1984-12-18

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall 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.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the Opposition House Leaders with respect to Bill C-12. As your Honour will know, there is a notice of Ways and Means motion which was accepted by the House yesterday with respect to certain provisions of this Act which have the effect of amending Bill C-12. We have had discussions and, if you are prepared to put this order to the House, Mr. Speaker,
I think you will find, even in the spirit of Christmas, that there would be a decision to accept this order as an order of the House as follows:
That, the Order of the day for resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be discharged and the Bill withdrawn;
Provided that a Bill based on the Notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, concurred in on Monday, December 17, 1984, and on the Notices of Ways and Means motions to amend the Excise Tax Act and to amend the Excise Act, concurred in on Thursday, November 22, 1984, shall be deemed to have met the notice requirement, been introduced, been read a first time and, notwithstanding any Standing Order, to have reached the same stage in debate on a motion for second reading as the former Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, had reached; and
Provided that for the purposes of debate on a motion for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of the aforementioned Bill the time remaining pursuant to Standing Order 35(2)(b) shall be deemed to be six hours and 46 minutes.
If you are prepared to put that motion before the House, Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the motion.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of my' Party that we do, of course, give unanimous consent after the consultations. I want to say for the benefit of anyone who is watching that what we did was
agree to accept amendments without having to go back over all of the debate that had already taken place. That in essence was what that long motion was intended to accomplish.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we also agree. We have been consulted and we give our consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Government House Leader have unanimous consent for the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried. Accordingly, the order for second reading of Bill C-12 is discharged and the Bill is withdrawn; Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, is deemed to have been introduced, read a first time and is now before the House as an order for resuming debate on a motion for second reading and reference to the Committee of the Whole.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-17, 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.
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on second reading of Bill C-17. It is important for Members to recognize that much of what was contained in Bill C-12 had been carried over from two previous Budgets, one on April 19, 1983, and the other on February 15, 1984, with some important additions that will bring welcome news to some hard-hit sectors of our economy.
Basically the major changes included in this Bill are the following. There is a special recovery tax which, to all intents and purposes, is an increase in the federal sales tax. It is interesting that the new Government is introducing as one of its First pieces of legislation an increase in the federal sales tax.

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
Not many months ago when similar matters were raised in the House, a variety of individuals had substantial comments to make about what this would result in.
I want to take a few moments to remind Members on the government benches of quotes of certain of their Members regarding excise tax increases. On December 13, 1983, at page 116 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had this to say:
This ... is a huge regressive tax bite, far greater than the hospital insurance premiums collected by Ontario or any other province, that this Government has now introduced legislation to try to stop. Hypocrites, cynics, manipulators guilty of deviousness, deviates; this is what the Government is composed of.
This was uttered by the Hon. Member for St. John's West regarding this particular measure. At that time the measure was referred to as being devious. It was a manipulative move on the part of the Government. It was a cynical move on the part of the Government. It was a hypocritical move and represented a sense of deviousness. A few months later this Government has turned around and is introducing exactly the same kind of legislation.
I make this point not only to indicate that once Members of Parliament change from the Official Opposition to the governing Party they change their tune on a whole set of issues but that it is the kind of thing that encourages people to be cynical about what politicians have to say. For example, on February 13 of this year the same gentleman, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, asked the then Minister of Finance if he would agree to eliminate the federal sales tax increase of 1 per cent next October, a sales tax which he has already imposed on the Canadian consumer. He went on to ask if the Minister did not agree that Canadian consumers must be helped if there is to be a continuing recovery. The Hon. Member for St. John's West was attempting to say that, by taking out of the pockets of Canadian citizens through an increased federal sales tax hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, this money would not circulate in the communities of Canada. He indicated that we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that this particular piece of legislation will take from the pockets of Canadians.
It does not take much imagination to recognize that for a recovery to occur in Canada, one of the critical ingredients is that Canadian consumers exercise their buying power and begin to purchase goods and services once again. The Gallup poll of a few days ago indicates that Canadian consumers do not have much confidence in what lies ahead in the next number of months and are consequently keeping their money in their savings accounts. They are not purchasing the goods and services that a recovery requires. What the Hon. Member for St. John's West said back in February, 1984 still holds true today and perhaps even more so.
The Government is trying to generate a sense of confidence in the country and to encourage people to be confident about the ability of the Government to create an environment in which a recovery can inevitably occur. To have as one of the very first acts of the Government the implementation of the
increase in the federal sales tax is not the kind of gesture that develops and builds confidence in the country. It does not encourage Canadian consumers to have faith in how the Government is going to treat them.
A few days later, on February 16 of this year, the Hon. Member for St. John's West had this to say:
The Minister calls it the special recovery tax. He should rename it the special recession tax. There is no recovery. This tax is not going to help it, this special recession tax-
Where does the Minister help domestic demand in this Budget? ... He might help consumer demand if he did away with the 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax that is coming in October. It is a regressive tax that bears more heavily on lower income people.
Again, the Hon. Member for St. John's West was trying to point out to the Liberal Government of the day that introducing a sales tax at that critical time when the recovery was at a very fragile point in its evolution would not be appropriate. I respect that view. I think it would be in the best interests of this new Government, if it wants to build a sense of confidence and hope for the future, to listen to the advice of the Hon. Member for St. John's West. The Government should stop this nonsense of introducing a federal sales tax which will take hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of Canadian consumers. It will do very little in terms of encouraging a positive atmosphere in the country for economic recovery.
A few days later, on March 30, 1984, the Hon. Member for St. John's West had this to say:
One thing I would not have done is to bring in the tax increases which the Minister of Finance brought in in April and which he confirmed again in February. How could this be the right time to have tax increases when there is not any kind of vigorous recovery going on in the economy? I would not impose another I per cent increase in the sales tax on the Canadian people in October, and I would not have made the changes in the child tax credit and the other changes which were introduced in the Budget last April.
Again the Hon. Member was trying to point out to the Liberal Government of the day that an increase in the sales tax was not the kind of action which would encourage recovery in the country.
In the dying days of the last Parliament, on June 28, 1984, the Hon. Member for St. John's West went on to say:
In the next three years the Government is going to take $2.4 billion from Canadian consumers through the new special recovery tax, a I per cent increase in the sales tax. This year the Government will take $300 million. How can the Minister justify these increased taxes on Canadian consumers whom he is crucifying with increased interest rates at the same time? How can he justify that, the unemployment it will bring, and the recession that will follow it?
Why is it that I am reminding Members opposite of the words of the Hon. Member for St. John's West which were spoken only a few months ago? As an individual who had been the Minister of Finance and who at that time was the financial critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, he was standing up in his place and saying day after day that an increase in the federal sales tax would work against recovery and that it would not be in the best interests of economic recovery in Canada. A few weeks later the first action which was taken by the Progressive Conservative Government was to turn 180
December 18, 1984

degrees and impose the regressive sales tax increase which it had argued against so vigorously.
It is that kind of behaviour which encourages many people in Canada to have doubts about the integrity of the new Government. It said that it would not increase the sales tax one month, and a few weeks later it did exactly what it had argued against. It is encouraging the people of Canada to wonder, when they hear the Leader of the Government of Canada stand in his place and say the Government will do this, or a certain Minister stand and say the Government will try that, why they should believe the Government today when it has gone against the very concerns and points which were raised a few weeks ago.
I feel badly. I appreciate the argument which members of the Government make when they say that an environment of confidence must be created for the future, and that we must encourage people to be hopeful and positive about what the future will bring. But when the Government says one thing one day and does something totally opposite the next day, it is no wonder that people across the country are wondering whether they can take what the new Government says as the truth.
This legislation will take in excess of $2 billion out of the pockets of consumers over the next four years. That means there will not be $2 billion circulating in the communities of Canada. When a dollar bill leaves the pocket of a consumer and ends up in Ottawa, it is a dollar bill which does not circulate, week after week, month after month, in the rural areas of Canada and in the large cities and small towns of Canada. What that means is that that dollar bill will not circulate and assist small businesses. It will not be there to encourage and support small retailers in Canadian communities.
The amount of $2.4 billion is a lot of money to take out of the economy over a four-year period, especially during this very critical and fragile time. But this is what this Bill does, Mr. Speaker. That is one reason we feel an obligation to oppose it. We feel an obligation to stand in our places and speak against this Bill because it is not in the best interests of economic recovery, economic development and job creation in our country.
There is as well, of course, a tax now being imposed on telecommunications cable companies in the country. It is called a telecommunications programming services tax. A lot of independent cable operators across the country, economic conditions being what they are, are operating very close to, or on the verge of, bankruptcy and now they hear the news that the Government is going to impose additional taxes on television cable rentals.
One has to wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the right step towards economic recovery is to raise taxes on a variety of businesses as well as on individuals. President Reagan felt that it was not the step to take in that country and he has chopped taxes all throughout the system. One can argue about how and where he chopped those taxes but nevertheless he said: "To have
Excise Tax Act
economic recovery in the United States of America, we must reduce taxes". This Government believes that to have economic recovery in Canada we must increase taxation of all people, particularly the poorest people in this country. An increase in the federal sales tax, Mr. Speaker, in fact raises taxes disproportionately on the poor of Canada. We in this Party do not feel that is right. We do not believe it is fair and it is certainly not in the best interests of economic recovery.
There is an up side to this Bill as well, Mr. Speaker. It is one very important part of the Bill about which we feel strongly. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has been lobbying the Government for months and months now to bring some relief to the hard-pressed loggers, fishermen and farmers in his community. Other Hon. Members have tried to point out that these people are undergoing particularly difficult times and that one of the steps the Government could take is to remove the sales tax on diesel fuel for fishermen, loggers, miners and farmers. This section of the Bill is a step in that direction. We applaud the fact that this measure will remove the sales tax on diesel fuel sold to the groups I have just named as long as it is not resold, of course, for commercial purposes. We have been calling for this type of tax measure for some time as a type of tax measure which will result in increased economic activity in those sectors, which will give those particular sectors a boost during these difficult economic times.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, this Bill now slaps an extra tax on domestic air transportation. We are the second largest country in the world and air transportation plays a very critical role in economic development for the various regions of Canada. I see the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is here today. I appreciate his concern about this matter. I wonder how he feels about increasing the domestic air transportation tax. I wonder how this is going to assist economic development in the Arctic and the more remote regions of Canada. I have received many representations from people from central and northern British Columbia who have attempted to point out again that these small airline companies assist in the economic development of the northern interior parts of Canada and that imposing additional taxes on domestic air travel is not going to be in the best interests of assisting those particular sectors.
The total cost, Mr. Speaker, of these measures, excluding the lost revenue from the removal of the sales tax on farm fuels, which we support, will be $3.1 billion for the years 1984-1988. The fact that $3.1 billion is now being taken out of consumers' pockets is something we have a difficult time supporting. As a matter of fact, we cannot support it in all good conscience. It is important that we recognize that in this Bill the new Government is really bringing forward and implementing Liberal legislation. It goes back to the Budget of 1983, and we must recognize that as we listen to our colleagues in the Liberal Party. It has some important additions, particularly assisting those in the mining, logging, fishing and farming businesses, but we have also to recognize that the

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
federal sales tax is an extremely regressive tax. Everyone must pay the federal sales tax regardless of their income or economic status.
That is just not the kind of taxation that these times require. Taking $3.1 billion of purchasing power out of circulation will certainly not help the Canadian economy. Basically the new Government is taking the wind out of any economic recovery sail with this measure. People in the construction industry are struggling and we are going to be paying more tax on construction materials. As I look at my friends across the way in the Conservative Party-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Don't forget us on both ends.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I ask my colleagues to the left and right to explain how increasing the tax on construction material will assist economic recovery. I ask them to explain how increasing the federal sales tax and taking money out of consumers' pockets is going to assist the recovery, an obviously very fragile recovery.


John Napier Turner: It is going to lower interest rates.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend says it is going to lower interest rates. That is an argument I am looking forward to hearing during this debate.
To close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the $3.1 billion this tax will raise could easily be raised by ending many of the unproductive tax expenditures to the corporate sector. All we have to do is turn to the twenty-third annual report of the Economic Council of Canada where they say all sorts of revenue can be derived from simply taxing the corporate sector in a more sensible way. I think it is time we paid some attention to that. Rather than go out and raise regressive sales taxes, rather than raise taxes on domestic airline companies or small cable television firms, if you like, why not change the corporate tax structure which every single tax adviser has alerted us to? If we want $3.1 billion we can get it from a progressive corporate tax system, not raise it on the backs of Canada's poor, which is what a regressive federal sales tax essentially does.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will agree that any tax is a bit regressive, but the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is telling us how disastrous borrowing is. I suppose he would now prefer that we not pass this Bill but increase our borrowing.
I was wondering why he would criticize this Bill particularly when it fulfils one of the promises of this Party to relieve farmers, fishermen, loggers, trappers, miners and others of the burden of high fuel costs in developing the resources of this country. I would have thought that he would congratulate the Government on fulfilling that promise.
He also speaks of the federal sales tax as being regressive. Perhaps it is, but all taxes are regressive and he will know from his commercial experience-maybe he does not have that commercial experience-that when companies were organizing the pricing of goods for this fall they calculated the federal sales tax in their prices. So when we came to analyse the effect of that tax Bill we found we would not reduce prices one bit by not passing it. The tax was already built into the pricing system. Those who manufacture and sell wholesale and retail have already built that tax in.
Has the Member thought about that position? Could we have the support of the New Democratic Party instead of continual harping opposition for no earthly purpose at all?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, he is a very mean-spirited individual today. I must admit that I did not catch all of the nuances of the Hon. Member's question. I did hear him say that he agreed that the federal sales tax was regressive. I am curious why an Hon. Member with such concern as he says he has for economic recovery would support a tax that he himself admits is regressive. He himself admits it is going to punish the low income earners of Canada the most. It will punish the poor people of Canada. Why a Progressive Conservative Government would introduce such a tax is beyond me.
However, as I indicated in my earlier comments, we were pleased that the Bill included diesel fuel rebates. I do not think I can recall a single week in the last two years when there has not been a representative of the New Democratic Party arguing on behalf of the loggers, miners, fishermen and farmers of Canada for the need to introduce these steps at this critical time. At that time the Liberal Government indicated that it would look into it and was considering it. I think the Government now recognizes that farm bankruptcies are continuing. Due to the financial situation of the agricultural, mining, fishing and forestry industries across the country, the new Government simply had no alternative other than to bring in this measure. I am certain, however, that they did not do it with enthusiasm, being so concerned about the deficit.
All of these measures, many of them extremely regressive, will raise $3.1 billion essentially from the consumers of Canada over a four-year period. I do not know why the new Government did not simply follow the advice of every progressive financial firm with regard to introducing a fair corporate tax system. In its most recent report the Economic Council of Canada made the point that enormous growth in these corporate tax concessions during the 1970s alone have had a questionable impact. It is estimated that the Government will be spending in the neighbourhood of $18 billion in outright grants and tax breaks to the corporate sector this year. These regressive taxes will raise $3.1 billion over four years. As the Chairman of the Bank of Montreal said not long ago, the corporate sector of Canada is awash in tax concessions. He was trying to tell the Government to stop this nonsense but, of course, he could not say that to his political colleagues in the Conservative Party.
December 18, 1984

If the Government so desperately wants $3.1 billion, then it should be raised. However, let us not raise it on the backs of Canada's poor and Canadian consumers whose participation we require in this economic recovery period. Let us raise it by introducing some progressive corporate tax measures.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Member knows that this is not a corporate tax Bill. He knows that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), together with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), are reviewing all of the corporate tax changes which are appropriate and those will be introduced in the Budget. We are dealing with an excise tax Bill which goes a long way to creating prosperity in the country. It helps the producers of the country but the New Democratic Party does not want to help producers. Sure, it taxes people, but those taxes were already in place in the system and the Member did not answer that point. Sure, it taxes airline tickets, but of course only the poor travel by air, or maybe it is only New Democrats.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) if he wishes to answer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain how I can respond to that question, or statement, or whatever it was. I can only say that I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will be waiting with bated breath to hear the comments of those opposite as they justify increasing a federal sales tax, taxes on domestic airlines and taxes on cable companies. We will be listening carefully to hear how they can explain that this is in the best interest of the Canadian recovery.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short comment with regard to the Progressive Conservative Member who intervened and the New Democratic Member who responded about how wonderful the rebate and the excise tax are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Comments must be addressed to the speech of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, if you have a comment to make concerning his speech. Maybe at some other time the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will make a speech and then you can comment on it.


George Baker: I would not want that to happen, Mr. Speaker. In relation to his speech, it is fine to give the primary producers $200 and then to take $1,000 away from them in other measures. That is exactly what the Government has done. It is fine to give them a rebate on excise tax and to raise the price of gas and oil. It is fine to give them a $200 rebate and then charge them for tying up their boats and for weather forecasts, and to do away with the insurance scheme which was run by the Government so that they must pay another $10,000 or $20,000 a year. I wanted to remind the hon. gentleman that the former Liberal Government would never have perpetrated that on the primary producers of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions or comments, we shall resume debate. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson).
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the two important amendments which are being made to this Bill. The first one involves the extension of the eligibility for this fuel tax rebate, which had previously been granted to farmers, fishermen, loggers and miners, to include hunters and trappers. This comes about at the very welcome suggestion of the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). The second amendment involves the mechanism by which the rebate is to be delivered.
Having raised in the House on November 29 and December 4 the problem of potential discrimination against some bulk fuel dealers under Bill C-12 as originally drafted, I welcome the opportunity to comment on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the problem arose because, owing to various degrees of integration of the oil companies, some bulk fuel vendors held inventory free of sales tax while other vendors held inventory on which they had paid the sales tax. As originally drafted the Act allowed the dealers with tax-free inventory, those who held the bulk fuel on consignment, to pass the sales tax rebate of 4.8 cents per litre, or 22 cents per gallon, straight through to their customers at the time of sale.
However, those with the tax-paid inventory-and those vendors included independents, co-operatives, some Gulf dealers and others-had to collect the tax back from their customers who in turn would submit their invoices and an application form to Revenue Canada, Excise, in order to secure a rebate of the tax paid. Obviously this created an unfair market situation because most primary producers purchasing fuel would naturally buy their fuel from the vendor who could give them the immediate cash benefit of the tax rebate at the point of sale.
The amendment to the Bill today solves this problem by permitting all bulk dealers to give the rebate benefit at the time of sale. Those dealers who paid the sales tax may secure rebate of that tax paid from Revenue Canada. I trust that, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the notice of motion, the regulations will ensure speedy reimbursement to vendors who regularly sell gasoline or diesel fuel in bulk to these primary producers who hold sales tax bulk permits. The system cannot be perfect due to the fact that the tax goes on at an early point in the system and because only certain purchasers of fuel, the primary producers, qualify for the rebate. Hopefully this option will prove to be the most workable in the market-place.
I am pleased to see the return of this Bill with these provisions suitably redrafted to at least eliminate the discriminatory nature of the application of the sales tax rebate mechanism. I congratulate the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) for her prompt legislative response to a very practical problem in the market-place.
The Government is also to be congratulated for fulfilling yet another campaign promise. Each day we are subjected to suggestions by the opposition Parties that we are not living up to our promises. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each day, just as fast as the presses can run, new legislation is coming forward ensuring the realization of these commit-

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
ments. Initiative follows upon initiative all within a financial framework that was left in a shameful state by our predecessors who laugh about leaving the cupboard bare so that we cannot live up to our promises.
As a Member from Saskatchewan, I was proud to be present at Prince Albert on July 4 and July 5 and to participate in the policy formulation and I was heartened to hear the words of the Prince Albert declaration delivered by our Leader. Let me quote from that declaration:
A Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa will respect Western Canada as a unique region with its own special challenges and opportunities. To underline this mutual trust and faith, a Progressive Conservative government will adopt five basic principles which will govern a fresh new relationship between Western Canadians and their federal government.
1.	Western Canadian economic development policies and strategies will be developed and implemented specifically by and for Western Canada in the belief that regional strengths and prosperity ultimately benefit all Canadians. No longer will regional differences and concerns be crushed in order to fit a single mold designed in Ottawa.
2.	Federal policies will recognize and welcome Western Canada's role as a powerful engine of growth and job creation across all of Canada. As a special priority, the Progressive Conservative Party will ensure that our youth are able to stay, advance and prosper in their home regions.
3.	Western Canadians will be brought back to the federal Cabinet table in positions of major power and influence.
4.	Western Canadians and their duly elected provincial governments will be respected and listened to as partners. The Liberal record of confrontation and bitterness will be replaced by co-operation, consultation and understanding at all times.
5.	A Progressive Conservative government will prove to Western Canadians by listening and taking action that the federal government is as much their government as that of any region. Westerners will again see Ottawa as a friend-not a threat.
The loyalty and trust that Western Canadians have placed in our hands will continue to be honoured when we form the national government.
While these principles are vitally important and provide Western Canadians with hope that once again the federal government can truly be on their side, only specific policy initiatives can put these principles into practice. That is the objective of the Progressive Conservative Party.
This fuel cost relief to primary producers is but one example of these specific initiatives made in the spirit of Prince Albert. In a mere six short weeks, the Government has done more for Canadians than the previous Liberal Government did in four and one-half long years. I repeat that the loyalty and trust that Canadians have placed in our Government will continue to be honoured.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this Bill, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
I was amused by the remarks made by the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) because the Conservatives who are present in the House today and those who spoke earlier in the debate seemed to be avoiding any response to what their former finance critic had to say.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), touched on a number of comments that were made by the Conservatives before the election. It is interesting to note that no Conservatives are rising today to deal with
statements which were made by them in opposition. Once they are elected to government, while some new taxes were proposed in a couple of Liberal budgets-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why didn't you ask him?


James Ross Fulton: All he touched upon was one minor section of the Bill. I will certainly be touching on his comments while I am speaking this morning.
I would like to hear some Conservative Members respond to what the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had to say. Let me quote from Hansard of June 28 this year. The Member for Mississauga South can read his Hansard to make sure this is correct. I believe Canadians should know what kind of Party the Progressive Conservatives are. Since this is a regressive tax, I am reminded of Allan Fortheringham's line, "Regressive convertibles".
The Hon. Member for St. John's West, when he was finance critic, said on June 28, 1984, as quoted at page 5249 of Hansard:
In the next three years the Government is going to take $2.4 billion from Canadian consumers through the new special recovery tax, a 1 per cent increase in the sales tax. This year the Government will take $300 million. How can the Minister justify these increased taxes on Canadian consumers whom he is crucifying with increased interest rates at the same time? How can he justify that, the unemployment it will bring, and the recession which will follow it?
I would like to hear from Conservative Members whether the Member for St. John's West was simply billowing hot air or in fact knew what he was talking about. He is a former Minister of Finance and is presently the Minister of Justice. I assume that Conservatives throughout Canada supported his view that this increase of 1 per cent in the sales tax would increase unemployment and deepen the recession in Canada.
I have yet to hear some Conservative Members explain either why this tax is necessary-one for which there are many alternatives which I will explain-or why the Member for St. John's West was wrong and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is suddenly so correct.
Let me explain Bill C-17 so that Canadians will know why it is so regressive in terms of its impact on Canadian workers, on poor people, young people and the elderly in this country. The special recovery tax, which is a federal sales tax increase, is a result of the April, 1983 Budget. The rate of federal tax was increased on October 1 of this year and is to expire on December 31, 1988.
The federal sales tax will increase by 1 per cent on a number of items. First, there will be an increase for construction materials. I question the increasingly negative impact that will have in terms of the Canadian housing market. There will be an increase in the tax on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. Again, that is a very regressive tax. Third, an increase in all other taxable goods from 9 per cent to 10 per cent.
This increase was initially introduced in order to offset the cost of the special recovery capital projects which were announced in the April, 1983 Budget. We now know how political those special recovery capital projects were. While
December 18, 1984

some of them were of benefit in terms of increasing jobs, the Government could have found many other uses for that money in terms of special recovery.
The cost of the federal tax increase alone is approximately $2 billion over the four years. That figure is derived from the economic statement "A New Direction for Canada". It is a new direction all right. According to the Member for St. John's West, the new direction is down. This tax will increase the recession and will in fact remove hard-earned dollars from the pockets of consumers which could have been used to increase demand.
A Statistics Canada report indicates that in the second quarter of this year our manufacturing sector was operating at only 72 per cent capacity. Therefore, why is the Government dampening demand? I challenge Conservative Members to tell us what great benefits we will get from dampening demand, increasing unemployment-according to the Member for St. John's West-and prolonging the recession. I have difficulty understanding why the Conservatives fight against measures such as these when they are in opposition but are suddenly converted into Liberals when they are on the government side.
The second major component of Bill C-17 is in terms of the telecommunications programming services tax. I look forward to hearing from Conservatives in the House as to why this is such a progressive measure. Again it comes from the Liberal Budget of April, 1983. It imposes a 6 per cent sales tax on television cable rental, pay television and movies shown on television in hotels. Why do the Conservatives find this to be so progressive? I do not recall their promoting it, particularly during the campaign. I know they will allude quite quickly to the suggestion that some of this money will go to assist independent producers, but the cost of this tax will be some $55 million per year.
The third main component of Bill C-17 is the wholesale tax for motor vehicles which comes from the February 15 Liberal Budget of this year. Apparently this tax is introduced because the sales tax burden on domestically-produced automobiles is higher than that for imported vehicles, because the tax is imposed on the manufacturers' price for domestically-produced vehicles and at the imported price for those vehicles which are brought in from offshore. In essence, this will cause all automobiles to be taxed on their sale price to automotive dealers. As Japanese and European cars are often imported at much less than their wholesale value, this will cause an increase in their sales price from about $100 to $200 relative to North American produced cars.
Rather than deal with the whole automotive question in terms of getting vehicles with all the research and development design done offshore in Europe, Japan or elsewhere in the world, rather than encouraging through direct negotiations with those countries to get the R and D and the automotive production in Canada, again the Tories are taking an approach which they opposed while in opposition. The cost of that will
Excise Tax Act
be about $10 million per year according to the February 15 Budget Papers.
The fourth point was touched on by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. It is one for which I have been fighting since I was first elected in 1979. It deals with the removal of sales tax on diesel fuel for farmers, fishermen, loggers and miners. It is intriguing that the Conservatives are not spending a little more time focusing on what has really happened. A few moments ago a Liberal Member pointed out that in many areas of Canada the increase in fuel costs is greater than the rebate. It is a bit of a shell game to introduce a rebate which is in fact less than the increase. In fact, loggers, farmers, fishermen and miners will be paying more for their fuel than they were before the Conservatives were elected, that is, including the rebate.
It has taken some time to get Conservative Members on the government side to agree in principle that the rebate paper process should take place at the bulk plant rather than individuals doing it at home, keeping various meticulous records and basically working for hundreds of hours per year for the Government in doing the paperwork. I hope the Conservatives ensure that that kind of a process is in place right across Canada, that the actual paperwork for the rebate is done at the bulk plant, and that this is not foisted off on independent logging truckers, skidder operators, fishermen and everyone else. It would be much more reasonable and responsible for that to occur at bulk plant operations.
This measure will remove the sales tax on diesel fuel sold to those groups as long as it is not resold for commercial purposes. The information on the lost revenue, at least to this point in the debate, has not been revealed by the Government. It is a measure which is sensible, particularly for northern communities. I can give some examples in my own constituency now where wood fibre is moved about 125 miles on rubber. That could be wood fibre moving down to Watson Island for the pulp mill or wood coming out of TFL-1 or out of the Buckley Valley for sawing in the mills. In terms of fishermen, I represent the largest single group on the Pacific coast. In an indirect way the rebate will be of benefit to them in that many of the larger fishing vessels on the West Coast gobble up 20 gallons per hour or more. I admit it is of benefit to them, on the one hand, but I should like to hear Tory Members explain why there is an over-all benefit to the Canadian economy, particularly to primary industrial producers such as farmers, fishermen and loggers where the increase is already greater than the rebate in areas such as the one I represent. I consider it to be a bit hypocritical that the rebate was not allowed to include the increase which the Government announced at the same time. They have done a little tap dance without telling the whole story.
The air transport tax is an interesting one to look at in terms of who gets the largest single increase. The tax is being increased from 8 per cent to 9 per cent with the cap now being $30 whereas the previous one was $23. Contrary to what the Hon. Member for Mississauga South said, most people in my constituency at some time or other have to move by aircraft.

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
There are many communities which I represent that do not have roads or wintertime access to ferry service. They have to move by air. This tax is directed more toward people who must move by air than those people who move for travel purposes.
On that very point, it is interesting that the international tax is increased from $12.50 to $15.00. The large national tourism lobby has got to the new Conservative Government. It has told the Government not to increase massively the international tax because tourists will be driven away. In terms of within Canada, there is no special provision for those who must fly for medical, dental, work, business or whatever purpose. They end up having to pay a much greater tax, again a regressive form of tax.
According to the new Minister of Finance the cost for fiscal year 1985-86 will be $34 million and $50 million for two years thereafter. Again it is money taken, to an enormous extent, from people who can afford to pay it the least.
The total cost of these measures, excluding the figures which have not yet been provided by the Government in terms of the removal of sales tax on farm fuels, will be $3.1 billion. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap pointed out that there is a variety of other areas within the Canadian economy where this money could be found. Of course, the most visible one is the $18 billion which is given directly to the corporate sector. As my friend pointed out, the Chairman of the Bank of Montreal indicated that there were many tax loopholes and tax credits for the corporate sector. It is awash in them. It cannot even absorb them all, it has so many.
Let me refer to what happened in recent years to the Canadian tax system under continuing Liberal and Conservative regimes. A typical unmarried nurse will pay about $5,800 in income tax this year on a salary of $25,000, a tax rate of 23 per cent. A first-class police constable without dependants will pay about 25 per cent of his $32,000 income in tax. The tax rate for the average single high school teacher will be roughly 26 per cent of a $33,000 salary.
Let us take a look at some of the most profitable and largest companies in Canada which pay the lowest rates of tax. In 1982, TransCanada PipeLines Limited, a firm with $4.7 billion in assets and pre-tax earnings of $182 million, paid tax at an effective rate of 7 per cent. Husky Oil Ltd., with assets of $561 million and pre-tax earnings of $22 million, paid an effective tax rate of 5 per cent. Consolidated Bathurst Inc., with pre-tax earnings of $79 million, paid no tax in 1982 and in fact claimed a credit of $3.6 million to be deducted from future taxes.
Let us go back a few years and look at what has happened in terms of the transformation of the tax system in Canada from the burden being carried by the corporate sector to its being carried by middle and lower income Canadians. In 1954 the federal Government of the day collected $1.17 billion in income tax from individuals, slightly more than the $1.05 billion it collected from corporations. Now, 30 years later, the gap has widened dramatically to the advantage of corporations. In 1982 Ottawa collected $26 billion in income tax from individuals and only $8 billion from corporations. This means
that individuals were shouldering 76 per cent of the tax burden compared with the corporations' 24 per cent.
I should like to give another example of what has happened in the tax system as we have seen it completely reversed in 30 years, from where the corporate sector paid three-quarters and individuals paid a quarter to individuals paying more than three-quarters and the corporate sector paying an ever declining amount. Shell Canada is a good example. If one reads its annual report, one will get the impression that the oil giant pays an onerous income tax. Its 1982 annual report pegged the company's income tax at $152 million on pre-tax profits of $302 million. In a note, it calculates that this gave the company an effective income tax rate of 50.4 per cent, a hefty rate by any standard.
Another note further down on the page turns that 50.4 per cent figure on its head. It indicates that Shell deferred $199 million in taxes that year. This wipes out the $152 million tax bill and leaves Shell with no tax to pay at ail. In fact, Shell got a tax credit of $47 million. The bottom line is a far cry from the 50.4 per cent tax rate first mentioned. Deferring taxes is one of the key ways in which the tax system allows corporations to reduce their tax burden.
We must now go back for a moment to the statements made in this House by the Conservatives before they were elected. We must get some clarification of where that political party is going. There is none better to quote than the Hon. Member for St. John's West. On February 16 of this year, page 1444 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, then the finance critic for the Conservatives, had this to say about the tax measure that the Conservatives later today will vote into law:
The Minister calls it the special recovery tax. He should rename it the special recession tax. There is no recovery. This tax is not going to help it, this special recession tax. . . Where does the Minister help domestic demand in this Budget? ... He might help consumer demand if he did away with the I per cent increase in the federal sales tax that is coming in October. It is a regressive tax that bears more heavily on lower income people.
Where are the Conservatives on this? On September 4, most Canadians who follow tax measures thought in good faith that what the Conservatives said in the House of Commons and said during the election campaign was what they were going to do. We now find that what the Tories said in the election campaign is fantasy. When the next federal election comes, I hope Canadians will remember it. What they say during an election campaign is certainly not what they intend to do.
I see the Minister of State (Forestry) (Mr. Merrithew) here. I would like to hear him explain how it is that this fuel rebate the Tories are touting across the country is so beneficial to loggers and the forest sector. He knows full well that in my area of British Columbia the increase in the cost of diesel fuel brought in by his Government is greater than the rebate.
There has to be some degree of honesty and credibility. They send out, at the taxpayers' expense, from the House of Commons literature to everyone in these sectors saying: "Aren't we great? We Conservatives get elected and we give
December 18, 1984

you this wonderful rebate". Should they not put in there, at least in small print so you can just barely read it, that the increase they provided in moving toward the world price has stripped away that small benefit and is driving more and more people to the brink of bankruptcy?
I am hopeful that we will hear from some Conservatives in the next few minutes. 1 would like to read a few more nice, clear quotes from the Hon. Member for St. John's West, the former Minister of Finance and now Justice Minister, because his quotes really hit the nail on the head. I quote from page 116 of Hansard for December 13, 1983, where the Hon. Member for St. John's West has this to say in referring to the sales tax increase:
This ... is a huge regressive tax bite, far greater than the hospital insurance premiums collected by Ontario or any other province that this Government has now introduced legislation to try and stop. Hypocrites, cynics, manipulators guilty of deviousness, deviates; this is what this Government is composed of.
The Member for St. John's West has aptly described his own Party. I find it amazing. With regard to this tax increase we will vote on today, the headlines in The Globe and Mail and the headlines in Gander and Prince Rupert should read "Mulroney Government guilty of deviousness", that they are "deviates, hypocrites, cynics and manipulators", because that is a direct quote from their former Finance Minister. Those are the words that he used this year to describe this measure now being brought forward.
I will put one more quote on the record; they are so good that Canadians have to know where the Tories are coming from. I quote from page 1313 of Hansard for February 13 of this year where, talking about the Minister of Finance, he had this to say:
Would he agree to eliminate the federal sales tax increase of 1 per cent next October which he has already imposed on the Canadian consumer? Does he agree that Canadian consumers must be helped if there is going to be a continuing recovery?
That says it all. In Bill C-17 the Tories have introduced tax measures which they opposed during the election, in the House of Commons and as Party policy. It is a shameful day when we have to watch Tories get up and vote for what they in principle and policy opposed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing the bringing forward of this Bill demonstrates, it is the fact that the more things change, the more they remain the same. When in opposition, the Progressive Conservatives opposed this Bill vehemently. The main provisions of this Bill are proposals brought forward by Mr. Lalonde, Minister of Finance in the previous Liberal Government. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), then finance critic for the Official Opposition, was scathing in his criticism of this Bill. I wish to put on the record a couple of quotes from speeches which he made. On December 13, 1983 he said, referring to the sales tax increase:
Excise Tax Act
This ... is a huge regressive tax bite, far greater than the hospital insurance premiums collected by Ontario or any other province that this Government has now introduced legislation to try and stop.
He went on to characterize the then Government as follows:
Hypocrites, cynics, manipulators guilty of deviousness, deviates; this is what this Government is composed of.
On February 16 of this year, talking about the then Minister of Finance, he had this to say:
The Minister calls it the special recovery tax. He should call it the special recession tax. There is no recovery. This tax is not going to help it, this special recession tax... Where does the Minister help domestic demand in this Budget? ... He might help consumer demand if he did away with the 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax that is coming in October. It is a regressive tax that bears more heavily on lower income people.
The then finance critic for the Progressive Conservative Party was 100 per cent right. This is a very regressive tax. The increase of 1 per cent in the sales tax will take from the people of Canada between $2 billion and S3 billion in purchasing power between 1984 and 1988, a time when our manufacturing sector is operating at only 72 per cent of capacity.
The then finance critic of the Conservative Party was correct when he attacked the then Liberal Government proposal to increase the sales tax by 1 per cent. Nothing has changed. The addition of 1 per cent to the sales tax will have exactly the same effect which he predicted less than a year ago. It will lead to a slowing down of the economy rather than improving it.
Why is the Government going back on the position it took when in opposition? They tell us that the Government's financial cupboard is bare and that this tax is necessary to help deal with the deficit. Surely it is now obvious that the large deficit which we face and the deficits faced by all of the provincial Governments, whether they be Conservative, Social Credit, New Democrat or Parti Quebecois, have not been caused because Governments have over-expended but because the economy is operating at so much less than its capacity. It is because there are a million and a half unemployed people. People who are not working are not paying income taxes and are not purchasing goods and services thereby contributing to revenues of government through the payment of income and sales taxes. Instead of contributing to the revenues of the country, they are helping to increase the deficit because when they are not working they are collecting unemployment insurance benefits; or, if they have run out of unemployment insurance benefits as so many Canadians have by now, they are on welfare. Both of these create tremendous costs for federal, provincial and municipal Governments. As well, because they are not working they are not in a position to do the kind of purchasing which would help the economy grow.
If the Government wants to deal with the deficit, it needs to do a major review of the entire tax system. Surely it is now obvious to everyone that our tax system is simply not working as it should. What the former Liberal Government did over the years it was in power and what the present Conservative Government is now doing is to skew the tax system so that

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
individuals will be paying more of the costs of government through increased income tax or through increased charges for the services which government provides, Corporations have been paying less and less and will continue to pay less and less of their share.
As a result of the corporate tax policies of the former Liberal Government which are being continued and made worse by the present Conservative Government, the tax system has mushroomed over the past 12 years into an increasingly large and elaborate set of measures that allow corporations to pay effective tax rates well below the official corporate tax rates of close to 50 per cent. In 1980 corporations were able to use various tax breaks to reduce their effective tax rates to an average of 23 per cent.
The burgeoning list of corporate tax breaks has been a key factor in shifting Canada's tax burden over the years from corporations to individuals. In 1951 corporations paid 28 per cent of all Canadian taxes. By 1981 their taxes, having been reduced by a wide range of special balances and exemptions, accounted for only 17 per cent of the tax bill. Correspondingly, the share of the total tax bill paid by individuals rose from 24 per cent in 1951 to 43 per cent in 1981. This, of course, has cut down on the ability of ordinary citizens to live as well as they should and it has taken away from their purchasing power so that they are not able to buy the goods and services which have been produced by Canadian companies.
Let us see how these tax breaks to corporations really work. One of my colleagues pointed out that at the present time a typical unmarried nurse will pay income tax of $5,800 on an income of $25,000. He also indicated that a single high school teacher will pay income tax of 26 per cent on a $33,000 annual salary. On the other hand, let us look at what some of the large corporations are paying. Husky Oil, with assets of $561 million and pre-tax earnings of $22 million, paid an effective rate of 5 per cent-


Mr. Mayer:: Your former leader is a director.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), says that our former leader, and I presume he is referring to Mr. Douglas, is a director of that oil company. So what? I am not suggesting that the company is doing anything illegal or improper. The company is doing exactly what the Government tells it it is entitled to do. I would be surprised if the Minister who is the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette would defend a system in which Husky Oil with pre-tax earnings of $22 million pays an effective rate of 5 per cent as its corporate tax while comparing that rate with the rate paid by the farmers and small businessmen who live in his constituency. I would like him to return to his constituency to see if he can justify that discrepancy to his electorate.
Let us take Consolidated-Bathurst Limited as an example, Mr. Speaker. With pre-tax earnings of $79 million, it paid no taxes in 1982 and in fact claimed a credit of $3.6 million to be deducted from future taxes. Shell Canada, one of Canada's largest oil companies with assets of $4.7 billion and pre-tax
earnings of $302 million, paid no income tax in 1982. In fact, it received a credit of $47 million against future taxes. I wonder how many individuals in Canada have that kind of arrangement.
In 1954 the federal Government of the day collected $1.17 billion in income tax from individuals, slightly more than the $1.05 billion collected from corporations. However, by 1982 the federal Government collected $26 billion in income tax from individuals and only $8 billion in income tax from corporations. This means that individuals were shouldering 76 per cent of the tax burden as compared to corporations which were shouldering only 24 per cent of the tax burden.
What actually happens in this kind of tax system, Mr. Speaker? Deferring taxes is one of the key ways in which the tax system allows corporations to reduce their tax burden. Billions of dollars in corporate taxes have been deferred. That is the official description of those taxes. However, the word "deferred" is in fact misleading because in almost every case the taxes are deferred indefinitely and the corporation holds on to its money indefinitely. In fact, Jean-Jacques Carrier, a spokesman for Consolidated-Bathurst, put it very bluntly when he said in reference to deferred corporate taxes:
If you ask me when we expect to pay these. I'll tell you never.
He did not say that he would pay them next year, the year after or a few years from now when the expansion, modernization and improvements in technology which the company is hopefully making will be complete. Mr. Carrier indicated that he will never pay those deferred taxes. What is true of Consolidated-Bathurst is true of Inco and Canadian Pacific. The same is true of virtually every large corporation in this country.
It is that kind of system which explains why Consolidated-Bathurst recorded a tax rate of 34.7 per cent in 1982. That was in its financial statement, even though it paid no income tax.
Deferred taxes have been accumulating in corporate accounts. In 1971 deferred taxes amounted to $2.78 billion. By the end of 1980 deferred taxes had increased almost tenfold to $24.24 billion. One does not need to be very radical to say that is wrong. Former Liberal Cabinet Minister Eric Kierans pointed out that for new small firms the kind of depreciation and tax benefits which are permitted for corporations mean nothing, because those firms do not have the kind of profits which would permit them to defer their taxes.
If the Government is worried about the deficit, it should go after the people who have the money. It should go after the corporations which have received billions of dollars in deferred taxes that will never be paid. I would have much less objection to the corporate tax breaks if I could be convinced that those breaks were being used to improve the efficiency of the companies and the environment which has been damaged so severely by so many mining and forestry corporations over the years. I would have much less objection if the money was being used to provide jobs for Canadians.
December 18, 1984

Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have given tax concessions without asking the fundamental questions which should be asked before providing concessions and tax breaks to corporations. What will a company which receives tax deferrals do in order to justify the Government of Canada giving that company the tax deferral? Surely, that is a major, fundamental question which should be asked of every corporation which applies for a deferral of its taxes. Without that, hundreds of millions of dollars will be given to companies and the Government will not ask for anything in return.
1 would like to deal very briefly with another aspect of the tax system which I feel requires some examination before a Bill is brought forward to increase the sales tax by 1 per cent. I have already indicated that the increase will have a regressive effect. Information provided by Revenue Canada indicated that approximately 8,000 Canadians who had incomes of over $50,000 a year in 1981-and that is the last year for which we have figures-paid no income tax. We know that there were almost 250 Canadians who managed to pay not one cent of tax on incomes of more than $250,000. How can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) justify bringing forward a Bill which asks ordinary middle-income Canadians, who are paying between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of their total income on tax, to make that sacrifice when he has failed to approach the individuals and corporations who are not paying their fair share of taxes? It is because the Government has not addressed that question and has not provided its views on that matter that we will oppose the Bill.
I will conclude by summarizing the economic reasons for which we will oppose the Bill. We will oppose it because we believe that the increase in federal sales tax is extremely regressive. Everyone must pay the same amount on goods purchased regardless of their income level. I would remind Hon. Members of the thousands of Canadians with high incomes who pay no income tax, and of the millions who pay a substantial amount of their incomes in taxes.
In addition, we oppose the Bill because it takes over $3 billion of purchasing power out of circulation. That will not help the Canadian economy, it will hurt it. Only by increasing the purchasing power of Canadians can we put the productive capacity of Canadian companies to more extensive use.
Finally, we oppose the Bill because the $3 billion could easily be raised by ending many of the unproductive tax expenditures which are permitted for the corporate sector. In its most recent report, the Economic Council of Canada indicated that the enormous growth in corporate tax concessions during the 1970s had a questionable impact, and more often than not it was a waste of money. It has been estimated that the Government will spend $18 billion this year in the outright grants and tax breaks which will be given to the corporate sector. If the Government needs more money to deal with the deficit, we suggest that it should get the money from those individuals and groups, and particularly Canadian corporations, that have the money but who are not paying their fair share of taxes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?
Excise Tax Act


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments regarding the Bill which is before the House. I would also like to make a few comments regarding the speech that was made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
First, when the Member speaks of skewing the tax system, he should refer to the Bill. In fact, the Bill provides relief for farmers and Fishermen. As a rule, farmers and fishermen run quite small enterprises and operations. The Bill provides a considerable amount of relief for those people. If he is opposed to the Bill because this Government is doing exactly what the previous Government did-and that is skewing the tax system in favour of large operators and corporate entities-he should understand that the Bill does exactly the opposite. The Bill will provide tax relief for more than 330,000 farmers. In addition, it will provide relief for a large number of hunters, fishers, trappers and people in the logging industry. A large number of those people are very small operators. If the Hon. Member is opposing the Bill, he is opposing tax concessions for those people who very much need them.
The Hon. Member should also know that the only province in Canada which has an NDP Government has a sizeable provincial tax on fuel. The Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta do not have a provincial sales tax on fuel. He should be aware that the Government of Manitoba, which I assume he supports, is not carrying through with many of the matters to which he referred.
I congratulate both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) in recognizing the need for tax relief for farmers, Fishermen and other people who pay a lot of tax.
With respect to the Minister of State for Finance, concerns were mentioned regarding the way the tax relief would be granted to individual farmers and fishermen because of the different ways fuel was held in bulk. We were very pleased that the Minister, with her officials, was able to workout a system where everyone would be able to have the tax reduction at source without paying it and then collecting it. That is in contrast to the previous Government which had on the books what amounted to a seven cents a gallon, or 1.5 cents a litre, tax which was then refundable. That caused all kinds of problems for the people who had to keep records and then submit them for a refund.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) should understand that some of what the Government is doing is exactly the kind of thing he was criticizing this Government for not doing. I feel that point needs to be put on the record. I believe one of the reasons that the goings on in this place are disconcerting to the people who watch on television is that all they hear is complaining. It is fine that Hon. Members oppose the Bill, but they should oppose it on balance. They should say that there are some things in the Bill they do not like and some things they do like, but on balance they must oppose it.

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
After listening to Hon. Members of the Opposition speak, one would think there was nothing in the Bill which was of any use to anyone. Clearly, that is not the case. I feel that out of respect for this institution Hon. Members of the Opposition should take a balanced approach every once in a while. I see Hon. Members across the way who represent farming communities. I wonder if any of those Hon. Members have ever risen in their place and said: "Thank you very much; on behalf of my constituency I very much appreciate the kind of tax reduction which has gone forward".


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, we have.


Charles James Mayer: I hear an Hon. Member opposite saying that that has been done. If that is so, I very much appreciate it because that adds to the validity of the debate which goes on in this place.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by mentioning one other point which I feel needs to be made. This Government believes above all we should not be taxing people out of business before they open their doors in the morning, whether they be farmers, fishermen, small businessmen or large businessmen.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How about sales tax?


Charles James Mayer: Let us try to do everything we can to support these people so they can stay in business and create jobs and everyone can share in the many resources we have in this country. We should not put all of these taxes up front so that people are put out of business before they even get a fair chance at staying in business.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the sales tax?


Charles James Mayer: This is what the reduction in sales tax, the excise tax on farm fuels, is all about. It is a reduction in tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How about tax on construction materials?


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member can make the point, and it is a valid point, that the federal Government still takes a large share out of the dollar which goes to purchase fuel or gasoline in this country. However, this Bill certainly is a step in the right direction. It is a recognition of that concept which I just indicated. Let us help people stay in business. Let us make sure they have a chance to make a profit and pay handsomely a tax on the profit they make.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, I should get up and at least try to put in context some of the things which I heard my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, say. Even if the Hon. Member does not have farmers, fishermen or a lumber industry in his constituency, he would have to recognize that, on balance, very many people are going to benefit, such as small employers and small businesses in this country which he and his Party likes to think they support.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that when we come to dealing with this Bill clause by clause we will support the Bill and give the Government whatever
credit to which it is entitled. I would like the Minister to compare the benefits to farmers of the provisions in this Bill, such as the farm fuel tax, with the tremendous burden which high interest rates are causing these farmers in the Minister's constituency and in every other constituency in Canada. If I remember correctly-and the Minister is right, I have only a few farmers in my constituency-a recent study showed that 17 per cent of all farmers are in very serious danger of losing their farms, many of which have been in their families for three or four generations. The burden of high interest rates on loans which they have had to make is so onerous that they simply cannot continue. I wonder if the Minister could not compare that kind of problem with the relatively small benefits-and we do not oppose those benefits-which will come to farmers as a result of changes in the sales tax on farm fuel?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to advise the Minister that there are only two minutes left for the question and comment period.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, at the time you recognized me I thought you recognized me as speaking on the Bill rather than making a comment or asking a question. In any event, it will not take me very long to respond to the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North raises a very interesting question, but let me tell him that farmers have as much at stake in the reduction of interest rates as does any sector of the economy. It is interesting to note-


David Orlikow: What are you doing about that?


Charles James Mayer: -that it takes as much money to create a job in the farming sector now as it does in the manufacturing sector because farming has become so capital-intensive in this country. It is, therefore, in the farmers' interest to see that we do everything we can to reduce our deficit. If we do not do that, instead of paying $1 out of every S3 which is collected in taxes to service interest, it will very quickly increase, and farmers, because they have such a capital-intensive industry, will find it more and more difficult to finance because of the pressure of interest rates. I want to tell the Hon. Member that farmers have a tremendous amount at stake in terms of getting interest rates under control in this country. What we are doing here is trying to look at the over-all picture. Admittedly, there was a reduction in government spending of $4.4 billion. However, at the same time it was done in such a way that there were some benefits provided to some of the sectors of the economy.
It is true that the reduction in farm fuel tax is small, but at least it is not an increase. It is a recognition of some of the problems which are there. If we can manage our fiscal affairs properly as a federal Government, then we have a chance to bring interest rates down, not only to the benefit of farmers but to the whole economy. In that case everyone will benefit.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister represents a farming community. He is concerned, as he should be, with the welfare of our farmers. Let me ask another question. Given the need for farmers to produce foodstuffs more cheaply, more
December 18, 1984

efficiently and of higher quality than ever before, and given that the Government cut the $4.4 billion with the intention of creating as little difficulty as possible, how can the Minister justify the very major reduction in the expenditures of the federal Government for agricultural research, which amounts to several million dollars, just at a time when, according to experts in the field, other countries are doing very much more than Canada in the way of research?


Charles James Mayer: Again, I would like to put some facts on the record. If the Hon. Member would like to refer to some of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), he would see that there was an over-all reduction in expenditure by the Department of Agriculture, some of it achieved by genuine reduction and some of it achieved by a fee for service. However, in terms of the reduction in the amount for agricultural research, there was absolutely none.
I agree totally with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North that we must do more research. We are behind in many areas of research because of the lack of emphasis put on research by the previous Government, especially in agriculture. That is very sad because the Department of Agriculture in the past, and I believe still to a large degree, has very much of a world-wide reputation for research. Unfortunately, it was not kept up. I will tell the Hon. Member that the amount of money spent by the Department of Agriculture for research has not been cut by one cent as a result of the Minister of Finance's reductions in over-all expenditure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for his comments regarding the advantages to farmers particularly, but also to loggers, miners and fishermen, of the diesel fuel rebate which amounted to cents. In most parts of Canada the increase in price they had to pay for diesel fuel was more than the rebate. Will the Minister confirm that the Government gave a rebate to assist the farmers, miners, loggers and fishermen with one hand and then raised the price of their diesel fuel with the other, so that, in a sense, they were right back where they started?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised at the Hon. Member. I think of anyone on that side he should know better. He should know there was a tax reduction of three cents a litre, which is something like 13 cents a gallon. At the same time there was an increase of 1.8 cents a litre in order that we could balance the books of the energy account, as we are required to by law. That was not collected from farmers. Sure, you can make the argument that we gave with one hand and took away with the other; but the net effect is still a reduction of something like eight or nine cents a gallon on fuel used by the groups the Hon. Member has referred to.
He should also know that the farmers, fishermen and loggers of his area are now eligible for a tax reduction of something like 28.5 cents a gallon. The Hon. Member should know above all, being in the position he is in his Party, that the
Excise Tax Act
reduction was genuine and the one did not cancel out the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We shall now resume debate with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Just a couple of comments with respect to the debate which has been taking place, Mr. Speaker. One of the luxuries in which you can indulge yourself, especially when you have no sense of responsibility as is evidently the case with Members of the NDP, is that whenever a tax increase is imposed you can condemn it; whenever a reduction in government expenditure is proposed you can condemn it; and at the same time you can condemn the deficit. You cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Althouse:: You used to.


Dave Nickerson: When you find yourself on this side of the House, a situation in which the NDP will never find itself, then you have to take on that sense of responsibility. You have to work towards a balance in government finances.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is called changing your mind.


Dave Nickerson: That is precisely what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) are doing.


Mr. Murphy:: What did they say before the election?


Dave Nickerson: It has been brought to our attention that the Bill we are dealing with today is largely a Liberal initiative. It is that, with the exception of the fuel tax rebate which the Liberals had no intention of granting to resource producers. This, as we have heard, even from members of the Opposition, will do much to assist the primary producers. It will certainly assist the trappers, miners and fishermen in my area. Equally it will help agriculturalists and loggers in other parts of the country.
However, we are dealing with what is in many respects a Liberal Bill. That would explain why the members of the Liberal Party are almost as quiet as church mice on this issue. Even the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), usually one of the most vocal Members of this House, has been deafening in his silence this morning.
The money that will be raised under the measures before us today has already been spent, Mr. Speaker. It was part of the so-called special recovery projects and, if you recall, they were brought in not too long before the previous election. The idea was that the Liberals would spend all this money and buy themselves votes. They were going to try and buy themselves back into office. Needless to say the Canadian citizenry did not buy that idea and they condemned the Liberals to a spot in the Canadian political spectrum from which they will never, in my opinion, recover. The money had been spent and the taxes to pay for it were not to come into effect until after the election. That was a dastardly trick and it is a pleasure for me

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act
to see that it did not work. They were unable to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian electorate as they had done on previous occasions.
The problem we are faced with now in government is to pay off those debts. We have to pay off the money that was spent trying to re-elect the Liberals. I am pleased to see that we are addressing that problem in a responsible manner and it is certainly my intention to vote for this Bill and get some of this Liberal legislation which burdens us all out of the way so that in the new year we can come in with our own new Progressive Conservative tax initiatives.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), particularly when he is very brief. Given the importance of air transportation in his constituency, does he support the tax increase on domestic air transportation from 8 per cent to 9 per cent? Does he think this is a good idea in order to generate more economic activity in his constituency?


Dave Nickerson: Of course, no one likes tax increases. The unfortunate part is, for reasons I have already stated, that this is something we have to do although we would like not to do it. The Hon. Member should remember that for most of the trips taken by air in areas where there are no roads, usually by small aircraft, this tax will not be imposed. It will not be a burden for most of the people in the area that I represent, which the Hon. Member was so concerned about. They will not be obliged to pay that airline tax; they are exempt.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Hon. Member mentioned that trappers would somehow benefit from the removal of the sales tax. Could he explain how that is going to happen?


Dave Nickerson: Not from the sales tax but from the excise tax on fuel. The Minister of State for Finance tabled in this House just a matter of three days ago, I believe, Ways and Means motions which would extend the fuel tax rebate to trappers. That was presumably an oversight in the earlier Ways and Means motions but it certainly will be fair because trappers are also resource producers in Canada. It will be of great assistance in the constituency I represent and also in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would like to touch on how much more regressive the 1 per cent sales tax increase will be in a constituency such as his as compared with the constituency of, for example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The price of most products, by the time they are available in Yellowknife or elsewhere north of 60, are substantially higher because of transportation, overhead and carrying costs. Whether we are talking about 80 cents for milk here as opposed to $1.60 in the north, or anything else, perhaps the Hon. Member can give us some idea of how much more regressive that tax is in his area than in most other areas in the country.


Dave Nickerson: The answer is very simple. It is proportionate. One per cent is 1 per cent wherever you live in the country.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Hon. Member wanted to answer the question so let me make it clear. If there is a 1 per cent increase in sales tax, you pay 1 cent more for an item costing $1 in Toronto. If that same item costs $2 in Yellowknife, then a 1 per cent increase in the sales tax is a 100 per cent leap above and beyond the increase in Toronto. The level of taxes that is being imposed on residents of the western Arctic is perhaps 50 to 100 per cent higher than elsewhere in the country. Has the Hon. Member sought some kind of exemption from the Minister of Finance regarding this regressive tax on his constituents?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm the Hon. Member's arithmetic. Certainly 1 per cent of $1 is one cent and 1 per cent of $2 is two cents.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue along the line of questioning that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was following. The Hon. Member for Skeena pointed out very clearly that increasing sales tax as a method of gaining revenue for the federal Government is discriminatory in two ways. It discriminates on a geographic basis against the people in more remote areas of Canada who pay, by definition, a much higher cost for goods and services. Therefore, the taxes they pay would be that much higher.
It also has an especially punitive aspect with regard to lower income people. One per cent on a commodity has a much greater punitive impact on a lower income earner than on a middle or high-income earner. Yet presumably he favours this type of taxation.
If he does not favour this, perhaps he could explain why the Government has not simply attempted to raise the $3.1 billion through revisions to the corporate tax system, an area of the taxation system from which every progressive tax lawyer and tax accountant says there is a great deal of revenue to be derived. Can the Hon. Member explain why he supports a punitive tax system as opposed to a progressive corporate tax system?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, that was a serious question and I will try to answer it seriously. Any form of tax that is imposed by government will have some bad effect. There is no such thing as a perfect tax. That is why we have a mix of taxes in the Canadian system. We have income taxes on businesses, income taxes on individuals, sales taxes and excise taxes. By juggling them together we can hopefully achieve a system which is as fair as possible overall.
It is fair and reasonable to say that those people who pay the greatest amount of excise tax or sales tax will be those people in the higher income brackets who are making major purchases. If someone buys a Lincoln automobile he will be paying a lot more sales tax than someone who buys a Volk-
December 18, 1984

swagon. In that respect the tax is proportionate and not regressive.
What was the second question? I have forgotten it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Geographical.


Dave Nickerson: There is a certain amount of truth in what the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap says. It is a matter on which I have spoken on several occasions. This is especially true with regard to goods which are manufactured in remote areas of the country with high transportation costs. If you manufacture something in the south for a cost of $100 and then ship it into a remote area at a transportation cost of $100, your total cost is $200 plus sales tax on $100. However, if you brought the components into the northern area of the country at a transportation cost of $100 and manufactured it there, your cost would then be $200 plus tax on $200. Therefore, there is certainly a serious element of truth in what the Hon. Member said.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is a candid person who speaks his mind and appreciates truth. Since there is so little participation in this debate by government Members and members of the Official Opposition, it is valuable to have an intercession like his in which he points out some truths. I want to investigate some of those and conclude with a question.
As the Hon. Member says, this legislation is largely the product of the previous Liberal Government. He does not worry very much about that, although he gets in a few shots. That is a matter of considerable interest for us because it suggests that conformity of opinion on vital matters which affect Canadians every day of their lives as they spend, seek to maintain their lives, and face a heavy burden of taxation in one area while watching others get off scot-free. Later in this debate I would like to explore what the consequences of that might be.
Past Governments in the early 1970s launched themselves on a particular course of action which all too often won the support of the Official Opposition. Now that the former Official Opposition is the Government, it is following the same course of action. It is proposing this legislation for our support without any great uneasiness about it, even though there were warnings from others about it and even though, during the election campaign, members of the Conservative Party expressed great concern about the consequences of that action if it were carried out by the other Party. This conformity of opinion between the Liberal and Conservative Parties is surely a matter of enormous concern to the Canadian people who did not vote to have Conservatives pass this kind of tax legislation rather than having Liberals do it. Surely the Canadian people have hopes for prosperity that require some fundamental reconsideration of tax policy rather than passage by the other Party of the same kind of legislation.
There was just a hint in the comments of the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that we might see a change in the next Budget. I
Excise Tax Act
would be interested to know what reason there is for thinking that the Government is going to change direction in tax policy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Member for Western Arctic for a brief answer, if possible.


Dave Nickerson: What reason is there to expect changes in tax policy? Mr. Speaker, there are all manner of reasons. Over many years in this House and outside we have stated our intention to have a more equitable system of taxation in Canada which generates interest in business and increases employment opportunities. We ran an election campaign on that. We received a great mandate from the people of Canada. Since coming back to the House there has been a Speech from the Throne which said precisely the same thing. There has been an economic statement issued by the Minister of Finance which outlined the procedure we would follow leading up to significant tax changes in the next Budget. This is all part of the process. The people of Canada can certainly have every expectation that fundamental changes in the approach to taxation will be made by the new Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments on the Hon. Member's speech is now over. We shall now resume debate with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments remaining I would like to say that never before in the history of the Canadian Parliament have we seen such a rip-off perpetrated on the primary producers of eastern Canada as has been the case with the present Government. The measures that were introduced in the financial statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and in the cuts tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) have removed money from the pockets of our primary producers across the country.
All of a sudden a Bill comes along, for which we are asked to be thankful, which is supposed to provide a small rebate on the excise tax. Actually it is an increase on the rebate of the excise tax available to primary producers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) says that we should thank the federal Government on behalf of the primary producers for this great act of recognition of our primary producers in the country. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, primary producers are faced with the highest increases ever in their cost of living and in the services which are supposed to be provided by the Government of Canada.
I will call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1984


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Wilson) public statements on making the best use of scarce resources and having the maximum benefit from scarce resources, I would like to suggest the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) take the $600,000 allocated for repairs to his home and transfer it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to be used under a Canada Works application. This would mean work for two months for 231 workers, with expense money of $250,000 which would be adequate. Wages would be $350,000, and there would be 1,857 man-weeks, or stamps, as we say, issued from the project.
Repairs to the Prime Minister's residence could be a symbol of national unity. It could include youths and women working on the project, with 20 from each province and the territories to act as a symbol of national unity, a big Canada Works project.
Alas, there is a problem. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has created this year what she calls Constituency Advisory Boards to screen applications in each constituency and to "direct funds to worth-while activities that demonstrate need". According to that criterion, the application would be rejected.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has requested the co-operation of all Canadians in the Ethiopia relief effort. In this spirit, a group of Halifax residents have established a charitable organization called "Ethiopia Airlift", to provide speedy and effective assistance to the drought stricken people of Ethiopia.
This group of Haligonians has worked assiduously to build a regional network of support enabling it to collect the food, medical supplies, and equipment that will be sent to the Hararghe region of southern Ethiopia. It has succeeded in sensitizing Nova Scotia, and indeed much of the Maritimes, to the urgency of the Ethiopian problem and the need to make contributions.
This spontaneous outpouring of hope and good will was rewarded when, on December 7, the Canadian Government offered the committee two DC-8 freight jets, each with 44-tonne capacity cargoes. This will enable the group, which is now incorporated as a charitable institution, to carry out two
airlift operations to deliver emergency goods to a target group of 50,000 famine stricken Ethiopians, 10,000 of whom are children. The first airlift will be leaving from Halifax on December 23. The offloading and distribution of the supplies will be arranged in co-operation with World University Service of Canada.
"Ethiopia Airlift" is intended to provide emergency and interim aid to a relatively small proportion of needy Ethiopians.


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



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 13 Iranians have been held in detention at the Avion hotel near Pearson Airport. Some of them have been held for four months or more, all of them for over two months. They claim to be fleeing from Iran and the well-known bloody dictator there. Ten of them went on a hunger strike for a week in order to draw attention to their situation.
In fact they have not been treated according to the laws of Canada. They have never been informed of the program for Iranians under IS-26 of the immigration guidelines. They were never given the pamphlets which are said to be issued, and it is questionable whether the pamphlets to advise them of their rights under that program have ever been printed.
They were never able to apply, as the program provides, for a ministerial permit to stay in the country for 12 months and earn a living until their situation is cleared up. None of these rights according to our laws were given to these people.
Some are now being released because members of certain churches have individually given a $10,000 bond each in order to get these people out of close confinement.
1 call on the Minister to inquire into this incident and to inquire why these people were not informed of their rights according to Canada's laws under IS-26, B-6, 9, 10 of the immigration regulations-


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



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House, especially those from Quebec, can take pride in the general agreement on regional economic

December 18, 1984

development signed last Friday in Montreal by the federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Quebec Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I found that the people I spoke to in my riding last weekend were delighted with the action taken by this Government. This generous agreement, which provides funding totalling $1.6 billion over five years, has put an end to a deadlock that existed for several months because the previous Liberal Administration refused to recognize Quebec's full jurisdiction over its economic development. The truly historic moment when the agreement was signed by both governments put an end to an era of confrontation maintained by the previous Liberal Government. The agreement recognizes Quebec's authority over its own development and is a clear demonstration of the spirit of rapprochement and understanding that pervades federal-provincial relations today.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, our Party made a commitment to develop co-operative federalism, and the present agreement is a very clear example of what we had in mind.



DISARMAMENT


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend Canadians were treated to some very disturbing statements by two senior Ministers of the Government. First, we had the incredible admission by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that the Canadian Government is now waffling on its opposition to President Reagan's plan to promote Star Wars weaponry. This is a total reversal of the position taken by previous Canadian governments and recently endorsed by the Minister himself. In fact the Ambassador for Disarmament stated in a recent speech: "Canada's objective at the United Nations is to encourage talks aimed at limiting outer space as an area for military competition . .."
We have also had the spectacle of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) mocking the many thousands of Canadians who belong to the peace movement. The broad support of this movement across the country is clear, and involves many prominent Canadians, such as 34 recipients of the Order of Canada, former Moderators of the United Church, eight university presidents, and many other distinguished Canadians.
These recent statements clearly show the Government's lack of interest in the peace issue within the international community and within the country. I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to clarify the position of his Government immediately on the Star War's issue, and to apologize to all those Canadians who are actively involved in the peace movement.



MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the Medical Research Council of Canada may lose approximately $30 million for research funding in the upcoming year.
Many research foundations and institutes try to provide research operating funds, but a significant portion of their resources is consumed in the provision of research space, care support facilities, and "seed money" for pilot projects. These items are critical to a successful research program but are not funded by any major external funding agency. The scientific community, therefore, looks to external funding agencies for a significant portion of its operating support.
The Medical Research Council of Canada is prominent amongst these funding agencies, and any reductions in its funding capacity will have an immediate drastic impact on established world class research programs. I seek the assurance of the Government that no cut-backs will be implemented in scientific and medical research funding areas.



EXTERNAL AID


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation of representatives of all three Parties has just returned from Ethiopia. There is solid unanimity across the Parties both as to the impression we had of the famine crisis there and what Canada should be doing about it. The famine is as bad as you ever saw it on television. People are starving to death.
It is important that Canada intervene massively with emergency food aid because the situation will only get worse next year. Farmers are not able to form, and pastoralists do not have any pasture, so that production is down drastically. At the same time as we are giving emergency food aid, we should not be cutting back on development.
For Ethiopia to become self-sufficient in agriculture, as well as other countries affected by the famine, massive intervention is needed for reforestation, agricultural improvement, and water projects. This is something in which Canada can engage adequately. We have the technological expertise, and we have food riches that we should be giving generously. The United Nations is calling for 1.3 million tonnes of cereal aid. Canada should be coming up with at least 200,000 tonnes as its contribution to a tragic situation in a world in which we are all together.

December 18, 1984



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, recent ministerial statements and actions are leading Canadians to lose faith in the veracity of their Government. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) publicly confuses law and tradition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) ascribe greatly different meanings to the word "universality", and their daily ration of vaudeville, diatribe, dogma and evasion, is described as answers, Canadians must wonder if the Government is deliberately trying to undermine our languages.\nConfucius, when asked what would be the most important reform to better the human condition, replied after careful\nDecember 18, 1984', 'consideration: "I should insist on the precise meaning of words".\nA Government that debases the language is as bad as one that debases the coinage. I call upon the Government to adopt as its New Year\'s resolution, to say what it means and mean what it says.']
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to mention that the form of debate during question period has vastly improved, and you are to be congratulated.
However, as far as the substance is concerned, I would like to point out to Hon. Members that every day, Canadian voters across Canada are being offered a show that is mediocre in the extreme. What is the purpose of these questions? What are the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party trying to do?
The purpose of their questions is to efnphasize the differences in how statements by Ministers and the Right Hon. Prime Minister are interpreted. Their questions are petty, repetitive and full of political rhetoric.
The Liberals ask the same questions as the New Democrats and the New Democrats the same questions as the Liberals. They each want to replace the other as the Official Opposition.
May I suggest to the House that Opposition Members act more responsibly before their constituents and the people of Canada? The role of Opposition Members consists in asking questions about legislation and administration. Let the Party Leaders set an example. Let them stop their childish emoting and show in their questions that they are intelligent and competent.
In fact, their responsibilities and their status as parliamentarians should not leave them any other choice.



Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the recent past there has been a flood of disturbing news of violence and killings in Sri Lanka, a friend and ally of Canada. Sri Lanka, since its independence from British rule, obtained in 1948, has throughout preserved the democratic process in its Government.
Recent events, reportedly brought about by a Tamil separatist group seeking to divide this small island, include brutal killings of innocent citizens of the country, and are threatening its very carefully preserved democracy. The Government has appealed for calm and urged the Sinhalese majority not to retaliate against innocent Tamils. The Government is struggling hard with meagre resources to bring about peace, and sustain law and order.
The democratically elected Government of this nation is highly vulnerable in this particular case. I call upon the Canadian Government to do everything possible to ensure that
law and order, peace and democracy are maintained in the country of Sri Lanka. I would like to know whether the Government is contemplating any steps to assist the Government of Sri Lanka, and what response the Canadian Department of External Affairs will give to try to preserve democracy in this fragile situation.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to throw a bouquet to the acid rain committee which has been so active in the District Municipality of Muskoka. Since 1980 members of this regional government standing committee have been addressing the environmental hazards of acid rain from the grassroots level. Under the auspices of Sheilah Hatch, Mayor of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, this committee serves as a shining example of the impact which can be achieved by municipal government bodies. A small annual budget of $2,000 is used for travelling expenses and correspondence, much of which involves discussions with groups in the United States.
It stands to reason that an acid rain committee should be active in Muskoka. Each time councillors drive to a meeting, they bear witness to stands of hardwood showing ill health, and acidified lakes devoid of fish.
Mayor Hatch attended the meeting on auto emission standards in Ottawa earlier this month. She agrees with me that the technology already in place to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions should be used on Canadian automobiles to bring us up to standards set in the United States.
On their behalf, I challenge other municipalities affected by acid rain to pick up the torch at the grassroots. There can never be too many groups assessing the horrible blight of acid rain in Canada and around the world.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, recent ministerial statements and actions are leading Canadians to lose faith in the veracity of their Government. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) publicly confuses law and tradition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) ascribe greatly different meanings to the word "universality", and their daily ration of vaudeville, diatribe, dogma and evasion, is described as answers, Canadians must wonder if the Government is deliberately trying to undermine our languages.
Confucius, when asked what would be the most important reform to better the human condition, replied after careful
December 18, 1984

consideration: "I should insist on the precise meaning of words".
A Government that debases the language is as bad as one that debases the coinage. I call upon the Government to adopt as its New Year's resolution, to say what it means and mean what it says.




John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When I was on the West Coast I read the disturbing statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to the effect that they intend to dismantle our social programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We are so outraged about this particular situation that I intend at three o'clock to present a motion for an emergency debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Well, that sacred trust has now become a broken trust.
Will the Prime Minister instruct his Minister of Finance to bring down a Budget at an early opportunity so that we will know the entire scope of what the Government has in mind, who will receive old age pensions and who won't, who will receive family allowances and who won't? I believe the confusion which has now been shored up in the minds of Canadians needs to be dispelled and an early Budget brought down in the House.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in a letter issued on October 6, 1982, it was stated as a recommendation that "it means looking seriously at the universality of the social security programs which now have become the vested interest of the middle class rather than the needy". The author of that is the McMillan, Binch newsletter, and we reject that. We reject that philosophy. We have been defending an important proposition.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Get out of the gutter, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have been defending an important proposition. I was asked on Friday:
When the Minister of Finance of this country says that we cannot afford social programs for middle income Canadians, is the Prime Minister saying that the Finance Minister is wrong?
Oral Questions
And I answered:
I am saying that the Finance Minister never said that.
The reason for that is that, inadvertently or otherwise, my friend from Essex-Windsor amputated two important words- "upper and"-from the answer, which meant clearly-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which meant very clearly-


An Hon. Member:: He wasn't quoting.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which meant very clearly that when I said that the Minister of Finance never said that, he never had said that, and the Hon. Member was wrong, and the Leader of the NDP was wrong yesterday in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We stand for social justice and fairness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLD AGE PENSIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and the Hon. Member for Oshawa will be able to take care of themselves. However, I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that I am getting a little tired and annoyed-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -at selective miscitations of what I am purported to have said or written. I did not write that document. I did not write that document.
It is quite clear now that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, throughout the election, had a hidden agenda whereby they were going to dismantle the social contract.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: By "social contract" I mean the contract by which hundreds of thousands of Canadians paid taxes in order to qualify eventually for old age pensions. How many of our senior citizens will qualify and how many will not qualify, despite the fact that every one of them has paid taxes toward old age pensions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all of the senior citizens are going to qualify because we have never placed in jeopardy the notion of universality for our senior citizens. All of them are going to qualify for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1342

December 18, 1984
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the McMillan Binch newsletter, I never accused the right hon. gentleman of writing it. The question is, did he charge for it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AMOUNT OF PENSIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I will stand up to this particular exchange when the senior citizens of the country manage to see it and hear it. I am asking the Prime Minister whether the pensioners, and those who will qualify shortly for a pension, will receive the same statutory equal pension that they now receive. Is that going to be a part of government policy? Is there going to be any discrimination between citizens when they reach retirement age?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have responded once, but let me do it again. The response to the question put by my right hon. friend is yes, all senior citizens will deserve the pensions to which they are entitled notwithstanding the profligacy of the previous Government which placed the public finances of Canada in jeopardy.
[ Translation]


PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
This morning, in an interview on the CBC French network at quarter past eight, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance mentioned that the Minister had said: We no longer have the resources. He is disavowing the basic principle of universality by setting new limits. We must review universality, starting with its basic definition which should be universality of care and social services for those who need it. They are challenging universality and the criteria established by the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for LaSalle, was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government, the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he clearly gave Quebeckers the impression that the principle of universality had been set aside by the Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am
delighted to hear that a Bay Street lawyer listens to the CBC French network at eight o'clock in the morning. That is good
news.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said, and I think to the satisfaction of my hon. friend, that the programs and principles governing those programs are and will be fully effective. What we are trying to do is engage in
civilized dialogue and debate with Hon. Members to find out whether we cannot make a better use of the public funds at our disposal, for the benefit of those members of our society who are truly in need. That is what we are trying to do.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when will we get the clear truth from the Prime Minister? When will the Prime Minister stop covering the debate with his usual thick layer of verbal fudge, as Richard Gwyn said in his column yesterday? When a person is blamed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when will we get a clear statement so that Canadian families who make more than $26,000 will know that their programs will not be cut, as suggested by his Minister over the weekend?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, if my hon. friend is going to be fair and objective in his analysis, that he defer at least for a while to his spokesman on health and welfare, who is quoted in La Presse of November 20, 1984-


An Hon. Member:: That is not the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed it is the question-as saying the following:
[ Translation]
If the Government wishes to remove universality of pensions in order to give the money to senior citizens who need it most, I agree with that.
That is what he said, and I am merely saying that we do not want there to be any doubt about the principle of universality. We want to provide benefits for those members of our society who need them most, regardless of the positions taken by the Liberal Party.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Slick, slick, slick.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps Hon. Members would like to remember who we are and where we are.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Mr. Broadbent:: And we should all remember to tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he regards the universality
December 18, 1984

principle in social programs to be a sacred trust. His Minister of Finance said recently that social programs for the poor are a sacred trust. These are two different notions. Does the Prime Minister still regard the universality principle of social programs to be a sacred trust, and will he tell us precisely what he means by the universality principle?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is going to quote, and if the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is going to quote, I ask him to go back and read Hansard of Friday with regard to the amputation of language that took place. He ought to begin his comments today by apologizing to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and to me, because I have been consistent throughout the piece, and I will accept your apology as an Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from Windsor will agree with that, that there were important words that were not used in his quotation from the extraction of the statement of the Minister of Finance.
The answer to the question is that indeed we favour the concept of universality. As I indicated in a speech in April in Toronto, and on many occasions thereafter, we would like to use the tax system to introduce an element of fairness that we believe is lacking whereby-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is it a sacred trust?


Martin Brian Mulroney: She has done all the damage she can do to the Liberal Party of Ontario, and she is doing it here now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We plan to examine the possibility of using the tax system to introduce a greater notion of fairness for those in our society who need help without doing violence to the principle of universality.


TAX STATUS OF BENEFITS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we still have not got it clarified. As the Prime Minister knows, for decades Canadians have taken it for granted that if they pay- rich, poor, middle income persons and families alike-either through the tax system or through other means, into pension plans, medicare and family allowances, they would all get those benefits back, none of which would have a specific tax levied upon them. They were counted for taxable income but they did not have a specific tax levied on the benefit. That is what makes them a universal principle. That is what we in this Party defend. That is what the people of Canada want. Is the Prime Minister proposing to introduce, for the first time, a specific tax on a particular social benefit program which, if he does, will undermine the universality principle?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to examine various possibilities to try to
Oral Questions
get more money into the hands of those who need it. For example, the question was asked by Ms. Frum: "Will you be prepared to tax upper income Canadians to get more money into the system?" The Member for Vancouver East said: "We would be prepared to tax them and tax back their old age pensions as well." There is the policy of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. We are opposed to that. That is what is wrong with the NDP.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that this Party has for years been prepared to include all sources of income as taxable benefits. We stand by that. We do not say one thing during an election campaign and another thing after we are elected to the House of Commons.
Considering that the Prime Minister's proposal-and it is clear that he is going to act on it-is in essence to levy a special tax on particular social programs, to ghettoize Canadians and to create two classes of Canadians when it comes to social programs, will the Prime Minister change his position and maintain the universality principle for Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member that we will protect the integrity of universal programs against the rapacious tax attitudes of the NDP as articulated by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. We want to treat people fairly, and we are going to keep the taxman away from those who are in need the most.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members would at least allow the Chair to hear the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the point of my question is not to find out what the Hon. Member for Vancouver East or members of the NDP believe. We want to know what the Government intends to do, because it will be making the decision.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister and goes back to an answer he gave to the Leader of the Official Opposition. He said that he does not intend in any way to reduce or change the benefits that will go to senior citizens or families. If that is the case, how does he explain the statement made on the weekend by the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said that his priority is to change those programs and in fact to develop a cut-off point through the tax system that would reduce the benefits for parents and the elderly? How does he reconcile those two statements? Is he going to repudiate the Minister of Health and Welfare?

December 18, 1984
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry should be careful with his selection of facts, if those are facts at all. I will tell him why. Under the child tax credit system, the Liberal Government which introduced that program had a turning point of $26,330 namely, that a family with a net income at that level would receive the full child tax credit. From that amount of money up to a net family income of $41,000, the child tax credit was totally gone. That was their plan. If the Liberals are arguing that that is a removal of universality or will somehow negatively affect Canadian families, I do not understand, because it was their plan.
When we look at these plans, let's be sensible in terms of what is on the table and what Canadians are receiving, and let's not put forward motives that simply do not exist, motives which are dishonest and which we have never been following.


REVIEW OF BENEFITS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Prime Minister. I would remind them that when we brought in the child tax credit, we did not reduce the basic benefits to senior citizens or families in those cases. Do the plans that the Minister is preparing, and the examinations undertaken by his Department, in any way involve the reduction of the existing benefit structure or formulae, either through the tax system or through direct benefits to senior citizens or families who presently receive the old age pension or the family allowance? Will there be any form of reduction whatsoever to the existing basic benefit plan?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that the answer to those reductions that he is trying to impute as a motive of the Government is, no.


Lloyd Axworthy: What about the Minister of Finance?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will give the Hon. Member an answer, if he just gives me some time. The point I would make to the Hon. Member, and to all Members of the House, is simply this: at the present time the tax system does allow for a tax on income whether it is income of a senior citizen or a family. There is no problem there, I would think. The only question is what NAPA has said, what the Status of Women today and the Hon. Member for Sudbury have said, and I can turn to the debate of July 26 and the words of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East-we were all in the same studio-he said, on behalf of the then Liberal Government, that they would be considering taxing back and re-arranging. Is it fair to re-examine a certain amount of the money that goes to the upper-income level, and to re-direct it to those who are not as well off as the Hon. Member and I?


TAXATION OF INCOMES
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This Party believes in taxing all incomes, and in taxing the wealthy who pay little income tax now in proportion to their incomes in order to pay for the cost of all social programs. We do not believe in taxing specific social programs. Is this what the Minister is proposing to do?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I got the sense of that question. If the Hon. Member is asking whether or not we are intending to tax social programs like Old Age Security and Family Allowances, I would say that today those are taxed. There has been no change. According to what the Minister of Health and Welfare has said, we are looking at the possibility of taxing some of those programs for those in the upper-income brackets to allow us to provide a greater degree of assistance to those who are in greater need, in the same way as the Hon. Member herself said that they would be prepared to tax upper-income Canadians and tax back their old age pensions as well. There is no difference between us. We are trying to have an honest, open, and objective debate on how we should achieve this. I would encourage the Hon. Member and members of her Party to join in that debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACCESS TO UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about global taxation, not program taxation. I would like to ask the Minister if he intends to undermine a very proud Canadian tradition, the right of all Canadians, regardless of their incomes, to the universal social programs which they have earned by their contribution to Canada and for which they have paid through their taxes. What is his intention?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We have every intention of leaving the principle of universality in place, whether it is for benefits for the elderly, family benefits, or medicare. These are things that we hold as strongly as the Hon. Member opposite. We are committed to holding those, and we are not going to tax back the old age pensions in the way that the Hon. Member described last July.


INCOME LEVELS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the comments made by the Finance Minister today do not jibe with the comments he made when he said that that there are people who don't need it and that upper and middle-income social programs cannot be afforded today. That is what the Minister said last week.
December 18, 1984

My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Today there has been an admission in the House that there will be a tax-back on senior citizens' benefits and family allowances. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can tell us at what threshold he will stop in the tax-backs. Will it be the $26,000 figure he quoted last week? This would mean that more than half of working Canadians will be caught by his Government's ripoff tax-backs which indicate that the Government is reneging on the social contract with the Canadian people.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's comments passing strange, for the simple reason that the very $26,330, which we have not established or confirmed as a threshold, was used by her Party. Why would she not only call it unfair but use it as a basis of determining that the entire system is unfair? Obviously our system will be more fair than the one she has supported.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in fact I am quoting the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare from an interview in which he stated that $26,000 was the base figure being used.


DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister still agree with the statement which he made in November when he said:
If we were to leave the system untouched, we would be leaving in place a system that, strictly speaking, not only is not universal, but is in fact regressive-
Does he believe that the universal system, which we hold dear in this Party, is a regressive system?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member that I think anyone who has looked at the system sanely and quietly will say that it is regressive. For example-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is regressive.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, you agree that it is regressive. Let me give the Hon. Member a very quick example-


Lloyd Axworthy: There is no-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let Sheila speak for herself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: First, I will tell the Hon. Member that the manner in which she used my quotes was inaccurate. I wish she would be accurate.
Second, under the tax exemption plan of Revenue Canada today, it is regressive in the sense that anyone who has a larger income has a greater benefit in terms of reduced taxation
Oral Questions
because of the tax exemption. Surely that is regressive. The person who does not pay any tax does not get that benefit. So, if that meets her definition of regressive, as it does mine, then in that sense the system is regressive.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I almost hate to change the topic, but I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which deals with another area that is of universal concern to all Canadians, that is, the quality of our environment. It is a universality question, whether or not we like it.
Yesterday my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena, released information regarding the scope of the cut-backs in the National Research Council Environmental Secretariat which performs important studies into such things as fetal hazards and the effect of environmental lead on children. Those programs have been cancelled. Does the Prime Minister not think that these programs are important? If he does think they are important, will he have them reinstated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed I think that all the programs were important. It was a question of the budgetary restraints which were imposed upon us and the priorities which were established. I hope my hon. friend will agree that it was done with care and concern for the total environment of Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that the environmental deficit which this Government will leave Canada if it continues with these programs is every bit as serious, in another dimension completely, as the financial deficit to which the Prime Minister keeps referring.


REQUEST THAT CUT-BACKS BE REVIEWED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, when will the Prime Minister and his colleagues realize the tragic short-sightedness of the cut-backs in the Environmental Secretariat of the NRC? When will the Government show the kind of willingness to reconsider, that I think the Minister of the Environment showed last week when she indicated that some changes might be made to the cut-backs in research in the Canadian Wildlife Service, and have the entire set of cut-backs reviewed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed I think the Minister did indicate that last week. She is expected back in the House tomorrow. I am sure she will be delighted to meet with the Hon. Member to review it.

December 18, 1984
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


MARITIME FEED GRAIN COSTS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he be prepared to consider favourably the representation he has received from the Maritime Farmers Council concerning the disparity in feed prices between there and the rest of Canada? As well, would he agree that the survival and future prosperity of the livestock and poultry industry depends on closing the gap, and accept their recommendation that the Feed Freight Equalization Program be revised to cover 50 per cent of the transportation costs on feed grains from central and western Canada?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in the subject. Let me respond to his first question by saying yes. With respect to his second question, I would throw in a word of caution. I hope that the financial resources will be available to the extent that we can provide some financial assistance in the foreseeable future to this very deserving problem.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is something upon which all Members of the House will agree, that is, that the Government has succeeded in creating confusion, anxiety, insecurity, and even fear among our elderly citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Yesterday I received calls in my riding-and I am sure it is the same in Don Valley West as I am sure it is true in the riding of every Member of the House-because those people are concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Donald James Johnston: Not long ago, a woman asked me-and I am going to put the question she asked me to the Right Hon. Prime Minister-she asked me: Mr. Johnston, are they going to take away my pension, my cheques?
That is the question I now wish to put to the Prime Minister. What is he going to say to the people who are asking us these questions?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would answer the Member's question very directly-and I hope through him to his constituents and every Member in the House-that this Government has no intention, has had no intention, nor will it, to remove the old age pensions
from those Canadians who have contributed to our society of which we are all the benefactors. The simple answer to his question is no.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUDGET PRESENTATION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance. There is only one way in which we can get rid of the confusion and anxiety, and that is to bring in a budget. Let us see exactly what the Government has in mind, and let us have it quickly. We cannot wait until March, April, May or June.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member has directed a question to me, but maybe I could help him out with his concern.
We have tried to put the matter in a very clear way. The comments which were just made by my colleague state what the problem is and what the questions are. We will be putting out a paper on this matter in advance of the Budget so that we can have an ojbective, fair, honest and open debate. I would encourage the Hon. Member, who has expressed some views in this area, which have the effect in a very clear way of removing universality, but-


Donald James Johnston: Creating universality.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: No, removing universality.
I would encourage the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member for Sudbury, and the Leader of the Opposition, to join in this debate in an open and positive way, and not to contribute to any misunderstanding on the part of Canadians who want to receive the benefits of these programs.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Article 12 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the United States calls for intensified research. Could the Prime Minister explain how the cuts to environmental programs related to the Great Lakes respond to the wording of the Canada-U.S. treaty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of the Environment will be back to respond tomorrow to that question.
December 18, 1984

Oral Questions
HEALTH ASPECTS


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on December 14 the Prime Minister stated in the House, and I quote with care:
-the health and safety of people take precedence over everything else.
Why did he agree to allow the savage cuts to the Environmental Secretariat, particularly to the projects which are directed to evaluate the effects of viruses, heavy metals, and toxic materials on the health of the 40 million North Americans who drink from the Great Lakes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am assured that no cuts were introduced which would have that kind of dire impact upon anyone. But, as I indicated, the Minister will be back in the House tomorrow and I am sure that she will be able to satisfy any concerns which my hon. friend has.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
In Montreal last Friday, the Minister and the Quebec Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs signed an agreement on regional economic development, an important event that demonstrates the improvement that has taken place in relations between the Federal Government and the Government of Quebec. Could the Minister inform the House in what way this agreement differs from agreements signed with his counterparts in British Columbia and Ontario?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I am sure all Members will understand that it is difficult in a short answer to explain the differences in a comprehensive way between British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec IRDA agreements. Perhaps it would suffice if I assured the Hon. Member that the agreement we signed with Quebec last Friday is one which anticipates extensive sub-agreements and funding to fall out therefrom. The total amount of new money over the next five years which is anticipated will be about $630 million, which the Province of Quebec has agreed to match. That makes a total $1,320 billion. In short, it is the finest such agreement which has ever been reached between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, which the former Liberal Government was unable to do-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians are justified in their confusion, mainly because on this issue of universality there have been three positions taken by Hon. Members on the front bench opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Three positions. Is it the intention of the Government to wait until we recess this House on Friday before it releases the white papers on family allowances and old age pensions? Or will the Minister of Finance do the courageous thing and table the documents and those papers in the House tomorrow so that members of the Opposition can have the opportunity to question the direction the Tory Government wants to take, before we break for Christmas?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that on July 26 he, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, and myself appeared on a national television program in which it was said: "To sum up your position on the medicare question-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: "-and on the social welfare net, you seem to be saying, "No new money". You just want to look at the existing money and redistribute the existing money. No new money for either medicare or poverty programs". That was Mrs. Frum, and Mr. Frith said: "That's correct". Therefore, coming directly to what the Hon. Member has said, and what we have said-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about the white paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Minister that I cannot hear the answer. The Hon. Member has a supplementary, perhaps. I could not hear the answer because of the noise in the House.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I will come back, Mr. Speaker, and ask the same question again. Is it the intention of the Government to wait until Parliament recesses before it has the courage to release its directional papers on family allowance and old age security? Why will the Government not table those documents here this week so that we can have the opportunity to debate them in this House?

Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I could table the press releases of the increase in family allowance, the table on old age pension, the increase in the Canada Pension Plan-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Table the document.


Mr. Foster:: Check with Erik.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We could table all those documents. The Hon. Member has been in cabinet. I am in cabinet. I want to say to the Hon. Member that when the Cabinet has made its decisions, those papers will be tabled. I hope that, just as the Hon. Member has previously contributed in a rational debate on this issue, including on televison, I hope he will contribute at that time as well.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is in regard to the recent Canada-U.S. agreement on the management of West coast salmon. Would the Minister agree that this deal is part of the pattern of his Government caving in to American demands?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: For example, in this agreement, in the transboundary fisheries in the north of British Columbia, on rivers such as the Stikine and Taku, the Americans get up to 85 per cent of the catch without any reciprocal compensation to Canadians. Would the Minister agree with that statement?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's question is, of course, no. As the result of a great deal of hard work on the part of some very able Canadians and Americans they have finally brought together in one place, and on one piece of paper, an accord which is going to go to both Governments. This is after 18 years of effort. I must assure the Hon. Member that under no circumstances am I prepared to accept on behalf of this Government any suggestion that the agreement which was worked out was a cave in of any sort whatsoever.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Minister himself is quoted as agreeing with Jack Nichol, the President of the Fishermen's Union, that Canadian fishermen are carrying the burden created by the need to rebuild the stocks, and given the fact that the negotiations were generally carried out in secret, will the Minister at least refer the treaty to the appropriate House of Commons
December 18, 1984
committee so we can hear from the industry and the fishermen before its ratification by cabinet?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, of course the Canadian fishermen are carrying the burden. They are carrying the burden of the fact that, for a decade or more, on both sides of the border proper conservation measures and proper catch allotments were not accepted. So, of course, we have to accept the burden of rebuilding the salmon stocks. That is fundamental common sense.
The Hon. Member, by his own admission, is not an expert in the fisheries. However, he can add and subtract. If we do not have enough fish to go around, sooner or later we have to make an agreement that we are going to rebuild the stock, and that is what this agreement is all about. And it is one of the best things which has happened between our two countries for a long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Recent media reports indicate that the Western Grain Stabilization Fund will provide pay-outs of $17,000 to 135,000 western farmers, which could amount to $2.3 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


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


Jack Scowen: Will the Minister indicate if these figures are accurate?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised a very serious issue. I do not think it does anyone any good, particularly the farmers who are in financial stress, to engage in idle speculation. The figures are not accurate as to the number of farmers. It is too early to say how much the fund will pay out. I would like to acknowledge the support of the two spokesmen for the opposition Parties for the two small amendments which we will have to bring in in order to make an interim payment. I would also like to thank the Hon. Member for giving me a chance to put some of these things on the record.
December 18, 1984

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Today, we saw the Minister of National Health and Welfare release another trial balloon when he said they were going to give with one hand and take away with the other. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why he does not tell Canadians frankly and honestly that he deceived them during the election campaign and that now he is in power, he is going to cut back social programs one way or another, either through the tax system or directly, but cuts there will be.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I feel a little uneasy if I do not hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that we have no intention of acting in the way he suggests. We had in mind-as the Hon. Member for Sudbury said during the televised debate this summer, it might be a good thing-since this is acceptable, to use the tax system to try and get more funds for those who need help most in our society. That is all we are trying to do, while maintaining the integrity of the principles by which we are governed. We are trying to find a better way of using the funds at our disposal to help the neediest in our society who truly need government aid.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just told the House once again, to raise the level of anxiety among Canadians . . . The Minister of National Health and Welfare has just launched a trial balloon and now the Prime Minister is continuing in the same vein.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister intends to "come clean" very shortly, in order to put an end to the anxiety that exists among senior citizens and mothers with a family. If the decision is already made, why bother about so-called consultations, Mr. Speaker?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is just the usual smoke screen and the usual canards used by the Liberal Party. We all know this is part of the traditional politics and stunts of the Liberal Party in Quebec. They have always made a habit of heaping lies and insults on their opponents. You know quite well what we are saying. We are here to help the average citizen have a better life. That is what we are going to do. We are going to defend the integrity of our social programs against the petty politicking of the Liberal Party. That is what we are trying to do.
Privilege-Mr. Langdon


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, December 17, with one exception, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have received a note from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who desires to raise a question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question of privilege arising from a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Question Period. I understood the Prime Minister to say that I had destroyed the Ontario Liberal Party, and for that I would like-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -an apology from the Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Who do you want to blame it on?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would also like the Prime Minister to know that the only thing he has destroyed is his Government's credibility, and that was self-inflicted.


Mr. Speaker:: I could say this is not a question of privilege but it may be a point of order or a matter for debate at some other time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Sheila, you could not do it alone; you had help.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Mr. Beatty:: Peterson's gain is Turner's loss.


ALLEGED MISQUOTATION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I raise this question in a search for enlightenment from you, if I could.


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

December 18, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Langdon Mr. Langdon: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's question of privilege?


Mr. Keeper:: He is stating it.


Steven W. Langdon: The question of privilege I wish to raise has to do with the allegations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today during Question Period with respect to my supposed misquotation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Amputation.


Steven W. Langdon: Is this the time when such a question can be raised?


Mr. Speaker:: Let me try and guide the Hon. Member. It could be raised now if it were a question of privilege. I take it there is some dispute about the facts of the matter and I have to advise the Hon. Member that cannot normally form the basis of a question of privilege. However, Members have the right, on a matter arising out of Question Period, to present a question of privilege immediately after Question Period or give me notice in writing on a question of privilege tomorrow or later, if that is the earliest opportunity after the Hon. Member has read the "blues".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Or they can get expelled from the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member that he is, I take it, making some claim with regard to the accuracy of statements made by another Member. It is difficult to form a question of privilege on that basis. I take it that is the advice the Hon. Member seeks. Is he now rising on a question of privilege?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the Hon. Member's question of privilege? Other than the one he has just mentioned, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if I could just very briefly put what I see as the question of privilege and allow you to rule-


Mr. Speaker:: Let me help the Member, if I may. Citation 19(1) of Beauchesne's says:
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Does the Hon. Member have another question of privilege?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the question is not with respect to the fact of the comments made but with respect to a point suggested by the Prime Minister, that I was directly quoting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when in fact I was quite clearly, as recorded in Hansard, paraphrasing the key comments-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -that were made.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Tell Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in great difficulty. The Hon. Member is now telling me that something the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said happened did not in fact happen. I take it that is a dispute as to facts. The Hon. Member is saying that he did a certain thing and the Prime Minister said he did something else. That is clearly a dispute as to fact. Does the Hon. Member have a question of privilege?


Steven W. Langdon: I will reserve my-


Mr. Speaker:: No, on the point the Hon. Member has raised, he does not have a question of privilege. If he thinks he has one he has the right to submit a notice and we can consider it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition on behalf of the congregation of the Meaford United Church, Meaford, Ontario, in my riding of Grey-Simcoe, who participated in the Prayer for Peace Service and have now delivered their personal petition for peace to the House of Commons to ensure that all government levels continue to work for peace and harmony throughout the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of Bills. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) would do me the indulgence of allowing his Bill to stand.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move concurrence in the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
December 18, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.', 'December 18, 1984\nExcise Tax Act']
Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) of this desire to make a case to me under Standing Order 30 today.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an urgent matter of which I have given Your Honour notice.
Given the alarming and confusing situation which the Government has caused, which occupied the House today and which is exacerbating the situation regarding our social programs, I ask leave to propose a motion under Standing Order 30 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the declaration yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that universality in our social programs in this country is no longer a fundamental policy of the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It might be worth while if you were right in your premise but you are not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has given the Chair the required notice of his intention to seek leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter, namely the declarations yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) relating to universality in social programs. The Chair recognizes that the issue of universality is an important matter and what is said about it on both sides of the House will continue to be of interest to all Canadians.
Standing Order 30(16) provides the Chair with some guidelines as to the conditions that must be met for such a debate to take place. The principal condition is that the matter proposed must relate to a "genuine" emergency and require "urgent consideration". Speaker Jerome, while ruling on a similar application, attempted to define the use of the word "emergency", or the application of the word "emergency". As reported at pages 2191 and 2192 of Hansard on December 10, 1979, he said:
The phrase "genuine emergency" is not capable of precise definition necessarily, but I must take into account the fact that the word "genuine" is used for a specific reason by the drafters of the rule. While I can never say it rules out forever a situation in which the emergency itself is a matter of dispute, it seems that the word "genuine" implies that the rule should be used where at least the emergency itself is not a matter of argument.
Order Paper Questions
At the present time, the subject raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a matter of continuing debate and does not, in the opinion of the Chair, warrant an emergency debate. I therefore must rule that the application of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot be accepted.



[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. 56 and 97.


Mr. Howie: How many destroyers are on strength in the Canadian Armed Forces, and of this number, how many are currently under repair or otherwise incapable of going to sea?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: The
total strength of the Canadian Forces destroyer fleet is 23, of which three are in an unmanned reserve status, three are undergoing routine refits and a fourth is scheduled to commence refit on December 3, 1984.


Mr. Dingwall: Does the Federal Business Development Bank have a mandate to be a lender of last resort for community development corporations and, if so, does the mandate include (a) the Local Employment Assistance Development Program (b) non-profit organizations?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: The Federal Business Development Bank may make loans to commercial enterprises; non-profit organizations do not qualify for loan assistance. Community development corporations including those set up under the Local Employment Assistance Development Program generally fall into the latter category.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 18, 1984
Excise Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
| English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-17, 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.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate this Bill, I do not think that the Canadian people want us to debate this Bill, and the Liberal Members in the House do not want us to debate this Bill while there is an issue outstanding which smacks at the very core of our social security system in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Blinded by the deficit, the Conservatives are destroying our economy and our environment and now they are crippling our people and their spirit. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault):
That the House do now adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung:


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 8(1), I declare the motion now before the House lapsed.
Therefore, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned.

Wednesday, December 19, 1984