provided in the Statistics Act exceed the definition of a census as provided in that Act, and therefore citizens cannot be compelled to answer such detailed and personal questions as are contained in these forms? Will the Minister suspend all legal actions pending against more than 200 other Canadians who have had the courage to resist this invasion of their personal privacy?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet had a report on that case. When I do, I will certainly consider all of the matters raised by my hon. friend.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let us hope that 1984 has not yet arrived and that the Minister is not saying Canadians should be forced to answer questions relating to their race, religion, colour, ethnic background, and the number of bathrooms in their homes.


INVASION OF PRIVACY
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Supply and Services who has responsibility for administering
Oral Questions
the Statistics Act. Would the Minister not agree that Judge Govan's ruling should mean a suspension of all mandatory requirements covering a range of statistical surveys and Stats Canada activities, including the invasion of privacy of artists, businessmen, professionals, farmers, fishermen and other Canadians, and will the Minister announce such a policy decision today?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, my conclusions differ from those of the Hon. Member. I must tell him that the survey is done pursuant to the Statistics Act. Secondly, the contents and extent of the questionnaire are checked and authorized by the Government under the same Act, if the Hon. Member would care to look into it. As far as I know, there is no evidence of a breach of the legislative provisions in 1981 or in this case either. However, I have not yet reviewed the details of the ruling that was made and, until I have an opportunity to do so, it is rather difficult for me to comment on the ruling itself.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will know that yesterday at the United Nations, Mexico and Sweden sponsored a resolution urging the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to examine immediately, as a way out of the Geneva impasse, the possibility of combining into a single forum their suspended negotiations on both medium and long-range nuclear missiles. The United States was the only country at the UN voting against that resolution.
In the view of either the Prime Minister or the Minister, is this the new "trendline" in U.S. thinking? Can they explain why it would vote against this resolution, and perhaps also explain why Canada abstained?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, Canada abstained because we thought that the proposal emanating from the United Nations was premature in that it called for the merging of two talks which are ongoing separately and which have been a matter of discussion with NATO members for some considerable time. A number of our allies have some rather clear-cut views about that particular problem. There did not seem to be any advantage in doing anything other than we did in that case.

December 21, 1983
Oral Questions


Pauline Jewett: Perhaps the Minister does not realize that the resolution only indicated that the superpowers examine urgently, not immediately implement.


CANADIAN POSITION ON RESOLUTION
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, since we do not seem to be taking a position which favours such an examination, may I ask the Minister why we would not at least support the resolution that has support from both the East and West, Romania and Greece, which proposes that the superpowers at least agree on a provisional basis that no medium-range missiles are to be deployed, and that the numbers of existing ones are to be reduced while negotiations are continued?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the reason we could not support that particular resolution is that it is a direct assault on the two-track decision which was taken by NATO. The resolution calls for the cessation of deployment, or non-deployment, and the continuation of negotiations. We have taken the view within NATO that deployment would take place-and that was confirmed at the recent NATO meeting-and would only be interrupted or terminated if concrete results were attained in the negotiations. In brief, the reason we could not support that resolution is because it would run counter to the two-track decision which was adopted in 1979, and which is still a very important cornerstone of NATO policy.


Pauline Jewett: The Minister has just abandoned the Prime Minister's third rail; that is what he has done. He has returned to something that was done four years or five years ago. Where is the third rail? Where is the political will? The Minister shows none.


SUPREME COURT APPEAL IN CRUISE MISSILE TESTING CASE
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Will he exert some political will in light of the decision of the Supreme Court to hear arguments for an appeal on Cruise missile testing? It is a very important appeal, and the Minister agrees himself, on Cruise missile testing. Would he seriously consider adding to those other groups concerned about other parts of the Charter, for example language rights, his support in helping to fund this very vital and important appeal, an appeal which he has already admitted is vital, and for which the Government has funds available, to give it some assistance?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Government has no funds available under any existing policy. I think it would not be in the public interest to vary the policies so that we would be supporting appeals under the Charter on a broader basis. This could encourage the bringing in of all kinds of appeals which might make the work
of the courts more difficult. Of course it could prove to be a very expensive proposition in the long run for the Government. Because of the number of Canadians who have confidence in the position which my hon. friend put forward, many of them will be prepared to see to it that this appeal is adequately funded.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister will know that there is a growing awareness and a concern in the public with respect to the effect of chemical substances not only on the environment but particularly on the health of individuals. I am referring in particular to the effects of lead in gasoline. The Minister will know as well that his predecessor indicated that the Government was prepared to do something in this regard. Could the Minister of the Environment indicate whether the Government is yet prepared to make an announcement with respect to the content of lead in gasoline?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest in this health matter. 1 advise him and the House that, after extensive discussion with public interest groups, union and industry representatives and colleagues, as initiated by my predecessor, I am pleased to see the completion of the work which he began. I considered all options, including a total ban on lead in gasoline, but because of the potential economic effects of such a drastic measure I am ready to announce today the decision to reduce lead in gasoline to .29 grams per litre by 1987. Lead emissions from automobiles will be reduced by over 60 per cent.


Mr. Crosbie:: Get the lead out, Charlie.


Mr. Nielsen:: Tell us the name of the author.


Mr. Caccia:: 1 know Hon. Members are very interested in this issue and that they would also like to know that I will announce the creation of an advisory committee to look into the over-all question of lead in gasoline.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Halliday:: 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister.


Madam Speaker:: 
COMBINES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It refers to the uranium inquiry which, when it was ordered six years ago, was said by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be necessary and in the public interest to clear the air. Would the Prime Minister indicate what he plans to do to clear the air with respect to this matter, bearing in mind the resultant report emanating from the Combines Investigation Branch? The Bertrand Report was never made public, and there are no prosecutions going on before any court in the land. How does the Prime Minister plan to clear the air with respect to this important matter, bearing in mind that his office is implicated, as are certain of his Cabinet colleagues?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the premises of the question are false. My office is implicated in no way in this matter. The decisions which were announced were taken by independent commissions and by the Department of Justice.


REQUEST THAT BERTRAND REPORT BE TABLED AND REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who, on July 8, 1981, justifying the reference of the Minister of Justice to the courts, stated that "people in Canada used the combine to create a combine and fix prices in Canada," was the allegation made by Mr. Bertrand. When the Prime Minister made that statement, had he had time to read the Bertrand Report? Second, now that there is no court action proceeding, will he agree to table the Report and have it referred to the appropriate committee of this House so that there can be some proper disclosure and investigation of this combine?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my understanding of the subject is that, if there is no further prosecution, it is essentially as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which said that these people are immune to prosecution. As to the Bertrand Report, that was dealt with ad nauseam in this House and answers were given to questions to the Hon. Member three or four years ago. I have nothing to add to that. Perhaps the Hon. Member will want to refresh his memory and read the answers we gave then.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue,
Oral Questions
who should be able to answer this question if he is on top of what is happening in his Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Minister's colleagues will stop shouting, he will be able to hear. Have any grievances been filed by his departmental employees as a result of protesting an obligation on their part to meet quotas? If so, how many, and in which municipalities?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any official grievances having been filed by departmental officials at any level whatsoever. 1 will seek information and gladly report to the Hon. Member and the House.


DEPARTMENT'S AUDITING PRACTICES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Does the Minister deny the statement by Mr. Bob Wallace, the executive secretary of the tax component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, that there have been countless grievances over the years and, second, that a system of national quotas is in place and auditors are audited on the amount of money they bring in and can be demoted, released, or have pay increases withheld if they do not meet those targets? If what Mr. Wallace says is correct, will the Minister tell the House whether this behaviour by his department results in unfair tax assessments and shabby treatment of the taxpayers of Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity to explain to the House the standards governing the policy of the Department of National Revenue on assessments and notices of assessment. With respect to assessments, the first standard is the use of auditing practices endorsed in professional circles and, the second, the high professional quality of those assessments, which ensures that the amount of the assessment represents the taxpayer's fair share, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act. As a matter of policy, we do not pressure the auditor to the extent that he would feel compelled to disregard the professional quality of his work and thus do taxpayers a disservice.

December 21, 1983
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the DND flights that are scheduled to fly MPs home tomorrow for their Christmas break. I understand that some seats are still available and that more will likely open up. For example, last year some 44 MPs booked and did not show for their flights.
Some pages have to pay upwards of $800 to travel home for Christmas. In light of the pages being an important part of this House, and the fact that many are severely restricted financially, will the Minister make the special Christmas DND flights available to the pages depending on availability of seats, and also join with me in asking Members of Parliament who are double-booked to cancel their DND bookings and take their confirmed commercial flights?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right in identifying the fact that last year we had an abandonment of reservations by a number of Members of Parliament as a result of double booking. I hope that Members of Parliament have heard the representations of the hon. gentleman and, if they have made bookings on the DND flights, that they will present themselves, and if they have double bookings, that they will advise us so that we can erase their names from the list. I will be pleased to review any requests that are made in order to occupy all of the seats on the DND flights in the event that Members of Parliament are not utilizing them, because the aircraft will be leaving in accordance with the schedule that has been identified with the individual Whips.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. The Speech from the Throne on December 7, 1983, promised the first Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Will affirmative action measures for visible minorities be in this new Act? In the interim, what representation is the Minister actively making to the President of the Treasury Board to have the addition of visible minorities made to the June 27, 1983, mandatory Affirmative Action Program in the Public Service, and when can we expect this type of addition?


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, the question should have been directed to the President of the Treasury Board whose announcement last July and August was to include the visible minorities in the affirmative action guidelines with respect to the Public Service. The Public Service Commission is now working on
this. We are monitoring the situation. They have promised to report back with a full report within a year of the announcement made by the President of the Treasury Board.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, for over two weeks we have had a wave of contradictions and inconsistencies from the Minister of National Revenue. There is now clear and overwhelming evidence that he is running the Department of National Revenue like a third-rate collection agency.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is also growing evidence that the reason for it is to try to look after the Government's overwhelming deficit position. Therefore, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister take immediate steps to ensure that the campaign of harassment that has been going on in this country against small businessmen, the aged, farmers, and fishermen, by some officials of the Department of National Revenue, will come to an immediate halt? Can he assure the people of Canada that this type of conduct will cease immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the questions asked by the Hon. Member's Party, and the answers given by the Minister. I can see no evidence of harassment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I stand corrected. 1 do see evidence of harassment by the Opposition of a very honourable Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I also see evidence of the Tory Party which, as usual, is standing up for those who have, in order to protect them from paying taxes which are paid by those who have not.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONDUCT INVESTIGATION OF DEPARTMENT'S PRACTICES
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, there is the pot calling the kettle black! 1 never called the Minister dishonourable. I just said that he was profoundly incompetent. That's all.
I am sure the Prime Minister will know that an effective and proper conduct of the affairs of the Department of National Revenue is based on two-way trust. That is indispensable so that the taxpayers of this country have the notion that they are being treated fairly and courteously at all times. Will the Prime Minister give us the assurance that he will take time to
December 21, 1983

investigate a genuine and growing concern that there is an organized campaign of harassment based on an iniquitous quota system? Will he ensure that this will stop and that the taxpayers are at all times treated fairly and courteously by public servants who are being paid with taxpayers' dollars?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is repeating the innuendoes and accusations. If anyone has listened attentively to the Minister, he will realize that this Minister is indeed attempting to be fair. It is those taxpayers who are paying taxes and who are not in a position to evade taxes because the taxes are deducted at the source, and those taxpayers who are paid on a voluntary system, who are not deducted at the source, who are conducting themselves, I suppose, in overwhelming majorities, in an honourable way; but there are tax evasions, and there are obligations upon the Minister to make sure that everyone who is a taxpayer bears his share of the taxes that are imposed upon all taxpayers in Canada.
[DOT] <1450)
I have discussed this matter with the Minister. I discussed it when he was appointed Minister, and I know it is his inclination, when in doubt, to be on the side of the taxpayer, the side of the citizen-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fraser:: Did he discuss it with Simmons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about incompetence. I do not understand how he can make such wild and exaggerated speeches about the Government not being a reputable trustee of the taxpayers of Canada's money and, at the same time, make this kind of unfounded accusation against a Minister who is doing his duty.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I say there is an organized and systematic campaign of harassment going on against the small taxpayers of this country. That is what I am saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: Prove it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and that it is directed against small businessmen, farmers, fishermen, artists, and the aged. That is what is going on.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are a lawyer; prove it.


TREATMENT OF TAXPAYERS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has in the past, and with good reason, referred to the Charter of Rights. Would he think it appropriate that a modest indication of the rights of taxpayers be included-
Oral Questions


Miss Begin:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Health thinks it funny.


Monique Bégin: Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: She thinks most things are funny. Would the Prime Minister, given the existence-


Mr. Whelan:: It is ridiculous.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -of what is clearly an organized campaign of harassment-and I do not blame the Prime Minister; I recognize the fault is with his Minister-would the Prime Minister give instructions, (a) to make sure and satisfy himself, that the campaign is at an end and, (b) that all officers convey in writing and otherwise, his and the Government's view of the manner in which taxpayers must be treated by officers of the Government of Canada, namely, with courtesy, with thoughtfulness, and with concern?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is using the words that the Minister used himself when he said that he is ensuring that the taxpayers are treated with concern.


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let us examine what the Leader of the Opposition means when he talks about a campaign of harassment. Is he saying that in some way it is improper to get taxpayers to pay the taxes they owe?


An Hon. Member:: They are harassing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Can he give any case where-


Mr. Epp:: Yes.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes.


Chris Speyer: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


An Hon. Member:: Stick around after Question Period.


Mr. Malone:: If you want to hear it, ask your own back-benchers.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Can he give any case-


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for St. Catharines just did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House. If they want to discuss this matter seriously, they should at least hear me out in my answer before shouting as they do.
Can they give any case where a taxpayer of Canada has been forced to pay taxes that he did not owe under the law?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Yes.

December 21, 1983
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Mayer:: All kinds of them.


An Hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will Hon. Members please listen to the answer? They then may intervene.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just do not accept these shouted yesses in answer to my preface.


John Allen Fraser: What do you know about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Anybody who knows just the beginning, not of the law but of a sense of justice, would know that the Government of Canada is not keeping money that does not belong to it.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If a taxpayer has been wrongly assessed, Madam Speaker, there are all levels of review. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a lawyer, and he knows that.


John Allen Fraser: It costs money.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Taxpayers are not harassed because they are asked, in the best conscience of the Minister's employees, to pay what they owe under the law; that is not harassment, that is doing their duty. I repeat, if there is a doubt, if there is any over-zealous employee, the Minister would be happy to hear of the case and to set it right.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is talking of harassment because the National Revenue officers are doing their duty, which is to collect revenue for the nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: That is what George III thought.


An Hon. Member:: Are you ever out of touch.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and it concerns the problem of sexual harassment in the Department of National Defence, and especially a case of a finding of sexual harassment by a review tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The finding included negligence on the part of the Department for failure to investigate properly and thoroughly, and failure to protect against intimidation of witnesses.
Would the Minister explain, if he can, the Department's refusal to act promptly in response to the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and justify, if he
can, the inconsistency between his Department's behaviour on sexual harassment and the supposed guidelines on personal harassment for the entire Government, put out by Treasury Board?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, 1 have heard the hon. lady's question. Of course she did not identify any specific case. 1 am not familiar with any of the allegations she has made. If there have been some matters dealing with sexual harassment, they have been dealt with in the normal course. If they are subject to appeal, I cannot make any comment relating to them. If the hon. lady would provide me with some information relating to specific instances, 1 would be pleased to look into them and report back to her.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Given that it has been reported that the Crown has determined not to proceed with prosecutions against those involved in the uranium cartel, primarily because of the decision that the Crown agency involved was beyond the scope of prosecution and therefore it would be unfair to proceed against the others, is it the intention of the Minister to correct the law in order to ensure that Crown corporations, acting in similar circumstances, are not allowed to circumvent the law? Also, will the Government take steps to assure that no such occurrences will ever be allowed again in Canada where one group of individuals breaking the law are allowed to go free simply because of a Crown corporation being deemed to be beyond the law?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I think that question ought to be directed to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe I understood her to announce last week that the legislation was being changed to effect the result that the Hon. Member wishes.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that Canadian apple growers have been given $26.5 million to compensate them for frozen apple trees, can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether the amount of assistance given to apple growers, which is a substitute for lost assets, will be considered as a non taxable payment, or whether he has taken the necessary steps so that apple growers will not
December 21, 1983

be taxed on that amount since it will be used to replace dead trees?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, because it is to replace dead trees it is not taxable.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, December 20, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Madam Speaker:: 1 should like to let the House know that Mr. Arch MacKenzie, who has been a table officer for the last three years, will retire on December 30.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: He joined the House of Commons in September of 1969 after 30 years of distinguished military service, during the course of which he received the Canadian Forces Decoration. In the House he has been Clerk of Committees, Deputy Principal Clerk of Committees and Principal Clerk of Committees. I know the House will want to join me in wishing him well in his retirement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: This being the last day's sitting before the holiday,-

I want to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy holiday with your families.
May God bless you!

We all think of our families because we miss them so much in the course of the year. 1 hope that the time spent with your families and friends will be a very happy time.
I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year, when all your politicians' wishes will be fulfilled.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: I want everyone back. 1 also want to invite you, as is usual at the adjournment of this sitting, whatever hour it is, to join me in Room 16 for the usual Christmas cheer. I know that you would want me to extend the good wishes of the season to the Clerk, the Table officers, the pages, the security staff, the reporters and everyone who serves the House so well. God bless you all. Dieu vous benisse.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, under the new Standing Orders of the House, we shall be coming back after the Christmas holidays on January 16, and as far as the business of the House is concerned, I wish to inform Hon. Members that the Government intends to proceed on Monday, January 16, with the second reading stage of Bill C-3 which concerns health insurance. Tuesday, January 17, we will move the necessary motions to approve the notices of ways and means now appearing on the Order Paper, and following adoption of the motions for approval of the notices of ways and means, we will resume debate on second reading of the Bill on health insurance. Wednesday, January 18, will be an Opposition day, the first Opposition day for the supply period ending March 26 of next year. January 19 will be the fourth designated day for debate on the Throne Speech, the debate to be followed at the end of the day by a vote that will be called at 5.45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, all of this is of course subject to change, as usual, but for the time being that will be the order of business, and I wanted to inform Hon. Members accordingly, with the usual courtesy we extend at this time of the year.


Erik Nielsen: 1 thank the Government House Leader for informing us of the Business of the House when we return on January 16. I would like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Sir, to associate this Party totally with the remarks of Madam Speaker with respect to the service of Mr. MacKenzie. She left a little too early to hear me personally say that I am sure all of us want to see her back in the very best of health in 1984, and in her usual good spirits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: 1 have a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to speak to. However, perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain might have something to say with respect to House business before 1 proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on House business?


Ian Deans: No.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen POINT OF ORDER

December 21, 1983


MR. NIELSEN-DEFEAT IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OF CLAUSE OF BILL C-2
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my point of order flows from yesterday's events in the House. There is little need to review the sequence of events which took place yesterday, either prior to the defeat of the Government in Committee of the Whole or after that time. What is clear is that the Committee of the Whole defeated the Government on a tax measure, one flowing directly from the November, 1981 Budget, and that the House of Commons concurred in that decision.
There is a practice and tradition stretching back to the origins of British parliamentary government whereby governments which are defeated on money Bills must seek a new mandate to govern. This Government has spurned that tradition. It has argued that there is no need for the Government to seek the confidence of the Canadian people. The Government has also argued that there is no requirement for a government to seek the confidence of the House after being defeated on a taxation issue. That, Sir, was not the position taken by the Right Hon. Lester Pearson when his Government was defeated on a taxation Bill in 1968.
Prime Minister Pearson understood that for democratic freedoms to be protected and for the rule of parliamentary law and tradition to be upheld, it was necessary to put a motion of confidence to the House. This Government does not agree with that. The Government has questioned the existence of the tradition that governments which have been defeated on money Bills have lost the confidence of the House. However, John Stewart, an ex-Liberal Member of Parliament, who served in the capacity-


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am happy to see Government Members applauding. That Member served in the capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the then President of the Privy Council. He was vice-chairman of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures, whose recommendations formed the basis of the 1968 rule changes. He suffered no such illusion. At page 130 of his book, The Canadian House of Commons, 1977, he said, and I quote:
But money business was different: that business put the kings' demands before reluctant members. Understandably, they wished to discuss those demands freely and fully before any decision whatsoever was taken in the House. But since then the constitution has changed. The House no longer needs to haggle with the Crown over money: if the advisers of the Crown do not have the confidence of the House, they must go.
On December 13, 1979, the Right Hon. Member from Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) had no doubts that defeat on a budgetary matter, a money matter, was an issue of confidence. It is only this Government, Sir, which fails to recognize its responsibility to Parliament and to the Canadian people to maintain and honour the practices, traditions and rules of Parliament.
There are those who would argue, Mr. Speaker, that it is up to the Government to determine what is or is not a matter of confidence. The actions of this Government speak louder than words in that regard. Clause 6 of Bill C-2 contained measures stemming from the November, 1981 Budget and votes on budgetary matters are always matters of confidence. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Government has attached such importance to this Bill, that it has delayed the consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, has not proceeded with the Canada Health Act, or any other of the priorities which it set forth in the Speech from the Throne, for that matter. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, votes on the Address and Reply are confidence matters.
It is saddening to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we are but the minority in this House and that Members opposite, with the assistance of their helpmates in the New Democratic Party, can deflect any attempt on our part to ensure that the Government is held to account for its actions in the House. This Liberal Government and its western wing in the NDP-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -refuse to permit Parliament to exercise its authority to require the Ministries to administer the Government of Canada in the best interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and with a recognition of the proper and legitimate practices of government as based upon Canadian practice, Canadian tradition and Canadian law.
Because Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is in the minority in this House, both in numbers and in respect for the practices of this House, certainly as the two bedmates show, we have only two options available to us in the aftermath of yesterday's events. The first is that we can follow a procedural course that would paralyse the Government and bring about its resignation and the calling of a general election in accordance with parliamentary practice and tradition. The second option is that we could allow the business of the House to proceed while renewing our commitment to scrutinize every action of the Government and hold it accountable for its decision and its failure to govern in a responsible manner.
The best interests of this nation, Mr. Speaker, would be served if the Government were to face the electorate. However, because Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is in the minority in the House, the process of causing the Government to call an election would be a long, drawn-out procedure which would consume the time of the House and prevent the House from dealing with the very urgent problems which face this nation today. The rule of law would be served but the people of Canada would continue to face unemployment and economic and social uncertainly until the election was held. If Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has any say in the matter, the rule of law will be defended by this House, but never at the expense of the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 21, 1983


Erik Nielsen: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I personally and on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in this House commit the Opposition to the second course of action that I have described. We will, Sir, permit the business of the House to proceed, but we commit ourselves to holding the Government responsible for its actions. When the Government gets sloppy, as it did yesterday, when it ceases to care about the nation's democratic institutions, as it did yesterday, buy not sending its members in to participate in consideration of Bill C-2 in Committee of the Whole, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will hold the Government to account.
We do not agree with the Liberals' attitude, supported by the NDP, that the Liberals have a divine right to govern. Nor will the people of Canada accept that attitude any longer, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Leader of the Opposition has told the Government that the Opposition will give its wholehearted support to any policy or legislation that will put Canadians back to work and serve the best interests of Canadians. The Government has not brought such legislation forward. Although we are of the view that this Government has lost its legitimacy, we are prepared to carry on speaking in this Parliament of the need for solutions to Canadians' economic and social problems. Sir, they should take heed of the lesson they learned yesterday and conduct themselves accordingly in the best interests of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened and the matter is hardly a point of order. However, in the interests of the House the Chair will hear one spokesman from each of the Parties.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, what a pathetic face-saving effort.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will want to deal very seriously with the matter even though it originated with a sad, childish joke from the Tory Party in the House. 1 want to deal seriously with the matter on the substance and not on the process, and refer you to precedents to show you how serious this Government is at any time in the House, despite the childish attitude of the Opposition, especially the Official Opposition.
In 1968, Mr. Speaker, and this precedent was referred to yesterday, a motion for third reading of a Bill amending the Income Tax Act was defeated. The Speaker was in the chair and the vote was recorded in Votes and Proceedings. That means Journals, the only official record of proceedings. The entire Bill was defeated. The Bill represented the major segment of the Government's fiscal policy. The impact of this defeat was sufficient to induce the Government to put down a motion clarifying its position by declaring the question not to have been one of confidence. The motion was carried and the Government survived.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
On only four occasions have Canadian Governments considered defeats to be of a confidence nature. In 1926 and 1963 governments dissolved Parliament after losing votes relating to the business of Supply, and in 1974 and 1979 governments dissolved Parliament after losing votes in the budget debate. No government has ever resigned or dissolved Parliament as a result of a vote in any committee, including Committee of the Whole. In 1979 the Clark Government lost the entire Estimates of the Department of Supply and Services in the Standing Committee and did not consider this a problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: In 1967 the Pearson Government was defeated in Committee of the Whole on a resolution to raise postal rates. There was no demand for resignation or dissolution and the House immediately turned to other Government Orders. In 1973 a motion to concur in a Supplementary Estimate was defeated with the Speaker in the chair and the vote recorded in Journals. Not only was there no cry for resignation, but the House in the same sitting proceeded to vote Supply and pass two Appropriation Acts.
There are numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, when governments as far back as Sir John A. Macdonald in the 1860s have been defeated, both in committee and with the Speaker in the chair, without considering the matter to be confidence. Sir John A. Macdonald was defeated 11 times between 1867 and 1872 in and out of committee, including defeat on a Tariff Bill. This is all listed with great detail in the very distinguished Eugene Forsey's book, which is well known, and for their knowledge I refer my colleagues to this extraordinary piece of work. There was no question of resignation or dissolution at that time either.
In Britain, Mr. Speaker, even majority governments frequently lose votes without a trace of concern about confidence. In the British House in recent years there have been dozens of defeats on all sorts of things. I would like to refer my colleagues to Professor Philip Norton's list of a string of them in The Parliamentarian, Volume LIX, page 232. The procedural authorities are silent on the question simply because it is a constitutional and not a procedural question. I think the ruling made yesterday on this point was very clear.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, one minor clause of a relieving nature in a 125-clause Bill is not a major, substantive issue. In addition, the House continued to work, passing, on a recorded division, a major motion concurring in the over-all fiscal thrust of the Government. While the Conservatives may argue that the vote confirmed the defeat of a clause in Committee of the Whole, their negative votes indicate that they did not believe that at the time.
What happened last evening, Mr. Speaker, was that a committee reported the Bill with amendments, including a deleted clause. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), seconded by myself, proposed a motion that the Bill as reported be concurred in. That Bill embodied the major fiscal thrust of the Government in the broadest sense of the word. While Votes and Proceedings, the only official record of proceedings,

December 21, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
does not record the division on a minor clause, it does record that the Government motion to concur in the over-all policy was carried by a majority of more than 30. In short, not only was the vote in Committee on a minor relieving clause not a question of confidence, but the subsequent vote with the Speaker in the Chair, a vote on the global policy, was in fact an affirmation that the Government had never lost the confidence of the House.
May I refer you also, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. It states very clearly at citation 117(6) and 240:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
This same citation appears word for word in Bourinot's Fourth Edition at page 180 referring to rulings in the House of Commons in 1903 and in 1868 and in the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada in 1864.
[ Translation]
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised to see that the Progressive Conservative Party has chosen to sound the retreat today after stirring up a storm in a teacup yesterday. For the purpose of this point of order, suffice to say that the contents of Clause 6 which they voted down yesterday in Committee of the Whole was intended to bring tax relief to those Canadians who need it most. As a result of their action yesterday, Canadian life insurance policyholders have been denied the right to include the interest on their life insurance policies in their annual income, instead of in their income over a three-year period, thus depriving them of the right to include each year the interest on life policies in their $1,000 annual deduction for income from other sources.
As it happens, taxpayers who are unable to claim the full $1,000 deduction are not the best paid or the richest Canadians. They are low wage earners, ordinary people, middle income people who would have liked to benefit from that exemption and deduct from their taxable income the interest on their insurance policy. They are now allowed to do so only every three years, so they will not be able to take full advantage of this tax exemption because yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Progressive Conservative Party behaved like a bunch of kids.
The point is that Clause 6 which they voted down yesterday in Committee of the whole had nothing at all to do with a question of confidence-claiming the contrary would be sheer nonsense-and it was not even an added burden on taxpayers. It was intended to lighten the tax load of ordinary Canadians. The Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party went along with the Member for Yukon and his little game, instead of supporting the Right Hon. Prime Minister in his world peace endeavour whose basic aim is to protect the entire human race against a nuclear disaster. Instead of lending a hand to the Government in the fight against inflation-we learned yesterday that the current 4.2 per cent rate of inflation is the lowest
in twelve years-instead of cooperating with the Government in an effort to improve economic and social conditions and promote peace throughout the world, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party thought it better to hide 40 or 50 of his Members behind the curtains, play hide-and-seek like school kids, and deprive low wage earners of a tax relief measure which the Government was prepared to give them. That is shameful and unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: They are laughing when they ought to be ashamed of themsefves.


Yvon Pinard: Around 2.15 p.m. yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we saw-


Erik Nielsen: Question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rises on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that you were rising to stop me from continuing with the point of order I raised after I had spoken for 10 minutes. I am looking at the clock. It has been 10 minutes. Either 1 am going to be allowed to finish my point of order or a similar limit must be placed on others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the Chair does not recall interrupting the Hon. Member for Yukon, nor did the Chair intend to. The Chair is having some difficulty at this stage. The Chair wishes to accommodate Hon. Members, but bear in mind it is difficult to relate much to a point of order. The Hon. President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I was about to conclude. [Translation]
To conclude, I simply want to say that this is an impression that I had yesterday as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian, when observing-


Mr.   La Salle@: As a Liberal!


Yvon Pinard: -and, yes, as a Liberal. 1 am proud to be one, Mr. Speaker, because it is to the Liberal Party that we owe the net of social legislation we now have in Canada and it is the party of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) which is trying to tear apart this social net under the pretense of pretexting the deficit and all sorts of unsound economic theories.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member interrupted me. I wanted to reply to him. I shall conclude by describing how we all felt yesterday as Canadians when we witnessed the shameful spectacle given by the Leader of the Opposition. At 2.15 p.m. yesterday, on his orders, all the Members of his party walked out of the House. He created a vacuum behind him. Unfortunately, we could have been in Schefferville, Mr. Speaker. Wherever the Leader of the Opposition goes, he leaves a vacuum behind him. He will have to pay the price for this later
December 21, 1983

on. There will be a vacuum in Canada because, while the government tries to improve the economic and social conditions in the country, while the government tries to promote peace throughout the world, the Leader of the Opposition plays hide-and-seek with the Members of his party and creates a vacuum in the House as he has done in Quebec, and I conclude by saying that this whole trick yesterday was a sinister joke which will only result in reducing the confidence of the people in this institution.
1 regret this situation and I want to ensure the Canadian people that, for our part, we shall continue to introduce serious pieces of legislation in the House, and I announced earlier the legislative program we shall deal with upon our return from the Christmas adjournment. We shall continue to introduce responsible measures and we hope that the Leader of the Opposition will finally be able to deal with substantial matters and make proposals instead of arguing about procedural and technical points, of demanding an election while never voicing his opinion or suggesting alternative policies to those proposed by the government. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the choice is clear. The people will have to choose between superficiality and vacuousness vacuum and a fully responsible government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ English ]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair at this point would like to recognize the spokesman of the third Party, recognizing that the Hon. Member for Yukon is also rising. Would he defer at this point to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain? If the Hon. Member for Yukon wishes to be recognized at that point the Chair would rise and recognize him, and hope that it will be possible to terminate this round.


Erik Nielsen: I am rising on a question of privilege. I rise to ask a simple question. There can be no doubt whatsoever, and you know it Sir, that you were about to rise to stop me in midstride on my point of order. Is there one rule for the Liberals and another one for this side, I ask the Chair?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not rise. Whatever gestures might have passed, the Chair had no intention of interrupting the Hon. Member for Yukon. The Chair intended to hear him through before passing judgment. At this point the Chair would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, before addressing the point of order, I want to congratulate the Table Officer, Mr. MacKenzie, on his retirement and to offer him a happy retirement on behalf of my caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order, I want to say that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) certainly does make it difficult to support him.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Mr. Shields:: Question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are matters of privilege the Chair would like to recognize other Hon. Members after the House Leader of the third Party in the House has had an opportunity to make some remarks.


Jack Wendele Shields: I seek your direction on the point of privilege that stems from the committee-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would ask the Hon. Member to defer, out of courtesy, to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the group he represents in the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief. As 1 said, the Hon. Member for Yukon in developing his argument makes it awfully difficult to support him.
You will remember that yesterday during the course of the debate that centered around the question of whether or not the vote had been conducted properly 1 made the point that the vote having been taken, regardless of whether it was the opinion of certain people in the House that an irregularity had occurred, it would have been impossible at that point in time to have been sufficiently specific in order to have allowed the Chair to make any kind of a ruling that would have overturned the vote. We in this Party supported the view that the vote was taken properly, and that the vote taken yesterday therefore had to stand.
1 concede that there was no doubt that there were Members on both sides of the House who entered the Chamber after the vote commenced, but 1 made the point and reiterate it that it was impossible for the Chairman of the committee at that point, or for any Member, to identify the individual Members who had violated the rule. Therefore, it was impossible for the Chair to do other than to accept that the vote that had been taken and properly recorded was in fact the vote of the day.
In conjunction with that, I want to raise the point that the problem rests with the application of the rule. I have noticed over the course of the last four years that the practice in the House of Commons has been that Members have in fact entered the Chamber when the House was in Committee of the Whole and have in fact voted after the vote had commenced. However, that is in direct violation of the rules of the House of Commons.
I want to suggest that in order that such an occasion as that never arises again, we understand what the rules of the House require. Let me refer to Citation 472(3) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which states:
As in the House during a recorded division, no Member may enter the Committee of the Whole while a division is in progress.
I would ask on behalf of my colleagues and for the sake of the sanity and orderly conduct of the House of Commons that in the future there be no such laxity permitted and that from the time the vote is called until the time the vote is recorded and announced, no Member be permitted to enter the Cham-

December 21, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
ber and no Member other than those who were there be permitted to vote.
If that had been followed, this procedural wrangle which developed yesterday would never have occurred and we would have proceeded with the business of the nation. Careful scrutiny could have been given to the various and many clauses that were outstanding in the Income Tax Bill, the scrutiny that was not afforded those clauses as a result of yesterday's confrontation. We would have served the public of Canada better in the process.
Dealing with the point raised by the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, I first want to make the point that 1 do not believe that he had a point of order today. In fact, I do not believe that even he believes that he had a point of order today. What he did today is what he is wont to do on so many occasions, to abuse the rules of the House to his own ends. He is forever rising on fallacious points of order, points of order that have absolutely no substance, and he takes the time of the House on regular occasions to make arguments that are completely false.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ian Deans: However, I agree with him on one matter. I believe that the people of Canada are of the opinion that the Government has long since served its usefulness.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Question of privilege.


Ian Deans: I think that the people of Canada believe that. Having said that-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) rises on what grounds?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. You were in the Chair. You heard the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Deans) allege that my House Leader makes false accusations in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a matter of privilege. The Chair is having a difficult enough time and has recognized one spokesman for each Party, hopefully impartially, and suggests that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain be permitted to complete his remarks.


Ian Deans: You can always tell when-


Henry Perrin Beatty: A point of order. Are you ruling that the remark that was made by the member for Hamilton Mountain was not unparliamentary? I believe that it was unparliamentary and the rules of the House require that they be withdrawn forthwith.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair heard a statement that arguments presented by a member were false. There is nothing unparliamentary about that. It is said almost every day in the
House. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a question of privilege.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, we have heard enough from sanctimonious Sam. I would like to proceed with my question of privilege.


Ian Deans: Wait a minute.


Jack Wendele Shields: It arises from the committee yesterday-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Athabasca, he may well have a point of privilege arising out of prior proceedings in the House and the Chair will recognize him in due course.
At this stage the Chair suggests that the courtesy of hearing out the House Leader of the third Party in the House should be extended by Hon. Members. The Hon. Member will be recognized on a question of privilege after the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has completed his remarks.


Jack Wendele Shields: I thought questions of privilege took precedence over a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the Hon. Member that if he is dealing with a matter of privilege arising out of proceedings in the House yesterday he must give notice to the Chair. I have not received notice from the Hon. Member in writing and that is the practice of the House.


Jack Wendele Shields: On a question of privilege. In the committee yesterday I gave notice to the Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole that I wanted to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Notice must be in writing to the Speaker arising out of proceedings in a prior proceeding of the House. This is abundantly clear. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say, as I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) that-


Jack Wendele Shields: A point of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca rises. The Chair has recognized him twice. He has referred to proceedings which took place in the House yesterday. I have called to his attention that a point of privilege arising out of yesterday's proceedings must be preceded by a notice in writing to the Speaker, which the Hon. Member has not given. Under the circumstances he cannot be recognized. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I regret that the Member for Athabasca feels compelled to interrupt. However, I am sure that if he has a question of privilege it will be heard. I assure him that I will not take long.
December 21, 1983

With respect to yesterday's proceedings, 1 want to say that I am amazed by the sudden transformation that has taken place between two o'clock yesterday and three o'clock today. At two o'clock yesterday, the Hon. Member for Yukon is recorded at page 354 of yesterday's Hansard as saying:
-since it is our view that, constitutionally, this Parliament has ceased to exist-
He goes on to explain why that is his view. Today he says that perhaps that is not really what happened, and maybe they can exercise their option to stick around and continue with the business of Parliament in the interest of the public. It almost makes one ill.
I want to suggest in closing that there was a crisis yesterday. The crisis was a parliamentary crisis and it was brought about because we in the House of Commons have not required that the rules be followed precisely. We must begin to do that. We are going to have to make sure that when we have a 15 minute bell it is a 15 minute bell; that when a Member is recognized on a point of order, it is in fact a point of order; that when Members rise on a question of privilege they state the privilege clearly which they feel has been offended; that when there are votes to be taken in Committee of the Whole, that the procedure set down in the Rules of Parliament be followed precisely, in order that occasions such as the occasion which occurred yesterday never can occur again. This sort of occurrence betrays in many ways the confidence of the public in the parliamentary system. It goes to the very root of the parliamentary system and the very fact that the people of Canada are dissatisfied with the way Parliament works. There is no wonder they do not understand it. The Members themselves do not understand it. It is time that Members of Parliament at least made the effort to understand the rules within which they operate.
I say to the Hon. Member for the Yukon that if he had had a point that would have resulted in an election being called, he would have had our support. But he had no point. He continues to operate in a dictatorial, destructive manner, ignoring other people's rights in the House of Commons, subverting everyone else's opinion to his own. I suggest the time has come to apply the Rules of Parliament to the Hon. Member for the Yukon in the same way they are applied to others.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: That is a challenge to the Chair. Are you going to answer the challenge?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hoped to recognize one spokesman from each party. Obviously, whatever this is, it is not a debate. There is no motion before the House. It is not a point of order. It is a series of interventions which could go on for a very long period. The Chair appeals to Hon. Members at this point to exercise restraint and to recognize that feelings are a little high. But in the interests of Parliament and perhaps even the Christmas season, there might be just a little better humour, if that is possible.
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
The Hon. Member for Athabasca is rising. I have cited the Rules and Practices to him. If he is rising on a question of privilege, I would ask him not to again raise the same matter.


Jack Wendele Shields: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca on a point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I refer you to yesterday's Hansard at page 377. I rose and said:
Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of privilege. I am supposed to rise at the earliest possible moment. For fear that we will leave this question, I want to point out that I have a point of privilege to make as a result of the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. I have asked for the "blues" but I have not received them as yet. It is clear in my mind, upon listening to it in French, that the President of the Privy Council called into question the integrity particularly of those Members who voted in committee today. I want to reserve my right to raise that matter when 1 have the "blues" in my possession.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call the attention of the Hon. Member to Standing Order 20(1) (2), particularly Subsection 2 which reads as follows:
(2) Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 47, any Member proposing to raise a question of privilege, other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting, shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
The Hon. Member has not complied with Standing Order
20(2).


PRIVILEGE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege about which I gave Madam Speaker's office notice earlier today and yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker's office has received notice of a question of privilege. The Hon. Member is quite right.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to certain acts of omission on the part of officials of the Department of Revenue which have led the Minister to misinform the House and place misleading statements in the record of the House.
A previous occupant of the Chair has found that an instance in which a Minister's departmental official misinformed him and subsequently led him to misinform the House constituted a prima facie question of privilege. This ruling may be found at pages 964 to 967 of Hansard for November 9, 1978. In that instance, the Speaker noted that it would be appropriate for the House to consider, in his words, that "reaching around the Minister and examining directly the conduct of an official." That extract can be found in Hansard for November 9, 1978


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 
QUOTA SYSTEM INQUIRY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 
Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, after the Hon. Member asked his question in the House a few days ago,
I was informed that some specific amount had been set in the district office referred to by the Hon. Member, and I was also told that as soon as senior officials here in Ottawa-and that was before the Hon. Member had asked his question-were informed of the situation, they told the officials in charge of the district office that this was a practice that could not be tolerated, and they ordered that the guidelines be withdrawn.
The record of the debates of this House speaks for itself. On November 29 of this year the Minister stood in the House and said that no quota system was in use in his department. On Monday, December 19, 1983, the Minister stood in his place and said that it had come to his attention that the Kitchener office of Revenue Canada had adopted a quota system and that upon learning of the policy the Minister had ordered that it be brought to an end. Today, we have further evidence of the existence of a quota system, when only on Monday the Minister said that no quotas were in effect in other offices of Revenue Canada in other regions of the country.
Members of this House are obliged to accept the Minister on his word. Members of the House can have no doubt that he was not aware of the existence of the quota system in effect in
Kitchener when he made his November 29, 1983 statement and that he was not aware of the quotas that were brought to light in today's Question Period when he made his statement on Monday.
Section 4(1) of the Department of National Revenue Act outlines that:
The duties, powers and functions of the Minister extend and apply to the subjects and services enumerated in the schedule, over which the Minister has the control, regulation, management and supervision, subject always to the provisions of the Acts relating to the said subjects and matters connected therewith.
The Schedule to the Act includes Section 4 which stipulates that internal taxes, unless otherwise provided, including income taxes are included in the Minister's duties, powers and functions, therefore any act on the part of his departmental officials with respect to the operation of the Department which was withheld from the Minister and which caused the Minister to mislead the House constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House.
There may, of course, be some related question as to the operation of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and the obligation of the Minister both to keep himself informed of the operations of his department and to take responsibility for the abuse of authority committed by officers of his department. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to elaborate on that point in a couple of minutes.
At the present time the House must recognize the difficulties faced by a Minister if his departmental officials do not believe it is necessary to consult with the Minister before instituting policies, or to inform him of ongoing policies within the Department. This is an unfortunate and unacceptable turn of events, but it is also one the Government must take steps to correct.
The House of Commons must decide what action should be taken when an act of omission on the part of a Minister's officials leads him to mislead the House. The telling argument, the one which was used by Mr. Speaker Jerome to determine that the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Durham, as it was then known, now the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumber-land (Mr. Lawrence), had a prima facie case of privilege, were the following words found at page 136 of the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Unlike the 1978 case raised by the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland, the House has no evidence that the departmental officials deliberately falsified documents and thereby caused the Minister to mislead the House. However, an act of omission can have just as grievous consequences for the privileges of the House as does a deliberate act of contempt. Indeed, the failure of departmental officials to report the implementation of quotas or any other major administra-
December 21, 1983

41 1
tive policy is a contempt of Parliament, because it undermines and obstructs the Minister in the execution of his duties as outlined by an Act of this Parliament. Under Section 2(2) of the Department of National Revenue Act, the Minister is described as having the "management and direction" of the Department.
As a point of interface between the House and the Department of National Revenue, the House requires that the Minister explain and take responsibility for the policies and actions of his Department. If officers in the Department of National Revenue do not inform the Minister of their actions, he must inevitably be led to misinform and mislead the House. As May points out, this is a clear contempt of the House.
The credulity of Members of the House is stretched if we are asked to believe that the subject matter of the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead on November 29 did not come to the attention of officers of the Department of National Revenue within a few days of the time the questions were asked in the House.
At page 141 of May's Nineteenth Edition the following words may be found:
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees or to subscribe the names of other persons or fictitious names to documents intended to be presented to either House or committees of either House, or to be privy to, or cognizant of, such forgery or fraud.
Surely as a result of the exchange which took place in the House between the Minister and Hon. Members on this side officials in the Department of National Revenue at some level must have become aware of the misrepresentation of the Department's policies committed in the House by the Minister. Indeed, the Minister said that he was informed by his officials of the quota system following those questions. Yet, it was not until Monday that the record was set straight. It would seem that someone or some agency within the Department was willing to allow the House to continue to be misled. Again, there would appear to have been a contempt of Parliament committed.
I would submit that certain officials of the Department of National Revenue have been guilty of causing the House to be misled. We have to accept the Minister's word that he did not deliberately mislead the House when he gave information which was later demonstrated to be untrue. Perhaps this was first an error of omission but later a direct act of contempt in allowing misleading information to remain before the House. There can be no other explanation for the fact that the Minister has put misleading and contradictory information before the House. Either knowledge had been withheld from the Minister thus leading him to mislead the House, or he deliberately misled the House.
The practice of the House is to accept Hon. Members on their word, and we do that. Therefore I can only conclude that the Minister was unaware of the actions of his Department instead of attempting to mislead us. Therefore I believe the
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
House has an obligation to investigate the matter and determine the extent of the contempt committed in this instance.
I want to return as well to the question of the Minister's behaviour. As I indicated earlier, we accept that when the Minister made his statement on November 29, in which he denied the existence of a quota system in Kitchener or in other district offices of his Department, he was telling the truth to the best of his ability. We accept that fully. We do not question his word on that. Yet, what he has told the House, as it appears on the record, is that subsequent to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Cambridge he learned from his officials that indeed the quota system alleged to be in place had in fact been in place and that subsequently officials in the Kitchener district office had been instructed to cancel it. However, an untrue statement in the Minister's name was left on the record when the true information was in the possession of officials of the Minister's Department and ultimately of the Minister himself.
When the Minister responded to questions in the House on Monday, he confessed that in fact the quota system which he previously denied existed and that he then knew about it. This clearly demonstrates that the Minister by that time had received information confirming that his statement on November 29 was false.
Also brought into question, in addition to the behaviour of officials within the Department of National Revenue, is the Minister's obligation to ensure that false statements put on the record of the House are not left to sit there. I refer again to the quotation which I earlier read from Beauchesne's which indicated that acts of omission are equally serious and can constitute contempts of the House. This was not a trivial matter.
It is often the case that Madam Speaker rules on points of orders or questions of privilege by saying that clearly a dispute as to facts has arisen during Question Period and that that does not constitute a question of privilege as such. In this case there is no dispute as to the facts. There is no dispute that the Minister on November 29, as recorded in Hansard, expressly denied the existence of a quota system in the Kitchener district office and in his Department as a whole. Further, there is no denial or disagreement on either side of the House as to the second fact, namely that subsequently the Minister learned, when his officials finally brought it to his attention, that the statement he gave was false. As a result of a question raised by the Hon. Member for Cambridge, the Minister subsequently had to concede in response that the answer he had given was wrong.
Where does this leave Members of the House in their attempt to discharge their responsibilities? This is not a frivolous matter. It was raised by my colleagues in the House of Commons because we believe that there has been a grievous assault upon the civil liberties of Canadians and that such practices within the Minister's Department seriously affect the rights of all taxpayers of Canada. This is the reason we have put it on high priority and have led it in Question Period for several days. Certainly Members on this side of the House

Privilege-Mr. Beatty
attach great seriousness to this matter. I fully accept that the Minister would as well attach great seriousness to any quota system being in place in his Department which could affect the justice with which Canadian taxpayers are treated. It is not a simple matter. It is not one which can be easily dismissed as being trivial or irrelevant.
In defence of the rights of the taxpayers of Canada, Members of Parliament have an obligation to hold the Government to account, to bring to the attention of the Government and to seek information from the Government about departmental actions which could affect those rights and to seek redress on behalf of our constituents. Indeed, that is what Hon. Members on this side were attempting to do and have attempted to do on subsequent occasions when we raised this question about the behaviour of officials of the Department of National Revenue.
If we are given false information, information which the Minister subsequently learns and concedes was false and that members of his Department clearly knew was false, then we are impeded in our ability to discharge our responsibilities as Members of Parliament. That is a clear breach of the privileges of Members of Parliament.
What is at issue here, in addition to the action and the behaviour of officials of the Department of National Revenue as to whether they kept their Minister informed, is the question of the Minister's own behaviour. One of the issues on which you, Mr. Speaker, will be asked to pass judgment is whether the Minister did not have the positive obligation to come back to the House immediately upon learning that the information he had given to the House was false to correct the record and let the truth be known.
It is apparent that there was no intention on the part of the Minister, and perhaps when he responds to this question of privilege the Minister will tell us on what date he actually became aware of the quota system in Kitchener. It is directly germane to the issue you have to consider, Mr. Speaker, namely, for how long did the Minister possess information which indicated that he misled the House of Commons? What efforts were made by the Minister? Did he attempt at the earliest possible opportunity to correct the record and ensure that misleading statements were removed from the record of Parliament and that the truth was known?
Members of the House and the public of Canada were put in the position that if it had not been for the alertness of the Hon. Member for Cambridge in coming up with documentary proof of the existence of the quota system in Kitchener which he had alleged, this House and the taxpayers of Canada would never have learned about the falseness of the Minister's statement, the fact that the Minister, albeit accidentally in ignorance, misled the House.
The Minister made no effort on his own to correct the record, set the House straight and to ensure that Members were in possession of the truth. The information was wrung out of him by my colleague for Cambridge in Question Period. Had that question not been asked and had my colleague not
been able to produce documentary evidence to prove that the Minister had misled the House, the House would never have known the truth. The Minister made no effort to discharge his responsibility to set the record straight.
Those are the two issues, the behaviour of officials of the Department of National Revenue in not informing their Minister as to matters under his jurisdiction, which left him in a position where he misled the House in the first place and, second, the responsibilities of a Minister of the Crown who has made a false statement on the record to correct it and to give Parliament the true facts. Those are the two issues upon which I am asking you to adjudicate today. If you find that I have, as I believe that I do, a prima facie question of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this matter sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report to this House.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the essence of the Hon. Member's argument that there was indeed a question of privilege revolves around the question raised by the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) who raised the issue with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) on November 19, I believe, asking the Minister whether there was a quota system, referring specifically to the Kitchener office. Subsequently a question was raised on Monday, December 19 by the Hon. Member for Cambridge asking the Minister about this issue. The Minister responded. On November 29 he indicated there was not a quota system. On December 19, he indicated:
Madam Speaker, after the Hon. Member asked his question in the House a few days ago-
That was on November 29.
-I was informed that some specific amount had been set in the district office-
In other words, a quota of some sort had been set in the district office referred to, the Kitchener office.
-and I was also told that as soon as senior officials here in Ottawa-and that was before the Hon. Member had asked his question-
That was on November 29. In October when the senior officials here in Ottawa found that a quota system of some sort had been imposed in the Kitchener office, and I continue the quote:
-and that was before the Hon. Member had asked his question were informed of the situation, they told the officials in charge of the district office that this was a practice that would not be tolerated and they ordered that the guidelines be withdrawn.
This indicates that an official or officials in the Kitchener office, prior to the time that the question was asked on November 29 by the Hon. Member for Cambridge, had put in place a local policy that did not have the approval of the regional or district offices. When the district office found out sometime in October that such a policy had been put in place by the local office, that policy was immediately quashed and the guidelines were removed. It was not, is not now, never has been, nor will it be in the future, according to the Minister, a policy of the Department of National Revenue to have quotas.
December 21, 1983

When the Hon. Member for Cambridge asked his question whether there were quotas, whether there was a policy of quotas in the Department of National Revenue, the Minister said, "No, there is not". That was at that time and is now a factual statement. The House must believe the Minister.
The Minister did not retract that statement when he made his statement on December 19, two days ago. Indeed, the Minister said: "I was informed of the practice that I have just indicated." That was in October. When he answered in November, this policy had already been quashed in the Kitchener office. It was not a national policy. Indeed, it was quashed at the insistence of the Ottawa officials when they found out that such a practice was taking place.
The Minister did not mislead the Hon. Member for Cambridge when he asked this question on November 29 because the practice had been quashed in October. The question was whether there is or was a quota system. No, there is not. The fact is there was not. There was not such a policy at the national level. It was not then being practised in Kitchener because as soon as the Ottawa office found out about it in October, the program was stopped on the spot.
On November 29 when the Minister said: "No, there was not", there was not. When the Minister responded in December, he elaborated upon his answer to the Hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that he was informed that there was some specific amount and subsequent to his November 29 statement his officials indicated what the facts were surrounding this situation.
Immediately on being asked the question, the Minister brought forth information that indeed such a practice had been put in place in a local office, that it was not National Revenue policy and as soon as Department of National Revenue officials found out about it it was stopped. As soon as the question was raised in the House and the Minister made his statement, which was factual, and his officials brought it to his attention, he brought it to the attention of the Hon. Member for Cambridge saying: that, yes, in one local office this had been put in place without authority, without authorization and as soon as it was found out, it was stopped, and it is not National Revenue policy.
The Minister did not mislead the House intentionally or unintentionally on November 29. The Minister did not mislead the House intentionally or unintentionally on December 19. The grounds that the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is using for a question of privilege is that the Minister unintentionally misinformed the House on November 29, and because he did not bring something to the attention of the House which the Hon. Member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe alleges was in his possession prior to December 19, that somehow this act of omission means that there is a question of privilege in the actions of the Minister of National Revenue.
First, the November 29 statements were not incorrect. He did not mislead the Hon. Member for Cambridge in any way based on the question asked and the answer given. As a result, there was no omission and there was no commission. On the
Petitions
basis of the factual evidence, the answers given by the Minister, the facts that surround the situation in the Kitchener office and the fact that it was not National Revenue policy- indeed that was the essence of the question of the Hon. Member for Cambridge, whether it was National Revenue policy to have a quota system-the Minister answered factually and answered honestly. He has not misled the House in any way, shape or form. As a result of that, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has no grounds whatsoever for a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point has been argued and the Chair would like to take it under advisement before making a decision on the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of Ways and Means Motion respecting the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties amending the Currency and Exchange Act, the Customs Tariff Act and the Export and Import Permits Act and repealing the Anti-dumping Act.
In accordance with Standing 64(2) I also ask that you designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration of this Ways and Means Motion.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents in Grey-Simcoe, people who are deeply concerned and distressed by the recent proposal for the name change of Toronto International Airport to the Pearson International Airport. The petition states that such proposal is a very unnecessary expenditure at this time of restraint and one which has not been given sufficient and appropriate notice for the people of Canada to respond and voice any opposition in a unified manner. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are extremely opposed to this proposal and would ask that it be withdrawn as it is unnecessary, very costly and very inappropriate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans).
414

December 21, 1983
Petitions


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I missed your call for the tabling of documents. If we could revert to the tabling of documents, I have documents to table.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed to revert to the tabling of documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) I wish to table copies in both official languages of correspondence to the Co-Chairmen of the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages concerning the Government's response to that Committee's fifth and sixth reports.


PETITIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 19,000 residents of Canada whose names have been gathered by the Canada Health Coalition to show that the citizens of Canada are opposed to extra billing, user fees and premiums as impeding access to medicare services and who call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to extra billing, user fees and premiums by means of the New Canada Health Act so as to firmly re-establish accessibility to insured health services along with the other principles of medicare.
I have the honour to present some 19,000 names. The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) will also present another and different 19,000 names to the same effect, which calls upon Parliament to bring into law recommendations, many of which the task force which he and I sat on together-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should present his own petition. The Hon. Member for Gloucester.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member, and I assure the House that I have checked them all and there are 19,000 different names on the petition, I should like at the request of the Canadian Health Coalition to submit these petitions of 19,000 Canadians which says that the undersigned are opposed to extra billing, user fees and premiums as impeding access to medicare services and therefore urge that these practices be abolished and hope that the new Canada
Health Act will firmly re-establish accessibility to insured health services along with the other principles of medicare.
I am happy that the parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Arrangements in a majority resolution supported what Members of this Party and Members of the NDP had proposed to Parliament and that today we see a new Canada Health Act before the House of Commons which is supported by all Parties of the House. I should like to table this petition.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Clearwater, British Columbia. They petition the Government of Canada to bring forward appropriate legislation that would prevent insurance policyholders from being defrauded. Many citizens in the Clearwater area have suffered greatly as the result of an insurance company going bankrupt. They urge the Government to examine ways and means that will adequately protect policyholders by requiring a reserve pool for all insurance companies.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Indian Act (loss of status).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, which I have presented in previous sessions of Parliament, would remove the most discriminatory clause from the Indian Act, that is the infamous Section 12(1 )(b). It was because of that section that Sandra Lovelace, as an Indian woman denied her rightful status, took her case to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and had her appeal upheld. Until the discriminatory sections of the present Indian Act are removed, Canada is in violation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which this country has ratified. Therefore, this Bill which I introduce today for first reading, would begin the long overdue process of removing a grave injustice to Indian women.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
December 21, 1983


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4 an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, to amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act.


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

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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Income Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Roy MacLaren: that Bill C-2, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I was saying just a moment ago that some of our colleagues have asked me and the others who will participate in this debate to be brief in our observations in this final consideration of the Bill. They have done so because they are eager, as I understand it, to catch airplanes to their homes for the Christmas holiday. I will certainly bear their needs very much in mind in my remarks and attempt to be brief about a Bill which, however, does attract considerable comment, largely because it is a vehicle for the Government's initiatives to promote investment and produce growth in our private sector as one of the answers to the problems of economic recovery, and particularly unemployment, which have faced Canada in recent times.
Bill C-2 arises out of the Budget of April, 1983 where the directions which are now expressed in this tax legislation were set forth. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of our rather bizarre proceedings yesterday we have a Bill before us which does not contain a clause which would have had the effect of providing some benefit to Canadians who were earning interest income on annuities or certain insurance policy income.


Mr. Blenkarn:: How would it benefit them?


Roy MacLaren: Clause 6, which is no longer in the Bill, deals with subsection 12.2(4) of the Income Tax Act. That subsection permits individuals to report accrued annuity and certain insurance policy income annually instead of every three years.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is still there.


Roy MacLaren: This a relieving rule to allow individuals to report smoother income and get better use of the $1,000 annual investment income exemption.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is still there. That is what Clause 4 says.


Roy MacLaren: Clause 6 makes three very technical, clarifying and relieving amendments to the subsection of the Income Tax Act which I have already noted. First, it simply clarifies that this annual election is not available to corporations. This is strictly technical-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is right. It imposes a higher tax.

December 21, 1983
Income Tax Act


Roy MacLaren: -as under the existing law corporations are required to be on an annual reporting basis. They do not have a three-year rule, just a one-year rule, so there is no substantive change there. Second, it contains a relieving rule to ensure that annual reporting is available with respect to annuities under which payments have commenced, not only for deferred annuities, as is the case under the existing law. Finally, the amendment would have provided for a different mechanism to elect to treat certain annuities as prescribed annuities not subject to either annual or triennial accrual relieving.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Official Opposition would have set its face against such a clause in the Bill which can bring some benefit to some Canadians, relieving them of some tax imposition which now, unfortunately, they will incur. I will leave it to Opposition members to indicate why it was that they set themselves against such a beneficial clause in the Bill. 1 cannot imagine what their motives could possibly have been.
Turning to the broader substance of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that I have been impressed with the quality of some of the discussion during our review of the legislation. I have listened carefully to the concerns which were expressed by some Hon. Members. I have in mind, for example, the comments made by Hon. Members with respect to the complexity of the tax legislation. I feel it is a fair observation to say that, as a result of our discussion, it is evident that Hon. Members on all sides of the House are concerned about the complexity of current tax legislation. I, for one, certainly hope it will be possible for us to make some progress in that area as a result of the initiatives the Government has taken over the past year or so to identify ways in which our present tax legislation can be simplified, particularly in the case of small businesses.
What 1 would like to say a word about this afternoon is under three headings; first, the changes to the income tax proposed in the April Budget; second, the indexed securities investment plan-ISIP-and, third, the proposals for changes to tax incentives for research and development, a subject which unfortunately we did not have the opportunity to touch on yesterday because of the curious proceedings of yesterday afternoon.
On the question of the major tax measures flowing from the April Budget, I would want to note in particular that the underlying purpose of those measures was to accelerate productive investment and job creation in our private sector. To that end, the Bill improves the effectiveness of the investment tax credit. It provides that credits earned for eligible investment made after April 19 may be used without limit to reduce federal income tax payable. This is a new procedure in Canada and one which will be of real benefit to many businesses, many corporations. Unused credits may be carried over for deduction in any one of three previous or seven subsequent years.
The extension of the investment tax credit to heavy equipment in the construction industry will be of further benefit. The measures which we have put into the Bill to encourage new expenditure by businesses not currently paying income tax
includes two further incentives: first, a portion of the investment tax credit resulting from expenditures made after April 19 and before May 1, 1986 will be refunded to the business incurring the expenditure. For small business corporations and unincorporated businesses, 40 per cent of the investment tax credits not used to reduce income taxes will be refundable, adding to the cash flow of such companies and allowing them to overcome some of the cash difficulties which they have encountered during the recent period of recession.
I could note a number of other measures, Mr. Speaker. For instance, there is the special recovery share-purchase tax credit which will allow corporations with unused investment tax credits to flow out their credits to investors and thereby attract more equity capital into companies which have encountered, in many instances, quite serious debt-equity ratio problems in the last year or year and a half. I want, however, to spend a moment on the question of losses in that business sector which will now be eligible to be carried back for three years and forward for seven years, instead of the one year back and five years forward under existing legislation. This will be of real benefit to small businesses, including farmers and fishermen who will be immediately entitled to a three-year carryback and a ten-year carryforward of losses.
I touched for a moment on measures intended to attract additional investment into Canadian companies both small and medium-sized. However, I also want to note merely in passing the ISIP program of which we had substantial discussion in the last day. That program is, of course, intended to immunize that portion of capital gains which are inflation created. We want to ensure that Canadians investing a portion of their savings in the common equity of Canadian corporations realize real benefits and are not taxed on an inflated benefit. We are doing this to attract a larger share of the savings of Canadians into common equity than has generally been the case in Canada. The cost to the federal Treasury in the next four years will begin to become substantial but we consider this a well worth while investment to encourage greater and more widespread equity investment by individual Canadians.
The third area I want to touch on, Mr. Speaker, relates to research and development. As a government we produced a consultative paper tabled with the Budget in April offering new methods of channelling funds, incentives in the private sector to companies engaging in research and development, either in its application or in design and initiative. I will not go into the details, but it will simplify the way in which firms will be able to develop their research programs and benefit from the increasing emphasis in our economy today on the need to engage in research and development and in the application of high technology in our industry.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, one word about personal taxation. Members will realize we have offered under the RHOSP plan additional incentives to Canadians to own their own homes, to purchase new homes before the end of 1984, and we offered as
December 21, 1983

a short-term incentive during 1983 support for the purchase of certain designated home furnishings and appliances.
On the personal taxation side as well, we have increased the employment expense deduction which will move from 3 per cent to 20 per cent of employment income, subject to the current maximum amount of $500. About four million employees across Canada whose annual employment income is below $16,700 will benefit from that measure. The child tax credit has been maintained at $343 for the 1983 fiscal year, but will continue to be fully indexed to the inflation rate in subsequent years. The ceiling on the child care expense deduction will be doubled to $2,000 per child and a maximum of $8,000 per family.
We have taken these measures in recognition of the particular needs of families in our society. They, to a degree, render more complex the tax system, as all such measures do, but we felt that they were required and needed as Canada emerges from a period of recession along with the other industrialized countries of the world. We welcome the support the Bill has received. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues, and I trust my friends from western Canada who are eager to be on their way will realize that all of us will remain brief in our comments so as to allow them to continue with their plans.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about what happened to Clause 6 of this Bill. All you have to do is read the marginal note to the clause which says: "Election". That is what we should have had, an election.


Mr. Fisher:: A ten-minute speech.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That clause imposed taxes and the Minister knows it because the clause made sure that trusts and corporations, and others in partnership, would have to report annuity and insurance income which really is not income at all. Only this Government would make a person pay taxes on money they never get. If there is an accrual in your insurance policy anywhere in the world, you do not pay taxes on it. Except in Canada, you say?


Mr. Althouse:: Pity.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Of course we voted against that clause. The whole question of taxation of annuities and insurance policies ought to be abolished. Members opposite have a lot of never saying this is good tax law. Nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It was a clause which deserved an election. That is what the Bill said, that is what we should have had, and if they had any guts opposite, we would have gone to the country.


Mr. Cousineau:: You can take your plane now. That is it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What is this Bill good for? It is good for the stockbrokers. It is a good Bill for the tax accountants.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A make-work projet.
Income Tax Act


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says a make-work project. It is a great Bill for the lawyers. 1 had calls from lawyers saying: "Gee, could you get the Bill through? We have this wonderful, gimmicky deal we can put through before year end if you get it through". There is a House order and it will be through the House of Commons tonight if it passes.


Mr. Darling:: And it will.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There will be a vote and the Government will probably have a majority. It is a bad Bill, Mr. Speaker. I hope the chamber of sober second thought has second thoughts on this Bill.


John Leslie Evans: How come we only had two submissions in the committee?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Because the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs did not deal with the most iniquitous part of this Bill, the ISIP proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member should ignore comments which come from behind the curtain. He may continue with his speech.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I understand exactly what you are saying, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman does not have enough nerve to stand up in this House and say something so he hides behind the curtain.


John Leslie Evans: Guess who did that yesterday?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is a Bill for the brokers because the ISIP program makes sure that those who trade in listed stocks are able to pay only half-rate taxes on their trading income. Yesterday the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) was asked by my colleague for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) whether brokers can be involved in an ISIP with something like 2,400 or 4,800 trades. The Minister said "Of course they can". That is right because if you are in the business of trading in stocks options, of wheeling and dealing in the stock market and of not investing but buying and selling, then you can put your deals behind an ISIP and you only pay a 50 per cent tax rate on it because it is treated as a capital gain. But if you are an ordinary fellow who runs a business such as buying and selling vegetables, you have to pay 100 per cent taxes on your profits. It depends on who you are and who you know.
There used to be a Liberal Party in this country that believed in fairness and equity. This Government believes in treating stock brokers and traders and wheelers and dealers in the marketplace as preferred people. This Government makes sure it hammers the ordinary people in business. We have had question after question regarding how they hammer the little peole, the farmers and businessmen, with their Department of National Revenue and their Gestapo. Yet in this Bill they do something for the brokers.

December 21, 1983
Income Tax Act
Let us go on to what they claim they are doing for R and D to stimulate investment. They organize a system in this Bill where investment tax credits can be passed off to investors. The company cannot use them. The company can only carry them back or carry them forward, but the investors can have the tax credit. The money cannot be somehow paid to the company to help its balance sheet. The investors get the tax credits.
This Bill is an iniquitous Bill. It is an attempt to handle regional disparity. There is a series of stupid sections. If you do R and D in the Gaspe you get a 30 per cent tax credit. If you do R and D in Brampton, Ontario you get a 20 per cent tax credit. Can you tell me if Northern Telecom is going to build a plant in the Gaspe for an extra 10 per cent of tax credit which in fact comes off their deductions in writing off expenses anyway? Who is kidding whom? That is a lot of nonsense.
It is a poorly drafted Bill. The Minister knows the Bill is not worth a tinker. The Bill is designed for the tax consultants. The Bill is designed to make the income tax law so complicated that no one can read the Bill. We have now new forms of corporate tax, Part VII tax and Part VIII tax. They cannot read the Bill. We voted against Clause 6 in the Bill. We have just had an explanation from the Minister about Clause 6. The fact is that their press releases say that it hurts people not to have that clause. The only people who are hurt are the tax bureaucrats and this Government, its prestige and its right to govern. This Government must resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 feel somewhat peculiar speaking today on this Bill. There are in excess of one million Canadians sitting at home jobless today. We have real interest rates approaching record high levels in the country. We have businesses which tell us that next year their investment is going to be down from this year, which was down from last year and down from the year before. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the recession is going to continue in 1984.
In some parts of the country we are experiencing depressionlike conditions. On virtually the eve of Christmas the Government says to the people of Canada: "We have got a Christmas present for you: we are going to increase your taxes". That is the kind of Christmas news the people of Canada are getting in the dying moments of this session before Christmas, 1983. That is the approach of the Grinch who stole Christmas. The Minister of State for Finance is taking on the stature of Caesar Agustus II. Nine hundred and eighty-four years ago:
It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed-
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;... to be taxed-
What we are seeing here, Mr. Speaker, is a repeat of an incident which occurred many years ago where a very wicked dictator decided to provide a present to the people of the Roman Empire and imposed a tax on everyone. There is a
good side to this Bill. By increasing taxes to middle and lower income Canadians in all parts of Canada the Bill acts as a unifying force. It brings together people from all over Canada, men and women who speak English, French and other languages, unified against a Government that has shown itself to be the most heartless Government that we have seen in many, many decades.
I am not going to go on today, Mr. Speaker, as I would like-


Mr. Nickerson:: Good.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, perhaps I will go on for a little longer on the prompting of my friends in the Conservative Party who would like to hear more. I would like to take a moment or two to point out some of the incredible aspects of this Bill which the Government wants us to pass with haste. There are going to be some people in this country who benefit. Some people in this country are going to be very happy. I am talking about a handful of people who use the stock market as speculators and play with the stock market. Those people are going to be benefiting considerably. As an example, under a clause which we call ISIP, if a person makes a capital gain of $60 in the course of a year, that individual would have to report in a given year an income of $15. This would be taxable at 50 per cent, which would be $7.50. The tax rate is 50 per cent. Therefore, the tax payable on income of $60 from the stock market would be $3.75. That is a tax rate of 6 per cent.


John Leslie Evans: In the first year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If the Liberal Government was giving all Canadians a 6 per cent tax rate in one year on an investment of $60 for a Christmas present, people would be pleased to get that. The ISIP clause is going to cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars. Middle and low-income Canadians will have to pay for the tax loopholes. We now have 200 tax loopholes in our tax system.
On top of that the Government says; "We have another surprise for the people of Canada just before Christmas. We are going to increase the federal sales tax so that everybody who buys goods across this country will have an opportunity to pay another percentage point in federal sales tax". Mr. Speaker, this is coming at a time when we are in a deep recession and people are struggling to survive. The answer of members of the Liberal Party is to increase taxes.
The Canadian ownership special charge is a levy of 4.5 cents per gallon which was placed on gasoline to enable Petro-Canada to purchase Petrofina. That was done. Perhaps I will elaborate on this point for the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). Obviously he wants to hear more about this particular point so I will continue.
The Canadian ownership special charge will cost Canadian taxpayers $965 million next year, $985 million the following year and in excess of $1 billion the next year. That is the kind of legislation with which we are dealing in the House. Further-
December 21, 1983

more, we could talk about the 6 per cent on telecommunications services that has been levied, which means every time we pay our cable companies we will be paying 6 per cent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
In September the Government increased the excise tax on alcohol not by 6 per cent or 5 per cent but by 13.3 per cent. It increased the excise tax on tobacco by 15.8 per cent. Finally, as the culmination of it all, the Government said it will remove what I suppose is the only tax loophole, if one can call it that, which is the $100 deductible for charitable organizations. It said that it would eliminate that provision as well which will perhaps take $85 million away from the charities of Canada.
1 want to add one particular point which has been overlooked. It is that the Government has gone on at some length, leading up to today, talking about the child tax credit. It was $326 and the Government said it would give a magnificent increase up to $343. Big deal! Nevertheless, it is a minor increase. It will cost the Government $95 million over the next four years.
What the Government did not tell us was that it was going to hold to the 1981 family income threshold which will allow it to take in $335 million. When these amounts are figured out, it means that the Government will have a net gain of $240 million a year as a result of changes to the child tax credit. It does not tell us about matters of that sort.
I will conclude my short speech this afternoon by reminding Hon. Members opposite that when they stand in a few minutes to support this Bill they are supporting a tax system that enables thousands of Canadians who make in excess of $50,000, $60,000 and $100,000 a year to pay not a single penny in income tax, while most Canadians across the country who have their wages and salaries deducted at source must make up for the loopholes that are created. For example, of those who make an income in the $50,000 per year bracket, 8,031 did not pay any income tax last year. Of those in the $100,000 to $150,000 bracket, 793 did not pay a simple penny in income tax. Of those few individuals who made well over a quarter of a million dollars in income last year, 239 did not pay a single penny in income tax. I think it is the best example that I can think of to support the saying: "Those who pay the piper call the tune". Those who contribute to the election coffers of the Liberal Party, and I suspect to the Conservative Party as well, are certainly getting the benefits of the tax system made even more beneficial on their behalf.
I want to conclude by making a plea to the Minister of State for Finance. We have all co-operated to get this Bill through quickly. We have all co-operated and made sacrifices in terms of what many Members wanted to do with this Bill in order to allow it to be dealt with today. I would ask the Minister of State for Finance to take steps to ensure that the Department of National Revenue has adequate staff to ensure that the tax returns for 1983 will be processed on time, that some people will not have to wait until October or November to receive the refunds which are due to them, and so that the term "many happy returns" takes on an additional meaning for 1983.
Income Tax Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to order made Thursday, December 15, 1983, it is my duty to put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House.
Mr. MacLaren, for Mr. Lalonde, seconded by Mr. Bus-sieres, moves:
That Bill C-2, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be now read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.

provides, and I quote: "If the Bill is passed, the House shall suspend its sitting to the call of the Chair", I may remind Hon. Members that this order of the House was drafted after the three House Leaders had verbally indicated the existence of a general agreement, and in the spirit of that agreement, we wanted to give the Senate a chance to consider all three stages of the Bill today at a reasonable time. Normally, if the points of order had not been raised, we would have voted an hour earlier, but I consulted with the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and it seems that in the circumstances, they are willing to dispense with suspending the sitting and to simply call it six o'clock, and consequently, the House will adjourn for the holidays until January 16. As far as the Government is concerned, we are satisfied that the Bill has received third reading, and we certainly have no intention to thrust the Senate with undue haste into a debate on the Bill. I have just been informed that the Senate will not sit until 7.30 p.m. They were waiting for the Bill. In the circumstances, it is unlikely we shall obtain Royal Assent today. I therefore agree with the Opposition House Leaders. We have no objection to the House not suspending sitting and, in view of the lateness of the hour, to calling it six o'clock and adjourning until January 16.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the very lengthy intervention of the House Leader this afternoon, we would have been at this point at least an hour sooner than we are now.
I am reassured to hear the Minister say that, at least on this occasion, leading as it is into the Christmas season, he does not intend to push the Senate. That is a refreshing departure from the usual conduct of the Government.
[ Translation]
But we are happy to comply!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker it is interesting and pleasing to note the change in attitude that has taken place. I want to wish everyone, on behalf of my colleagues, a very merry Christmas and a good New Year and to say that we of course will agree. Pushing the Senate? Never! Getting rid of them, perhaps-but pushing them, never!
1 want to say to my friend and colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, where are your Members today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair at this point would like to extend to Hon. Members an invitation to join the Speaker in Room 16 for the customary refreshments.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, considering the time and also considering the order of the House adopted last week which


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A merry Christmas to everybody!
This House stands adjourned until Monday, January 16, 1984 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Orders.

Monday, January 16, 1984