1984-12-07

FARM DEBT MORATORIUM ADVOCATED

[Stage Direction]



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the tragedy in Bhopal stresses the urgent need for all levels of Government in Canada urgently to enforce and, where necessary, implement new safety measures to ensure that this will never occur in Canada.
First, the Government of Canada should produce a public map showing the location and quantity of all lethal gases stored in Canada.
Second, by way of close co-operation, the federal Government should seek from the responsible provincial agencies the assurance that inspections of these locations are carried out by qualified people, that valves and control equipment are in top condition at all times, and that adequate buffer zones surround new installations.
Third, the federal Government should immediately review the existing regulations governing the transportation of hazardous substances.
Fourth, the transportation of hazardous and lethal substances should be rerouted away from urban areas.
Fifth, trains transporting hazardous material should not be permitted to stop on sidings in populated areas.
Sixth, for the long term, the federal Government should initiate a study that would determine to what extent lethal substances, be they pesticides, manufacturing goods, et cetera, are essential to our economy and civilization, search for nontoxic means of accomplishing these same ends, and promote the fledgling use of non-toxic biological products.
Seventh, in co-operation with the Provinces and municipalities-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Saskatchewan Government introduced a farm debt moratorium which will stop foreclosures on farm lands from December 1 of this year to the end of December of next year. This measure attempts to provide temporary protection to farmers who are threatened with the loss of their property because of high debt.
The moratorium does not, however, protect farmers from having their livestock, grain or machinery seized. What good is land without the machinery to farm it with?
I would like to bring to the attention of the House two recent cases of foreclosure in Saskatchewan. Both of these cases resulted in farm-gate defences by their neighbours. The first involved the seizure of cattle at a farm near Kisby, and the second the seizure of machinery near Choiceland. These examples should make the case obvious. The need for a complete debt moratorium, as has been called for by Mel Swart in the Ontario Legislature, to include all parts of a farming operation, is evident.
In addition, it is time that Governments began to address the fundamental reason for farm bankruptcies-unreasonably high interest rates. During the moratorium, farmers' interest rates will continue to accumulate and farmers will not be able to farm with their high debt load. It is time to reduce the interest rates in order to save farmers. If the Government is serious about maintaining efficient farms, it should extend legislative protection to secure farms not only against seizure of land, but seizure of all farm assets, until-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling).



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in a world struggling with death, destruction, derision and deceit, I bring you good news.
Through the hard work of interested groups and the generosity of the Government's Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) many deaf children in this country will learn to communicate.

December 7, 1984
Mary Lou Meiers, a young lady from the United States who has a special gift for working with deaf children, will be allowed to continue her work in Canada. Presently employed at the Bob Rumball Centre for the Deaf in North York, Ontario, Ms. Meiers was issued a Minister's permit to stay in Canada.
A vocal faction of Lions International petitioned to keep her here, as well as friends and families of those persons she has helped.
Ms. Meiers' temporary working permit was originally to expire early in the new year. The compassion of a great many people will allow her to apply for landed immigrant status from inside Canada.
Her work with the deaf has been described as "almost magic" by those who know her. It is indeed to the advantage of all Canadians to have this woman working with our children here in our midst.
I trust my colleagues in this place, regardless of political stripe, will join me in welcoming this talented teacher to Canada on a full-time basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]



INTERNATIONAL YOUTH YEAR

[Stage Direction]
under this Progressive Conservative Government and our Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne)-
Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).
* *
*



HIBERNIA OILFIELD-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), I would say in a generous manner, inadvertently misled the House by misquoting earlier statements which were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in Question Period. The Minister suggested that the Prime Minister had committed himself to tabling a document called an environmental assessment impact study if it were available.
Since that time the Minister and I have had time to check Hansard wherein the Prime Minister categorically, and to the contrary, confirmed on four different occasions that the Government had a copy of the report and undertook to table it in the House.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, 1985 is drawing near and has been designated International Youth Year.
Throughout the country, preparations are being made for a worthy celebration of this invaluable resource, our Canadian youth.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this year will not only be one of celebration and rejoicing but also a year of decisions by our Government that will have an impact on the lives and expectations of our young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the coming to power of the Progressive Conservative Party has confirmed that a new concept is emerging that is not based on the adversarial but on the search for consensus.
That is why I am anxiously awaiting our chance, as Members of Parliament, to take an active part in International Youth Year, and I am sure we will have an active part to play.
As a junior Member of this House, I am hoping for a better future for our children, as the year 2000 approaches. I am profoundly aware of the problems of youth today, a youth that refuses, and rightly so, to engage in confrontation.
Mr. Speaker, under the previous Government, it was all nothing but talk as far as youth was concerned. However,
Because Statistics Canada has confirmed that 50,000 more people have been added to the unemployment rolls in the country, that report is critical to Newfoundlanders in assessing the kind of deal which will be made between the Minister and her counterpart in the Province of Newfoundland. The fact of the matter is, that a six-month suppression of the report will allow a deal to be signed, without the benefit of its detailed information for Newfoundlanders, and will allow a provincial election to be called long before Newfoundlanders ever understand the detail of the Mobil report.
That report indicates what the mode of production will be, the timetable for production, the rate of development, and most important, it indicates the number of jobs which will accrue to Newfoundlanders out of the development. That information is being deliberately suppressed by a deal made between the Minister of Energy in Ottawa and the Minister of Energy in Newfoundland.
On behalf of all Canadians, particularly those living in Newfoundland, I call on the Minister of Energy to come clean and to quit misquoting and misinterpreting-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
December 7, 1984



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures for the nation were released to the public this morning. They again point out that Manitoba has the lowest unemployment rate across the nation. What they also point out, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government can make a difference.
An editorial in the Toronto Star earlier this week pointed out how the Manitoba Government has taken a deliberate step to create both short-term and long-term jobs for the people of that province. It also pointed out that Manitoba does not have a secret, that it is just a matter of a concerted effort of job creation. The Manitoba Government has made that a priority. It has worked with private enterprise in order to create more jobs, to further research and development, and to help train the young people of that province.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by quoting from the article in The Toronto Star on December 5, 1984:
It's a forward looking, integrated approach to the economy that seems to be paying dividends for the people of Manitoba. Canadian political leaders in other jurisdictions should take note.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has a long list of positive achievements which should and must be made known to Canadians and to the world. The now famous cobalt therapy unit for the treatment of cancer was developed at Chalk River, Ontario, and was first put into practice on October 27, 1951, in a hospital in London, Ontario. There has been a very effective and practical offshoot from the industry, leading to the development of the advanced application of medical isotopes which, in turn, had led to the saving of lives, and in many, many cases has prevented unnecessary surgery.
Continued research into the results relating to isotopes will become an even greater diagnostic tool for medical purposes in the future. This research is proceeding with indepth emphasis on future medical applied science. The development of isotopes will keep Canada in the forefront of medical research.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to continue to bring forward more information of a positive nature with regard to the role that Atomic Energy of Canada plays in many areas in the development of our nation. This is not a time to be pessimistic about a Canadian success story. It is not a time, when all negative comments about nuclear research in Canada can be publicized, not to have those negative, and sometimes uninformed comments corrected and, indeed, balanced off in the media. The realistic and constructive achievements which have come out of the laboratories of Atomic Energy in the past, which are coming out now, and those achievements which will
5.0.	21
continue to come out of that great body of professional and expert personnel in the future, should be put on the record-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, my statement concerns the Act to provide borrowing authority. Bill C-ll seems to be particularly controversial, judging from the tone of the present debate. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize the Government to borrow $16 billion for the year 1985-86. This part of the legislation will become effective at the beginning of the next financial year. There seems to be a lot of confusion among Opposition Member's especially because this type of clause is unusual in a borrowing authority Bill. It may be unprecedented, but we must not forget that the size of the present deficit which our Government inherited is also unprecedented. There are many arguments in favour of adopting this part of Bill C-ll, which, unfortunately, I cannot detail to the House today, because of lack of time. However, I hope to do so on another occasion.
Mr. Speaker, the least I can say is that this Government has promised Canadians sound fiscal management. Adopting Bill C-ll will be a step in the right direction. It will enable the Government to meet its borrowing requirements at the lowest possible cost while avoiding any disruption of the financial market. It guarantees the flexibility required for effective management of Treasury requirements, for the benefit of all Canadian taxpayers.



FREEDOM OF SPEECH


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from the City of Vancouver I have a significant number of Indo-Canadian constituents, and I am proud of that fact. So, too, of course, do the Hon. Members for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), and Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney).
I would like to express to this House my deep concern about what appears to be a campaign of intimidation by a minority hard core group within that community. The target is the moderates in that community, some of whom have told me they have been threatened and their right to free speech denied.

December 7, 1984
Oral Questions
S)
In Canada, Sir, we believe in free speech from all points of view. Moderates should not be afraid to speak out on the tragic events which have recently shocked their community, ranging from the events at the Golden Temple at Amritsar to the tragic assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. I personally deplore the situation in Vancouver where some of my personal friends have been threatened. I have talked with and written to the other Vancouver MPs about this situation. Should it persist, the Government of Canada has many means at its disposal to enforce Canadian law to guarantee free speech in the community.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the statements made by the Prime Minister that tens of thousands of new jobs would be created in Canada, and the fact that the Minister and her colleagues took credit for increasing the number of jobs during the month of October, is she prepared to accept the blame for her economic policies which resulted in 50,000 people being added to the jobless in November?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the unemployment figures remain unacceptably high. But I would say to you, Sir, this is a legacy of the years of fiscal mismanagement of the previous Government. I would like to add that, despite this burden, the number of people employed in Canada in the last two months has gone up by 65,000. Some 250,000 new jobs have been added in the last year, 25 per cent of which have been created in the last two months. This is indeed an indication that the policies of this Government are beginning to take hold.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying to the unemployed in this country: "Carry on in your despair and hopelessness, and when we, as Tories, get around to it, we might do something about it".


FIRST CHANCE PROGRAM
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to activate the First Chance Program so that 900,000 young Canadians will have an opportunity for employment? Is she prepared to get new money to activate that program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the First Chance Program was an unfunded fantasy. It was a hoax that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to perpetrate on the young people and taxpayers of this country. What we have said instead is that there would be $1 billion dedicated to direct job creation and training, worked out with the provinces, our economic partners, and with the young people of this country, to make sure there are real solutions to the real problems confronting young people.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the only fantasy in this House is the Minister and the rhetoric of her Cabinet colleagues.


CANADA WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared today to activate the $1 billion of reallocated money under the Canada Winter Works Program, because the demand exceeds the present budget by six times? Is she prepared to move on that today?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did on assuming office was to allocate S430 million for Canada Works projects this winter, something which the previous Liberal Government had not even budgeted for. That Government had not included in its Budget any plans for this winter, despite the fact it knew unemployment would be highest at this time of year. That $430 million will add another 70,000 jobs this winter just at a time when the jobs are needed most. The Hon. Member should be aware that, with that allocation, 170 constituencies got more money than they did last year under the same program.


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE-CRITERIA
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth).
Considering the present crisis situation with respect to youth unemployment which has now reached 18 per cent, and considering that young people are losing hope and are freezing outside, does the Minister not think it is shameful that she speaks only to those who are well off? What are her moral criteria for helping young people who are less in need of Government assistance and neglecting those who have very real problems and are waiting for some kind of action by the government that is attuned to those problems?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not say we are going to neglect young people in difficulty. As the Minsiter responsible for
December 7, 1984

International Youth Year, it is part of my responsibility to celebrate this year despite the problems facing youth today. Of course, thanks to programs like those announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, we shall also be working on jobs. We are now working on involving young people in the community and getting them to help other young people who are not as well off.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the Minister's answer that she will approach the Prime Minister to change the title of her Ministry to the "Ministry of State for Untroubled Youth"? Does she realize that this situation is a tragedy and not a soap opera?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the tragedy of youth is not a soap opera. The Government is doing its best to better the-
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Government is doing its best to improve the situation in which Canadian youth finds itself today.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
According to Statistics Canada this morning, there are now more people unemployed than there were three months ago, and we all know that the Progressive Conservative Party was elected on September 4 of this year.
I just want to know what this Government is going to do to create new jobs today. What does it intend to do now to create jobs for the unemployed in this country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously was not paying attention when I responded to a similar question just a few minutes ago. For his benefit I will repeat what I said then. Perhaps it will get through to him this time.
As I mentioned, there have been 65,000 people added to the workforce in the last two months. There are 70,000 new jobs which will be created by the Canada Works Program which we announced earlier this year. The highest amount is dedicated to Canada Works during the winter period. That will bring the jobs into creation at the very time they are most needed. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the deadline for those projects was earlier this month.
Oral Questions LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there are more people unemployed now than there were when the Conservative Party took office three months ago, and 50,000 more than last month. What is the Minister going to do now for those additional unemployed people?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is really not possible to add $430 million to the Canada Works Program every month. That is just not possible, although the Hon. Member might think that is the way to go about it. He should look at what that program will indeed do, beginning with the 70,000 new jobs that will be brought onstream this month as a result of the $430 million already allocated. We have done that despite the fact that it was not budgeted for by the previous Government and certainly had not been planned. We have moved to make sure-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect. The Member for Yorkton-Melville on a supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, despite what the Minister says, there are more people unemployed now than there were three months ago when she took office. What will she do before Christmas for these unemployed people to put them back to work? What will she do?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it does seem very difficult to get through to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deans:: It is a lot more difficult when you are unemployed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What are you going to do?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have told him that there is $430 million allocated to bring on jobs beginning this month-that is, the months of December, January and February. Seventy thousand new jobs will be created, beginning this month.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Secretary of State. If the Government will not do anything about the 18 per cent of our young people who are now out of work, perhaps it will at least do something for our youth in school.
Hon. Larry Grossman of the Conservative Government of Ontario has just announced his intention to raise tuition fees for university students by 10 per cent per year. Of course this will discourage young people and even deny them an opportu-

December 7, 1984
Oral Questions
nity to go to university for the education they need to find work. In view of that fact, will the Secretary of State ask the Minister of Finance to reconsider the freeze that he imposed on the $5 million that was earmarked for student loans next year in this Tory double whammy of increasing tuition fees on the one hand and reducing student loans on the other?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure my hon. friend of my deep concern about opportunities for students in our universities. On Monday I will be meeting with provincial Ministers who are responsible for education, and our conversations will include the issue which is, at the first level, the provincial responsibility for funding for universities and the question of tuition fees for students.


Roland de Corneille: I thank the Minister for his answer.


TUITION FEES QUERY
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance. Before the Minister of Finance imposed this freeze on $5 million for student loans, did he, in the spirit of dialogue and consultation, consult with Mr. Grossman or any of the provincial Tory Ministers of Finance to see if they were going to raise tuition fees?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for the Canada Student Loans Program, let me indicate to the Hon. Member that the Canada Student Loans Program was adjusted in 1983. The weekly limits were adjusted from $56.25 to $100. With the built in escalators for this year, there is a weekly limit to $105. Therefore, the question of cutting back is erroneous. After a review of the over-all expenditures, it was agreed that the escalators were adequate at this particular time, until there is an opportunity to review the over-all funding with the provinces and set the Canada Student Loans Program in that context.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She has just finished telling the House that she does not care about the unemployed in this country-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: She does not care about the young unemployed. In light of her report that was tabled in the House yesterday that clearly shows that 8,333 Canadians will be coming on to the unemployment rolls every month as a result of technological change, with serious implications for single
industry communities, can the Minister tell the House, without any flim-flam, what she intends to do about unemployment?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Bring back Judy Erola.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the paper that I tabled yesterday in the House of Commons, the paper on training, is a very positive attempt to come to grips with the real problems of technological change, working together with our partners in the economy, in economic and social areas, to tackle the problems of economic change. But a very real part of the problem that we face in developing the highly skilled labour force that we need in this new era is to overcome the negative attitudes that exist toward technological change. The Member is a living example of that kind of negative approach. I would urge him to take a positive view, to read the paper carefully, and to work with us to help bring about the changes that are indeed needed if we are to have that kind of skilled labour force.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that the Minister said I should be positive-and I do hope, and sincerely hope, that all the things the Minister projects in the paper will come true-I want to know what the Minister intends to do about unemployment now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Gauthier:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


THE CONSTITUTION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: 
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, of this Government, and this Party, I can assure the Hon. Member that we are deeply committed to the Official Languages Act which we supported when it was introduced by the previous Government almost six years ago.
With respect to the specific question, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice who is absent today, 1 shall take notice of the Hon. Member's question and ask the Minister to be in touch with the Hon. Member.


FACTUM PRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Deputy Prime Minister, considering that he probably did not read either the factum presented by the Tory government, that the Minister of Justice as well did not read it, and that nobody on the other side seems to know what is going on. .. I agree that the government endorsed the Official Languages Act, and I also agree that minority rights must not be restricted-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows the rules. [Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Will he withdraw the factum to enable the government, the Minister of Justice and himself to read the document, come back to the House, consult with the government and the Prime Minister, and then perhaps take the appropriate action?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have very grave doubts whether 1 would have the jurisdiction to intrude in that depth into the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Canada, as his own Leader pointed out in the House a few days ago.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. FRANCISCO LABASTIDA OCHOA, MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND PARASTATE INDUSTRY FOR MEXICO
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt proceedings to advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Francisco Labastida Ochoa, Minister of Energy, Mines and Parastate Industry for Mexico.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
Ian Deans: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She knows that we have added 50,000 to the rolls of the unemployed in the last month alone, and that we have 244,000 people who have been unemployed for between six months and a year already. She knows her program will provide only 70,000 jobs during this winter. There is a tremendous short-fall. Will the Minister bring forward new programs now to try to meet at least the requirements of those who seem to be long-term unemployed?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, $1 billion has been dedicated by this Government to new job opportunities and to developing human resources. That $1 billion will be spent to the benefit of Canadians in this field. It will not be frittered away on partisan boon-doggling as it has in the past. I would say to the Hon. Member that that $1 billion will be allocated in a way that will bring real solutions to the problems of unemployment.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXH AUSTEES
Ian Deans: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Doesn't the Minister recognize that the 244,000 people who have been unemployed for over six months have lost benefits, are not able to meet their commitments, and cannot wait for the Government to introduce its programs to spend the billion dollars? Will she move now to provide them either with an income or with a job opportunity?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is because we recognize that the problems of the unemployed have not been solved by the kinds of past programs he is advocating that we will take the time necessary, and without any excuses whatsoever, to work out the best possible programs that will address the needs of these people who are in such desperate need.


Ian Deans: When?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can tell the Hon. Member that those consultations are going on right now. They are going on with labour unions, with business, and with provincial Governments. When we present those programs, it will be with the undertaking that they do the job.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Environment.

December 7, 1984
Oral Questions
To avoid a tragedy such as that which has just stricken the State of Madhya Pradesh in India and which resulted from leaking lethal pesticides responsible for over 1,600 deaths since last Monday, can the Minister tell me and the House what emergency measures are provided to avoid a similar industrial accident and protect the health, security and environment of Canadians?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the chemical product involved in the Bhopal disaster is not manufactured in Canada. To that extent, a similar incident cannot happen here, but it is true that we do handle very dangerous toxic materials and every kind of emergency measure is provided to cope with disasters. Still, the Bhopal tragedy was so serious that I have asked my department officials to get together with their provincial and private sector colleagues and reassess those emergency measures to make sure that they are effective.


VENTURE OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked a question of the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and today I would like to direct this question to him. I mentioned there was a report that indicated the cost of bringing the Venture gas on shore was less than the $3 billion projected by Venture. Can the Minister now confirm that this report is known to his Department and it was prepared by Marshall, Macklin and Monaghan of Toronto?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Let me mention to the Minister that this report was commissioned by Petro-Canada. Will the Minister of Energy undertake to table this report in conjunction and consistent with her present status of wanting the Canadian public to have the information Petro-Canada has which is of interest to the Canadian public and the industry in Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I will phone Mr. Dye and see if he has got it, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I can assure the Hon. Member that we are only into our preliminary analysis of the Venture field with the
officials of Mobil. We are working on the basis of that analysis and the numbers which will flow from it.
I am aware of the earlier report but it is not, I believe, the relevant document to be used at this time.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister on a related subject. The Auditor General and this House have had enormous difficulties getting the information which has now been promised to come from Petro-Canada with respect to the Petrofina purchase. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that other investigations by the Auditor General will not be blocked on the grounds that the background documents needed to carry out these investigations are secret Cabinet papers?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated in the House repeatedly, as has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that all documents relevant to the audit of the Auditor General are made available to him. In addition to that, the Prime Minister has taken a further step by indicating that Mr. Hopper should be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, chaired by the Hon. Member for Trinity.
I might suggest to her that the Committee, which is master of its own processes, may wish to consider inviting Mr. Dye to be present when Mr. Hopper is testifying, and inviting Mr. Dye to put any questions he pleases to Mr. Hopper when he appears before the Committee.
I do not know what further steps might be taken in order to have a totally open inquiry into the affairs of Petrofina than that vehicle.


ACCESS TO BACKGROUND PAPERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that Mr. Dye is not blocked in a similar way with respect to his investigation of subjects like the F-18 fighter jet purchase, or the purchase of frigates? Will he assure the House that the Auditor General can do his job as a servant of Parliament and have access to background papers, if they are required to do his job?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I reject the implication in the Member's question when he infers that the Auditor General has been blocked with respect to his inquiries into Petrofina-Petro-Canada. We have explained that repeatedly and repeatedly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look at what he said.
December 7, 1984


Erik Nielsen: 
LABOUR CONDITIONS
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It arises out of her answers this morning. We are all disturbed by rising unemployment, particularly among our young people. We risk discouraging an entire generation if we do not do something about it. She called the program a hoax, but wouldn't she reconsider reinstating the First Chance Program, approved by Treasury Board, which would have helped train a hundred thousand young people a year, give them some experience, and make them qualified for jobs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition shows very well the contrast between the way his Party approaches things and the way this Government does. He never explained nor was money allocated to the First Chance Program. He never explained where he would find the money or where he would re-allocate the resources. Instead, contrast that with a Government which has had the courage to review the fiscal framework, to look at the various programs which it has offered and, as a result, to dedicate $1 billion to human resource development, to training, and to new job opportunities. That is there; that is something more than the fantasy which the Leader of the Opposition proposes.


NAME OF PROGRAM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the young people of the country will be very interested to learn that a program to train and qualify them in large numbers for jobs is treated by the Hon. Minister as a fantasy. If she is going to play politics with the youth, why doesn't she rename the program, seek out the co-operation of the provinces, business and labour, and give young people a chance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously with his heavy duties the Leader of the Opposition has not had a chance to read the training paper which I tabled in the House yesterday. I urge him to do so. However, I also want to say that the fund about
Oral Questions
which he talked was not only a fantasy, it was an unfunded fantasy. We do not intend to mislead the young people of the country in that way. That is why we are working out with them, with labour, with business, and with the provincial Governments, the proper programs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is with regard to the concern among many Canadians about nuclear weapons technology. Would he advise the House what his position is regarding the testing of the Cruise missile and the concern among Canadians that this may well be the prelude to the installation of Cruise missiles on Canadian soil which will be directed across the Canadian Arctic, against the Soviet Union?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government on the testing of the Cruise is well known. We are proceeding with the testing of the Cruise. Indeed, as has been reported in the press, the next test will occur between the period of the first of January and the end of March, 1985. There will be a more precise indication, I think a 48-hour notice, to avoid any non-authorized air traffic in the affected air corridors. 1 think the other implications which the Hon. Member draws are unfounded.


YOUNG PEOPLE'S FEARS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is in regard to the same concern shared by Canadians. In a recent poll in the City of Toronto it was indicated that 10 per cent of young people suffer seriously from nuclear fear. Would the Minister advise the House, and Canadians generally, what steps he is taking to provide information to parents, to teachers, and to young people on how to deal with this very serious dilemma of nightmares and nuclear fears?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a serious question. Obviously all of us share the hope that the Geneva Talks, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated many times in the House, will bring positive results. Average citizens want that matter addressed seriously. Other Members of the House and I are hopeful that positive results will occur.

December 7, 1984
Oral Questions GRAIN


TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES OF PEACE RIVER FARMERS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He is well aware of the serious transportation problem of many grain farmers in parts of the Peace country. We have been ignored by previous Governments. When can we expect some action to deal with this very serious problem?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Hon. Member for his efforts in trying to alleviate the problems of farmers in the Peace River district, and to provide a better transportation service for grain at more equitable rates. Within the next few weeks I should be in a position to announce a mechanism which will be put in place to review various alternatives and options that could best serve the farmers of the Peace River district. I hope I will have the Hon. Member's support and input, as well as the input of Hon. Members who reside in that area.


HIBERNIA OILFIELD-MODE OF DEVELOPMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the Minister put words in her Leader's mouth which were never uttered by him in the House of Commons. In the interests of clarity today, would the Minister explain what she meant when she said yesterday that her Government will not accept "a formal environmental impact statement until such time as Newfoundland decides the mode of development"? Is the Minister saying that the Government of Newfoundland alone and unilaterally will decide the mode of development or production for Hibernia oil?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Member would have risen on a real problem which is being created off Newfoundland, that is, the iceberg that is bearing down on Hibernia and threatening two rigs.
Again, I can only refer the Hon. Member to Hansard which shows that the Prime Minister said nothing of the sort.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Read Hansardl


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, am I allowed to read from Hansard? When asked if he would table it, he said very clearly-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Where? Where?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me it is reasonable that if someone has been asked to answer a question that the House listen to
the answer. It is reasonable to ask that the House listen to the answer.


Pat Carney: The Prime Minister was asked if he had a copy of the study and if the Prime Minister would undertake to obtain a copy. The Prime Minister said:
Yes, I will make that undertaking on behalf of the Minister.
When he was questioned repeatedly on November 27, the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the Minister would be back in the House today. She has been detained in Toronto. She will provide my hon. friend with an answer as soon as she returns.
He always said that, if and when we had the report, it would be tabled. I have told the Hon. Member over and over again that I do not have a final report that is acceptable to me and to the Government of Newfoundland because the mode of development has not been decided upon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: As I tried to explain yesterday, one does not determine an environmental impact of a development until one knows how one is going to drill for the oil.


JOB CREATION QUERY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be almost as generous with me as you have been with the Minister who again has been misleading the House, I hope inadvertently. I invite everyone, including the gentlemen of the press, to read Hansard.


An Hon. Member:: And women.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And the gentlewomen of the press.
Would the Minister confirm that, as part of that environmental assessment impact study, an attitudinal study conducted by Mobil indicates, based on statements that have been made by the provincial Government, that 50,000 Newfoundlanders expect to get jobs on that development? Will she tell us what the real, sober estimate is for jobs in the Hibernia development as outlined by Mobil Oil in a report that she is suppressing?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am really astounded by the Hon. Member's question. I have said I have not received the report. Therefore, I have not read it. I do not have a report that establishes the environmental impact of the development of Hibernia on Newfoundland.
May I point out that when the Hon. Member's Party was in power, it totally excluded Newfoundland from having any say whatsoever in the development of the offshore.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 7, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Churchill.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that he would, without delay, open a new round of negotiations with the Province of Quebec on equalization. Did the Prime Minister, in his meeting yesterday, start that process?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member would agree with me that it would be much more fruitful if he asked that question of the Prime Minister when he returns to the House on Tuesday.


Ms. Copps:: Give up your seat!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ECONOMIC STATEMENT EFFECTS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, much has been made of the fact that Manitoba and Quebec are the provinces that are suffering now with the problem of the equalization formula which the Liberal Government imposed on the country. It is hurting those people. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the Government, in its effort to consult with and keep provincial Governments informed, will provide the information that the Manitoba Government requested specifically, which was to have the economic effects of the last economic statement provided-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I find it difficult to find that question supplementary to the first question.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the spouse allowance for widows and widowers.
Could the minister confirm the fact that 80,000 senior citizens between 60 and 64 years of age and in desperate financial need will be denied the benefits of this program simply because they are single, separated or divorced?
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in an earlier answer to the Hon. Member I indicated general patterns regarding the possible legislation for widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. For the exact details, the Hon. Member will have to wait for the legislation to be tabled.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister cannot give as an excuse the lack of money, for he is well aware that the government will recover $20 million in welfare benefits. Does he not think that it would be better to ask the Minister of Finance to spend $36 million on these people instead of spending it to buy new uniforms for our Armed Forces personnel?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that, unlike the previous Government which-


Mr. Nunziata:: Hey, put it on fast-forward.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would be glad to do so, but you wouldn't even understand that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's the fourth time today.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members may find that it is Friday, but I think that it would be appropriate, no matter what the answers to the questions are, if everyone listened with some dignity and courtesy. I think that would be appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I would say that the pension reform as well as the paper on the elderly benefits were much better in approaching the matter over a general pattern to see where we best can strengthen not only the elderly benefits package but also look to the future. I hope the Hon. Member would like to join us in that exercise.


TELEVISION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure he knows that in this pre-Christmas period children are being bombarded by television advertising which promotes the sale of war toys, war games, and violence-related products. This comes at a time of high international tension and threat

December 7, 1984
Oral Questions
of war. Would the Minister give consideration to the possibility of doing something about this kind of advertising in view of its adverse effects on children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the specific question raised by the Hon. Member I think it is advisable for the House to know that there are consumer groups that have raised the question of advertising of war toys that are on the market at Christmas. I would think it is a better approach for consumers to take appropriate action rather than for the Government to legislate.


WESTERN EUROPEAN GUIDELINES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, a number of Governments of western European countries have sat down with the industry and worked out voluntary guidelines to limit that kind of advertising. Would the Minister consider that?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Ian Deans: He did. He said: "Would the Minister consider that?"


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain asking to rise? Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Ian Deans: Just trying to be helpful.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would consider having his Department sit down with the industry to work out guidelines.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question put by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -I want to indicate to him that, through the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, meetings take place with advertisers in various industries, and if that is the appropriate forum, I am sure it can be considered.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Will the Hon. Minister either confirm or deny that three Soviet athletes have been charged with bringing drugs into the country?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I have been informed that three Soviet weightlifters were indeed detained at Mirabel International Airport last
evening. They were found to have in their possession restricted drugs, contrary to the provisions of the Canadian Food and Drugs Act. The matter is now in the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, therefore, I am not in a position to make any further statements.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) on Thursday, December 6, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that I have received a question of privilege standing in the name of the Hon. Member York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to certain allegations which were made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs meeting on Monday. I have notified the Hon. Member of the proceedings today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot hear a point of order during a question of privilege; the Member knows that.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, under the cloak of parliamentary immunity, the Hon. Member for Burnaby alleged without substantiating evidence that Mr. Robert Foulkes, a former Vice-President of Petro-Canada, and Mr. Fred Rayer, a Vice-President for International Explorations, were CIA spies. The Hon. Member for Burnaby stated:
I would also ask the Minister, while he is making those inquiries, to make inquiries about another allegation which I do not have any documentation on, but which I received from the same source as the source of this document-the authenticity of which, by the way, I have had confirmed through the American embassy; that is, the authenticity of the document-and that is an allegation that the CIA have been involved in the penetration at a very senior level of Petro-Canada. In this committee, Mr. Chairman, just so the Minister can be specific in making inquiries, the allegation is that a former Vice-President of Public Affairs of Petro-Canada, a Mr. Foulkes, as well as Mr. Rayer-that is. Bob Foulkes and Mr. Fred Rayer, who is currently working for Petro-Canada Resources as Vice-President, Explorations International-may have been either tasked by the CIA or originally involved with the CIA in some capacity, and the purpose for their having been tasked was to obtain information from Petro-Canada. As I say, I have no-


Ian Deans: What is the privilege?
December 7, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member is presumably raising a question of privilege. I appreciate he is reading into the record matters from the committee, but he does have an obligation to move very quickly, when raising a question of privilege, to explain how his privileges have been breached.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to point out that the Member, in making his allegations in committee, indicated on two occasions that he was making the allegations without foundation-


Ian Deans: What is the privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: Could the Member please move quickly to explain to me how his privileges have been breached?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it would be my respectful submission that the unsubstantiated allegations constitute a contempt of Parliament which reflects negatively on each and every Member of this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, 1 will be asking you to conclude that a prima facie case can be made of contempt of Parliament; and if you so conclude, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for-


Mr. Speaker:: No. With great respect, the Hon. Member is now proceeding to attempt to put before me the motion he would move if 1 found a prima facie case of privilege. His obligation at the moment is to present the case which I must consider. He has yet to present a case. I cannot let this go on much longer without the Member presenting a case of privilege which has been breached.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I may, the case of privilege is as follows. It is recognized that a Member's freedom of speech is unrestricted and that there is parliamentary immunity. The purpose of that parliamentary immunity, as I indicated yesterday, is to encourage frank and open discussion in Parliament and in committee. It would be my respectful submission that the immunity is a shield but ought not to be used as a dagger. In this particular instance, that privilege was abused. As a result of that abuse, it has cast a negative shadow over each and every Member of this House. It would be my submission that that constitutes a contempt of Parliament.
I would like to cite Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 193, wherein it reads:
-the dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privileges of Members, or of the House. This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.
In conclusion, it would be my most respectful submission that a contempt of this Parliament has occurred. Although Members of the House have parliamentary immunity, there are restrictions. When a particular Member goes beyond the realm of what is proper, this House has the authority to cite that particular Member for contempt. It must have that authority. If it does not have that authority, then this House
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
could be brought into disrepute. Mr. Speaker, those are my submissions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on the same question of privilege?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I do not believe that there is a question of privilege. I would point out that the Member should perhaps go into the history of privilege to determine first whether he is prepared to stake his seat on a question such as this. Beyond that, the Member to whom he is referring has already issued a public statement to the effect that he regrets having done what the Member now claims is a matter of privilege. Second, the least he could have done was to wait until the Member was in his seat before he raised the matter in order to allow that Member to respond adequately.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with great care and it would be my normal practice on these matters to reserve. However, I listened with great care to the technical argument put by the Member with regard to the quotation from Maingot which refers-and the Member would know if he read further in Erskine May and Beauchesne-to the capacity of the House to find that an attempt to interfere with the proceedings of the House itself is a contempt. That is the quotation he has read, to my knowledge, from Maingot.
The privilege of a Member of Parliament to make a statement in the House of Commons, or in a committee, is absolute. It would be very, very difficult to find that a Member, by making a statement that another Member-as is that other Member's equal right-found improper, immoral or wrong- which I take it is what the Member feels-it would be improper to find that a Member exercising his freedom to speak somehow could be in contempt. Otherwise the privilege of free speech would be null and void if a motion of privilege could deal with whether a Member had in fact caused a contempt. The contempt that the House deals with when Members speak is whether Members speaking in the House have caused a disorder in the House-whether they have used unparliamentary language.
I am indicating all of this in case the Member wants to write a further argument to me. Because it is a question of privilege with regard to another Member, I feel an obligation not to rule until that other Member had had a chance to comment or respond. Therefore, I will not make a ruling today. However, I will say to the Member that I think, frankly, at least with regard to his comments, he has mixed up an apple and an orange. That is, when something is, by definition in his mind, potentially contemptuous, that is not necessarily a contempt of the House. So I will reserve for the moment.

December 7, 1984
Standing Orders STANDING ORDERS


CONTINUATION IN FORCE OF PERMANENT AND PROVISIONAL STANDING ORDERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultations with my colleagues, the House Leaders of the other two Parties, I would ask for the leave of the House to introduce the following motion by way of draft Order:
That, notwithstanding any previous Order of the House, all the current permanent and provisional Standing Orders shall continue in force, until otherwise ordered;
Provided that the provisions of Standing Order 43 shall be suspended during the Thirty-third Parliament.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask unanimous consent to proceed with this motion and, indeed, to have it passed unanimously, I believe you would find it forthcoming.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give our unanimous consent to the order which the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is seeking.
I would just like to say as well, Mr. Speaker, that since you have reserved your decision on the motion of privilege raised by the Hon. Member of the Opposition Party who has just spoken, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak to his motion when you next have the matter before you.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is now in another difficulty. There is no motion before it. I listened and looked for all those who wished to address the Chair at the moment with regard to the question of privilege which was raised. I indicated that I thought I should not make a ruling, even though I believe I am making it clear and that I am pretty close to one. However, I thought I should at least consider giving the Hon. Member who is mentioned in the comments an opportunity to speak since he is not here today. Other than that I presumed that all Hon. Members who wished to address that matter have done so.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify my position. I felt that since you wanted to give the Hon. Member who was the object of the comments of my colleague a chance to speak, and in order to facilitate the business of the House, I would reserve my comments-


Ian Deans: No!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -until this matter was next before us.


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect, I did not say that. Does the Hon. Member for Windsor West wish to make a comment on the question of privilege? If he does, I will undertake an extraordinary procedure. Since I have a request for unanimous consent on a House order, I suggest we dispose of it and then I
will hear a further comment on the question of privilege if the Hon. Member for Windsor West chooses to make one.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on the point of order raised by the Government House Leader?


Ian Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret my hon. colleague tried to bootleg something in which was not before us. We did in fact discuss the draft order which has been proposed by the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and we agreed to keep in force the existing Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders until such time in the future as it is deemed desirable to change them.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion described?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, it has been moved by Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mr. McLean:

That, notwithstanding any previous Order of the House, all the current permanent and provisional Standing Orders shall continue in force, until otherwise ordered;
Provided that the provisions of Standing Order 43 shall be suspended during the Thirty-third Parliament.

Shall that motion be adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Given that this is the first time we have dealt with this, I will now hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on the question of privilege which was raised earlier.
There is a dilemma, and I am doing this deliberately. I therefore seek unanimous consent that the Hon. Member be heard. I did not indicate that I was going to reserve until I had heard everyone who chose to rise. That is what I believe concerns the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). If the precedent is established that the Speaker may reserve and then other Members get up and make further speeches, a difficulty is created for the Speaker. I had not indicated I was going to reserve and the Hon. Member for Windsor West did not rise to be heard. May I seek the consent of the House at this time that the Hon. Member for Windsor West be heard on this matter?
December 7, 1984


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) is asking for permission to enter into this discussion at a later date. If that is what he is seeking, then I will not give unanimous consent. However, if the Speaker is intent on reopening the question for further discussion now and will allow comments to be made by those who wish to comment now, and then reserving to some later date in order to allow the Hon. Member-who has been accused in his absence and with the full knowledge that he would not be here by the Hon. Member who moved the motion-


John V. Nunziata: I gave him notice.


Ian Deans: -then, perhaps, we will consent-


Mr. Speaker:: This is the dilemma of dealing with questions of privilege with regard to parliamentary privilege because it is beginning to get personal. I therefore suggest, as I suggested yesterday-without asking the Hon. Member to withdraw his comments at the time, so I will therefore not ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his comments at this time-that this is not the way to deal with this matter.
I am now left in a quandary. It is clear, I hope, what my intention was when I said I would reserve. I would reserve to decide myself whether it was appropriate to allow the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to speak to the issue, and to make my own ruling. I did not indicate I was reserving to allow other Hon. Members to participate. I do not yet know in my mind whether it is reasonable to allow the Hon. Member for Burnaby to make a statement later. That I have to decide as well.
I therefore seek the consent of the House to allow the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray)-


John R. Rodriguez: No!


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's an NDP gag!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is no democracy there!


Mr. Speaker:: I have sought the consent of the House to hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West. I find no such consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: If you want to put your muck raker up, put him up. Any time he wants to rise on debate, we will debate it!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. About two weeks ago Wednesday became Tuesday. This week Wednesday has become Friday! With great respect to Hon. Members, shall we just proceed with House business?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced his strategy for putting the Government's fiscal house in order, he asked all Government agencies to do their share to achieve the proposed budgetary cutbacks. As a result, the CBC has had to cut back its proposed budget estimates for 1985-86 by $75 million. This reduction represents 7.5 per cent of the total expenditures of the CBC.
Since there was a risk that this administrative obligation would affect the CBC's general strategy and its long-term operations, I decided, in agreement with the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that a consultation process was necessary.

Mr. Juneau supported this process and on November 5 he stated in a letter to me, and I quote:
It was agreed that if such reductions were made, important basic corporation strategies would be affected, and therefore it would be necessary that consultations take place between the corporation and yourself on the implementation of these reductions.
In his letter, Mr. Juneau pointed out that such consultations could take place while respecting the discrete responsibilities of the Minister and the corporation.

I am happy to inform the House that this emphasis on consultation has produced positive results thanks to the cooperation of the President of the CBC and his senior officials, who worked together with my special consultants, Mr. Gould, Mr. Audley and Mr. Paquin, all of whom were realistic in their approach and gave full consideration to the Corporation's creative resources, both from the regional and the network point of view.
Mr. Juneau has informed me of the main points of this strategy and has asked me to approve amendments to the pension plan, so as to open the possibility of early retirement for CBC employees and thus minimize the loss of jobs. I am happy to inform the House that I have given my approval for these amendments.

It is a pleasure to inform the House that my consultations with Mr. Juneau have been conducted in a spirit of co-operation and with a shared concern for the well-being of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its excellent service to Canadians.

December 7, 1984
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [Translation]
Mr. Juneau also informed me that he will be meeting the members of the CBC board of directors very shortly and will be ready to announce that the board has decided some time next week.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in giving his statement to the House, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has told us that there has been an agreement on a plan to help employees of the CBC who will be asked to take early retirement. In doing this, the Minister of Communications has lifted the veil only very slightly on what is going to happen to the CBC and its services for Canadians across this country. He is confirming that there will be substantial layoffs and a permanent loss of jobs for CBC employees. If this is the case, then while he has not lifted the veil further, as I thought he might do, and given us the details of the impact on programming services to Canadians all across this country resulting from the cuts announced in te mini-budget of the minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) a few weeks ago, I think we can take it for granted, because of what the Minister has said at this time, that there will be substantial reductions in worthwhile programming and broadcasting services available to Canadians throughout this country. Certainly if people are being laid off one has to assume that they will be in the area of programming and news and public affairs. I think we would have to assume that those who will lose their jobs will not be those employed in the head office of the CBC here in Ottawa or in the major regional head offices in Toronto or Montreal. We have to assume that people involved in providing programming services to Canadians in regions like Windsor, Winnipeg and Moncton are going to be among those who will lose their jobs. As a result they will not be able to provide the programming which Canadians in these regions have every right to expect under the legislation passed by this Parliament.
One likely result of the plans of the CBC and the Government, Mr. Speaker, is that Canadians will have to depend on more productions made in other countries and imported into this country. That is a weakening of the essential cultural fabric of this country, something that Canadians have become proud of due to the efforts of the CBC supported by previous Liberal Governments, and which the Conservatives are now beginning to tear apart.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a lot more to say when we get confirmation of what we already have good reason to believe, that the impact of the Conservative Budgetary cuts on the CBC will hurt programming, particularly in news and public affairs, in the outlying regions of this country. We will have a lot more to say when we get these details but we can already conclude that, as with so many other aspects of the Conservative mini-budget, it is damaging a vital national institution. It is damaging the ability of Canadians to receive broadcasting in the areas of news and public affairs and local programming in their own communities. These cuts are
damaging the essential cultural fabric of this country and when the next election comes, this Government, because of the damage it has caused to this country as a whole, not just the CBC, will stand condemned in the eyes and through the votes of the Canadian people.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) tells the House that the changes in the CBC programming have been done in consultation with the head of the CBC. It is a fine consultation when the Minister holds a gun to the head of the President of the CBC and tells him "We can consult but you have got to cut $75 million from your budget".
We know from information we have received from various regions that the CBC has proposed and will implement major reductions in the staff and services in most of the regions, including cities like Winnipeg, Vancouver, Windsor, Moncton and Ottawa. We know that not only will people be laid off, but regional and local programming will be severely cut in order to maintain the national programming. We know this kind of major cut will mean that the objective the CBC was given by governments in the past to increase regularly and to a large extent the production and distribution of Canadian programming will have to be cut back.
We say, Mr. Speaker, these cuts will very seriously inhibit the ability of the CBC to provide the kind of service which the people of Canada expect from the CBC. I would hope the Minister would agree that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture could meet as soon as possible to hear from the President of the CBC so we can get the kind of details which we have not yet received as to actually what kind of cuts there will be and what kind of programming will be so adversely affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question about regional programming.
Can the Minister give this House the assurance that CBC regional programming, and I am thinking of production centres in places like Winnipeg and Western Canada for the French network and English programming in Quebec, will be maintained at the levels we have known in the past two or three years? Is regional programming going to be improve? Will such improvements be continued and can we expect continuation and completion of the five-year plan to promote minorities and bring the CBC to communities with a population of more than 500 people?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that first of all, during these consultations it was understood that consideration for creative resources both in the regions and in the networks would be given priority. Second, the President of the CBC will be discussing his proposal with the
December 7, 1984

board of directors of the Corporation and will then inform Canadians of the outcome of those discussions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister responsible for the CBC.
First, could the Minister tell us now how many jobs will be affected by the CBC cuts? There are reports that some 800 jobs in the CBC's regional service will be affected, and this means 800 people. In addition to that, many contract employees will be laid-off, and they will not even be included in those figures because they are not part of the actual CBC staff. Therefore, how many people will be affected, and second, how do these cuts square off with the election promises of the Progressive Conservative Party, namely that no actual cuts in cultural expenditures would be made by a Progressive Conservative Government?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, so long as the Board of Directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not confirmed the President's proposals, there is nothing official yet. If and when such decisions are made by the Corporation's Board of Directors, I think it will be up to the corporation's President to announce the decisions made by the Board.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister's announcement today lead to increased or decreased production by the CBC?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question will be found in the analysis the Hon. Member will make of Mr. Juneau's press conference, which will be a part of the nuts and bolts of the cuts affecting the corporation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, coming from Manitoba I have gone through a restraint program with the provincial Conservative Government that was in power from 1977 to 1981. We found that in the Department of Northern Affairs, for example, all the cuts were made to on-the-line people. There was no decrease at all in the headquarters of the Department. It is quite interesting to note that the number of bureaucrats working in the central office actually increased at the very time that there were cuts in the field. What guarantee do we have that the same thing will not happen with the CBC cuts?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated here in this House, at the outset of the discussions on that matter, that the Minister of Communications expected and hoped that all the cuts would respect the whole question of creation both in the regions and within the networks. It is in that spirit and towards that aim that co-operation and consultation with the CBC has been carried out. You will get to know the results of the corporation's work and consultation after the Board of Direc-
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
tors will have approved the President's proposals and once these will have been published.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions are going somewhat beyond the actual content of the statement. Some Members may not know our tradition here, which is to have a short period of questions after a ministerial statement. I am trying to get everyone who has risen in for one question. I think that will be the only fair way to use the traditional period of time, if that is agreed. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could confirm that there will be cuts in the Vancouver region and tell me the extent of those cuts, especially in production. In Vancouver, which is an exciting region, there is the feeling that everything is concentrated in the Toronto region and that Vancouver gets the worst deal possible with regard to cutbacks and so on. It is a real struggle to produce programming in Vancouver and to get money for that. Was it not possible for the Minister to set some guidelines to ensure that the cut-backs would be made where the fat is, rather than in the regions where there is a real need?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me to interfere in a rather tactless way, to say the least, with the responsibilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
When the Board has approved the President's recommendations, we will then be in a position to discuss the implications of such approval by the Board.
But as long as the Board has not been asked . .. has not made any decision, I do not think it would be proper to discuss such hypothetical matters.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, most of us welcome the sense of consultation with which the Minister indicates this process is now under way. My question for the Minister is with regard to broader consultation with some of the communities and workers affected. There certainly have been requests, for instance from the Windsor-Essex County area, for meetings with the Minister and people who are responsible for these cuts.
Would the Minister be prepared to make a commitment that such requests will be accepted so that the degree of consultation in these cut-backs can be much greater, particularly for some of the remote communities or communities like Windsor which faces an overflow of programming from the United States which has no competition with the CBC in the form of private stations?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am taking it for granted that the senior officials of the CBC will be able, in accordance with good labour relations, to arrange the necessary consultations within their organization.

December 7, 1984
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
It is not up to the Minister of Communications to set up labour-management meetings at the CBC. I do not believe that this is the job of the Minister of Communications, and I have too much respect for CBC authorities to interfere in their daily activities which have nothing to do with the duties of the Minister.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister.
We are all aware that the Federation des francophones hors Quebec and many other groups are concerned about the cut-backs, especially as they affect regional programming. Can the Minister assure this House that the Halifax station, about which many people are concerned, will go forward and will open on schedule. With that in mind my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) spoke earlier about the speeding-up policy of the CBC to serve French-speaking groups of over 500 people outside Quebec? This policy has already been established. I agree with what you said earlier about internal consultations within the CBC, but I still believe that a policy statement by the Minister would be in order to tell Frenchspeaking people outside Quebec, especially in the Halifax region, that the programming will begin as expected.


Marcel Masse: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am convinced that the management of CBC have taken into account all the comments put forward both by the Federation and by some Hon. Members here in this House, in their analysis and implementation of the cut-backs dictated by the present economic situation which we have inherited from the previous Government.


Mr. Speaker:: We have now taken more time than that taken by the statements of all Parties. I will recognize the two Members whom I have seen rising for some time who have not yet had a chance to ask a question, and that will be the end of it. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille).


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister certainly knows of the number of studies that have been made and of the great concern we have about the fragile situation which faces our Canadian authors, writers, artists and all those who work in the various kinds of drama and art in the country. He knows of the fragile condition that is facing this entire group in the face of the new satellite dishes and so on. I do not need to remind him of the very sensitive and fragile situation which exists and of the need for us to be able to develop and maintain a sense of Canadian culture.


Mr. Speaker:: I have tried to explain to Members that we are in fact running over the length of the time of the original statements. Does the Member have a question?


Roland de Corneille: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was simply indicating the gravity of the situation. In light of the cuts that are being
made, can the Minister say that the philosophy, position and direction of the Government will ensure that this fragile situation will not be accidentally destroyed by these tremendous cuts?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is well aware of this situation and that the CBC, in accordance with its responsibilities and parliamentary mandate, has done its best to guarantee that the creative activities of the CBC mentioned by the Hon. Member will not be curtailed.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have just one brief question for the Minister. I am not sure that the Minister realizes the depth of concern among the people who depend on the CBC for their casual earnings, which are often low over the course of a year. I am talking about actors, musicians and writers.
Will the Minister move quickly to tell the House and the country exactly where programs will be cut so that those people who will lose opportunities of employment will know where they stand and can try to make other plans for their careers?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly not be appropriate for the Minister of Communications to reply to such a question until such time as the chairman of the board of the CBC has referred to the board the management proposals and the board has endorsed these proposals; it is then that they will be made public by the Chairman of the Board. At that time, I am convinced that the Hon. Member will find sufficient evidence in the proposal or the public report of Mr. Juneau to realize that her concerns were shared and taken into account by the CBC.


INVESTMENT CANADA ACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: for leave to introduce Bill C-15, an Act respecting investment in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
December 7, 1984

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 6 and 58.


Mr. Boudria: 
Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	(a)
(b)
(10) Quantity	Make	Model	Year3	Oldsmobile	88	19852	Pontiac	Parisienne	19851	Buick	Le Sabre	19851	Chevrolet	Caprice	19851	Mercury	Grand Marquis	19851	Oldsmobile	98	19841	Ford	Crown Victoria	19842.	(a)	None *(b)	Not applicable
Note: A Chrysler New Yorker 1982 replaced by an Oldsmobile 88 1985 was declared surplus and transferred to DSS Disposal Operations. In general, vehicles are no longer traded-in to dealers but are declared surplus.


Mr. Howie: In each of the last three consecutive years for which figures are available (a) how many female workers were employed by the government, excluding Crown corporations (b) what was the total number of persons employed by the government?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The following table shows the total employment and the number of females employed in that part of the Public Service for which the Treasury Board is the employer (PSSRA 1, 1) for the years shown:
	Total employees*	Females*
December 1981	230,118	92,578December 1982	234,201	96,087December 1983	234.866	96,799
These numbers do not include Crown corporations, agencies with Separate Employer status (such as National Research Council, National Film Board), RCMP or military personnel.
Excise Tax Act
These data reflect simply a count of the number of employees at one point in time. The Treasury Board controls the size of the Public Service by means of person-years, which represents one full-time person for 12 months or any equivalent such as 12 persons for one month.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
She said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government I am pleased to rise in the House today to put before Hon. Members for second reading Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
This Bill proposes some very positive policies announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the Government's economic statement that was tabled in the House on November 8. The intent of this legislation is to restore a sense of stability and prosperity to several areas of economic activity in this great land, this land that we all love and want to see as a land of opportunity again.
Bill C-12 also re-establishes a number of measures that were introduced by the previous Government. That Government allowed these items to linger. We are proceeding with these measures now to reduce uncertainty so that those affected by these measures will have the legislative assurance which will enable them to plan for the coming year.
It gives my Government great pleasure to include in this Bill a measure allowing a fuel tax rebate for primary producers; those Canadians engaged in farming, fishing, logging and mining. As Hon. Members may know, this measure was announced on July 5 in Prince Albert. This commitment recognizes that our primary producers continue to be significant contributors to the Canadian economy. Primary producers will now be eligible for a three-cent per litre, or 13.6 cents per gallon, sales tax rebate and relief from the 1.5 cents

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
per litre, or 6.8 cents per gallon, excise tax. These combine to produce a total tax relief of 4.5 cents per litre, or over 20 cents per gallon. This rebate took effect December 1, 1984.
Our Government wants to facilitate this fuel tax rebate. We are concerned about the financial difficulties currently facing those engaged in the primary sector, and it is our hope that all Hon. Members will act in concert with the Government and pass this relieving legislation as quickly as possible.
When providing primary producers with a fuel tax rebate, the Government will not impose on the primary producers a mountain of paperwork in return for this benefit. On the contrary, our Government is dedicated to simplicity and greater productivity wherever and whenever possible. I want to reassure Members of the House who represent Canadians engaged in the primary sector that we are not a Government which introduces tax relief measures only to create a bureaucratic albatross to administer the benefit. The administrative measures will be implemented by the most fair and simple means possible. Relevant information on the procedures for this fuel tax rebate are being distributed by Revenue Canada.
This measure, as I mentioned earlier, reflects our Government's concern for the current financial difficulty facing primary producers. It will cost some $160 million in the first full year of operation and will run through to January 1, 1987. In addition, the refund system for the 1.5 cents per litre excise tax on gasoline will also remain in place.
A second measure reflected in this Bill deals with the air transportation tax. This tax measure is part of the cost recovery program which my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), announced on November 8, 1984. The ad valorem rate of this tax on air travel within Canada and the United States is increased to 9 per cent from 8 per cent, with a new maximum of $30 which is up from the previous $23 maximum. For air travel to destinations outside Canada and the United States, the specific tax will be increased to $15 from $12.50. These increases will affect tickets purchased within Canada and those purchased abroad by passengers who board flights in Canada. This increase is effective April 1, 1985.
This cost recovery measure is expected to generate additional revenue of $34.6 million in 1985-86. The amount will be allocated to Transport Canada to fund services related to air transportation in Canada. In addition to these new initiatives, the Bill will remove any uncertainty in the market-place with respect to tax measures announced in the past but not yet legislated.
A telecommunication programming services tax of 6 per cent on charges made for provision of programming services such as Cable TV or closed circuit broadcasts and related services is being authorized. This tax has effect as of April 20, 1983 for services provided from July 1, 1983 and has been included in the charges of most cable system operators since that time. We are proceeding with this particular measure, as well as three measures I will place before the House, in order to avoid undue disruptions in the affected industry.
Second, the tax point for highway motor vehicles is being shifted from the manufacturer level to the wholesale level; that is, to the sale-to-retail level. This shift has no effect on the tax on domestic vehicles but it does decrease the amount of tax on U.S.-made vehicles while increasing the amoung of tax on other foreign-made vehicles. This change is effective from March 1, 1984 and removes competitive inequities inherent in the current tax structure.
Third, for all taxable transactions from October 1, 1984 to December 31, 1988, the sales tax will be increased by one percentage point. The applicable rates are 6 per cent on construction materials and equipment for buildings, 13 per cent on alcohol and tobacco products, and 10 per cent on all other taxable goods. The additional revenues generated by this increase had already been allocated to prior expenditures.
The previous Government set up programs without knowing how to pay for them or taking the responsibility to raise the necessary funds at the same time. This adjustment in the tax rate will generate revenues of $2.2 billion by 1986 to pay for programs already set in motion by the previous administration. Much as the Government regretted this measure, we were compelled to proceed with its implementation once we had examined the extent of the overspending by the previous Government.
I am also putting before the House certain technical measures which will benefit taxpayers. Upon Royal Assent to this Bill the Government will begin paying interest of 1 per cent per month on refunds of taxes outstanding more than 60 days beyond the filing of a valid claim. This will apply in respect of all payments to taxpayers or other persons entitled to recover moneys under the Act.
Also effective on Royal Assent, taxpayers may apply for and recover ad valorem sales and excise taxes paid on transactions which are written off as bad debts. Sales from February 16, 1984 are covered by this provision.
The definition of "taxable marginal manufacturing" is being clarified specifically to include the coating or finishing of goods for sale, while removing the reference to unspecified activities related to the preparation of goods for sale. Other amendments relate to specific commodity or industry groups or are of a technical or administrative nature.
Passage of this Bill will clear the way for consideration of new initiatives to improve our commodity tax system while allowing the business community to operate in an atmosphere of certainty and confidence.
I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm before the House this Government's declared dedication to restoring confidence and stability to our economy. Confidence is the key to our economy's expansion, the key to greater job opportunities and the key to social equity for all Canadians, young and old, wherever they live in this great country of ours, in the west, the east or the far north.
December 7, 1984

This Government is here to serve all Canadians. Our Government was elected because it represents change, a very much needed change. This mandate for change is an enormous responsibility. We take the trust given us by the Canadian people very seriously. We have begun the reconstruction of our national finances. We are redesigning government programs and policies. We want to support rather than hinder economic prosperity. It is about time the Government of Canada took charge and attended to the economic affairs of this great country. It is about time Canadians got a sense of stability and prosperity for which they work so hard.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 is very similar to a number of measures that were introduced by the previous Government. The previous Government tabled several motions pertaining to the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act in the Budgets of April, 1983 and February, 1984, and one concerning the Excise Tax Act in May, 1984.
Bill C-12, arising from the notice of Ways and Means motion tabled on November 8, 1984, in effect brings forward the motions tabled by the previous Liberal Government. Proposals pertaining to the telecommunications programming services tax, the wholesale tax for motor vehicles, a number of commodity tax changes, provisions relating to recovery of sales tax paid on bad debts and payment of interest on outstanding sales tax refunds and overpayments are all virtually identical to those introduced by the previous Liberal Government.
However, there are at least two differences between the present Bill and previous motions. First, the Government proposes a rebate of three cents per litre on motor fuels used off highway by farmers, fishermen, loggers and miners. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) assured us in his economic statement that this is approximately equal to the federal sales tax. I think Members would all agree in principle that providing assistance to this particular group of Canadians is worthwhile. But I am interested in why the Government chose this method over others. For instance, one of the Government's campaign promises, which many us on this side have read in "Pocket Politics '84", was to remove the sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel for all primary industries: fishermen, farmers, loggers, miners and the up-stream oil and gas sector. In this case the oil and gas sector seems to have been left out of this particular provision of the Bill.
It is also interesting to note that when this measure was discussed in February, 1984 in this House, the Member for Portage-Marquette, now the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), advocated a very different solution. He pointed out that farmers and fishermen are allowed a 7 cents per gallon or a 1.5 cents per litre rebate. They pay the tax and then apply for the rebate. The Hon. Member expressed the view then that if the Minister of Finance were serious about helping this group of Canadians, it should be done by a different system. He said that farmers and fishermen find it very annoying and cumbersome to apply for refunds. Granted we are all in favour of relief for this particular group of Canadians, but I would be interested to know why the Government now in office has chosen a method of provid-
Excise Tax Act
ing relief which is at variance with its campaign promise and the expressed views of one of its Members. I would be interested in the reason for choosing this method and for discarding the other two proposals.
Let me move to another point, Mr. Speaker. The February, 1984 Budget contained proposals for a formal assessment and appeal system to be introduced into the Excise Tax Act. This was a method to have the appeal rights of Canadian taxpayers protected and entrenched in the law. The present Government is not proceeding with that measure. One would like to know the reason for this change.
Finally, the Minister in her opening remarks spoke of the potential of this Bill to raise revenue. Indeed it does raise revenue, as all excise tax Bills do, but this kind of tax is not progressive. It falls equally on Canadians who are able to bear extra costs and those who are not. I gather the new Government does intend to look at the whole taxation system. I hope as it does that it will try to weigh any changes it makes in favour of a more distributive tax system and that the Government will limit any growth in measures of this kind which fall equally on those who are able to bear them and those who are not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) wish to commence now, or shall I call it one o'clock?


Ian Deans: I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, if it were not inconvenient, to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It now being one o'clock p.m., I do leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at 1 p.m., the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) had been given the floor.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not pleased to be rising to speak on this Bill. I had hoped the Government in its wisdom would have recognized that the additional tax measures contained within the Bill are undesirable from the point of view of Canadian consumers and perhaps unnecessary from the point of view of industry.
Let me begin by saying that we will oppose the Bill for some of the same reasons the Conservative Party opposed a similar Bill when it was in opposition. It is interesting to note that what we have in this legislation is for the most part a reiteration or a reintroduction of the measures proposed by the previous Liberal administration. With some minor modification, the Bill before us is a reintroduction of what the Liberal

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
Party had in two of its previous Budgets but had never been given the opportunity to enact into legislation.
Although it may surprise some, it does not surprise me that the Government has chosen to accept the direction which was taken continuously over the last number of years by the Liberals in office. I am somewhat dismayed by the reversal of the Government from the position it took when in opposition. I never cease to be amazed, when people move across the floor of the House, at how they can find some justification for approving actions which they previously condemned as unnecessary or even harmful to the over-all economy of the country.
How well I remember the days prior to the last election while the House was still sitting. Conservative Members rose to point out how the additional $1 billion cost, which the increase in the federal sales tax would result in, would be disastrous to the economy of Canada. I am sure my Liberal colleagues remember Conservative Party Members saying that when they sat on this side of the House. They castigated the Government for imposing this additional burden at a time when the economy was so fragile. They told the Government that it would do nothing other than result in further unemployment. They told the Government that it would do nothing other than reduce the purchasing power of the majority of consuming Canadians and therefore would in turn result in a decrease in the necessity for manufacturing consumer goods. They said that the end result of all this would be that with the $1 billion-and that is only part of this Bill-which flowed from the excise tax increases we would continue to create within Canadian society further unemployment and a further downturn in the utilization of manufacturing potential and capacity. Also they said that we would make it even more difficult for hard pressed families in Canada to be able to afford to purchase what they must have in order to provide for themselves and to keep the economy healthy and growing.
I took those words to heart. After all, I thought that with the vast resources of the Conservative Party, it would have conducted the necessary research to justify the suggestions it was making. I checked it out with my own research and asked: "Are the Conservatives right; is this what will happen?" We looked at it. We analyzed it. We did a breakdown of it to see what would be the consequences of the imposition of this additional tax. Lo and behold, we came to the conclusion, just as the Conservatives said, that it was regressive, unnecessary and undesirable and, just as they said, that it would create further unemployment, and undermine an already fragile recovery which we hoped was taking place. We found, just as they had said, that in fact they were correct.
I had hoped that having put forth that argument, Conservative Members would stay true to that in which they appeared to believe. I had hoped that when in office they would be prepared to rescind these kinds of measures and take into account what they themselves had been foisting upon Parliament and the public of Canada as conclusive evidence of the
inadequacy and inadvisability of this legislation. But no, Mr. Speaker. They nip across the floor of the House after the election, get themselves comfortably seated for three or four days and then do an immediate about-face.
The implementation date for the imposition of the additional tax was upon us in September and the first question put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and then subsequently to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was: "Are you going to rescind that tax? Are you going to withdraw those provisions?" The immediate answer was: "Well, we are going to consider it", followed very quickly by a statement indicating that the Government intended to allow the tax increase to take place and intended to allow this additional $1 billion burden to be placed on the backs of the consumers of Canada. It intended to run all of the risks with the economy that it had indicated were the risks the previous administration had intended to run. In fact, government Members were going to endorse the very thing that they had said was going to be extremely harmful.
If someone were to do that in private life, people would lose confidence with that person. People would have no confidence in his or her capacity to make decisions. If it was done only once, perhaps people would overlook it and would try to find some good reason for what had been done. However, this is the second time in this Parliament that what Members of the Conservative Party had held as a principle is to be broken. What the Conservative Party had put forward as an absolute position will be reversed. It worries me to see a Party that is so desperate for power that its Members will say anything any time notwithstanding whether or not they are prepared to implement or stand behind those statements.
Conservative Members are bringing forward during the course of this debate and are implementing at the end of this debate Liberal legislation. It has minor modifications that can be touched upon, but on balance this is Liberal legislation. All of the experts have said that the sales tax is a regressive tax. It requires of everyone who is affected by it that they pay the same amount notwithstanding their income capabilities. Notwithstanding their capacity to earn, they pay the same amount. It matters not what their income levels are. If they must buy the product, they pay the same sales tax whether they are millionaires or are living off welfare. It is in fact a regressive measure and it is certainly less progressive than many other options that are open to the Government for trying to raise necessary capital.
This Bill is of an omnibus nature and I use the word "omnibus" in the broadest possible sense. I am not arguing that it is an omnibus Bill. However, it contains a series of measures. Through that series of measures, this Bill extracts from the economy $4.4 billion. The economy cannot afford to have $4.4 billion worth of purchasing power removed at this point in time and still expect to have a recovery. If $4.4 billion is taken out of the consumer market-place and put into the coffers of the Government, that means in actual fact that that many fewer dollars can be used to purchase the products that are being manufactured or could be manufactured by those
December 7, 1984

who are in the business of producing. There will be no market for those products because the people do not have that $4.4 billion.
Quite clearly, on the one hand the purchasing power is being reduced while on the other side of the coin the revenues to Government are increasing. In the process of reducing the purchasing power, we are creating or at least running the risk of creating additional unemployment. By creating additional unemployment, we then add to the cost of government.
The $4.4 billion taken out of the economy results in unemployment being created all across the country and the slack will then be taken up by the Government at various levels by providing those unemployed people with an income capacity in order to meet their needs. They will be drawing unemployment insurance and welfare payments. Where is the gain? Our economy is operating at about 76 per cent or 72 per cent of its capacity, depending upon when one makes the calculation. What is the point of further reducing the manufacturing capacity by reducing the consumer demand? That is what this kind of legislation does.
It is not as if I am blind to the fact that the Government needs to raise additional money. I can well understand that this Government has inherited a dog's breakfast from the previous Liberal administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Thank you very much. I will give you more in a moment.
I can well understand that the Government may have some difficulty raising the necessary funds for the ongoing program needs given that the previous administration did not manage the economy particularly well. However, I am saying today what I would have said to Liberal Members had they stayed in power. If the Government needs $4.4 billion or, for that matter, if it needs even more or somewhat less than $4.4 billion, this is not the way to go about raising it. Of all of the options open to government this is clearly the most harmful one. The option that has been chosen is the one that will do the least good and will impact the most severely on the economic recovery, assuming that there is some kind of economic recovery under way.
I would like to suggest to government Members that had they done an accurate analysis of the various tax concessions that are presently available and had they done that analysis in such a way as to determine on a cost-benefit basis whether or not the tax concessions that we allow are yielding the benefits that we had anticipated, the answer that would have been forthcoming would have been conclusive: we do not get the benefits from tax concessions to the corporate sector that were intended. These are not my own words but the words of economists all across the country and of economists who have studied the tax concession route that has been taken by successive governments in many jurisdictions.
I do not deny that certain of the concessions were given with good intentions. I understand that and can appreciate that
Excise Tax Act
governments have from time to time thought that by giving additional tax concessions to a particular part of the economy, that would yield significant benefit in the long or short run. However, the analysis that has been done has proven that that in fact is wrong and that we do not get the benefit from the tax concessions that the majority of past governments have argued we would get.
Very interesting analyses have been done on that which show that tax concessions for research and development did not in fact result in the build-up of a research and development capability in Canada. Many other tax concessions were sought by business. But few were used for the purpose of creating new initiatives for job opportunities in Canada. Those tax concessions, though they cost us many billions of dollars, did not bring about the kinds of results that we expected. When I say "we", I mean the Government, whether here on the federal scene or in the provincial area. The tax concessions which the Government gave did not result in the kinds of benefits that many people had expected.
An estimate was done of the concessions which are afforded by the federal Government to various and sundry parts of the business structure of Canada, either by way of tax breaks or by way of outright grants. The analyses show that the money that has passed through the system to that sector amounts to something in excess of $18 billion on an annual basis.
If it is true-and I submit that it is true-that money does not give back to the economy of Canada the kinds of results that were intended. If it is also true that the Government finds itself in the position in which it requires additional tax revenues, why did the Government not go to that area, look more closely at the grants and concessions, and make some determination that perhaps they could be reduced from the sum of $18 billion to $14 billion? That would have yielded approximately $4 billion to the Government which it is attempting to raise through the various tax measures we have before us. Would that not have made at least as much sense, and perhaps even a tiny bit more sense, than to go the federal sales tax route? The Minister smiles, and she smiles very nicely, but I know that deep down she is thinking: "My God, why didn't I think of that?"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mrs. Mailly:: Fat chance.


Ian Deans: I can see the little wheels turning, and that is not because her head is hollow. Now she is thinking that maybe she should withdraw the legislation and come back with something more in keeping with the very sensible proposals which are being put forward by the New Democratic Party. I would congratulate her if that is what is going on in her mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I am not one to claim credit for good things. I want that to be clear to everyone. We in this Party are quite

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
prepared to share the glory of having come up with a good idea. In fact, we will even allow the Government to adopt the idea as its own!
In a more serious vein, I want to suggest to the Government that there is not a study anywhere which would indicate that it is better for the economy of Canada to increase the federal sales tax by the numbers and amounts that this Bill will, over and against the option of reducing the handouts and tax concessions which are presently available to the corporate sector by one-quarter, thereby raising the same amount of money. That would trim off some of the fat.
If the Minister really wants to do something useful, she should accept this proposal in the way that it is intended. The Conservative Party was right when it was in opposition to say that these were the wrong measures and it was the wrong way to go. The Conservative Party argued a very forceful case when it was in opposition. Reluctant though I am at times to agree, I agreed with what was put forward by the Tory Party when it sat on this side of the House. Having already made that great leap and accepted that it was right when it was over here, I can come to no other conclusion but that it must be wrong when it is over there. It is not possible to be otherwise. If I supported it when it was arguing that this was the wrong way to go-and I did-then I can do no other than to be consistent and say; "Why don't you join me in the consistency and live up to what you believed was true?" Then it could look at alternative ways.
I am not suggesting that what we proposed as appropriate measures are necessarily the only measures which could be implemented. But I am suggesting that there is widespread support in the House of Commons-and I think on the backbenches of the Government and out in the country among the experts and analysts-for a very careful review of the concession method of providing a pass-through of tax dollars to the corporate sector. Since there is no requirement on the corporate sector to live up to any kind of guidelines or to abide by any kind of commitments, it is abundantly clear to anyone who has studied this subject that there are few, if any, benefits that flow from the $18 billion, or at least a significant portion of that amount; but if the Government is determined to reduce the amounts it would not cause any long-term damage to the economy of Canada. There certainly are few benefits in what is being proposed here today.
We need only look around the country to appreciate that we are facing as difficult a time today as we were facing prior to the Government being elected. The unemployment statistics show quite clearly that, with all the best intentions in the world, the Government is not able to match its commitments to its performance. Indeed, in the first three months of the Government's mandate things have worsened for many people. There are now 50,000 more people looking for work than there were when the Government was elected. There are 244,000 people in Canada who have been unemployed for between six months and a year, many of whom no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. There are 130,000 people who have been unemployed for over a year. Long-term unemployment in
Canada-those unemployed for a year or more-is considerably higher now than it was a year ago. In fact, it has risen by approximately 180 per cent. Those people are not going to be satisfied with the measures which have been brought forward to date.
The Government speaks of confidence, but confidence is difficult to measure. The Prime Minister admitted that it is hard to measure confidence; it is hard to feed it into the equation and calculate how it will impact. I agree that it is hard. I honestly hope that the Government's measures work, and I will tell the House why I hope they work. I hope they work because if they do not work the country will be in an awful mess. The measures which have been taken since September 4 will work a tremendous hardship on a large number of people. Between now and the end of next year, those measures are anticipated to create between 50,000 and 100,000 more people on the unemployment rolls. I would hate to think that that additional sacrifice will be made by those individuals, among others, and then have the Government's long-term program not work.
What I find most difficult is: What does confidence mean? It is a wonderful word but how can one measure it? How can one measure confidence when one has no job and no one in the area is hiring? How does one measure confidence when a kid graduates from high school and has no way of being able to continue on to university? How does one measure confidence when a person owns a home but because of cut-backs he cannot afford to meet the mortgage payments and must give it up? How does one measure confidence when a small business person operating in a small community finds that the only employer in that community is closing his door? What does one say to the people who worked for that employer who is closing his door? The word "confidence" is a wonderful word. We can say we are as confident as hell, but having said it, what about the jobs? What about the employment opportunities and the growth? Where do we see the development taking place which would lead us to believe that in fact there is something which will flow from that development? It is bad enough that the Government of the day should inherit a terrible situation, but far worse that the Government of the day should then set about to make it even more so. That is what is happening not only as a result of this measure but as well as a result of the economic statement which was brought forward by the Minister of Finance some weeks ago.
One cannot create employment by creating unemployment. We cannot decide to cut back a whole host of programs with the inevitable consequence that there will be more people unemployed, and then expect that everyone will feel that somehow or other that measure is creating employment. It just does not happen.
I want to say to the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we have to stop and take a look at the reality of that which is Canada. We have gone through some very buoyant economic times and we have gone through some less satisfacto-
December 7, 1984

ry economic times, but the one thing I notice from looking over the history of the development of this country in modern times is that the private sector has not been prepared on its own initiative to keep pace with world development. The private sector, notwithstanding all of the grants about which I spoke, has not been prepared to invest in Canada in order to keep pace with changing technology. Notwithstanding the grants for research and development which were made available through our tax dollars, the private sector has not been prepared to engage in proper research and development. And that is the way we must measure the performance of the private sector. It has not been aggressive in seeking new markets for its products. In the main, as a sector, the private sector has not been aggressive. It has in fact, to the contrary, steadfastly refused to go out and seek those markets.
I took part in a study which was conducted all across Canada. I spoke to numerous sector organizations about the need to seek markets outside of Canada for their products, but with few exceptions it was indicated to me that the private sector was content with the size of its business as it was. It was content to operate as a domestic supplier and it had no intention of moving into world markets. Those individuals in private business who did indicate that they were interested in doing so did not have the power in Canada to make the decision in any event. In the main, they represented branch plants of a multinational operation which was set up in Canada to meet Canada's domestic market requirements. They did not have a mandate nor did they have the authority to get a mandate to seek world markets.


Mr. Stewart:: Exports are up 40 per cent in Ontario.


Ian Deans: I thought I heard my colleague from the other side saying "That is absolute crap", which I want to point out is unparliamentary; but nevertheless it would be useful for the Hon. Member, if he does not believe me, to go out and find out for himself.


John B. Stewart: Exports are up 40 per cent in Ontario.


Ian Deans: Exports are up 40 per cent but not in manufactured goods.


John B. Stewart: What about the auto pact, cars?


Ian Deans: The auto pact is a peculiar situation which fluctuates from year to year and does not operate under an independent mandate in Canada. It operates as part of an international North American conglomerate structure.


An Hon. Member:: For what?


Ian Deans: If the Hon. Member wants to rise and make a speech, he may do so. But the majority of individual companies operating as a part of a branch plant operation, worldwide, do not have the authority to develop world markets.
Having said that, I have to ask where is this business confidence-I am not even asking about consumer confidence-going to come from? Where are those businesses
Excise Tax Act
which refused during the good years-and we have had many of them-to seek out those alternative markets, to build the Canadian base, to develop the R and D potential and to become part of a world-scale operation? Where are they? Because that is what is required in order to achieve the goals set out by this Government. But they do not exist, in the main. What they would not do before, they will not do now.
We have given concessions upon concessions to the point where big business hardly pays any tax at all. We have now reached the point where big business can defer paying tax indefinitely so that perhaps it will pay tax 20 years or 30 years down the road, unlike the average worker who pays tax by the week. We have already made it possible for big business not to pay for almost everything it does. What more can we give? The fact of the matter is that we can give no more. Because we can give no more we can hardly expect, based on its record, that big business is suddenly going to rush forward and embrace this new requirement of "confidence" which this Government believes ought to be in existence in this land.
There is nothing I would like better than at the end of this four-year period to see that the Government's measures have worked and everyone in Canada is working, that there is growth and everyone can look forward with some degree of optimism to prosperity and enjoyment of life and to be able to provide for their families. I would love to see that happen. That is motherhood. We would all like that. However, we cannot have that if we are going to rely on the corporate sector which steadfastly refuses to operate on Canada's behalf. We cannot have that if we rely on big business to change its ways; it has had ample opportunity to do so and has refused at every turn. Why do you think we have had to have so much research done in the public sector? Because the private sector refused to undertake it.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I'm listening.


Ian Deans: I know you are listening. It is not doing much good, though. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that there has been the opportunity given. We have tried that and it has not worked. Just to restate the requirement over and over again is not going to make it any more acceptable than it was in the beginning. I say this because I believe that the Government is placing all of its eggs in one basket. It was said earlier that everything which has been tried by this Government has either been spoken about or tried by other governments in other parts of the world, and in fact was even tried here in Canada some years ago. The consequence of those actions being pursued was that massive unemployment was created.
Our mandate, for heaven's sake, is to try and take care of the people who are here today; to make sure that the opportunity is there for them; to make sure that they do not have to pay a price far beyond what would normally be expected by the balance of society; and to attempt to lay the groundwork for a future for the next generation and the ones which follow. That is not what is being done by this Government through this legislation or through its economic statement.

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
So 1 say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when we look at what we now have before us and consider its consequences, we cannot help but believe that if we take almost $4.5 billion out of the consuming economy-because that is where it comes from-it can only result in a reduction of purchasing power for the overwhelming majority of Canadians who must buy consumer products. If that is the case, it can only result in a reduction in manufacturing which will then result in increased unemployment. There can be no other way to look at it. I do not care how you calculate it or which economic model you use; you can only come to the conclusion that if you take more money out of everyone's pocket, they inevitably will have less to spend. That is what this Bill does and it is why it is counterproductive. If there was ever a time to pursue this kind of measure, and I have my doubts that there is, this certainly is not the time.
If the Government has to find ways to raise additional money, I suggest it begin to look at the $18 billion in tax concessions which we hand out willy-nilly. That, in essence, is what the Conservative Party said when they were in opposition, and that was the right position. But what the Minister is now doing is going to cause more hardship and not relieve the pain.
The Government is not required to do this. To begin with, if the Minister believes that in the future there will be economic prosperity, that the private corporate sector will be able to provide the necessary job opportunities, then it is quite clear that the revenues derived from those who will be working will be sufficient to carry the debt we now have. That hopefully will be the case. If so, if the private corporate sector is going to live up to the Government's expectation and by some fanciful means achieve the goals the Government hopes it will achieve, then quite clearly there will be a sufficient number of tax dollars generated from that new economic activity to make this measure unnecessary. I suggest to the Minister that if these measures were not implemented, that $4 billion would remain in the economy and help us achieve that goal more quickly. If more people are able to buy, then the possibility of newly-generated opportunities in the private sector will be even greater. But in taking the measure the Government is taking today, it is impeding the very goal it has set for itself.
What the Government is doing, Mr. Speaker, not only does not satisfy me but it does not satisfy the goals the Government has set. That is the hard part to understand. If an economy is operating at considerably less than capacity and you reduce demand even further, how can you expect to improve the economy's productive performance? They just do not mix and therefore do not match. We would much prefer that the Minister bring forward legislation dealing with the many, many tax loopholes, the many, many corporate donations by the Government out of the average taxpayer's pocket. We would rather see the Government bring forward measures to restrict the use of those funds. It would not again be digging into the pockets of the average Canadian family and thereby creating even more unemployment and more hardship. We
would rather see that we go the other route and give people a chance to feel the confidence the Government asks them to feel. Give them a chance to demonstrate this by putting forth some effort of their own on behalf of the recovery the Government would like to see and that we would like to see as well.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak more particularly to the Bill that was presented in the House this morning. Actually, today I am not speaking as the Member for LaSalle but rather as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I rather like preambles myself, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday afternoon, I was singled out more specifically, and I would like to inform the House and particularly my hon. friend opposite-and I hope he is listening, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-that I speak freely, am censored by no one, and that I have risen from my seat to speak to a Bill which I support wholeheartedly. I may add that the Progressive Conservative Party or Government backbenchers, as we were referred to yesterday, are not frustrated at all.
First of all, we have been silent for so long because we are learning a lot, and we have been silent not because it was the prudent thing to do but because it was the correct thing to do. We prefer to choose our words carefully instead of talking a lot but saying nothing.
Second, on the other side of the House we hear lots of "were" and "was", but we, the newly elected Members of this House who are almost the majority, we would much prefer to hear things said in the future tense, and I think that is why we were elected: to look to the future.
Unfortunately, at this stage and with the financial legacy we have received, we must first put out the fire and clean up the mess. You may rest assured that it was a joint effort, for I had an opportunity to work very closely with my Minister-or Ministers, I should say-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) to draft the bill introduced today and even the economic statements presented recently. I can tell you that it is common sense at its best.
Somebody on the other side tried earlier to tell us what is going on in the private sector. Well now, I might point out that we too have worked in the private sector for a while, and that is exactly what is happening there. When one opens a new business, one tries to forecast which way things are going to go, and then sets everything straight from the start.
The bill introduced today is more than a simple copy of earlier such measures. To put it another way, some details need to be straightened out, and these details of the bill were clearly explained this morning by the Minister of State
December 7, 1984

(Finance) (Mrs. McDougall). I do not see any need to go over them again. However, I must emphasize that this measure highlights the major principles which generally govern the private sector. In other words, one of the basic principles used in the private sector is that people must pay for services rendered. In my opinion, an attempt has been made to redistribute the load, in the sense that this bill contains as many tax rebates as new tax levies. This is the kind of redistribution which has to be made, considering the sorry mess the previous government left behind.
The word confidence has been heard often lately. I think this bill will restore confidence and I draw your attention particularly to the spirit of fairness behind this measure.
In one instance, the Government has decided to pay interest when it was late in paying back. In its arrogance, the previous Government was quite willing to make us wait for money owed to us. In the private sector, you have to pay a penalty for late payments, and that is what this Government is proposing in its great spirit of equity under certain provisions of this Bill.
A lot has been said about unemployment. I believe that this Bill will to some extent restore the confidence of our citizens. Why? Because when a new administration takes over the first indication of its ability is the extent to which the people in charge can put things back in order, and this is what we have done. We have not been in power very long, only three months, but I believe that this Bill confirms our commitment to put these mechanisms to good use to provide jobs for the people of Quebec. Of course, I believe that our Government is not alone in this, and I am quite certain that this obviously is also the wish of the Opposition.
Of course, there is no confidence at the present time in the Canadian economy. There is only hope that this confidence, which we deserve, will be restored. I sincerely hope that the initiatives taken under this Bill will give back to Canadians the confidence necessary to create employment for their fellow citizens.
I found one sentence in this Bill especially striking, and it says something like this: Passage of this Bill will be a first step in examining new initiatives and improving the spirit of equity that should characterize indirect taxation while enabling the business sector to operate in a climate of certainty, stability and confidence. This is our definite pattern, and it is our belief that everything in the measures introduced by our new Government and in the legislation we will be putting forward will show the same spirit of fairness which we backbenchers from the business community are bringing here. It is our hope that the forthcoming bills will be as well designed as this one to restore financial order.
Of course, a new emphasis will have to be put not only on the backbencher's role, but more generally on work ethics. Formerly, people were admired for their work ethics, but now
Excise Tax Act
people are admired mainly for what they get as a result of their work ethics, and that too often alas means money!
I think the Right Hon. Prime Minister made a remarkable statement when he said that people would have to be put back to work. We must put them back to work confidently. There are many people now who work but lack confidence in the future. There are people who refuse to work, supposedly because salaries are too low, prefering to do nothing. But we will have to give priority to the work ethics that always inspired our predecessors and Canada's pioneers.
Well, I would think that this legislation or the spirit behind it has been very successfully developed from a consensus reached both outside and within the Government.
I am sure you appreciated the comments made this morning by my Minister and I would like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time I work for a woman other than my wife, but it is extremely pleasant, and I can assure you that my Minister has performed very well up to now, and although she does not need my humble assistance, I can assure you that she has my full support, both as to the contents of the legislation and the way it was put forward. I had the chance myself of attending consultations that led to the introduction of this Bill and I can assure you that the business community is quite in agreement, on both the procedure and the ultimate goal.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you personally that as back-benchers on the government side we take part in the drawing up of all government policies and I can do it without any restraint. I feel that my training phase is not over yet, but I assure you that we feel quite proud of taking part in the management of our country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to put a question to the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) about his speech on Bill C-12.
Many changes are made to our tax system in that Bill. A very important issue is the 1 per cent increase of the sales tax. The proposal was made by the former Liberal government. In July and in August, the Progressive Conservative Party fought the election campaign against the Liberal party and the tax increase. The same situation prevailed in the House last year when the Progressive Conservative Party criticized the sales tax increase planned by the Liberal Party. Could the Hon. Member explain his party's turnabout? Why do we find a Liberal proposal in a Conservative bill?
The more it changes, the more it is the same, Mr. Speaker. Last year it was the Liberal Party; this year it is the Progressive Conservative Party. What we have is exactly the same thing with exactly the same proposal. Could the Hon. Member explain to the House why his party has changed its mind? This

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
is an important question, because a party should follow the same line in government as in the opposition. That is the reason why Canadians sometimes-

-are very cynical of politicians in this country.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to remind the Hon. Member that I have never sat in the opposition. In addition to that, it is understood that we are not allowed to discuss a particular section of the bill. We must deal with the whole bill which contains adjustments one way or the other. Obviously, I am not in a position now to deal with a particular issue or increase without referring to the bill as a whole or going over the very clear explanations which the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) gave the House this morning. That is the approach. If you want to consider the bill as a whole, I feel that the speech was perfectly clear in this respect, but again I repeat the first part of my statement. We were not in the opposition. People should stop stirring up the past and start looking to the future. This climate of confidence which we are trying to create will be based on the future, because the recent performance of the past government having been so dismal, I do not think it could be used as a basis for anything.
So let us build upon a foundation we already have. I think this bill will indeed go a long way towards providing a kind of continuity in this government. Let us use that foundation to build our future.
Last month's economic statements were our foundation, our starting point. I might say in passing that I have no idea what happened in the Opposition because I was not here. As to the election promises, they should be considered as a whole, not singly one after another. I still have vivid memories of the election campaign, and the reason for that is that, even though I was not in the Opposition, I did take an active part in the campaign. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that throughout the election campaign the Prime Minister always made it a point not to refer to a particular aspect without talking about policy as a whole. In my opinion, it is quite unfair to single out one specific detail without referring to the whole picture so ably presented this morning.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member was not in the Opposition, but he does belong to the government team and that government made an election promise. I have one specific question to ask: Is the Hon. Member now prepared to throw that promise on the scrap heap? Is he for or against? Is he for or against the provision of the bill to raise the sales tax by 1 per cent? Is he now prepared to throw that election promise on the scrap heap? Yes or no?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I thought I said clearly and calmly that promises have to be taken as a whole, not piecemeal. That was done. There is absolutely no question of reneging on any election promise through this bill.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a brief comment on the hon. gentleman's speech. He made repeated references to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). I also want to congratulate the Minister for her speech, not for the same reason given by the hon. gentleman, but for conveniently overlooking the obvious when the Government says it will give 20 cents a gallon to primary producers because of financial problems facing primary producers. On the one hand, it gives 20 cents, and on the other hand, it increases oil and gas to world prices. It gives 20 cents while it increases sales tax on certain commodities.
On the one hand, it gives 20 cents to the fishermen, while on the other hand, it tells the fishermen they may have to pay for their weather forecasts. It gives that 20 cents while telling the fishermen they will have to pay to tie up their boats. It gives this rebate while telling the fishermen that the Government will do away with their insurance scheme so that they will have to pay hundreds of dollars more per year to insure their boats.
The other note that I made was that the Minister referred to 20 cents a gallon on the sales tax rebate and the excise tax rebate. She and the Government conveniently overlooked in all of their statements the fact that the excise tax rebate was always there. It was brought in by a Liberal Government in 1975. Taxpayers simply made their claim and kept their receipts at home. There was not a word of distinction made by the Minister of State for Finance nor was there anything in the documents emanating from the Department of National Revenue about conveniently overlooking a matter of fact concerning that excise tax rebate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there are no further questions or comments, we will proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for . . . Did the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary intend to answer?


Claude Lanthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier).


Claude Lanthier: This has been quite a charge against the spirit of this legislation. When it so happens that at one point we do something and at another point we do something else, that in one instance we do something and in the other instance we do something else, well, this is exactly what we intend to cure with this legislation. The goal is to have the place back in order. There is no question and we never made any secret of that, of simply lightening the burden with that Bill. The purpose is to make a redistribution, and listen! We also have to
December 7, 1984

put in order bills that had been introduced by a previous Government and that were gathering dust.
And it was because of the genuine concerns of the private sector that we decided to put the place back in order. I would therefore thank the Hon. Member opposite for illustrating, in a much more experienced way than I could do, that the aim was to put our house back in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I want to remind the House that there are approximately two minutes left for questions and comments.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, may I say this in reply to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The Hon. Member said that one must look at these tax measures as one package and that they cannot be separated. I am interested in one particular tax measure, the one which increased the federal sales tax in order to raise a billion dollars. That tax measure was an issue during the campaign when the Hon. Member's esteemed Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), took the position that he would not put that measure into effect.
it seems to me that the Hon. Member should at least be principled enough to respond to that question. Is he in favour of that increase to take SI billion from the spending ability of Canadian taxpayers? Is he in favour of that particular measure, yes or no?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance that he has only a few seconds left.


Claude Lanthier: Fine. I repeat, this is not as a package, it is as a whole. But let me say that this has already been answered. Yes, I support that tax, on the one hand, but within a series of reductions that would stem from elsewhere. Agreed? I think I have answered. I believe so, yes, because I supported the Bill.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And you are taxing the people. Did he say the same thing during the election campaign?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The period for questions and comments is now ended. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-12.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully this morning to the speech by the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and to the comments made earlier this afternoon by the Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). I wonder whether we were running in the same election, Mr. Speaker, because I think my recollection of the recent election campaign is some-
Excise Tax Act
what different from the description given by the Member for LaSalle.
For instance, I remember that the Progressive Conservative Party made 338 promises in this campaign. But I do not remember that at any time during the campaign anyone said: Well, ladies and gentlemen, we made promises, but we will not be able to keep them. I do not remember anyone saying that during the campaign. In fact, when the Leader of my Party said there was no way the promises being made by the Progressive Conservative Party could be kept, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said very clearly that of course, with the new spirit of confidence that would reign in Canada, and so forth, it would be able to keep the 338 promises he had made.
I certainly do not remember, or else maybe I forgot, Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister saying during the campaign: Ladies and gentlemen, we must realize that the promises I made cannot be kept. If he did, I stand corrected by the Hon. Member or other Conservative Members in the House. But I do not remember hearing this during the campaign. In fact, I discussed it with some of my constituents, and they do not remember it either.
Mr. Speaker, earlier there was some reference, and I believe it was the Hon. Member for LaSalle who mentioned this, to putting Canadians back to work. I think that is the expression he used in his speech. However, I examined the Expenditure and Program Review which proposes to cut tens of thousands of jobs in my riding and elsewhere in Canada, and I do not see any reference to where Canadians will be put back to work.
My constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell employed in the Public Service do not at all feel as if they were being put back to work now. They rather feel as if they were being dismissed or laid off by a Government which told them quite the opposite only a few months ago. So they feel that they have been conned, and rightly so. And you, Mr. Speaker, who are witnessing all our discussions in a very objective and non-partisan way, surely understand that what the Progressive Conservative Party wanted us to believe during the election campaign is not at all what we are seeing today.
We just heard, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) saying we should stop referring to the past. However, he himself dealt in his speech with the financial state of affairs inherited from the previous government. Well, how can one reconcile those two very different ways of thinking? You cannot say that you want to forget about the past while at the same time making reference to it every five minutes in statements and speeches. You cannot do that!
Also, that same Government which apparently wants to forget about the past is introducing in this House Bill C-12, a Bill that for the most part was introduced by the Liberal party during the last session. That is some record for a Government which apparently wants to put the past behind it
1022

Excise Tax Act
and says that the previous Government was ineffective and incapable of running this country, to come up every two or three days with Bills that are similar and sometimes identical to those of the previous Government. How come then, if the previous Government was unable to govern the country, this new Government has chosen to copy the bills the former Government introduced?
When I was in elementary school, if I had tried to copy or use someone else's notes it would have been referred to as copying, and in university as plagiarism, meaning the same thing, of course. But when the Government introduces Bills previously introduced by the Liberals, it should put a little note at the bottom of these Bills, or an acknowledgment of the fact, even a note to say that most of the Bill had been presented before by the Liberals, if that were the case. I think this would be only fair. The person who spoke before me is indeed a very sincere Member and one who would want to give due credit to those involved in presenting similar legislation. We know the Hon. Member would not want to take credit for anything that he did not do. We recognize that on this side of the House. Perhaps this is an oversight. It was not mentioned in the previous speech or in the speech of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall).
There are some good points in the Bill. There are some differences. One of the issues raised in this Bill is the gasoline and diesel fuel rebate for off-highway use by farmers, loggers, fishermen and miners. At least part of one of the 388 promises will be fulfilled by this measure. We are still waiting for the other 330-odd promises that have yet to be fulfilled but probably never will be.
In recognizing that one promise was made, I find that there was perhaps a parallel promise that was forgotten. I want to draw something to your attention because I know that you will be very interested in this, Mr. Speaker.

I find it rather unusual, Mr. Speaker, that during the recent election campaign the government failed to tell us-and no doubt it is an oversight on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party-that while a rebate on fuel would be granted, an additional $6.2 million cut would be made in dairy programs.
I also find it rather unusual, for example, that the government failed to tell us that $9.4 million will be cut in the Department of Agriculture budget. Canadian farmers who will be receiving that rebate cheque from the government will quickly lose it directly or indirectly and their loss will probably be higher than their gains. On the one hand, the government gives out $1 and on the other, it takes back $2.
It seems to me that this is what will happen according to the financial statement or under the programs put forward by the new government. For example, Canagrex will be abolished:
December 7, 1984
that is a $6.6 million cut in the agriculture program. Some members stated earlier that they agree that Canagrex should be disbanded. The government will very soon introduce a similar bill changing the name of the corporation but entrusting it with duties similar to those given to Canagrex by the Liberals. In any case, agricultural programs are being cancelled.
If we speak so often about farmers, Mr. Speaker, it is because it should not be forgotten that the fuel tax rebate cheque will be handed to our farmers by the government. Therefore, we should always bear in mind that what the government gives with one hand it takes back with the other, but it always takes more than it gives, particularly when it is a Conservative government.
I would like to point out next, Mr. Speaker, the cut or cancellation of the $3.5 million forest research project in Corner Brook and in St. John's, Newfoundland. In the agricultural services, $32.3 million will be recovered. Mr. Speaker, do you know what cost recovery means? It is a tax in disguise. It may be that Conservative speakers who spoke of that project forgot to mention it but cost recovery is direct or indirect taxation. The truth is that even the farmer who receives a cheque with the signature of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Prime Minister or any other minister will have to pay back to the government money he would not have paid before. As far as I am concerned, I call that a tax and farmers who will have to pay it will call it a tax too. Those farmers will feel betrayed by this government who did not act in good faith and did not keep his election promises.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the previous speaker, who said that under the Liberal government bills lingered on. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, who let the bells ring during the last Parliament? Who is it that brought the parliamentary process to a halt? Was it the Liberal Party? No, Mr. Speaker, it was the Progressive Conservative Party which did that. And they have the gall to accuse the Liberal Party of allowing some bills to die on the Order Paper!
Members of the Liberal Party were here and they wanted to work. If the Progressive Conservative Party had really been sincere in its concern for the welfare of the Canadian public, its members would have come to the House when called; they would have sat, debated the various bills and voted on them according to their opinion. Hon. Members may be for or against a bill, but when they refuse to sit while being paid for representing and being the servant of their constituents, in my view they are certainly misbehaving.
Being in a non-partisan position, Mr. Speaker, you will certainly agree with me that my constituents and all Canadians have elected me and all other members of the House in order for us to represent them in Parliament. Therefore, when some 100 members of the House decided to let the bell ring
December 7, 1984

and not to sit for a few days, the constituents they were supposed to represent were in fact without representatives for that period. I am sure that otherwise several bills would have been brought forward, several pieces of legislation needed by Canadians would have been enacted.
I want to tell you as well that we in the Official Opposition have no intention of talcing such action. I must say that like members of the Progressive Conservative Party, we may disagree on occasion with the Government. For instance, I agree with the general principle of the Bill before us, but I cannot accept the fact that once again, the Government has failed to keep most of its promises. But they will have to live with the fact that they are not meeting the commitments they made to the Canadian people.
However, what I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, is that although some of us disagree on occasion, we will say so in the House and we will vote accordingly. We do not intend to let the bells ring for weeks or do anything else which, in fact, would paralyse this Parliament and the government of our country. We, in this party, agree with the government when they say that Bill C-12 is a good bill; we admit it since this bill was copied from what the Liberals did in the past. We do not quite agree with the two or three parts of the bill which were amended, and I must say, even if I repeat myself, that the part dealing with the rebates to farmers, the part which applies to farmers is totally unsatisfactory because, as I said earlier, the government takes back what it gives the farmers in the first place. It probably takes back much more than it gave.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I must say to the government that we, in this party, will continue at every opportunity to remind them of the commitment they made last September 4 to meet their 338 promises. Maybe more than 338 were made. Some Progressive Conservative Members may have made promises of their own in their ridings. It is even possible that the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) told his constituents they would not lose their jobs if they elected a Conservative government. That is not impossible. But the people of Ottawa-Carleton who have already lost their jobs or who are going to lose it will be disappointed when they realize that promise is worth nothing. Anyway, let us say 338 promises were made nationally. Our party will use every opportunity to remind the government to keep its commitments. Perhaps Members opposite will say they cannot do it because the government has no money. But they had the duty to get the facts and to do their work properly before making any commitment.
For instance, the Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier), who apparently is a businessman, said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that in the business world you have to study the situation before you make a decision, or something to that effect. That is exactly what he should have done regarding the 338 promises.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and Comments?
Excise Tax Act


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), I found it strange and curious. The Hon. Member accused the Government of stealing his Party's Bill. He said that it took the tax proposals which the Liberal Government in the previous Parliament had put forward, that it took them holus-bolus and put them together in Bill C-12. The Hon. Member rose and said that they should be given credit for it, but I should like to ask him how he will vote on this Bill. Will he vote for Bill C-12 or will he vote against it?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in my remarks, a good part of the Bill is in fact a repeat of what had been introduced previously in the House. I have explained in great detail that there was a considerable resemblance. However, there are portions of the Bill with which I did not deal in my remarks. I am referring in particular to two clauses. One refers to the appeal procedure and another concerns the fuel tax rebate. The fuel tax rebate in no way reflects the promise of the Government last August and September. At that time the Government promised to do two things. Actually it made 338 promises, but as they pertained to this Bill there were two main themes. One was that the excise tax would be removed and that the increase in excise tax elsewhere would not be implemented.
The situation with which we are faced is that the Government is removing part of the excise tax. We acknowledge that. On the other hand, it is introducing through the back door other taxation measures. For instance, if the Government wants to be really honest with Canadians, this Bill should indicate that the excise tax is replaced with the tax I previously mentioned. Then we would know what is going on. In fact, the Government is removing one tax and replacing it with another. However, in the document to which I referred, they are not called taxes. They are called cost recovery, whatever that means. A cost recovery is nothing but a tax in disguise, not even a very good disguise. We all know that a fee charged by the Government for a service which was previously free is in fact a tax. To call it anything else is not perfectly honest. It is a tax or an increase in tax, but it is not a cost recovery.
Those are the concerns which I expressed previously in the House. I agree with the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) when he says that a good part of this Bill was introduced previously by the Liberals. I have acknowledged that. There are some differences which I just explained. When our Party introduced the Bill in the past and during the last election campaign, we never said, "Vote for us, we will give you 338 goodies and life will be beautiful thereafter".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is why you lost.


Don Boudria: I am glad to hear the Hon. House Leader say that we lost because we did not make promises with which we could not live. If that is the reason we lost, I feel better sitting on this side of the House. When I go to sleep at night, I do not

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
worry about disappointing the people of my riding. I have told them the truth and I will continue to tell them the truth. In four years, we will be over there and government Members will be over here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Other questions or comments?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Hon. Member has not answered the question. How will he vote on the Bill, for or against?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hate to have to repeat everything I have already said. Let me try to make myself clear. We are debating this Bill and studying every clause in it. Now we are studying its general principle. Later we will discuss every clause. When the time comes for final reading, our Party critic will clearly announce to the House the position we will take.
Right now 1 am expressing in great detail my reservations on two different clauses of the Bill. I dealt with the Government not living up to the commitments it made during the past election. If the Hon. Member and others wish me to go through the whole series of thoughts that I expressed previously, I am quite willing to do so. I would be surprised if that were the case. I am personally willing to listen to what other Hon. Members have to say about this. However, if that is not the case, I will continue to conclude my remarks in response to statements or questions for the remaining 10 minutes afforded me.
(Translation)


Mr. Chartrand:: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a few comments about the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). First, I want to tell him that he really knows how to represent his constituency and that the whole House is now aware of the name of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I have never heard the name of a constituency repeated as many times as in his speeches.
He stated that we made 338 election promises. Perhaps we made many promises, but how can he say, after we have been in power for only three months, that we do not keep our promises and will not keep them? In my opinion this is a gratuitous statement.
He also said that we delayed proceedings last year by letting the bells ring and by not taking part in the debate. I do not understand how he can make such a statement since as neither he nor I were in this House last year. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was not a Member of Parliament at the time, so how can he say that we delayed the business of the House? In this regard, if I try to think as others would, even though I was at home myself and had to follow what happened in the newspapers, I would be inclined to say that this was perhaps an attempt to make the former Government-and I do mean the former Government because it is no longer in power and will not be for many years-understand
that there were ways to make them listen to us, and I believe that this was one way to do it.
The Hon. Member says that he wants to serve his constituents, but so do we, all of us. We were elected to serve the people of our constituencies as well as we can. In my own riding of Verdun-Saint Paul, and I can at least mention the people of my region, I was told to take means available to represent my constituents well. I believe this is what the Hon. Member is doing. He is using his voice. He speaks well, but there are many other means available and what we did last year was perhaps a way, short of going on strike, at least to force the government to listen to us.
The Hon. Member also made another statement which I find very unfounded, namely when he said that we give the farmers SI with one hand and we take back $2 with the other. I would like to know how he can be so specific about this amount and state without proof that we are taking back more from the farmers than we are giving them. I do not understand this.
Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the Hon. Member and his attitude towards us are quite unwarranted. To me, attacking the Government is not an acceptable way of representing his constituency. I am a Government member and do not consider myself a back-bencher. Freedom of speech is a right enjoyed by each and everyone of us but surely there are much more important things to say if we want the Government to work and to provide all Canadians with the necessary services and everything else available to help them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I must remind him that he has only a few seconds left.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I wish to thank the Member for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I have no excuse to make whatsoever for having expressed in this House the opinion of the constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I have been duly elected for this purpose and that is what I have been doing from the start, so you better get used to hearing me out because I will be around for a long time yet, Mr. Speaker. All Members should keep that in mind.
Now, the member has alluded to the fact that this Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! I do not want to contradict you so early in your speech after what you just said, but your time has expired.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the chance to join in the debate. In the last few minutes, I have been listening to the debate and I have never heard a discussion that sounded more like a paternity suit.
December 7, 1984

We have before the House Bill C-12 which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, amends the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and provides legislative authority for a number of sales and excise tax changes that were proposed first in the April Budget of 1983 and then in the February Budget of 1984. It includes some provisions which were proposed more recently in the November economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
We have heard the claims of the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party that he has had some background in this. We know that there was some additional input into the Bill when it fell to our lot to form the Government. The lack of mixed blood comes only from the fact that members of the New Democratic Party have consistently been the jilted suitor throughout the piece. They have always been able to criticize the provisions of this Bill from the same vantage point.
I would like to enter this debate for the express purpose of drawing attention to three specific points to which enough attention has not yet been paid. These specific points are the provisions relating to newspapers and magazines, the wholesale tax for motor vehicles and the increase in tax for tobacco and alcohol.
Before coming to those substantive points, I would like to reflect for just a moment on the speech to which I listened with such care made earlier this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). It was a reasonable speech and was made in the eloquent tones with which the Hon. Member has for so long presented his points, both in this Chamber and at Queen's Park. It was a reasonable speech but one which was based on an unreasonable proposition to which I will return in just a moment.
Thinking as I did about the fine baritone voice of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, watching the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) nodding in agreement to at least some of his points, and enjoying the halcyon silence in the House this afternoon as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is noticeably absent, it strikes me that there are three Members opposite whose voices had previously been heard in the Ontario Legislature. It makes me reflect on how true it is that in the federal system the cream clearly rises to the top.


Ian Deans: So does sour milk.


Patrick Boyer: There are many tastes in the House. All I was saying is that we found the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to be reasonable and most eloquently delivered, but based on an unreasonable proposition. It is unreasonable in two aspects. First, a political aspect. Second, a tax policy aspect. The political aspect was to contend that a Party could move from the Opposition-where we justly and for a long time criticized government policy, including tax measures-and into Government, and within a matter of weeks could completely take the great ship of state and turn it around 180 degrees.
Excise Tax Act
That is completely unreasonable. Many measures are in process, most of which are reflected in this Bill. The Bill will clean up previous measures as a part of the transition to the new Government. Anyone looking at this with a sense of realism will appreciate that these things have to be carried through, in certain cases with fine-tuning.
I think the second aspect, which dealt with tax policy, was also unreasonable. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain said that if $4.4 billion had to be raised, there were other less harmful ways of doing it. I question the wisdom of that. What has become evident in redressing national finances is the balanced, even-handed approach which is being taken by the Government. It is manifested in terms of the cuts which are necessary. No one sector is suffering unduly. We are trying to spread the pain evenly so that we will all bear a share of the burden. The same goes for raising tax revenues. This Bill does not contain one big tax bite aimed at any particular sector. What it contains are modest increases on many fronts where taxes have already been imposed. The Government is generating an essential $4.4 billion, which is needed to help pay for government programs without unduly burdening any particular sector of Canada.
I would like to bring three points to the attention of the public. The provisions that deals with the newspapers and magazines does not really increase taxes; it is a technical change to provide clarification. As a result of Bill C-12, in order to qualify for an exemption from the federal sales tax, newspapers and magazines must devote at least 10 per cent of their space to news and editorial content. The change is proposed to ensure that it applies to printed space and that margins and other blind spaces will not be counted as part of news content.
I am the fourth generation of a family which has a weekly newspaper in Ontario, so I have an abiding interest in the press in this country. It is important to ensure that advertising supplements do not replace traditional community newspapers that accurately reflect the voice and concerns of individual communities. The economic base should not be undermined by publications which cut corners and try to use a minimum amount of editorial content in relation to advertising, to sneak in under the wire and take advantage of the federal tax exemption.
The second point, which has not received full recognition in this debate, deals with the wholesale tax for motor vehicles. The change is significant. As a result of Bill C-12, the point at which the federal sales tax is levied on automobiles will be shifted from the manufacturers' level to the wholesale level. That move will put North American automobile manufacturers in a much more competitive position in relation to European and Japanese automobile manufacturers. The wholesale tax on motor vehicles reduces the advantage of overseas vehicles because it changes the tax base from the point of entry to wholesale. Therefore, the tax will take into account such things as distributor charges, which make up the cost of a car. It will amount to a difference of $250 on the retail price of an average car. It will be an advantage for Canadian and Ameri-

December 7, 1984
Excise Tax Act
can car manufacturers. Every Member of the Elouse knows what that means in terms of jobs in the country. Canada under the Auto Pact with the United States, has a major interest in automobile production and parts which are produced here and shipped south. Anything which can be done to strengthen the North American automobile industry is a step in the right direction. That is the reason I am supporting this Bill.
The third point concerns the increase of the tax on alcohol and tobacco which will rise from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. I support that, not only as a tax-generating measure, but as someone who is very concerned about the health implications of tobacco and alcohol and the social dimensions of alcohol abuse. I will not pretend that increasing the tax on these two commodities is the best way to deal with alcohol abuse or addiction to tobacco. But I am convinced that our society has culturally arranged itself in a manner which puts these two products front and centre when they should be at the periphery of the way we live, if we care about health and society. I feel so stongly about that that I would support the Bill for that reason alone. Any increase which might have a further deterrent or an inhibiting effect is worthy of support. The increased revenue which comes from it, while helpful to the Government, is almost peripheral. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is nodding his head. He is very dedicated to the proposition that we must deal with these issues in a much more direct manner so that Canadian society and individual Canadians can enjoy the health which is their birthright and not have health and social problems accumulate as a result of the pressures of tobacco and alcohol consumption.
I began my remarks by indicating that the debate sounded similar to a paternity suit with respect to who would be responsible for the Bill. It was interesting when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain said that in his view he really did not care who took credit for the ideas that the New Democratic Party might propose. He said that as long as they were implemented, that was what counted, as far as his Party was concerned. That reminded me, Mr. Speaker, of something my late mother, Patricia Boyer, used to say, that "there is no limit to what you can accomplish in this world if you do not mind who gets the credit for it". I am not sure who really wants to take the credit for where we are at the end of 1984. In terms of the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, these are complicated statutes in the sense that they have so many provisions that touch thousands of dimensions in the way Canadian commerce is carried out. We are dealing here today with but a few of them. It is almost like making soup; the recipe can include whatever you want to put in the pot. I believe that the Minister, in bringing this Bill before the House, has done a fine job of trying to take what was left over from the Liberal Government-as it left for the opposition benches in a rather tattered state-and salvaging what could be salvaged from its previous budgets.
We on this side of the House are not saying that any one Party has a monopoly on all of the great ideas and that any other Party is totally devoid of positive thoughts as to how to
deal with the issues. What we are trying to put together here is a Bill which can adequately reflect where we are at this time in terms of having to raise additional revenues and doing it in a balanced and fair way and in a way that is consistent with the understanding many Canadians have, going back two or three years, based on earlier budgets.
That is a final theme I would like to touch on as I conclude, Mr. Speaker. We in this Party lament very much the fact that Canadians have not been able to plan their future adequately because of the uncertainty in government programs and the constant changes in government financial and fiscal monetary policy. The authors of the earlier Liberal budgets, I believe, particularly aggravated the state of the Canadian economy, if not directly through their measures, then indirectly through their constant changes of direction. What was one year brought in as an incentive program to stimulate offshore drilling, investment in Canadian films or housing construction, a year or two later would be called a loophole by the same Minister of Finance who had sponsored the incentive in the House. Canadians who had been encouraged to do something at one time, two or three years later were having a finger pointed at them for being somehow sharp operators who were abusing the tax system for personal tax advantage. It was that constant changing back and forth, the inability of the Liberal Government in the past decade to set the course and hold to it through thick and thin, that has led to the stagnation for the past three or four years in the Canadian economy.
I do not feel I am being partisan when I say that our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has set a clear course. It is one which is building confidence in the country because people sense that we have a Government in control in Ottawa and one which has taken over the direction of this country. If one reads, for example, Christina McCall-Newman's book The Grits, what is documented there most clearly is the fact that the senior Liberals of the Cabinet in fact did not generate the policy directions for the country but, rather, turned to the senior civil servants for that. If there was a problem with transport or data flow, if there was a question on customs, you name it, the former Government would turn to the senior civil servants to generate the policy.
We now have a Government which is creating policy itself. We are trying to get the Public Service back on the traditional track in this country where the Government, listening to the people, sets the policy and the Public Service carries it out. That, I believe, is a theme which can even be seen in Bill C-12. Because here there is clear direction. It is an amalgamation, certainly, of ideas from all quarters. In fact, there may even be some ideas which the New Democratic Party once advocated in this Chamber which have become respectable over time and have crept in here undetected.
Given this background of paternity, I believe this Bill deserves the unanimous support of this House because it is the product of all of us. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous vote of this House in support of Bill C-12.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?
December 7, 1984


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer). I believe that when he described Bill C-12 he said he had no hesitation in supporting the Bill because "it was an even-handed approach"-those were his words-"not aimed at any particular sector in terms of collecting the taxes which are outlined in this Bill". I examined the Bill very closely and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is not even-handed. It does not put the touch at all upon the corporate sector in this country which has, with its friends in Government, very adroitly shifted the burden of taxes from the corporate sector onto individual Canadians. I wonder how the Hon. Member can call this Bill even-handed in its tax collection approach when in fact it does not collect one penny from the corporate sector?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we are just having a semantic debate here, but it may be that we are. What is even-handedness? As I said perhaps five or six minutes ago, what we are dealing with in this Bill are amendments to but a few of the many, many taxes and categories of taxation which are found in both the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. In large measure what is involved here are not new taxes but slight increments in existing taxes.
To say that this Bill is directed at any one sector in particular is to say that the entire legislation which is on the books now dealing with excise tax is something which is not falling fairly and evenly across the country. I feel it is. That is why I support this Bill as being even-handed.
I hear the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) when he asks why we are not going after the large, wealthy corporations in order to get a bigger tax slice. But we are not dealing with the Income Tax Act now, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing here with the Excise Tax Act, and taxing exchanges in commerce and commodities which fall evenly on all, and certainly any corporation or anyone who is in commerce in this country is going to be paying taxes through this legislation.
I really believe it is an unfair oversimplification to take the position the Hon. Member has taken when he said that this legislation is penalizing a certain group, the consumers and so on, and that the corporate sector is let off scot-free. Anyone who would do a systematic analysis of the total taxing package of the federal Government, not only of this legislation but I think particularly of the Income Tax Act, I would come up with a very different conclusion, Mr. Speaker, from that which was suggested by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry. The Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). We have less than a minute left.


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) on his presentation today and to tell him that he is a welcome addition to this House. He has a lot to contribute, I know. Since I represent the riding of Oxford, which is perhaps the second or third largest tobacco growing area in this country, I
Constitution Act, 1867
know that many of my constituents would want me to express to the House, Mr. Speaker, the disappointment they feel about the increase in the tobacco tax. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Lakeshore whether he feels that this tax is actually fair. I realize we should be discouraging smoking and I have no trouble advocating that, being a physician and a non-smoker. However, given the fact that we are discouraging smoking, is it fair to do it by a taxation system which strikes at one particular sector, one that is a legal type of business in this country? If he still feels that it is a fair thing to do, would he agree that perhaps we should allocate the additional 1 per cent to tobacco research so we can get rid of some of the carcinogens? Or would he allocate that 1 percent to medical research which might help to overcome some of the problems to which the Hon. Member refers?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry, it being four o'clock, the Hon. Member will have to reserve on that question.

Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE HULL IN NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer) moved: that Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to present a Bill like the one before the House today. I feel it is my duty to draw the attention of the Hon. Members of this House to the fact that in Canada, we have a problem which may be attributed to what I would call growing pains, that is, we have yet to have a national capital that truly reflects the aspirations of all Canadians.
I have presented this Bill in the House a number of times before, and over the years it has attracted a number of supporters. I am sure that some day in the Ottawa-Hull region we will have a federal district that will be the capital of Canada, not in Ontario or Quebec or British Columbia or Alberta, a capital that will belong to all Canadians.

December 7, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867
The purpose of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is simply to amend Section 16-it could be done by order in council-so that the capital region as described in the legislation governing the National Capital Commission. It was adopted in 1957 and describes all cities, towns and villages included in the national capital region.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might give the historical background to the creation of Canada's capital. As we all know, a lot of ground has been covered since the capital was designated in 1955. For starters, let me say that at the very beginning Queen Victoria designated Ottawa as the capital of Canada in 1857. Before that selection was made, the governments of Upper Canada and Lower Canada made various suggestions between 1841 and 1857, so that the capital moved around, from Montreal to Toronto, then to Quebec City and Kingston. But as we remembered the sad experience of 1814, of the Americans, we then realized that Kingston was much too close to the United States, and that it was perhaps better to get deeper inland so that, if the United States ever wanted to invade Canada, things would be more and more difficult.
As to what happened then, and I referred earlier to the Queen's choice, whether Queen Victoria put her finger at random on a point on the map between Upper and Lower Canada, I do not know. And I do not know either whether credit should be given to Lady Head, who at that time was the wife of Canada's Governor General, and had drawn quite an amazing sketch of Parliament Hill that attracted the attention of the Queen who then chose Ottawa as the Capital of Canada. But one thing is sure: the Queen probably never realized that in so doing she had her finger pointing exactly between what is now the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec. Certainly, had she realized that Canada's capital would then be located in Ontario, she would have found a way to make sure it would be neither in Ontario nor in Quebec, so as to really be a capital reflecting the aspirations of a country such as Canada.
And from then on, we have had several successive Prime Ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, who all showed an extraordinary desire to accelerate the solving of the existing problem at that time, making this the true capital that would reflect the aspirations of all Canadians.
There was the Holt Commission in 1913, set up by the then Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden. There was something else beside the Holt Commission which was one of the first to deal with the development of the Ottawa-Hull area and vicinity.
Of course, there has been extensive development since that time because it was realized that the community known in the past as Bytown, the City of Ottawa which replaced Bytown, could not be expected to cope with all the needs entailed by the development of a capital, and a commission was set up, the Ottawa Improvement Commission, followed in 1927 by the Federal District Commission which in turn became in 1957 or
1958, if my memory serves me well, the present National Capital Commission.
Many things have happened. And judging by the evolution, the development of the concept of a national capital, the idea of eventually creating what I would call a federal district is gaining ground, because it is not normal, Mr. Speaker, to have the capital of a country like Canada located within one province. This might be arguable, but in all logic, it is inconceivable that a capital like Canada's capital be located within one province. What I say is so true that when the Right Hon. Premier of Ontario comes to Ottawa, he does not say "I am glad to be in Ottawa", but "I am glad to be in Ottawa, the National Capital of Canada". So I think it is for him a way of raising the status of his province and enhancing its prestige, but I would suggest that is not the best way to achieve the goal we have been trying to reach all these years namely Canadian unity, which would be reflected in a place such as the capital of a country.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, if I recently asked the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to establish a committee for the purpose of studying the future organization of the National Capital Commission it is because in the past, due to great changes and development the capital has undergone, committees were formed exactly for the purpose of considering the development of Canada's national capital. And that is why in 1957 a Senate and Commons committee was established to consider the very role that the National Capital Commission would play. That is why today we are able to judge the important evolution that took place between 1927 and 1984. We owe to the National Capital Commission, which in a way is the offspring of the Ottawa Improvement Commission and the Federal District Commission, the capital city we know today.
So, my purpose with this bill is for the National Capital Region to become the National Capital of Canada, including all municipalities within the limits of that region as decribed by an Act of Parliament; it would be a first step towards the establishment of what many people wish to see, a federal district. Many politicians had hoped for that type of government for the National Capital area. Back in 1906, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, if my memory serves me well, who was then Minister of Finance, decided to have some sort of referendum on the issue which was defeated by only 800 votes. But it did not occur to anyone at the time to poll the people from the other side of the Ottawa River. Now I am sure that if the people on the Quebec side of the river had been asked for their opinion Sir Wilfrid Laurier's great wish would now be fulfilled and Ottawa would be the Washington of the North.
Many concerns were voiced at the time. To create here a new Washington or a new District of Columbia did not seem desirable for the simple reason that it was not considered very democratic not being able to elect a mayor and city councillors. But things have changed a lot since then, and nowadays,
December 7, 1984

one can say that Washington, D.C. is administered in a democratic fashion, although it is funded by the White Elouse.
This may sound like a common place to many of my colleagues here, but you have to realize that most Members often come to Ottawa as tourists and live here two or three days a week for a few sessions. And when you think that about 50 per cent of Members is changing every four or five years, obviously those people are not as well informed as those Members who live in the region and represent the immediate area.
I said a moment ago that there has been a trend in favour of this kind of project. The fact that my friend from North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) was most favourable to it in his eloquent speech in January 1984 as well as my friend the Elon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) proves it. The idea is not to take something from any local government. What we have in mind is to establish a national capital which will truly reflect the traditions of our country that is Canada, which will become a great country.
That is the reason why we are interested, as most Prime Ministers were, in promoting the capital of Canada, which is a great symbol of our nation, from any point of view. It also explains why in 1969 the Premiers met in Toronto to decide unanimously that the Ottawa-Hull area would be the national capital region. When I say Ottawa-Hull, I include the surrounding communities.
Moreover, if we consider what some politicians have said during the years, the best way to administer the national capital region would be to establish a federal district. A great many people contend that with a federal district everything would change: the courts, the education system also. Almost everything would be ruled by Ottawa. I believe that if the government is willing to establish a capital which will, as I said, truly reflect our nation, it must have a say in the development of the capital of our country, that is Canada.
Therefore, it is easy to understand why some Members have risen over the years, and some of them for 50 years, to request, to urge the Government to do something for the development of the capital; they have succeeded in part. Much remains to be done but some progress has been made and if the Prime Minister of the day is interested in making our capital into a true capital, he will follow the path of his predecessors and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the capital reflects for all practical purposes the beauty, the vastness, the multiculturalism of Canada, that it is located in a centre, not a neutral one, but a truly Canadian one.
Thus, if you compare what has been said with today's development, you will see that in fact, to be able to have a say in its capital the Government must have the necessary tools in the decision-making process.
Constitution Act, 1867
And you will remember as well the fights that took place between the Ottawa municipality and the National Capital Commission several years ago about some matters relating to the buildings that were to be erected around Parliament Hill.
Several years ago, you could see Parliament Hill from far away. Today, you may have to fly aboard a helicopter to see it, because of a few small skyscrapers that have, for all practical purposes, destroyed the beauty of majestic Parliament Hill. And the National Capital Commission had to buy some land in order to have control over this area and to avoid any undesirable construction. That is what the Commission did among other things to avoid the building of huge skyscrapers which would have practically destroyed the beauty of Parliament Hill. Beauty is not the only issue but Parliament must be "at home", as they say, except that in this case the Ottawa municipality has control over it, which is a nonsense, if I may say so.
This is the reason why I want the capital of Canada to be really a capital that reflects the wishes of all Canadians as I said earlier, so that everybody from British Columbia or Saskatchewan, Ontario or the Maritimes, may feel at home in Ottawa, and that there be no Ontarian or Quebecois flavour but a distinctively Canadian flavour in this capital. It will be a first step if my colleagues are ready to pass the bill or merely send it to a committee. The possibility was raised during the last Parliament of referring the subject-matter of the bill to a committee for further consideration.
Those are some of the comments which I wanted to make in this House. I would also like to tell the Hon. Members that, in view of the rather special background of our capital, it would be advisable that Members coming to Ottawa for the first time do not behave like tourists but rather like representatives who want to serve our country. Ottawa would thus become more than ever the capital of one of the great nations of the future, Canada.


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, this being my maiden speech in this House, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair of the House of Commons. I am confident that you will fulfill your duties with success and integrity.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is the first time I speak in this House and I would like to thank all the constituents of my riding of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, an area which is also part of the National Capital, for the confidence they placed in me on election day, September 4th. I would also like to thank all the people who campaigned with me, a number of whom also reside in the national capital, and who contributed to this victory.
I would like to mention that a large majority of Canadians have given the Progressive Conservative party the mandate to represent them in the House of Commons. I wish to tell my constituents, whatever their political suasion whether they live

December 7, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867
in the national capital or elsewhere in the riding, that I am determined to represent them and serve them to the best of my abilities.
I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to give you briefly some background on my riding of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle. This riding is a large rural area, made up of some 60 townships and villages and two small towns, Maniwa-ki and Mont-Laurier. It extends from the Ottawa River to the west, to the city of Hull to the south, and includes the Upper Gatineau Valley and the Lievre Valley. The Gatineau Park, a federal property, managed and maintained by the National Capital Commission, and the Parc de la Verendrye, a provincial park, are also in this riding.
Seventy three per cent of the population, is French-speaking and 27 per cent English-speaking. This riding is therefore a good reflection of the various cultures in Canada since it also has an ethnic and native element.
The main industries in this area are farming, tourism and forests.
Unemployment insurance and job creation are of particular concern to me, just as they are for my colleagues, since my constituency is a disadvantaged one as Canadians could realize by watching "The Fifth Estate" program of the CBC network on November 20 1984. For the time being, the creation of a federal district is not a real preoccupation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-207 moved by my friend, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), which would amend section 16 of the Constitution Act, 1867, since part of my riding is included in the national capital region. The new section 16 would read: "It is hereby declared that the national capital of Canada and the seat of the federal government of Canada shall consist of the city of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, and the city of Hull, in the Province of Quebec, and also of such surrounding area as prescribed from time to time by the Parliament of Canada." Mr. Speaker, this bill would change the limits of the national capital of Canada so as to include the city of Hull as well as any other area prescribed from time to time by the Parliament of Canada.
In mid-1975 a joint Senate-Commons Committee on the National Capital Region was formed to study the recommendations of the Fullerton report in order to find a way to govern an approximate 1,800 square-mile area under the joint jurisdiction of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the federal Government, approximately 50 local councils, and two regional governments.
Right from the beginning of this investigation into the possibility of making the National Capital Commission into a federal district somewhat like Washington in the District of Columbia, the committee ran into problems. The two Provinces of Ontario and Quebec did not want to enter into discussions that would have the effect of mapping the region's future.
Many committee meetings were held to study, among other things, briefs presented by municipalities from the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The participants at these meetings knew what they did not want, but nothing constructive was put forward. Not even an interim report was produced as a result of this committee's work, because of the confrontation of national objectives versus local concerns. It is a confrontation which has been a trademark of the previous administration.
Let me quote an article that appeared in The Citizen on November 11, 1977. It reads:
The municipalities wanted complete control of planning, while the NCC maintained that "the national interest in the capital region is larger than the sum	_
of the local, regional and provincial interests."	I
The same article concluded that this committee should not I be re-established unless all parties concerned participate	I
actively and seriously and send serious representations. To	my	I
knowledge, the consensus of the two provinces, the municipali- I ties concerned and the regional governments has not yet been I obtained.	I
[Translation]	I
Mr. Speaker, can we allow discussions on this bill? Are we	I
going to reinstate a committee to address the issue? Let us	I
take into account the present economic situation of our coun-	I
try which is faced with an enormous deficit. In view of	the	Icurrent economic situation, can we afford to foot the bill	for	Iwhat the change proposed in this bill would entail?	IWhat would be the total expenditures needed for such a	Iproposal?	IIf I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what my	Icolleague the Hon. Member for	Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton	I(Mr. Dick) said in this House on January 20, 1984 when I dealing with the Riel Committee which was created either in	I1965 or 1966, and I quote:	IIt wanted Ottawa and the surrounding area to be taken out of the Province of	IOntario and the Hull and Gatineau area taken out of the Province of Quebec,	Iand something like an eleventh province set up, a truly different area apart from	IQuebec or Ontario which would be the capital territory as they have in	IWashington, D.C. or in Canberra, Australia.	IMy colleague acknowledged at that time that this project	Iwould pose numerous difficulties. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the	Iproblems would be numerous and, above all, it would be costly.	IMy friend, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer	(Mr.	Isabelle),	Iproposed the following in an interview given to the Le Droit	Inewspaper in September, 1982:	II would see the creation of a federal district administrated by a tripartite	Icommission comprised of the Federal government, the government of Quebec	Iand the government of Ontario.	IMr. Speaker, you will know that the creation of such a	Icommission would represent a major investment for Canada	Iand this is a luxury we cannot afford in the present state of the	Ieconomy. It is not a priority of this Government.	I
December 7, 1984

The federal capital district, Mr. Speaker, would cut into the authority of the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), asked if Quebec would willingly give up Hull, Gatineau, Gatineau Park, and Aylmer and allow them to fall into a new jurisdiction. Would Ontario willingly give up Ottawa, Kanata, and some of the rural areas to a new jurisdiction? 1 am sure that both Quebec and Ontario would never want to give up jurisdiction over any part of their municipalities. Assuming they would, what tax base would these residents of this new federal district come under? Will the federal Government have to compensate the provincial Government for the infrastructure now in place? Imagine the scenario of attempting to evaluate the present cost of this infrastructure and the debt per capita this new federal district would assume from the provinces and municipalities concerned.

Mr. Speaker, which law would be applied in a region which is part of two provinces? Ontario's law or Quebec's law? In any event, it would be costly for the taxpayers, not to mention the trouble such a change could spell for the residents who have to adapt themselves to a Federal district.
My hon. friend from Hull-Aylmer mentioned another matter. What education system would be used, Mr. Speaker? We know that each province has it own legislation relating to education. The curriculum and the requisite grades vary tremendously from one province to another.
Also, what language would be used at school, following the creation of such a district? Do you think the people from Quebec would want to adapt themselves to the education system of Ontario? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so, all the more so since Ontarians will not accept Quebec laws.
Would the school commissions in both provinces be consulted or would they have to accept the decision without having a say in the matter?
Mr. Speaker, would the Quebec or Ontario tax legislation apply? As you know, people in Quebec in Ontario do not have the same tax laws. Which one should we keep if the two areas are put together in a national capital district?
Would we consult Queen's Park in Ontario, the National Assembly in Quebec as well as all the people concerned before a decision is made? Or would we impose our decision upon them, as the last government used to do? Just think how much it would cost.
There is also the problem of transport. Presently, each region has its own transit system. We have OC Transpo in Ontario and CTCRO in Quebec. Should we then create a new independent transit system for both areas? In addition, the laws for drivers are different. Would a driving permit cost the same for everybody? Would Ontario residents have to buy
______________________________________1031
Constitution Act, 1867
Quebec automobile insurance in this new district? Many questions come to my mind, Mr. Speaker. Would it be necessary to amend as well the laws regarding automobile insurance?
Let us not forget the sales tax! In Quebec, at the present time, there is no sales tax on some products, including clothes and furniture. Maybe some tax free products in Ontario are taxed in Quebec. Would that change with the new National Capital Commission? The tax rate is not the same either in restaurants in both provinces. This is something else which might have to be changed, Mr. Speaker.
The Quebec Provincial Police as well as the Ontario Provincial Police are two different entities. If we put together Hull and its surroundings and Ottawa in a federal district, does that mean that we will create another police force for that area or are we going to call on the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in the face of the economic climate in which the Canadian people find themselves presently we cannot consider such changes which all entail very expensive investments. Are we going to create another level of government with the federal district? We are trying to reduce red tape. We have now the following levels of government: the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipalities, the school boards, the regional municipalities, and we are going to add to that a federal district. Imagine. Can we afford to create another level over and above all those we already have? I think, and many of my constituents do too, that we already face too much bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, who is going to benefit from this bill? Are we simply going to make life difficult for the residents of the National Capital area? If they chose to live in the city where they are now, they must have a good reason. What would this change imply for residents on the Quebec side, considering the present gap in housing prices in the two cities? Would it be advantageous or not for them if this bill were passed? In order to support this matter, I would like to quote a paragraph from the November 6th issue of The Citizen.
I should like to quote an article which appeared in The Citizen in February 1977. Mr. Claude Morin, Quebec's Minister of Inter-Governmental Affairs said:
-the new Quebec Government would drastically curtail NCC powers on the Quebec side of the river in an attempt to keep the area from being turned into a federal district.
Has there been any consultation since then with the Quebec Government or with the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? Has he consulted recently with the Minister? I do not think so. I think it is just another way of ramming something down the throats of Canadians, without consultation and without any regard for the will of Canadians, and it would be in keeping with the practices of the previous administration.

December 7, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867

Mr. Speaker, I should like to read from an article in the newspaper Le Droit of September 9, 1982 in which my colleague the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer is quoted as saying:
1 am surprised at the reactions of certain mayors of the region, like Mr. Charette of Val-des-Monts. He should have the roof of the Olympic Stadium to cover the hole in his head.
Mr. Speaker, is that the proper way to treat people who are against a Bill? That, Mr. Speaker, is another example of the typical arrogance of the Liberals.
Let me ask this question: Are we going to let this Bill go through just like that, or are we going to set up another committee to consider the matter? Do we intend to inform and consult the residents of the two regions involved before proceeding with a Bill which entails a radical change for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, that is why I am against the Bill sponsored by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Moore) for his maiden speech. I see he is on top of his subject, as was seen by all during the election campaign when he took part in very heated debates in his constituency. I also commend the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) for voicing his pride and his feeling of belonging to his constituency of Hull-Aylmer, as well as his French roots. I have not had the opportunity to serve my constituency of Gatineau as long as the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, but I can share his feelings of pride and devotion.
I also know that during the election campaign, my Liberal opponent took pleasure in recalling that the Canadian Government had taken a hundred years to establish a federal presence across the river from Ottawa and that in one decade the City of Hull had enjoyed a remarkable growth. Therefore, what he meant was that patience was needed to foster that growth. However, I think it would be fairer and more constructive to try and extend the identity of the National Capital beyond the name and limits of Ottawa to the whole National Capital area, rather than annexing the City of Hull, along with its name and surroundings.

For example, there are several communities on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region which belong to this territory. They feel a pride and a sense of belonging which is shared by the people on the Quebec side. If we were to restructure, rename or reidentify the national capital, we should be very careful to take into consideation as well the feelings of pride and of belonging on the part of those communities on the Ontario side.

Then why should we extend the concept of the Ottawa capital to the Quebec and Ontario sides of the Ottawa River and not restrict it to a particular sector called Hull and its
surrounding area. First of all, on the Quebec side there is the municipality of Gatineau, the main city in my riding, which ranks seventh in size among the most important cities in the province of Quebec and is by far the most populated in the West Quebec area. Many are unaware of the fact that the city of Gatineau, the product of the merging of seven smaller municipalities some ten years ago-we shall celebrate our 10th anniversary in 1985-has a population larger than Hull by 20,000 people.
In the past, Gatineau has suffered from an uneven development. Such was the case as well of the Ontario municipalities to which I previously referred. So, although we do approve in principle the Bill presented by the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), we do not think that it is well enough structured to initiate the very serious discussions that we should have over the identification of our National Capital and the expression of pride that we all feel about being Canadians. It would be much better to try to balance the development.

It would be much better to try to balance the development on both sides of the Ottawa River before we entertain any new structures for our national capital.
I was saying that we in Gatineau have been the victims of haphazard development. An extremely rapid development of the residential function combined with government orientations at both the federal and provincial levels have concentrated the institutional and government development exclusively in the areas of the island of Hull. As a result, the population shifted from that municipality towards neighbouring communities, thus defeating the purpose behind the integrated organization of the territory.
In 1983, the city of Gatineau found itself in a state of economic decline whose negative impact can hardly be accepted by the people who live there. Being by far the largest municipality in the West Quebec area, with its 78,000 inhabitants, the city of Gatineau has just recently acquired a major hospital complex and industrial park at the airport, which is a first step in the right direction. However, there still is much to do to correct this unbalance in all sectors of direct Government intervention. Fortunately, our Government has already initiated its efforts to balance our economic development. No later than yesterday, the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) announced plans to build and operate a new receiving station for satellite data in the Gatineau Hills near Ottawa, in the municipality of Gatineau. This station will be able to receive as soon as 1985 the data transmitted by SPOT, France's first remote sensing satellite. The municipality of Gatineau has offered to prepare for the Canadian Remote Sensing Centre a hilltop site as well as an access road and the necessary power lines by March 1985. Public Works Canada
December 7, 1984

will draw up the plans of the station and construction work will be contracted out and will start next April. This station will have an antenna dish with a ten-meter diameter which should be set up in time for the launching of the SPOT satellite expected to take place in October 1985. Thanks to this future receiving station in Gatineau and the existing station of the Canadian Remote Sensing Centre in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, reception of SPOT transmissions will be provided across Canada and the United States.
When the minister announced this project, he underlined that it would benefit those responsible for resource management, adding that this should encourage Canadians to invest more in this new technological sector. On the other hand, he pointed out that Canadian industry as a whole would also benefit as well. Canada is at the forefront of receiving station and satellite data processing technology and the ultramodern Gatineau station will give clear proof of Canada's capability in the field of high technology.
Thus, efforts towards a more balanced development are already under way on the Quebec side of the Ottawa region.
I would like to point out also that there is another very important factor which contributes to this unbalanced development on both sides of the Ottawa river as well as in the development of the Quebec side of the Ottawa region compared to the city of Hull which has been quite favoured so far. We are happy for the people of that city but we believe it is time to extend this economic development to the rest of that region.
As far as government jobs are concerned in the Quebec area of the Ottawa region as well as in the municipalities I mentioned earlier, distribution of those jobs is very uneven. For example, Ottawa, with a population of 295,168 people, that is 45 percent of the population surveyed, gets 78,900 jobs, that is 77 p. 100 of all public sector jobs or 267 jobs for 1,000 people in the National Capital area. Nepean: population 84,000, that is 13 per cent of the population of the region, has 1,000 jobs, or 1 per cent. Hull: population 56,220, that is 9 per cent of the population, has 19,200 government jobs, or 19 per cent. Gatineau: population 74,985, that is 12 per cent of the population, has 150 federal government jobs. There is clearly an imbalance here which must be rectified. I could mention also Gloucester with one half of 1 per cent or 6 jobs. Kanata, with 1,210 government jobs, including 61 with the federal government. And Vanier with only one per cent of the government jobs. The imbalance is evident there also.
This imbalance can be found in the area of social housing in the Outaouais area. There is a ratio of 4 social housing units per 1,000 inhabitants in Gatineau compared with 18 per 1,000 in Hull. In view of the greater population in Gatineau, it is absolutely necessary to deal with this development imbalance.
The level of service, especially in the area of drinking water, is greatly lowered during the hot summer months in Gatineau.
Constitution Act, 1867
The municipality of Gatineau is presently considering this problem and trying to find a solution to it, but because funds have not been allocated evenly between these two municipalities, there are serious problems every summer. Indeed, last summer, it was impossible to obtain drinking water in sufficient quantity on the last two floors of the Gatineau hospital.
It is a very severe problem.
And finally, the high technology industries for which Gatineau has all the necessary infrastructure could, because of the pressures and influence game, be further concentrated where there is not much room left. In other words, Hull has enjoyed very strong growth and has benefited from the erection on his territory of numerous commercial or governmental buildings, and is now in a situation where even its mayor would readily acknowledge that he is in search of a downtown, that he has no idea where the real core of his city is.
So, because of the traffic problems already created in Hull, it would seem fair and positive to spread this development elsewhere.
Now, if the Act dealing with the name and territory of the National Capital is reviewed in such a way that the name of the City of Hull is once again stressed, even by adding the words "and surroundings", but still the City of Hull .. . this will keep in the minds of the governing and administrative authorities the idea that in the Outaouais region the City of Hull is the largest municipality, and knowing that it enjoyed a tremendous growth, they will tend to think that quite an extensive development has taken place on the Quebec side and that there is no further need for it. That is wrong. This is another reason why I feel this Bill is badly structured. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). Up to now, in the last 55 minutes, we have heard the Quebec side of the issue. The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) and myself representing Ottawa-Vanier might also like to participate in this debate. Therefore the matter ought to be referred to a committee for serious consideration and we should not use up all the time to kill, lovingly I would say, the bill of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle). I believe that it would be useful if other Hon. Members could participate in this debate.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that this is the reason why I think this Bill is not well structured, because it puts the emphasis on one city, Hull, on one area, a sector of the National Capital and because, on the Ontario side, there are municipalities with French-speaking populations, like the municipality of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 7, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867
Gauthier), which would like to feel that they are part of the National Capital. All this is to tell you that I would have liked that bill to meet the requirements of the present reality. But such is not the case. I would suggest to my hon. colleague from Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) to rethink his bill, and to come back with another bill which would meet the present needs and requirements.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to thank you for bearing with me and letting me talk for the time left to us, and I regret that parliamentary rules make it impossible sometime to give everyone a chance to express himself or herself on a bill. I believe that the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) has another bill, similar to this one, to change the name of the Ottawa airport, and at that time, my colleagues from Ontario will have the full opportunity to express their views because that airport is on the Ontario side.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, considering the interest that exists in the House for this Bill, I am sure the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) would agree if I suggest that the Bill be withdrawn and the subject matter of the Bill referred to a standing committee of the House. I would like to make this a motion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: You may move the amendment, but that will require a seconder other than the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).
Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, December 10, 1984