1984-12-19

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the universality of social programs is a basic concept that gives women financial protection through family allowances and old age security pensions. However, women are no longer the priority they were during the election campaign, now the Government has started to question the only means by which women are given financial and economic recognition.
Canadian women must act now to pressure the Government to respect their social contract, as they pressured the Government before to include the equality clause in the Constitution. [English]
Government policy seems headed the wrong way. We should be improving things for women, not taking away. We are retracting instead of moving ahead.
It is vital that the voice of Canadian women be heard. I urge them to participate in this debate now and to call the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at 2-4211, to send in petitions and to protest the cuts.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, this week I, along with others, had the occasion to hear a presentation made by the Canadian Wine Institute here in Ottawa. In spite of the congeniality of the occasion and the palatability of the fine quality Canadian wines, the evening was marred by a deep and abiding concern.
The good, clear, sparkling wines that we were sampling are facing a cloudy future, and the Government has the ability to lift that cloud. The wine industry in Canada is at an all-time low both in terms of profitability and market share. The decline in Canadian wine sales can be attributed to many
factors, including the heavily subsidized production in Europe, an unfavourable exchange rate, and the flagrant use of wine as barter for Canadian exports. The most significant factors, however, are the federal and provincial taxes levied on the grape and wine industry. All of these factors have led to an untenable situation in which imported wines retail for prices far lower than domestic products.
Growers and wine producers have invested in the future. They have proven that they can produce a quality product. It is within our power to assure them that there is a future that is as clear and bright as the products they produce. Do it, and do it now.


TOURISM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has voiced a commitment to expanding the tourist industry in Canada and has also appointed Canada's first Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan). It is my understanding, however, that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) will be closing 19 ports of entry in the coming year, thus affecting tourism in those areas.

I am sure the Government understands that money is needed to support this industry. Considering the number of American tourists coming to Canada, I would urge the Minister of National Revenue to maintain his ports of entry and the Minister of State (Tourism) to support his colleague on this matter.

Beaudette, Minnesota, is an important aircraft pre-clearing point for tourists coming into the Rainy River area of Ontario. The Customs service provided at Beaudette is slated to be discontinued on January 1, 1985. I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the Minister of National Revenue, and the Minister of State for Tourism to act immediately, and in concert, to see that this important service is maintained.

December 19, 1984


S O. 21 AIRPORTS ABSENCE OF MINISTERIAL SIGNS APPLAUDED
Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, on my way into Winnipeg International Airport last week, I was pleasantly surprised to see that signs indicating alterations list the sponsor as Transport Canada and make no mention whatsoever of the Minister responsible. I was even more pleasantly surprised to see that the same policy was evident at the Ottawa airport.
The previous Government's practice of erecting huge signs and bronze plaques, with the Minister's name receiving an obscene profile, for even the smallest of projects, was an insult to the Canadians whose taxes paid for such projects.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léo Duguay: I want to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on this simple but important step of returning to the people of Canada the credit that is their due. I wish to encourage other Ministers to follow suit. Such a practice will not only save the Government money when Ministers change, but will highlight Canada's support for a project rather than one Canadian's political generosity. All of this would make more credible the role of Canada's servants, the Members of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has embarked upon a program of action in this Parliament which stands so contrary to the promises made during the election campaign that the main campaign issue of Conservative credibility is now the main issue facing the House of Commons. The sacred trust of universality, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has called it, is no more than an opportunistic, vote-getting flim-flam. The Conservative Members have a hidden agenda, an agenda hidden only in the sense that they have denied its existence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The recent statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicating that Canada cannot afford universal social programs for middle-income Canadians serve only to confirm the existence of such a hidden agenda. The Liberals giveth, and the Tories taketh away.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that, time and time again, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has stated that the pensions of our old age pensioners, our crippled, and our needy, would not be reduced, members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party continually put fear in the hearts of the needy of Canada by inferring that their benefits will be cut. The objective of the P.C. Government is to pay more to the needy, not less.
I say shame on the Liberals and NDP who are playing politics yes, and dirty politics at that, on the backs of those in wheelchairs and those who are not receiving enough to make both ends meet. I send this message to all of the needy of Canada: "Don't let these Liberal and NDP politicians frighten you. They are the ones who would continue borrowing to the point where all social benefits would have to end, and they want those making $50,000 to $200,000 per year to keep on getting their benefits while you go hungry part of the month." On your behalf, I say shame on the Liberals and the socialists for trying to build themselves up on the backs of the needy of Canada. I assure you that your Progressive Conservative Government is looking for ways and means of paying you more- yes more, not less.
The Opposition is speaking for the rich and wealthy. The P.C. Government is working to give more to those who need it the most. The people of Canada have elected a Government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, and it is a Government that has compassion and a Government that cares.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, they say that Christmas is for children. As this House prepares to break for its Christmas recess, what do we find is the Government's Christmas present for our children? It cut The Friendly Giant\ A Canadian institution that so many of us have grown up with is gone with the stroke of a pen, and all in the name of restraint.
Is this what restraint means to Members on the government benches? Are they prepared to say to the children of Canada: "Sorry kids, but we have to make the books balance, and you'll just have to pull in your belts too"? The Government is giving a whole new meaning to the phrase: "Find the boot".
It is not only our children who have been victimized by the Government and its cuts. Outlying communities have also been targeted. For example, Radio Noon in Thunder Bay is to be
December 19, 1984

cut and replaced with a Toronto phone-in show. When will the Government realize that such locally-produced shows have far greater importance to their communities than their counterparts in the major centres? When a local program is cut in Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario loses a tangible and important part of its identity, and there is nothing to replace it.
The value of Canadian culture and the value of regional identity cannot be measured on a balance sheet. Cuts to children's programming, as well cuts to regional programming like the ones we have seen in northwestern Ontario, strike very deep indeed.
I have a message from the outlying communities and from the children of Canada. The Government will have to raise itself up-it will have to raise itself "way up"-before it can hope to regain their respect.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) plans to stand and fight on the beaches to protect our present inequitable social transfer system. He demonstrates that he really does not understand what in fact happens in the tax system when citizens are given exemptions dependent on their investment income, their age, and the number of children and spouses they have. For example, a single senior citizen with no income receives absolutely no benefit from the personal tax exemption of $4,140, or the age exemption of $2,590, or the $1,000 investment income exemption. To a senior citizen having a taxable income of $30,000 a year, the exemptions will total $7,730 in 1985, which represents to federal and provincial Governments a tax expenditure of approximately $2,950.
When we calculate the value of pensions and their universal application, we must calculate the personal tax expenditures allowed to every person. These expenditures are valuable to those who have taxable income; and to those who have the most taxable income, the most value. If a person is poor, the expenditures are worthless to him. He gets nothing. But, if a person is modestly rich, with a taxable income of $30,000, $2,950 is not a bad allowance; it is nearly $250 per month.


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



Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an article by Michel Roy that appeared in the newspaper La Presse yesterday morning:
It is rather surprising that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should create this incredible confusion about budget cutbacks and the universality of social programs. (... ) It all looks as though the Leader of the Government were being over anxious to clarify the somewhat vague statements made by his Minister of Finance and were actually trying to hide the truth.
Mr. Speaker, considering the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance with respect to the universality of social programs, I am afraid 1 must agree with this statement. Should we not censure a Government, and especially a Prime Minister, when they persist in their refusal to tell the truth and prefer to maintain this atmosphere of ambiguity and confusion among our senior citizens, a generation that made so many sacrifices for this country.
Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens know perfectly well this Government intends to put an end to universality or to cut the amount of money they receive in some way or another.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition intend to oppose this discriminating measure.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put forward the plight of taxpayers who are reassessed under Section 44 of the Income Tax Act for failing to file an election concerning replacement property. Section 44 allows taxpayers who have sold land to elect to defer the capital gains realized on the sale if they have purchased replacement property of equal or greater value.
This concept of deferral is well known in the agricultural community. Unfortunately, however, many taxpayers are unaware that Section 44 provides that an election must be made before the capital gain can be deferred. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is no election form provided by Revenue Canada. People, therefore, assumed, not unreasonably, that the act of repurchase, the actual documented replacement of land, constituted an election within the spirit and intent of Section 44.
The previous Government authorized reassessment of many vendors for failing to file an election. This has resulted in situations where taxpayers who purchased replacement property in the honest belief they could defer tax now find themselves reassessed for substantial amounts of tax and capital gains from their sale. In fact, they used the proceeds of sale to buy new land.
This is manifestly unfair. These taxpayers ask the Minister of National Revenue to examine the entire matter of Section 44, and to consider the act of repurchase as an effective election.

December 19, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Government is bent on reshaping, even vandalizing a good many of our programs in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Oh, the crocodile tears.


John Napier Turner: The Government has obviously abandoned the opposition of Canadians to star wars technology. It has softened our fight for our environment and against acid rain. The Government has also, Mr. Speaker, through the Minister of Defence, insulted the peace movement in our country.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


John Napier Turner: And now, of course, Government is mounting, or appears to be mounting, a frontal attack on the social programs which represent a heritage to Canadians from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, cool it over there.


John Napier Turner: I ask the Prime Minister whether he would, in the interests of dissipating the uncertainty which has been provoked by the contradiction in his remarks, the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and of the Minister of Finance, allow and authorize, through his House Leader, a special debate on the subject of our social security programs before this session adjourns for Christmas.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I can understand the frustration of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He gets upstaged by the guy who wants to be the Leader of the Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -who is sitting next to the guy who wants to be the Leader of the Party which wants to be the Opposition-right over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: Where is Joe Clark, by the way?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I believe my right hon. friend would agree that we have not been-


Mr. Tobin:: You started up your lies in Montreal and you've been telling them ever since. Ask Joe Clark. Ask Clark.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That Hon. Member has never been the same since he almost became Minister of Youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He just hasn't recovered, Mr. Speaker. We have not been vandalizing anything, as my right hon. friend knows.


Mr. Chretien:: Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have been seeking to improve. We have indicated that it is our intention to maintain the concept of universality, to provide Canadians with all of the benefits to which they are entitled. We are trying as well, and we hope with the co-operation of the Opposition, to find ways, with our scarce resources, to get more money into the hands of those who need it most in Canada. I would think that those Hon. Members would rush to support this kind of progressive view-


Mr. Gauthier:: The question, Brian; the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -because it is in the interests of people in Canada who need help from the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ISSUE STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is not going to instruct his House Leader to give us an immediate debate on this issue in the House of Commons, and if he has not been able to persuade his Minister of Finance to bring down an early Budget in order that Canadians may have an understanding of which pensioners will receive their pensions and which families will receive their family allowances, would he issue a statement in his own name detailing where the cut-off is going to be and whom the tax back is going to affect? Would he do this before Christmas so that the Canadian people can understand where they and their families stand for this season and the coming year? I think this is a very essential question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks if I will instruct the House Leader. He is quoted this morning as saying that he will instruct a bunch of Liberal bagmen in the Senate to try to frustrate the will of the duly elected House of Commons. I can tell him that he will not get away with that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is an accurate quote.


Ian Deans: Abolish the Senate.


Mr. Broadbent:: Abolish it.
December 19, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Abolish it, abolish it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is nothing worse than when two sweethearts yell at one another. Now stop that.
What we are attempting to do, for which we received a mandate from the Canadian people, is to utilize, not the distortions of the Opposition-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A sacred trust you said.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -not the yelling and screaming-


Ms. Copps:: A sacred trust you called it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -or not the sweet sounds from the Member for Hamilton East. We received a mandate to utilize, in a proper and sane way, the moneys available, to put more money into the hands of those in our society who need it most, while respecting the principle of universality for all Canadians who have contributed to those programs. That is what we are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman used to speak about civility in the House of Commons. If he wants civility in the House he can achieve it by replying to our questions with courtesy and directness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: mentioned yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that I objected strenuously to being misquoted. I said this morning to the members of the media that I recognize the primacy of the elected House of Commons over the Senate. That is my position, it has always been my position, and the right hon. gentleman knows it.
Would the Prime Minister allow the House of Commons, and, through the House, the people of Canada, some certainty that if there is going to be a two-tier social security system the Canadian people will know what it is? The Minister of Finance says no, the Minister of Health says maybe, and the Prime Minister says yes. If the Government of Canada does not know what it is going to do, why did it start this confusion in the first place? Will they clarify it for the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we know exactly what we are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Tell us, tell us.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend quite properly speaks of the requirement of civility. I know that that has been his conduct, as I think it has been mine. It is difficult for him to justify it with the kind of misconduct coming from the Mem-
Oral Questions
bers behind him. They are the ones who have been interrupting the House while I have been trying to provide answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our objective is to maintain the integrity of our social programs in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians who have contributed to them. That is maintaining the universal concept. Secondly, we plan to maintain as well those other programs which we have introduced in our first initiatives and made allowances for, to help, for example, those elderly people between 60 and 64 who need it, and the veterans who are entitled to it. We have done nothing except to invite mature debate from the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Let's have a debate.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It appears in certain circumstances that is unlikely, but it will not deter us from our initiatives, namely, to enhance the well-being of Canadians by a proper universal system which benefits Canadians who need it most of all. There is the contribution.


TAXATION QUERY
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, almost every day the Government offers us a new candidate for the program That's Incredible.


Mr. Bradley:: Oh, good line, Don.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I sat with the Minister of Finance on The Journal the night of his mini-Budget, and he was asked if there was going to be a tax increase. He remembers what he said. He said no, increased taxes are not the way to go. Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare told the press that there was going to be a general tax increase to tax back social benefits. Then, of course, we had a clarification-we should become accustomed to that-later, which said it was going to be a special tax to tax back social benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Donald James Johnston: Will the Minister of Finance tell us if he is going to levy a general tax across the board to bring these social benefits back into the treasury, or is he going to apply a special tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the nature of the debate we would like to have, if we could get by the partisan bickering of the Opposition-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are ready today.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The purpose of the debate is to discuss the very issues the Hon. Member is raising.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Exactly.

December 19, 1984
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How we should deal with the very clear principle that the Prime Minister has established today and on many occasions in this House. We are going to be issuing a paper which will be setting out some of the options available.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: After which we will be having discussions with Members opposite as well as with a number of organizations which are already participating in a positive and open way. I encourage Members opposite to do the same thing-


Some Hon. Members:: Let's have a debate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -because that is the way we will get on with the decision.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that is even more incredible. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought I just heard the Prime Minister say that you knew exactly what you were going to do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, just a minute ago. You are honest, Mike; you don't know, and we know you don't know.


Donald James Johnston: Will the Minister of Finance admit that he is contradicting the statement just made by the Prime Minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Do you know, or don't you know?


Geoff Wilson: This is another example, Mr. Speaker, of the Members opposite distorting what the Prime Minister just said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Deny that he said it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will send you the tape, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Prime Minister said he knew exactly what we were going to do. We were going to go through a process of discussion, rational and honest discussion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make a clear response here.


Some Hon. Members:: We want Crosbie.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am in great difficulty.


John Carnell Crosbie: We all are.


Mr. Speaker:: Do Members wish to hear answers to questions that they have asked, or do they not?


Mr. Rossi:: There are no answers.


Some Hon. Members:: No answers.


Mr. Speaker:: If Members-thank you. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


TAX POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Ouellet:: He's off the hook.


John Edward Broadbent: -I have a question for the Prime Minister, who just expessed some deep concern about Liberal bagmen in the Senate. I am sure his concern can be summarized this way. It bothers him that, for the moment, there are more Liberal bagmen in the Senate than Tory bagmen. I am sure he will rectify that very soon. If he wants a motion to abolish the Senate, we will pass it in 24 hours for him.
My question for the Prime Minister concerns conflicting statements that have come from the Government from two different Ministers yesterday. One was made inside the House, and one was made outside.
Inside the House the Minister of Finance clearly indicated that the Government was considering imposing a special tax on particular social programs. Outside the House yesterday afternoon, the Minister of National Health and Welfare specifically rejected this approach and said no, that the Government was considering instead a general increase in income taxes.
For this confusion alone, will he provide some light? What is the Government's tax policy when it comes to social programs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the confusion, yesterday, as reported at page 1343 of Hansard, the Leader of the NDP said that his Party:
... has for years been prepared to include all sources of income as taxable benefits.
I assume that means veterans allowances, capital gains on the sale of principal residences, employee benefits for dental plans, life insurance, strike pay, imputed rent. This is what the NDP plans to do to social policy in Canada, and I can tell you that we are opposed to that, not only today but every day. It would kill the farmers and small businessmen of this country.
The answers are found in the agenda paper. As explained by my hon. friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was entertaining a question from a CBC reporter and answered to a hypothetical question in part, i think that the adequate answers are found and fully developed, I believe in a fair and honourable way, in the paper set out on November 8 by my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance.
I can tell you that nowhere in that document will you find the kinds of pernicious taxation advocated by the Member for Vancouver East and specified yesterday by the Leader of the NDP, which would kill the small businessman, the farmer and the ordinary Canadian. We won't go along with you on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 19, 1984


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is getting very desperate indeed. He came close to answering the question, though. I will give him credit this time. It has been two and one-half months and he is getting there. Maybe we will finally get an answer.


TAXATION PROPOSALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the proposal that was presented yesterday in the House by the Minister of Finance, in which the Government was thinking about levying a special tax on a particular social program, would completely and utterly vitiate the universality principle and sneak a means test through the backdoor. This is totally unacceptable to every recipient of a pension and family allowance in Canada, and is something that all Canadians oppose. Therefore, will the Prime Minister say that, whatever option the Government chooses in the future, it will not go the route of imposing a special tax on a particular social program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That special tax idea was advanced by the Member for Vancouver East, and I tell you that we will not follow that program advanced by the NDP which is designed to destroy universality in this country. You are the people who change your position every other day. That is what is wrong with the NDP.


REQUEST FOR TAX INCREASE FOR THE WEALTHY
John Edward Broadbent: Clearly this issue is finally getting to the Prime Minister because once again he resorts to misstating the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Three strikes and you are out, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: He just said that the Member for Vancouver East has advocated a position that the Government of Canada is contemplating. I say to the Prime Minister that the position taken by the Member for Vancouver East was that the kind of income she was alluding to should be considered as part of revenue-


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Prime Minister has expressed concern about the wealthy having too much in the way of income, and considering that he promised during the election campaign that he would impose a handsome tax on the wealthy, instead of fouling up the country's atmosphere and confusing the country on social programs-


Some Hon. Members:: Order! Question.


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


John Edward Broadbent: -will he deliver on what he promised and bring in a tax increase now on the rich to make them pay their share?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is not doing very well. He always does better when he is sanctimonious.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Look who's talking.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This bears exactly on what the Member said yesterday.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The question was: "Would you be prepared to tax upper income Canadians to get more money into the system?" And the Member for Vancouver East said: "We would be prepared to tax them and tax back their old age pensions as well". That is the position of the NDP, and that is the position which we reject in the interest of-


John Edward Broadbent: Absolute nonsense.


Mr. Nunziata:: We want to know your position.


John Edward Broadbent: That is nonsense, and you know it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If we followed that principle as defended by the NDP, it would have the effect of destroying the principle of universality which we want to maintain. That is the difference.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF WHITE PAPERS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I might add that Canadians are confused about this issue because those on the government front bench have confused and fumbled the issue themselves.
If the Prime Minister is serious about wanting to have a debate on this issue, let me make this proposal to him. Would he instruct his Government House Leader to allow the emergency debate to take place tomorrow and, after a full meeting with his Cabinet, release by tomorrow morning the directional papers on family allowances and Old Age Security so that Canadians can understand his hidden agenda?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is a classical example of Liberal consistency.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yes or no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They ask for emergency debate-tomorrow.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why not today?

December 19, 1984
1360_______________________________
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why not next week? Let's have an emergency debate next year, they say.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No. Now. Sit down and we will start.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is how consistent the Liberal Party is. If my hon. friend wants to be consistent, he should just refer to a statement that he, as an Hon. Member, made, speaking for the Government on July 26. "In the family allowance area there is the child tax credit itself. You can redistribute the moneys that are presently in that envelope system. This is one area that we are looking at". They were looking at that then, and they never told the Canadian people. There is the hidden agenda. They were the Government of Canada, and we are trying to get it back on track.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAR ON TELEVISION PROGRAM
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has been misquoting my own Leader and other Members. We are never allowed the chance to come back. It is completely out of context.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Will the Prime Minister instruct his health Minister to appear on The Journal this evening-we were to have taped at four o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: There has been a refusal by your own Health Minister to debate the issue. Why not get this out in the open?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With due respect, the Chair cannot hear the question when the other side of the House is also making too much noise. May I hear the question, please? I could not hear it.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Will the Prime Minister allow an emergency debate to take place beginning at three o'clock today? I think it would be better for him to release the white papers on family allowance and old age security so Canadians can get a true understanding of the parameters of the debate, and get an understanding of what your hidden agenda is.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know there would be a certain amount of urgency involved for my hon. friend because he referred to the CBC. During CTV's Question Period, the Leader of the Liberal Party said on November 18: "The policy of the Liberal Party is in favour of universality at the moment".


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are in favour of universality, not at the moment, but every moment. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that he is in favour of it at the moment, and you talk about the CBC. We are in favour of universality at all times, on Global, CTV, CBC, Radio Canada, and TVA.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF TAX REVENUE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question if I could. It is very difficult, I am sure the Prime Minister understands, to know exactly what the Government has in mind in a particular sense. The Minister of Finance on the seventeenth indicated, in response to a question, that the intention of the Government was to tax and redirect certain of the benefits received by higher income groups to the benefit of lower income groups. Is that a departure from the statement made last week by the Minister of Finance where he not only indicated that was the Government's intention with respect to high income groups but he also indicated that was the Government's intention with regard to middle-income groups?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that my friend listen very carefully-


Ian Deans: I am listening.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to the question and the answer put to his own expert on social policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me quote: "Would you be prepared to tax upper income Canadians to get more money into the system?" The answer from the Member for Vancouver East is: "We would be prepared to tax them and to tax back their old age pensions as well". The NDP wants to destroy the old age pensions in this country, and we are going to put up the biggest fight that you have ever seen. Any time that you try to take that away from the elderly, we will put up the biggest fight you have ever seen in this country, and stop it. I guarantee that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that if I had wanted to ask the question of the Member for Vancouver East I simply would have turned around and asked her.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes or no.
December 19, 1984


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Ian Deans: What I am asking of the Prime Minister is not what the Member for Vancouver East may, or may not, have said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: What I am asking from the Prime Minister is what his Government's intentions are. Is it the intention of his Government to impose additional taxes on the middle income group of Canadian income earners in order to pass some benefit, whatever, to others in society?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of this Government to so manage the public finances in a proper and frugal way as to get more money into the hands of those in our society who need it most. If the NDP will not do it, we will do it on behalf of the ordinary Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport concerning the loss of 43 Air Canada positions from Saskatchewan to the city of Winnipeg, making Saskatchewan the only province west of Quebec not to have an Air Canada reservations centre. Would the Minister investigate the elimination of these jobs, from the perspective of corporate responsibility, the element of fairness to Saskatoon and Regina, and was this decision politically motivated by the previous Government?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I obviously share the concern of the Hon. Member. It is true that Air Canada will be consolidating its reservation facilities into a new building, and there will be some 43 jobs affected in Saskatoon and Regina. However, 21 new jobs will be opened up in Winnipeg. I am advised that all efforts are being made by Air Canada to ensure that there is a smooth and orderly transition, and this in no way diminishes the role of Air Canada in both Saskatoon and Regina. As a matter of fact new services are going to be provided and there will be some expanded facilities in both airports in the not too distant future.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister
Oral Questions
and concerns his promises and the contradictory statements made by his Ministers.
Yesterday, an important member of Cabinet, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, was asked the following question: "Is the question of the means test still open?" He replied: "The question of the means test has never been off the table." Could the Right Hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether this statement reflects his Government's policy or whether this is just another instance of a Minister putting his foot in it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government's replies are those I have provided in the House.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister tell us of the 338 promises that we have, whether 100, 200, or 300 are untrue? Would he come clean with this House and tell us the number that are true? Why can we not have a debate to find out how many of them are true?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are having the promises evaluated by the 600,000 civil servants, identified by the Leader of the Liberal Party.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister obviously thinks he is on the Gong Show, I will address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: According to today's edition of The Globe and Mail, we read that the Minister:
-told reporters that the Government already decided to tax back universal benefits selectively but is trying to decide which Canadians will be penalized.
Later on he said that he would favour a general tax system.
Will the Minister consider the feelings, as I know he surely must, of the senior citizens, and the families, and the people near retirement who are out there and who are being affected by the contradictions he is making and the contradictions among the three Ministers who have spoken? What does he think they are feeling?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should keep in mind the debate that we are having in the House and in which she has engaged in committee and in other places. The Hon. Member

December 19, 1984
Oral Questions
has put forward the proposition. Because of the present social programs that we want to maintain, at the upper level is it possible to redirect some of those social resources to those more in need?


Ian Deans: What about the middle income earners?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have heard the NDP put forward that proposal time, after time, after time. That is the proposal which the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and this Government are putting forward for discussion. I am glad that we can get into a rational discussion, rather than putting forward these straw men which they always want to put up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well what our position is. It is the Government's position we want. We would like to have the Minister go on The Journal tonight to explain it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let him go, Erik.


REQUEST THAT WHITE PAPER BE RELEASED BEFORE CHRISTMAS RECESS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Since the Minister's officials have indicated there is a Government paper that will be available before Christmas on this very subject, will he release it immediately so we can debate it before the House closes? This Party wants to know.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the success we had, both in the September 4 election and in the debate on July 26 in which the Member obviously put forward statements from which she would now like to withdraw, I want to say to her that when papers are completed, as 1 am sure the NDP Government in Manitoba would do also when its Cabinet makes a decision and makes it public, we will make ours public too.

[ Translation]


EDUCATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Could the Minister inform the House whether the 28.5 per cent reduction in funding for the Open House Canada Program will affect institutions in remote areas that provide special services for second language teaching?
I am thinking of the Jonquiere CEGEP, which has high academic standards and has been taking an active part in student exchanges between provinces. Will it also see 30 per cent of its funding cut off?


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question I can assure him that in the adjustments which are to be made to the Open House Canada Program they will be done bearing in mind the commitment to the objective of the program, which includes both equality and regional balance. I can also mention to him that these will come into play next year. With regard to his concerns about his region, a project before me has been approved and information will be in his hands early in the new year.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the fact that yesterday Canadians learned from media reports that Canada is giving up its leadership role in the abatement of acid rain. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised to deliver on acid rain. I would ask him whether he agrees with his Minister of the Environment that Canada should now give up on its global role in combating acid rain, in the interest of the North American region.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, contrary to giving up our role with regard to acid rain, yesterday I communicated with the President of the United States and indicated that I wanted acid rain on the top of the agenda when I meet with him in Quebec City on the seventeenth of March.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LEVEL OF EMISSIONS CAUSING ACID RAIN
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear this from the Prime Minister. I would urge him to have a chat with his Environment Minister so that they can get their messages on the same wavelength. In view of the Prime Minister's answer, will he now assure Canadians that his Government will pursue the commitment made with the provincial Ministers of the Environment that Canada will cut its acid rain emissions by 50 per cent by 1994? Is that the policy of his Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes it is,
Mr. Speaker, and with hard work and honourable negotiations we hope to bring about better success than we have seen in the past. It is a major problem for Canada, the pollution of the
December 19, 1984

environment. I know all Members of the House take it very seriously. I can assure my hon. friend that we will negotiate vigorously to improve the environment for all Canadians.


INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It also has to do with the remarks made by the Minister of the Environment. I just want to get this clear. Is the Prime Minister saying that when the Minister of the Environment said that Canada no longer regarded acid rain as a pressing international concern, and that it should simply be regarded as a question of bilateral relations, she was not speaking for the Government, and Canada will continue to regard acid rain as the international problem which it is universally recognized to be?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction at all between the Minister and myself. It is clearly international in scope, but I think my hon. friend will agree that the manner in which it must be resolved is through serious bilateral negotiations, and that is precisely what we plan to do.


SOLUTIONS TO BE SOUGHT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point. Of course acid rain is not just a bilateral question. It is also a national and an international question. We want to hear from the Prime Minister that the Government will continue to seek international solutions to what is also an international problem and not just a bilateral one. We have not yet got that assurance from the Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the matter is so serious that we shall seek help and solutions anywhere that we can. I might even ask my hon. friend for his counsel in this regard.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, senior citizens and families in this country must be rather pained to see their Prime Minister acting like a clown.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, since some people-the Prime Minister never tells the truth, that is a habit of his-are saying that family allowances and pensions will not be cut. The Minister of Finance says the exact opposite. The Minister of National Health and Welfare states there will be a special tax. Can the Minister-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the Hon. Member will withdraw the words: the . . . Minister never tells the truth. I presume he knows he cannot say that in the House.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have been elected and reelected as the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, and I was elected to come here and to tell the truth. What I said-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw what he said about the Minister and his ability or practice with respect to telling the truth. He knows perfectly well he must withdraw those words.


Jean-Claude Malépart: -the blues I said the Prime Minister has a habit of not always telling the truth, and I do not think I will withdraw those words, because it is the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member one more time to withdraw the statement.

I presume the Hon. Member is well aware that he used these words and made unparliamentary remarks, and that he now has an opportunity to withdraw them, or else I have no other recourse but the one he knows.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I can prove today that the Prime Minister did not say-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will give the Hon. Member another chance to withdraw what he said. Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw his remarks? I was listening to the Hon. Member when he said that the Prime Minister never told the truth or words to that effect. That is what I heard.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to seem stubborn, but I would have to see the blues. I have the impression I said that the Prime Minister does not always tell the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would it suit Hon. Members on this side of the House to allow me to hear the Hon. Member? Why is it so difficult for Members to understand that, if I cannot hear the Member, nobody else can tell what he is saying? That is my problem.

I am sorry. I heard the Hon. Member and I thought he said the Prime Minister never told the truth. Is that what he said or else what did he say? I must know what he said in order to determine whether he should withdraw his remarks.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as far as I can remember, I said that the Prime Minister does not always tell the truth. It is up to you to judge whether or not that is unparliamentary. 1 am not an expert on parliamentary procedure.

December 19, 1984
Oral Questions
Mir. Speaker: It is unparliamentary to say that a Member has never or has not always told the truth. It is unparliamentary, because it constitutes an attack on the character of another Member.
I will give the Hon. Member another chance to withdraw his remarks. Quite simply, is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw his remarks?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would have to see the blues. But if I said-


Mr. Speaker:: If I give the Hon. Member another chance . . . No! No! Does the Hon. Member withdraw his remarks? Does the Hon. Member withdraw his remarks, yes or no? I have no other recourse but to name the Member, Mr. Malepart, the Member ... I have no other recourse but to name Mr. Male-part. Waiting for the blues is not allowed. If the Hon. Member is prepared to withdraw his remarks, there is no problem-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member offered to read the "blues".


Mr. Speaker:: He can't.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not a question of what the Hon. Member said. It is a question of what I-


An Hon. Member:: Yes, it is.


John V. Nunziata: You just said you couldn't hear anything.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise all Members to read the rules about naming. My dilemma is that I have heard a phrase that I find unparliamentary. As the Speaker, I therefore asked that the words be withdrawn.
The Hon. Member has a solution open to him. He accepts the Speaker's request that the remarks be withdrawn. That is his solution. If he chooses to use that solution, there is no problem. If he chooses not to use that solution, he is refusing a request of the Chair. Then he must be named. It is not a question of waiting. I have no other solution but to ask the Hon. member to withdraw the words. I have done this several times.
I am trying to encourage the Member simply to withdraw the words. If I am wrong, I will find out when I have read the "blues" and then I will deal with it. I am asking the Hon. Member to withdraw the words. May I give him that option? [Translation]
Once again, I will give the Hon. Member the option of withdrawing his words. Is the Hon. Member prepared to do so? Perhaps I may explain to other Hon. Members that it is a matter for the Speaker to decide. That is all. If I am wrong, I am willing to read the blues myself later on, but I must inform
the Hon. Member that I heard a remark that to me is unparliamentary. Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw that remark?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not know whether not telling the truth or that sort of thing is parliamentary or unparliamentary, but I maintain that I still think what I said about the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the Hon. Member another chance ... Is he prepared . . . Order, please. Does the Hon. Member feel that by what he just said, he has withdrawn his previous remarks? Is that what he feels?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to explain in plain French is that if I do not have the right to say what I said, I still maintain what I think of the Prime Minister. And I presume I am still free to think what I please here in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not here to determine what you are thinking but to decide whether a remark used in the House is unparliamentary.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will understand if I say that I am awfully glad that there are only two more days left in this week.
I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on Tuesday, December 18, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 100 residents of the Timmins-Chapleau riding. The petition deals with property rights of Canadians. Although the petitioners recognize that property rights are guaranteed and protected by the Canadian Charter
December 19, 1984

of Rights, they hereby petition this House to have property rights entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the residents of southwestern Ontario and principally the area surrounding Ingersoll following the death of police officer Jack Ross. These petitioners humbly beseech that the Parliament of Canada either hold a free vote of its Members on the issue of the reinstating of capital punishment or hold a public referendum on the issue so that the will of the majority of Canadians may be clearly expressed. I have several thousand signatures to present at this time.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this petition on behalf of residents of 3015 Lawrence Avenue East in Scarborough and other citizens of Scarborough. Their concern is that senior citizens are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with rising costs of living and that any increase in pension benefits is negated by increases in rent and other necessary living expenses.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition on behalf of the people of Sackville, censoring the cuts in the Canadian Wildlife Service. These cuts will mean the end of a number of programs and undermine the effectiveness of the Canadian Wildlife Service. The people of Sackville humbly pray that you consider their concerns.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, today on the occasion of Hanukkah, I have the honour of presenting a petition from the Jewish Students Association of the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg. Their concern is for the repressive regulations which the Government of Syria is enforcing on those Jewish citizens attempting to leave the country. They ask that Parliament urge the Government of Syria to lift these regulations and permit the Jewish citizens to emigrate freely.
Order Paper Questions CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this Bill is to provide job security to employed persons seeking election to Parliament and will guarantee them leave of absence without pay during the campaign and for one full term of Parliament. As well, it will ensure job security on their return after that one full term.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal other Acts and to make other consequential amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that The Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[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. 10 and 62.


Ms. Copps: 1.	Since the inception of the Canada Home Renovation Plan, how many (a) homeowners applied for assistance by (i) province (ii) city (iii) type of dwelling (b) applications were accepted?

December 19, 1984
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the average cost to approve each application?
3.	What was the average grant and loan per application by (a) province (b) city (c) type of dwelling?
4.	What was the average income level per recipient of a (a) grant (b) loan by (i) province (ii) city (iii) type of dwelling?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) A breakdown of the number of eligible homeowners who applied for assistance under the Canada Home Renovation Plan (CHRP) is as follows:
(i)
Province	No. of Eligible Applicants
Newfoundland	2,867
Prince Edward Island	1,048
Nova Scotia	8,206
New Brunswick	8,255
Quebec	33,166
Ontario	42,659
Manitoba	5,806
Saskatchewan	3,151
Alberta	10,359
British Columbia	12,995
Yukon	82
Northwest Territories	-
Note: L'MHC did not maintain a record of the number of ineligible homeowners who may have applied for CHRP, as the applications were returned.
(ii)	Since the program was only partially computerized for statistical monitoring purposes, a breakdown, by city, is not available.
(iii)	Program eligibility was restricted to owner-occupied, single family houses containing not more than two units. Where the building contained two units, only one loan was permitted. No other information on dwelling type is available.
(b) All eligible applications which were received up to the program termination date were accepted. Note: Approximately 4,000 applications were subsequently cancelled after approval as the homeowners did not proceed with the work as agreed.
2.	The approximate average administrative cost to approve each application was $191.
3.	(a) The average forgivable loan per application, by province, was:
(b) and (c) See response to parts 1 (ii) and l(iii) above.
4.	(a) The average income level per recipient of the forgivable loan, by province, is as follows:
(i)
Province	Average Income of Forgivable Loan Recipient
Newfoundland	$ 20,849
Prince Edward Island	21,434
Nova Scotia	21,186
New Brunswick	21,374
Quebec	23,709
Ontario	24,575
Manitoba	25,109
Saskatchewan	22,193
Alberta	22,046
British Columbia	25,005
Yukon	24,803
Northwest Territories	-
(ii) and (iii) See response to parts 1 (ii) and l(iii) above, (b) Not known. Only the forgivable loan was available under the program, the applicant provided the balance.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, under the Off-Oil Program, how many (a) applications for assistance were received (b) rebate cheques were issued?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a) During the fiscal year 1983-84, the COSP Secretariat received approximately 247,900 applications under the Canada Oil Substitution Program (COSP); (b) 244,224.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Province
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Yukon
Northwest Territories
Only the forgivable loan was available.
Average Forgivable Loan


[Stage Direction]
applicant provided the balance.
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to you, when I gave notice before noon of this day, in light
December 19, 1984

of the confusion which has resulted from the various points of view that have been taken by different Ministers of the Government, I request the Speaker of this House to indicate that an emergency debate will be allowed to take place on the whole concept and issue of universality later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) is asking leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 to discuss a matter which is significantly similar to the one cited yesterday in the application made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
I have once again given considerable thought to the underlying principles that must guide the Speaker in deciding whether an application under this Standing Order ought to be accepted. Inevitably, the Chair is called upon to make a value judgment as to whether or not a given situation is an emergency. In the opinion of the Hon. Member it is urgent to him that the question of universality of social programs be considered, and I presume from the voices being raised in the House it is urgent to other Members as well.
In my opinion, very little has changed since yesterday in the circumstances surrounding this subject. While the matter may be immediately relevant, of concern and on the minds of many Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for Sudbury has not convinced me that a genuine emergency exists yet.
That is not to say, however, that the circumstances in this matter of continuing debate and concern could not change, and that, faced with unexpected occurrences leading to a real emergency, I might not rule otherwise. Therefore, 1 must refuse the Hon. Member's application.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of the business which is scheduled for this afternoon. There has been no indication prior to this with respect to the business for today.
First, the House will deal with the excise tax Bill. That will be followed by the borrowing Bill. When the House is finished with those two items, it will proceed to the completion of the Bill which deals with Investment Canada.
Excise Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 18, 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. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


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


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Hon. Member already spoken in this debate?


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I am being confused by the angels! The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is in relation to the calling of second reading of this Bill. Until this morning, I did not have a chance to look at the ruling of the Chair which was made yesterday in relation to the calling of this order.
As Mr. Speaker will recall, it was agreed in this Chamber to make Bill C-12 Bill C-17. That was done after Bill C-12 had been called, read the first time, read a second time and debate was to have been on second reading. A motion was then presented to the Chair that, in effect, indicated that this Bill was deemed to have been read a first time and deemed to have been introduced for second reading by the Minister.
There are certain things which this Chamber can do, but there are certain things which it cannot do. Therefore, I submit that this Chamber cannot deem a Bill to have been read a first and second time without that Bill having been read a first and second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the Hon. Member should have raised that point yesterday. The House chose yesterday to achieve this by unanimous consent. It was a request which was put to the House for unanimous consideration. It was adopted unanimously. Had the Hon. Member not been in favour of that proceeding, and had he been here yesterday, his rights as a Member would have been protected at that time. However, the Member cannot now raise a point of order arguing that the House could not do what the House chose to do yesterday. It was the choice of the House.
Does the Hon. Member have something to add?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the rules state "when it comes to a Member's attention". I was not here yesterday, but surely I have the right to raise a point of order-

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the right at present to refrain from granting unanimous consent. If the Member is raising a separate point of order, then I presume the Member wishes me to consider a point of order which suggests that the House could not do it by unanimous consent, although he has not stated that. If he wishes to make that case, I would be happy to hear citations.
It is my understanding that the House did yesterday, by unanimous consent, what it chose to do, as is its right. Does the Member have a point of order with regard to the change of procedure by unanimous consent?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. In fact, what I am saying is that when the Chair accepted the motion, the Chair should not have been-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair accepted the motion by unanimous consent. The Chair asked if there was unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion.
To my rescue again, I will quote Citation 237 of Beauchesne which reads:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
The effect of that rule is that the Member cannot raise a point of order about yesterday's proceeding today. I suggest to the Hon. Member that there is good reason for that rule: a Member could come along a year from now and raise a point of order about something which happened today. Clearly, that is not intended. Clearly, the Hon. Member cannot raise a point of order today about what happened yesterday.
Does the Member have a different point of order?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. Mr. Speaker put the question that this Bill be now read a second time. That was the same question which was put yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Speaker received a request for a House Order and put the request for unanimous consent as to whether the matter should be considered by the House. The House considered it and adopted it unanimously. The House is master of its procedure.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Or mistress.


Mr. Speaker:: Or mistress, if some Members prefer.
Resuming debate on the Bill, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, after all the activity we have had today and the lack of activity yesterday, it takes some effort to carry our minds back to the matter which we are debating.
Bill C-17 deals with changes to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. It deals with increases in the federal sales tax, increases in the telecommunications programming services tax and the wholesale tax on motor vehicles. In addition, the Bill proposes to remove sales tax on diesel fuel for farmers, fishermen, loggers and miners. The Bill also increases the air transportation tax.
Most of the tax proposals are increases which will be paid by individual Canadians. The Bill represents increases in taxation. It ultimately takes money out of the pockets of Canadians, and in the process of doing that it reduces the amount of money which people have to spend and, consequently, that part of aggregate demand.
In speaking on this Bill this afternoon, I would like to give some consideration to the kind of tax policy which the Government should be following if it wishes to achieve the prosperity that Canadians so desperately want. When this bill was previously debated, it was pointed out that there was, after all, one tax reduction included in the legislation. That is the removal of sales tax on diesel fuel for persons involved in various primary industries.
We in our caucus welcome that particular change. However, I would like to point out that this particular change is part of an unfortunate Canadian tax tradition which was followed by the previous Government over the past dozen or more years. It represents just that kind of continuity of policy which the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and I were debating yesterday afternoon. What we have seen increasingly in Canada over the past dozen years is a shifting of the tax burden from a balance between corporate income taxpayers and personal income taxpayers, to a situation in which there is an overwhelming weight of taxation being borne by individual persons paying personal income tax. That particular shift in the balance of taxation creates an imbalance which most of the tax proposals before us in this Bill only intensify. That is, in my opinion, at the root of the economic difficulties in which Canadians find themselves.
I would like to consider now why that assertion might be true. What would be a sound policy, particularly fiscal taxation policy, for the Government to follow in order to achieve more economic activity in this country so that we can move toward fuller employment and achieve finally that state of social efficiency which full employment would represent? Both the tax revenue flowing in and the reduction in the cost of government, would serve to put an end to the budget deficit from which Canadians are suffering, which deficit is the strong preoccupation of the Government. I submit that the Liberal Government-and now it seems the Conservative Government as well-have a preoccupation with prosperity for Canada in which investment is regarded as the basic engine for increasing economic activity and achieving prosperity in this country. Of course, that will prove to be relevant when we debate Bill C-15. However, in the case of Bill C-17, what we see is the negative consequences of that kind of preoccupation.
What we see here is a readiness to tax individuals more heavily in order to continue sheltering corporate enterprise. Government feels that if these corporations, and perhaps the wealthy Canadians who are the primary shareholders, had large enough incomes-and the tax shelters could do so much


December 19, 1984

to increase the amount of resources at their command-then they will surely invest that money, and as the investment occurs we will achieve prosperity. It is obvious, of course, that when investment does occur, whether it is in the form of factories, construction, the installation of machinery, the buying of equipment to produce goods, and so on, there would certainly be more prosperity.
However, the difficulty with this idea is that investment is so largely a matter of a means to an end, that end being, of course, the production of goods and services for Canadians. When we find the demand for these goods is weak, then there is in fact no real inducement to invest. But we must find the means to encourage that to which earlier Liberal policy, and now Conservative policy, is oriented.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when factories operate at three-quarters of capacity or less, or when there is 50 per cent more capacity in existence than they actually need in order to fill their orders, then there is absolutely no inducement to invest even if one uses every tax inducement in the book. One could, of course, have investment take place at some other location, to have more efficient equipment installed so that the end result at that plant will be efficiency of operation. But when demand falls so far short of capacity of production, the end result is going to be a close down at the less efficient plant in order to keep the other one operating. In these times of weak economic demand which Canadians have experienced during these last years, there is only one real possibility for the kind of investment-led economic expansion which Liberals in the past, and now the Conservatives, regard as the basis for Canadian prosperity.
I would like to suggest that the great Canadian need is to ensure that individuals and families, far more than is now the case, have the income which is required in order to live more comfortable lives, in order to buy the goods which are held out to them, particularly at this Christmas season, and in so doing build up a demand for goods which will in turn encourage manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, to higher levels of activity. Thus there will be employment of more people. It is that kind of increase in demand for goods and services which we want to achieve.
It is patently obvious, however, that that kind of program is not being considered by Bill C-17 which is presently before us. It is obvious that the effect of these various taxes is to take some billions of dollars out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It is obvious as well, in looking at the record, that Hon. Members of the present Government, when they were in opposition in the early months of this year, were clearly conscious of that fact. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) in late 1983 said of the sales tax increase which was designed to cover the cost of the special capital recovery projects, as reported in Hansard of December 13, 1983 at page 116, that this sales tax increase:
-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.
Excise Tax Act
He had one specific concern in mind in making his comment, adding some of the colourful language for which he is well known.
Speaking two months later to the day, he said as reported in Hansard of February 13, 1984 at page 1313:
Would he-
That is the Minister of Finance,
-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 is exactly the question I am asking this afternoon. And I would like to add my question: What is the present Government doing by bringing in that same proposal for us to pass?
Three days later the Minister of Justice made an even stronger statement, and I quote from Hansard of February 16, 1984 at page 1444:
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.
And then he went on to ask:
Where does the Minister help domestic demand in this Budget? He would 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 New Democratic Party could hardly have said that better, although we might try for greater eloquence. There is the point nicely stated by the present Minister of Justice, that this is a tax that takes money out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians, which in turn reduces the amount of business activity in all of our communities across the country. That means there is not as much business being done in department stores, supermarkets, smaller shops, furniture stores and conceivably automobile agencies. One can name the various businesses affected in every community across the country.
Whether the business happens to be one of the great national chains with which Canada is blessed or cursed, depending on your perspective, or one of the smaller organizations which is an active member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, whose president has chosen to be such a firm supporter of this new Government, the result of this taxation is to reduce the amount of business being done. There will be less business being done by wholesalers which means less need for transportation. There will be fewer people at work conceivably on the railways, ultimately in the trucking business, moving goods. Ultimately, given this weaker demand in the economy, there will be less production in factories and far fewer people employed.
What this country needs so obviously is confidence among consumers, not among business people. Business people respond to circumstance; they are going to respond far more genuinely to the confidence of individual consumers if they are told the future is going to be better. We have had a lot of that kind of rhetoric but it seems pretty clear from the level of

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act
savings and the reaction of businessmen that confidence has not been increased over the last month and 10 days or so since the economic and fiscal statement was brought down. Canadians await some positive signals. In fact, some number of Canadians, and how many is surely not yet clear, are waiting for the day that they receive their last pay cheque before they join the jobless rolls. They then receive unemployment insurance, which increases the cost of government, and they begin looking for work.
Each of those actions will reduce confidence, not build it up. Those actions will reduce the amount of money people have to spend and increase the cost of government, forcing it to borrow more money in order to meet those costs. That, of course, is the very heart of the misguided policies that this Government is following, which policy was expressed early on in the decision to carry through the sales tax increase on October 1. Those policies were expressed in the determination to deal with the deficit instead of recognizing that the deficit is only a sympton. What the Canadian people want is a government which says we need more spending. If we have individual Canadians spending money, we should not take it out of their pocket with taxation. We should find ways to put them to work doing the constructive things this country needs. When we do those things we genuinely build up confidence, but it seems this Government has no sense of that kind of needed activity at all.
We then face, Mr. Speaker, a situation in which misguided policies are all too likely to bring us into a severe recession in 1985. God only knows what will come after that. We live then in a situation in which the popular sense that Tory times are hard times is all too likely to be fulfilled by the present Government because of its misguided policies as reflected in Bill C-17 and its various provisions.
Notice, too, that part of the mistaken reasoning which exists in the Government is reflected in the fact that the sales tax increase the Government asserts was designed to raise money to cover the cost of the special capital recovery projects which the previous Government brought forward is being imposed at a time of semi-depression. No one has any reason to object to borrowing money if we are building things which make this country a better place to live, particularly if it is part of the strategy of moving us back towards full employment. At that point our fiscal difficulties are going to be much easier and the deficit the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is preoccupied with will be gone. But what we see instead is an assertion that the Liberal program was to raise the money required for these projects by taxation and this Government is going through with that.
The gibes earlier this afternoon about bickering, or whatever it was, between sweethearts, the noise one hears between the Official Opposition and the Government benches, leaves no doubt about the bickering lovers in this place. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), at one point when referring to bickering, recognized the appropriateness of the fact that here were lovers who struggled for control with the very same
ideas in their heads. Now the other bunch have power and they follow through with the same programs.
There is no sense at all here of achieving the real change that Canadians want. There is no recognition of the truth that Tom Maxwell of the Conference Board of Canada tried to remind us of during the election campaign. Certainly recovery depends on lower interest rates, and God help us if the Americans do not achieve lower interest rates in order to save the rest of the world from the disaster that stares us in the face, not just Canada but Latin America and various other parts of the world.
If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, given this preoccupation with the same policy, given a preoccupation with interest rates, there is no sense of a need for real change, a need for a government which will work towards full employment and prosperity. Instead we have this unfortunate preoccupation with taxation, with taking money out of the pockets of Canadians after the money for the special recovery projects has been spent. It means more taxation and more depression for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? Since there are no questions or comments I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to address one particular element of the Bill, that being Section 49.01. The elements contained within that section were really a cornerstone of Conservative policy towards the forest and mining industries, particularly in Kootenay West.
Bearing in mind that in Kootenay West we have the highest unemployment level in British Columbia and we are among the top eight in Canada, what is it about this particular provision which is so attractive and important to the forest and mining sectors? It is the fuel tax rebate of three cents a litre, which may not seem to be a significant sum. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that a truck logger who drives for 15 or 20 miles on very steep, mountainous roads, usually using the bottom end of his gear box, has a high consumption of fuel. In colder weather the vehicles tend to burn more fuel by virtue of shrinkage. That five, 15 or 25 miles of bush road, and in the case of Kootenay West mountain road, is only the first part of his journey. The next part is to get those logs to the mill site. That can mean a journey of 10 to 150 miles. There is a lot of time spent on the highway. In many instances it takes as long to traverse the 15-mile bush road as it does to get to the mill pond using higher speeds on the highway.
That is really not important. The important thing is that I have been assured that Section 49.01, which refers to off-road use, will have the widest latitude in its application. Off-road use would imply that the tax rebate would only apply on the bush road. The difficulty with that is that at times that bush road is a privately-owned, ungazetted road into a privately-
December 19, 1984

owned timber stand. At times that bush road is a forestry road yet to be gazetted, and at times it is on another access road which is gazetted but is considered, for all intents and purposes, to be off highway. That really is not the intent of the Government because it only takes care of a portion of the saving which could flow to the operator. The skidders, heel booms and various other mechanical devices of the bush pretty well remain in the bush until they require servicing. The highway use of that equipment is virtually non-existent but the logging trucks are used on the highway all the time.
More than one truck logger in my constituency has told me that the difference in this fuel tax rebate will decide whether he will have sufficient savings to buy a truck tire. The savings on fuel would enable a logging truck contractor to buy one truck tire monthly. That is a substantial sum, especially when we are talking about an 18-wheeler.
I would like to discuss the mining industry as well. In Kootenay West we are fortunate to have some rather good bodies of ore which are located in very difficult and mountainous terrain. There is an opportunity for the mining sector to offset the cost of moving their concentrates and ore from the mine site to a concentrator or to the Cominco smelter in Trail. This is a matter involving massive weights both on and off the highway. It could represent a substantial saving to that sector.
When considering how this applies to the forest and mining sectors in Kootenay West, we are generally speaking about small people, or "ordinary Canadians" as the NDP would like to refer to them. I have yet to understand what an average Canadian is versus an ordinary Canadian versus any other Canadian. I did not realize that we had classes of Canadians in Canada, but the NDP have a habit of classifying people, not just by rank and station, but also by politics. Mr. Speaker, these are hard-working, dedicated people.


Mr. Keeper:: Ordinary Canadians.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Their contribution to Kootenay West has been generous and extensive over many years. If one considers what Kootenay West has generated in terms of tax dollars over the last 50 years and compares that figure with what Kootenay West has taken back, it would not take long for anyone to determine that up to now the people of Kootenay West have not received their fair share. That time is due. This is just the start of what I hope will be a substantial move toward equality of that fair share.
These average people, these hard-working, industrious loggers, are private operators for the most part. They may have one, two or three trucks. They may have one piece of equipment or several. Whatever the case, they have a very substantial investment in that equipment. That equipment has by and large been shut down by the depressed market for lumber, high interest rates, and the costs of operation.
This rebate, considered in isolation, may seem somewhat insignificant. Let me assure the House that taken in its total form it will have a very substantial and significant impact on any one truck logger or small mining company. If it does nothing else but maintain that operator, it will have achieved
Excise Tax Act
its goal. In the case of a larger operation this fuel tax rebate may well mean the difference between a small mill operating or not operating. It may mean the difference between hiring an extra employee or not hiring one.
Today I have heard much discussion from my hon. colleague who sits on the NDP benches. He says that the sales tax which we seek to impose is going to wreak havoc on Canadians. I have not heard anyone on the NDP benches saying: "Here is something that we support and endorse". It would be very refreshing if Members opposite would be prepared to give credit where credit is due and to share the desire that we on this side have to take positive steps for Canadians instead of negative steps. I realize that the role of the Opposition is to oppose, but I do not think that should be a 100 per cent commitment. I think there should be some balance in what is said. Indeed, all we hear is criticism. There is an absence of support for positive measures. That is certainly a disappointment as far as I am concerned.
In conclusion, let me say that I, other Members of the B.C. causus and indeed all Members whose constituencies include the forest sector, the mining sector and indeed trappers, are appreciative of his measure whichi will substantially facilitate these operators' survival, given the state of the economy today.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Hon. Member. He wants support from the NDP for positive measures. The Bill before us today includes an increase in the sales tax. When members of his Party were in opposition it was their view, as stated on December 13, for example, that this sales tax increase "is a huge, regressive tax bite".
The Party opposite makes it very difficult for us to offer any support for its measures when they affect ordinary Canadians. It is very clear that that is the case given comments even from his own caucus when they were in opposition. Would the Member comment on that?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with commenting on that at all. If the Hon. Member was paying attention he would know that I was talking about Section 49.01. The record shows that I was talking about the fuel tax rebate for loggers, the mining industry and trappers in my constituency. I suppose it applies to farmers in his constituency. That is the subject with which I was concerned in my speech. Those are the measures about which I am pleased. I think the Hon. Member opposite would be pleased with those as well. No one wants an increase in any tax. We all hesitate and find it somewhat regretful to increase a tax.
I hear the Hon. Member making reference to ordinary Canadians. I do not know what an ordinary Canadian is.


Ian Deans: That is right.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I know what Canadians are. "Ordinary Canadian" is a class status applied to a group by the NDP. Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) an ordinary Canadian or a little bit below them?

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act


Ian Deans: I am a very, very ordinary Canadian.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Just what is his status? They are the class act in town. If they want to establish classes in Canada, let them go to it.


Cyril Keeper: I can tell you that you are ordinary.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Robert Hylton Brisco: Not to my speech, you didn't. You weren't here.


Ian Deans: I was watching you from the lobby where I was attempting to work out some arrangements for tomorrow.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that perhaps it would be helpful if he understood the process that we go through here. For example, the very matters we are discussing are only before the House because, in essence, we agreed to have them here. We recognize that they are of value. These matters were not in the original Bill and we accepted that to include the rebates for the very people he is suggesting require them was a useful step. Therefore we allowed the Bill to be withdrawn by unanimous consent and reintroduced the Bill with those rebates there so that those people could get those benefits.
I say to the Hon. Member that it would be helpful if he understood that our role is to point out problem areas. For those areas which we do not deal with, one might presume from time to time that we at least favour if not support them.
However, with respect to his comments, those provisions could not have been in the Bill unless we agreed they be there.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's remarks rather strange, that he should make such an interjection on the basis of my comments.


Ian Deans: Why?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I have no argument with the House process. I was speaking about the support of-


Ian Deans: We said it would not get there if we did not support it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I think I have the floor. If the Hon. Member wants to have another shot at me, let him have another shot. If the Hon. Member wants to debate the issue he can go back to my former speech and read that. I see that he has now left his seat. He really does not want to listen to the debate.


Ian Deans: I am listening to you.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The fact of the matter remains that when a positive element is introduced by the Government there is very little recognition. The Opposition deals solely in the negative and that is the bottom line.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) left his seat to go and talk to the
Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in order, perhaps, that the Government House Leader would be good enough to talk to the Hon. Member so that he may better understand the proceedings in the House before he stands up and makes such comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) have another question?


Cyril Keeper: Another question, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member pointed out that this Bill includes some rebates for farmers and fishermen. It is obvious that we have facilitated the passage of those rebates in the House. That is certainly positive support for those measures.
However, It would not be necessary to have rebates if the Government would not continue to increase sales tax in the first place. That is another part of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) care to answer?


Cyril Keeper: He gave up.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) wish to debate?


Mr. Dorin:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the Speaker called the question prior to the Hon. Member standing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to tell the Hon. Member that as long as I keep reading, until I come to the yeas and nays the question is not called. Therefore, I recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate because I believe it concerns several important matters. Not only are these matters of concern to all Canadians, they are important to my constituents as well.
The first matter concerns the proposed 1 per cent sales tax increase. This was originally introduced by the previous Government as the special recovery tax. I found it rather ironic that the Liberal Government would propose a future sales tax in order to pay for their current expenditures. This means that we are in a position where we must impose this tax as a new Government to pay for those expenditures. I believe we are properly using our authority to put these measures through. I hope it can be done in a timely and orderly manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or
comments?
	
December 19, 1984

Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be now read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I know all Members of the House want to see these clauses in the Excise Tax Act for farmers, fishermen, loggers, and miners implemented. I have a couple of questions to which I hope the Minister can respond this afternoon.
These provisions were introduced to the House at a time when the petroleum compensation charge was increased to $17.50 a cubic metre, or nearly $3 a barrel. It is important to the farm community to know what the impact of the Excise Tax Act is when it is balanced off. Is the petroleum compensation charge refundable or not chargeable for farm operations?
The petroleum compensation charge of $17.50 is chargeable for farm vehicles operating on the highways carrying produce, all produce, coming to and from the farm and for supplies coming to the farm. From the farmers' point of view, I would like to know what the balance is on input costs by removing the excise tax. We know in the Finance Minister's statement that an additional farm service charge of $32.3 million will be imposed on farmers for inspection services and so on. The excise tax is going to be removed, but with regard to the imposition of the $17.50 a cubic metre on all fuel being used by farm trucks and vehicles, for all supplies coming to the farm, including certain fertilizers which use petroleum feedstocks, what will the impact be of those two factors being balanced off? Does the farmer end up any better off? It is my understanding that the excise tax amounts to about a $100 million reduction for the farmer. The petroleum compensation charge is not imposed on farm-use petroleums until 1987, and there are the farm service charges of $32.3 million. There are the increased charges for the fuel used in farm vehicles on the highway carrying produce coming to and from the farm.
Can the Minister respond to that question? I think it is important for the farm community to know whether as a result of the economic statement of the Minister of Finance the input costs have really been reduced. I recall that when we were
Excise Tax Act
increasing the prices of petroleum by $1 or $2 a year back in the 1970s we used a factor of something like one-half of 1 per cent increased inflation for each dollar by which the price of a barrel of oil increased.
Can the Minister tell me what the factor is that is applied generally to the population by increasing that petroleum compensation charge by $17.50 per cubic metre, which is roughly $3 a barrel? What is the impact of that on inflation in the country and on economic growth? We are all concerned about economic growth. I am trying to find out exactly what the net effect for the individual farmer would be. I have another question, but I see the Minister looks puzzled so I will not put another question until she answers this one.


Mrs. McDougall:: Mr. Chairman, the majority of the fuel that the farmers use will be subject to this rebate. I cannot be precise about figures because they will vary from one user to another, but most farm vehicle use is off-highway. The farmer should benefit greatly from this change. Farmers have told us that this will be the major part of their fuel use. They are quite satisfied with it.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister does not have figures to indicate what the net effect is of increasing fuel prices on the highway on farmers in particular, could she say what the net inflation factor, which the Government calculated in preparing the economic statement, is of increasing the petroleum compensation charge by $17.50 per cubic metre?
Can the Minister indicate what the net reduction will be on economic growth? Calculations must have been made on that.
I think from that we could get some reading of what the increased inflation costs are for farmers, for their produce being shipped by trucks or whatever, by the level of the input costs of transportation to the farm. Can the Minister indicate the inflationary impact of the petroleum compensation charge and the economic growth reduction?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the net impact or the balancing between the two is that the farmer, like other people, will pay 1.8 cents per litre for highway or at least non-defined use, but he get a 4.8 cents break on his farm use. The balance is in his favour. To respond to the question about economic benefits on the fuel tax side, that will come from Energy, Mines and Resources. They will have done the economic impact work on this.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that when the Department of Finance imposed a $17.50 per cubic metre increase for every gallon of fuel consumed in this country, except fuel consumed by farmers, fishermen and miners, a calculation was not done as to what the inflation factor would be. That is clearly in the realm of the Minister of Finance. Sure the Minister of Finance is very concerned about what the inflationary impact will be on a fuel increase of that magnitude and what the drawdown will be on economic development. I am sure the Minister and her officials will have those figures at their fingertips. I hope she will be able to respond to
1374

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act
that because I am sure the Department of Finance officials can do those calculations almost off the top of their heads.
I want to inquire about the excise tax. Bill C-12 was withdrawn and this Bill introduced. Will this Bill require local distributing companies, such as the United Co-operatives of Ontario distribution outlets across Ontario, to charge the excise tax to their customers and have their customers claim it back from the federal Government? My impression is that the Bill as initially introduced required local distributors like the United Co-operatives of Ontario to charge the tax. The individual farmer or other user had to apply to the Government to get the rebate. Large integrated companies such as Imperial Oil or Gulf did not have to charge the excise tax. It would be refunded because they were a manufacturer or a base distributor.
Will this Bill allow local distributors not to charge the tax the same as the large oil companies such as Imperial Oil? If it is not on that equitable basis, it will be most unfair to the little independent distributors. They will have to charge an extra 4.8 cents a litre whereas Imperial Oil will be able to send its truck around the farming community and not charge the tax. It is a most unfair system. Can the Minister explain exactly what the arrangement will be as the result of Bill C-17?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the smaller dealers should be able to qualify as well. That was part of the purpose of this. It will be a direct credit. I think the qualification is that it is a bulk sale either at the pump or delivered to the farm. Those dealers will qualify as long as they are registered with Revenue Canada.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, part of this legislation provides for a rebate to fishermen, farmers, loggers and miners. That is to be applauded. At the same time, however, the Government is imposing an increase in the federal sales tax, for example, on construction materials which will cost something like $2 billion over four years. Has the Minister calculated the impact on employment in this country as a result of taking $2 billion out of the pockets of the consumers? Can she tell us how many jobs will be lost in the economy as a result of increasing the sales tax and reducing purchasing power at this time?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, we have made very clear the reasons why we are raising the sales tax. We are in a position of paying for programs that were bequeathed to us and we need to raise the revenue. We proceeded with the sales tax. I believe this has been well discussed in this House.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister has not directly answered my question as to what the impact will be on employment as a result of taking $2 billion out of the pockets of Canadian consumers, I presume the Government has not examined the impact on employment by increasing the sales tax, particularly on construction materials, at this time. Will the Minister confirm that? Has the Government not examined the impact of an increase in the sales tax as it affects employment, particularly in light of the fact the Conservative Party ran on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, our assessments indicate that the impact on consumers is relatively modest and that a large part of the sales tax increase falls on imported goods. Therefore, there will be some modest benefit to Canadian business competitively and the consumer will not be that much worse off.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister willing to share the analysis upon which she makes the assertion that an increase in the sales tax in the order of $2 billion will have a minimal impact on employment and consumers at this time? Does she have an analysis upon which she makes that assertion and is she willing to table the study on which she makes the assertion?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, considering that items such as food, clothing and footwear are exempted from the sales tax increase, I thought it would be fairly clear to the Hon. Member that the injury to the consumer will be very modest.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister says that the impact will be minimal, is she saying that a 1 per cent federal sales tax increase on construction materials, for example, will have no visible impact on construction activity in this country or with regard to employment? Is she saying that when the sales tax is increased by $2 billion at a time when people are pressed for money in order to make ends meet, people will not suffer as a result?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, no one likes tax increases. We would have preferred not to be in the position of introducing this tax increase. We have made the best judgments that we can so that the impact will be minimal. I cannot see that we can say much more on this topic.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I have a final supplementary question to ask the Minister. She says that they are reluctant to introduce a tax increase. I wonder if she is aware that the tax increase that she is introducing to the House is the same tax increase that was introduced by the Liberal Government when it was in office, that she is in fact implementing Liberal tax policy here today and that her Party, while in opposition, described this sales tax increase as a huge, regressive tax bite. How can the Minister raise taxes for people, though she says reluctantly-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please.


Cyril Keeper: How can she say one thing in opposition and another when in office?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. I hope the Hon. Member would remain relevant to the clause. That is not relevant to the clause. I will recognize another very short supplementary question.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that the tax increase is not relevant to the clause?
December 19, 1984


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am saying that Standing Order 59 of the Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committee of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders regarding the seconding of motions, the limiting of the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches. I would like the Hon. Member to be relevant as far as Clause 1 is concerned.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I will seek your guidance. I was asking the Minister about the sales tax increase. Is that not a part of the clause?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought the Hon. Member was speaking to you.
I think we have made abundantly clear the sitution with which we are faced. We are asking Canadians to share in helping us resolve some of our difficulties. We do not like to have to ask them to do that but the tax increase was essential at this time. As I said, we introduced it reluctantly given the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister said that the rebate on the excise tax on gasoline was 4.8 cents per litre. Does that 4.8 cents include the rebate that was already in place for the last 10 years plus a new rebate or is it just the new rebate?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, that includes the three cents and the 1.8 cents from the PCC.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could be a little more explicit. I asked her if the figure includes only the rebate to be received under this Bill or if it includes the total rebate.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, no, because there is-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who's running this country anyway?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Not you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: In addition to the 4.8 cents, there is 1.5 cents, which I believe is the figure to which the Hon. Member refers, that has been in place for 10 years or so.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to explain the difference in figures or to give us an understanding of just what the total rebate on the excise tax on gasoline will be to a primary producer. As the Minister knows, the rebate on the excise tax on gasoline was available to fishermen and farmers for many years. There is a total value on that rebate. Then there is an additional value added by the legislation before us today. I would like to have the Minister explain just what the figures are.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the figures are three cents plus 1.8 cents plus 1.5 cents.
Excise Tax Act


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the two excise taxes and the petroleum compensation charge, the farmer, fisherman, logger or miner will not have to pay the three cents and the 1.8 cents. I wonder why the Minister did not provide for the 1.5 cents excise tax which I believe was imposed by the Budget of June 10, 1975, to be withheld as well. Why is that being left so that the primary producer must submit a claim for a refund for that 1.5 cents excise tax that has been sitting there for many years? He does not pay it. It just seems to me that that makes for more bookkeeping. I wonder if we could introduce an amendment in committee to provide that the 1.5 cents per litre excise tax which has been in existence for some time could be taken away so that the primary producer does not have to pay it when he buys the fuel.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter that is with the Department of National Revenue. They are reviewing the way that tax is assessed and will be bringing something regarding that before the House. However, it is not my Department.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I believe the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate had a supplementary question.


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The only reason I am putting this very important question to the Minister is that some confusion arises, when someone talks about a rebate on the excise tax to primary producers and uses figures, as to where the total figure comes from. It is still confusing in my mind. The Minister indicates that it is three cents here, 1.8 cents there and 1.5 cents here. I still do not understand that the Minister has said and I do not understand what the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board said yesterday. Members of the general public do not understand what they said either. I would like some clarification.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for confusing the Hon. Member. Far be it for me to do that.
The old tax was 1.5 cents a litre for all gasoline. The new one is 4.8 cents a litre, combining the 1.8 cents and the three cents a litre, and it applies to diesel fuel and gasoline. They do not quite compare and it is hard to give the Hon. Member a total figure.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I am still confused after having listened to this debate. Perhaps I could ask the Minister how much better off a farmer or a fisherman will be under this legislation. Will his energy costs be reduced by 4.8 cents or by five cents or by 1.5 cents? How much better off is the primary producer going to be?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, under this Bill that is before us today, the primary producer is better off by three cents. Under the Petroleum Administration Act, the primary producer is better off by 1.8 cents. Under the old Bill, the primary producer is better off on that portion of it by 1.5 cents.

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the Minister. In the provinces, most of the gas which is used- and there is a provincial tax rebate-is marked gas. Is there a mechanism in this legislation which would distinguish between off-highway gas and highway gas? Will there be a dye or something in the diesel fuel?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. There will not be a marking. It varies from one province to another. Some use it and some do not. We have chosen not to mark it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate rising to speak on this clause?


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to the Minister describing the rebate on excise tax on gasoline and how it will be implemented. There has been much discussion on this particular clause as it relates to primary producers. I wonder if the Minister will have a comment on what I am about to say, or if she could take it up with the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Agriculture.
The excise tax on gasoline to which the Minister referred- the 1.5 cents which is available, and has been for years, to primary producers, farmers and fishermen-is also available to clergymen and anyone who is using the gas to further their occupation, on a judgment of the question by the Department of National Revenue. However, there is a problem with that rebate as it relates to primary producers. The problem is that a very low percentage of primary producers who qualify for the tax rebate do not receive it, simply because they do not apply for it. In fact, I would say that half of the fishermen on the East Coast of Canada do not apply for the tax rebate. Furthermore, 1 would say that one-quarter of those fishermen did not know that the provision existed. It was only in the case, as the Hon. Member for Egmont pointed out, in which the gas was marked and there was a distinction in the community that a particular type of gas could be used occupationally that they were aware of the provision. Of course, as the Hon. Member for Egmont knows, there have been a number of court cases concerning people who have used marked gas on the highway.
I would like the Minister to comment on the fact that there have been rebates available for some time and that primary producers were not taking advantage of them for some reason or another. Although some Members may say, "No way, all the farmers have been taking advantage of this in Canada", I can assure the Minister that they have not.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I think the difference lies in the bulk permit, because the farmers will be able to claim credit at the pump. If they have not chosen to do that before, we have made it easier for them to do it now.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the legislation provides for on-farm use. There is a problem with that. For example, on Prince Edward Island there are a lot of farmers who truck potatoes from the field to the warehouse. When potato harvesters are in the field, they load the trucks
and sometimes must drive 10 or 15 miles on the highway to travel to the storage warehouse. Will this tax apply to them for that distance, from the time they leave the field until they arrive at the warehouse? It is a very difficult situation. Part of the distance is definitely on-farm use when the trucks are back in the field, but a large part of it is on the highway. A farmer cannot stop at a driveway, siphon out the gas, fill up the truck with gas on which he would pay tax, and repeat the procedure at the next gate. That presents a real difficulty. I do not think this legislation addresses that situation. Therefore, would the Minister consider that to be a serious situation which could develop? It could put many farmers in my area in the position of breaking the law and landing in jail.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, we have chosen to do it this way because some farmers truck their own produce and others use transportation companies. We have kept the definition of farm use, because that applies through the legislation.
Second, we anticipate that the farmer will be in a position to best decide the proportionate use of fuel on and off the farm.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister may well be confused about what I am saying. I understand the situation from the warehouse to the market-place, but that is different from the point which I am making. I am talking about the primary product in its primary stage, before processing or packaging-from the farm to the warehouse. In many instances in my province a farmer drives 15 or 20 miles on the highway because he has no storage on the back 40. It is a very difficult situation when farmers must drive on the main highway to get to their primary source of storage. What the Minister is stating is quite correct-from the storage to the market-place-but that is a totally different situation.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is not what I am talking about.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, it is. As well, I am not talking about farmers who hire outside trucking firms to transport the produce. I am talking about a truck with a potato box on it, which is used for nothing else throughout the year but trucking potatoes from the field to the storage area.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that I do know about what he is talking. My second cousin ships his eggs from the farm into town on somebody else's truck. That is the kind of comparison which I am making.
If it is for farm use, it applies to everybody. If we apply it for highway use, it will then apply to some and not to others.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the egg situation does not apply. The Hon. Minister is mixing eggs with potatoes.


An Hon. Member:: Hash browns.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, hash browns. The situation which I am discussing is totally different from the egg situation. The egg comes out of the hen in the henhouse, goes to the storage place, and then goes to the market-place. The Minister is
December 19, 1984

talking about the market-place. That is after processing. I am talking about farm produce on the way to the market-place, or to the warehouse which holds them for processing. I am talking strictly about primary production, from the potato field to the potato warehouse. In some cases the warehouse is on the farm, but many farmers in Prince Edward Island farm four or five farms and some of those farms are from 15 to 35 miles away from the warehouse. The processing of the product, the washing, bagging or whatever as it is prepared for the marketplace, is done at the warehouse, and that is where the potatoes are stored in temperature-controlled storage. But to get the potatoes out of the field and to the warehouse-and about 85 per cent of those potatoes are moved on highways-is a very difficult and expensive operation. That is where a lot of farmers use most of their fuel.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Does the Minister of State for Finance have any further comments?


Barbara Jean McDougall: No, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Just before we leave Clause 1, I wonder if the Minister could clarify exactly how much excise tax is involved for the four different groups who will be involved? How much excise tax is saved? The petroleum compensation charge is really only a saving in that before the economic statement there was no additional $17.50 per cubic metre of compensation charge. Could the Minister spell out what excise tax will be saved for the four main groups involved?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, for agriculture and fishing in the current fiscal year, $14.5 million will be saved; for mining, $9.0 million; for forestry, $1.5 million; for hunters and trappers, under $1 million. To 1985-1986, for agriculture and fishing, $1.15 million will be saved; for mining, $37.5 million; for forestry, $7.5 million. That is a total of $160 million.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 9-


Mr. Riis:: I wonder if the Minister could inform us of the extent to which consultations took place with the industry prior to the adoption of this change. I have had myself, and I am certain the Minister has had as well, a number of representations by companies which are going to be affected by this. The case they make is that particularly in hard pressed parts of Canada where there has been a tremendous cut-back in the number of subscribers to their programming, this additional tax is going to add that much more of a financial burden on firms which are already hard-pressed. Could the Minister indicate what kind of consultation and input the Department received from the industry before this clause was considered?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, this tax has been in effect for two years. It was never passed by this House. There were extensive consultations, I am told, by the Department of Communications. We are simply legislating something which
Excise Tax Act
has been in place for a long time. I do not believe that consultations at this stage would be appropriate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that this is in a sense, retroactive taxation. It was imposed without any legislation to authorize it, and I appreciate the process. However, the Minister will also appreciate that times have changed over the last two years in many communities. Perhaps two years, three years of four years ago, when this additional tax was being considered, the economic climate of Canada was certainly quite different from what it is today. As I said, a number of cable companies have brought to my attention that the revenues they anticipated in the communities in which they operate are quite different from what they were two or more years ago when the legislation was being considered. They have asked me to ask the Minister if she is aware of this situation. If so, was there any consideration given before dealing with this Bill? We are now enacting this legislation presumably in perpetuity.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, nothing is in perpetuity. I appreciate the point which the Hon. Member is making. We all know that times have changed. They have changed for a great many industries over the last two years or three years. It is certainly our intention to try to create a climate of prosperity where the cable operators, as well as other people in this country, will be economically much more viable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have one short question, Mr. Chairman, particularly in light of the Minister's last comment that the world has changed. The economic times facing these companies, particularly some of the smaller companies, have placed them under extreme pressure. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister-if in fact the Government is trying to create an environment in which there will be economic expansion-if she could explain how this taxation will assist the Government in creating the sense of optimism, and so on, which we so often hear these days.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the money from this tax has already been collected, allocated and spent over the last two years. It is for the benefit of Canadian programming that this tax was introduced in the first place. I recognize as much as anyone the economic difficulties in which people find themselves. I also recognize the difficulty in which the Government finds itself in trying to proceed with some fiscal responsibility. As I said, nothing is in perpetuity. I will be glad to take the case to my colleague, the Minister of Communications.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 16-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, in my estimation, Clause 16 is the critical clause of this particular Bill. I believe it would be appropriate for the Minister to take a few moments to explain how increasing the tax, as it is reflected in Clause 16, is going to be beneficial to economic recovery? I appreciate that this has been introduced as a result of ways and means motions,

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act
and October 1 was the date on which it was imposed. However, many Hon. Members in their speeches at second reading, when the principle of the Bill was being debated, asked Hon. Members of the Government to explain it. So I take the opportunity now to ask the Minister if she would enlighten us as to how this particular section is going to assist anyone.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I believe I indicated in my comments on second reading that once again we are faced with a situation where funds have already been committed. Many of these funds have been spent. There are ongoing program commitments. We are in a position-which I believe we have explained at quite considerable length-where we have to pay for those programs and expenditures which are already in place, and we must raise the revenues to do that.
I might also point out that if we do not act in a fiscally responsible manner, we are not doing the future of this country any favour at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether she perceives this type of taxation as being regressive taxation or progressive taxation? Given her last comment, how can she justify this type of taxation, particularly at this time when we know there is a growing gap between the haves and the have nots in Canadian society, a growing gap between the lower and upper income earners?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, 1 do not regard this lightly at all. This is a revenue raising tax. It is not regressive in the sense that products which people require in daily life such as food and footware, and I believe health care, are all exempted from this sales tax. So we have taken into account people at the lower income scale.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, one could argue that particular point at some length, but perhaps we will have an opportunity at third reading to develop that particular theme. I would be remiss if I did not ask the Minister to explain how this increase in sales tax, particularly as it applies to construction material, is justified. Why are construction materials not exempt from this increase? I am thinking particularly of the housing industry in this country. The construction industry in many parts of Canada has unemployment levels running in the 90 percentile range. To add now another percentage point to the federal sales tax on construction material seems to be absolutely opposite to the type of behaviour we should be seeing at this time. An incredibly hard-pressed industry is now going to be under more pressure than ever before because of this increase.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the impact of this tax on the construction industry generally, or the construction of housing in particular, is essentially very low. Included in the price of a house is a very high land and labour component as well as the material component. I might also add that one of the biggest problems for people buying houses is high interest rates. If we do not deal with our problems in such a way that
we bring downward pressure on interest rates, then we are never going to help the housing market at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not want to let that remark go, Mr. Chairman. I think we all recognize that interest rates are the major financial component in new construction. It seems to me that if the Government were serious about economic recovery it would be taking some action on that particular front, and not simply adding additional costs to the construction sector, which is reflected not only in that sector but in manufacturing as well where the materials are made. I just wanted to say that if the Government and the Minister were serious about high interest rates and recognized that we are, in a peculiar way, blessed with the highest real interest rates of any industrialized nation, they would take some action on that front.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I will not comment on that, Mr. Chairman.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 16 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 22-Definitions


Mr. King:: Mr. Chairman, notice has been given of the difficult situation with regard to farm fuels faced by farmers who use their vehicles to travel on highways. The situation is even more exaggerated with respect to logging trucks, many of which travel primarily on the highway system. Has the Minister addressed the particular situation faced by logging truck operators who travel hundreds of miles daily on highways and who will be provided very little relief under the provisions of this Bill?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, in the forestry business the transporting of logs is felling, limbing, and off-highway transportation to the mill. It does not include any of the production activity on logs after transportation to the mill.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Chairman, my difficulty with the definition of off-highway transportation of logs to a mill pond or mill yard is that really, on recollection, I cannot think of a single mill-and there are several in my constituency and others in British Columbia-where the mill pound or mill yard is accessible by off-highway use. That implies that the mill is in the bush where the logging trucks are operating. These mills are inevitably some distance removed from the bush. They do not always log adjacent to the mill. Once the slope is logged off, they could be 100 miles down the highway. So I have great difficulty with the term "off-highway transportation" in reference to getting the logs to the mill yard or mill pond.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the only way I can respond is in the same way as I responded earlier. We are attempting to give relief to people who are engaged in these industries, and we are limiting the relief only to the extent that
December 19, 1984

we feel there may be competitive factors involved in the transportation sector.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on those questions regarding logging. Northwestern Ontario, as in British Columbia, has no direct connections any more between the mill or mill pond and the stumps, if you like. There seems to be support on both sides of the House for deletion of the words "off-highway" in order that transportation of the raw product from the stump to the mill, where it travels in both cases off the publicly financed roads system, will not be affected. Granted that the bush roads are only partially subsidized as opposed to the public highways which are paid for fully by government, but I think it would be consistent with the Minister's comments to provide support for this sector. In northwestern Ontario we are travelling distances of 60 to 100 miles as our forests are harvested. We will not have the opportunity to harvest the second or third crop for 60 or 80 years so we do have to travel further. It would be a great addition to this Bill if this one change could be accepted by the Minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, you have to begin somewhere and stop somewhere. We have provided a substantial amount of relief for primary producers, including about $7.5 million in the next fiscal year for the forestry sector. It would always be nice to be able to offer more. We believe that we have realistic definitions. The relief in total next year is $160 million to the primary sectors. We believe that that is fairly substantial and that they will take advantage of it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt that what the Minister says is a reflection of their considerations. I am wondering whether the Minister would be prepared to have her staff examine the number of miles of off-highway travel versus the number of miles of on-highway travel relative to the transportation of the raw product from stump to mill. Perhaps in the new year a change to this legislation could be brought in which would, in effect, provide some fairness and efficiency.
I would suspect that right now the forest-based companies have to go through a series of calculations to determine what percentage of travel of their trucks is on the logging roads and what percentage is on the public highways, then be prepared to be audited. I would suspect that for both the Government and the private sector it would be much more efficient if it were very clear in black and white. If it is hauling of raw product from stump to mill, it should have that exemption.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, there was a similar tax rebate some years ago and the companies involved in the forestry sector are used to dealing with the situation. They understand the definitions that we are talking about. We believe it will work the way it is.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that in terms of relief it misses the point because it really is not relief to the people who-
Excise Tax Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order please. If the Member wishes to discuss something, would he please go behind the curtain?


Benno Friesen: You were not speaking to me, Sir, I know. If we are speaking of relief, then it must affect the people who need it most. Under the terms of this definition, off-highway does not spell relief in any way because it does not meet the needs of the people who need it, particularly when we want to design the program in such a way that the ones who would not survive otherwise are not going to benefit, meaning the small independent logger. The big multinationals will make it some way or another. As the Minister says, they have already worked out the system and understand it very well. However, the small independent, with one, two, or three rigs, is not going to make it if he is not going to benefit from the hauling he has to do on highways. It seems to me that the officials who drafted this clause really did not understand the nature of the problem. I hope that this will be revised.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On one further supplementary, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, not one further supplementary, two or three little supplementaries. I want to ask two or three questions of the Minister. I must say that I have been encouraged by interventions made by Hon. Members opposite and from all sides of the House. There obviously is a serious problem here. I appreciate the Minister's sensitivity to this problem.
With regard to changing realities, distance trucking has become a necessity and a natural extension of the operation of small independent loggers due to the lack of reforestation which has occurred over the past number of years. I suspect that when the officials originally drafted this type of legislation the nature of the logger was quite different from what it is today. They were dealing with much smaller geographic areas, and transportation from the stump to the mill pond was over small distances. To the Minister's obvious perception, that has now changed. We have heard interventions by Hon. Members who represent constituencies in which logging operations form a significant part of the local economy. It is important that the Minister note the interventions. While we may not be able to change this today with the existing information, it seems to me that this is an area worth further inquiry. It might be in order for the appropriate standing committee of the House, namely the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, or perhaps a subcommittee to look into the matter of primary producers.
I would like to ask the Minister two or three questions of a related nature. With regard to the mining industry, I notice that this does not include activities relating to exploration for a resource. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at a time when we are attempting to expand economic opportunities, that kind of support might be in order. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us why she has excluded activities related to the exploration of a mineral resource from the receipt of this fuel rebate.

December 19, 1984
Excise Tax Act


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, as I explained earlier, we would like to extend the rebate as broadly as possible. We attempted to come up with the best definitions that we could. 1 can only suggest that there is some $37.5 million worth of tax relief to mining next year. We believe that that is a reasonable tax break which the mining sector will welcome.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, to emphasize how serious this is, I would like to move:
That in Clause 22, Section 49.01(b) have the words "off-highway" deleted.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the Hon. Member please send it up in writing? Does the Hon. Member want this deleted from the clause on page 29 where it says "in any quantity, in any other case"?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe that is the appropriate place.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It says:
-in any quantity, in any other case;
"logging" means the felling, limbing, bucking and marking of trees, construction of logging roads, off-highway-
Does the Hon. Member want the words "off-highway transportation of logs" to be deleted?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, my concern is the term "off-highway". We submit that that is a reasoned amendment to make the point of the problem associated with that particular clause.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. With respect, this Bill is based on the ways and means resolution. Thus, the amendment only increases the ways and means, and therefore I believe it should be ruled out of order. Shall the clause carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 40 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 41-Departmental regulations


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, in computing the amount of money that the rebate will cost, how did the Department arrive at the figures of on-highway and off-highway? In other words, the Minister outlined the total amount of money that it would cost the Government to implement the rebates. In the implementation of the rebates, is the Minister saying that there was some way the Department could compute a figure that would not take into account on-highway use?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, all we can do in situations like this is to estimate what we feel is valid and fair. We think we have done that.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister tell us whether any assessment has been made? If you have done the assessment on the off-highway use, as a part of that assessment, did you also assess the cost of maintaining your offhighway use and also the on-highway use for off-highway purposes?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, we have made an assessment of what we think is a valid and fair return to primary producers. We have attempted to define it in such a way that it applies to all people within particular areas so that we do not get into situations where some people get it and some do not, depending on their type of business. That is the kind of assessment that we made.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, the Government had an assessment done. Its assessment was based on the use of gasoline and diesel fuel by primary producers.
I submit, with respect, that in the assessment that was done, the Government could not have removed on-highway use because, as Members of the House have said about the logging industry and the potato industry, the assessment was done on the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel. There was not an assessment done, therefore, on that portion of the gasoline that would be used on the highway as it relates to the logging industry and as it relates to the potato industry. In fact, according to the Minister's response, the assessment could not have been done because there was no reason for doing the assessment in the past.
There was no way that the Department could have discovered what portion of that gasoline would have been used on the highway as opposed to off the highway if its assessment was done on the total consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels.
On that basis, I would like the Minister to respond because her response, I believe, would mean that a future amendment could be made which is similar to the one that was ruled out of order.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to refer these comments to my officials for discussion. I believe we have made our assessments fairly and openly. We have provided valid tax relief. I believe that the tax relief we have provided is to the benefit of all those industries. Those with whom we have discussed this have had a favourable response.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 41 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
On Clause 43-Interim Rate of Interest


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to prolong this, my comment concerns the questions that have surfaced on both sides of the House with respect to the application of the term "off-highway". I simply suggest that it might be useful to have the benefit of the Department's interpretation of off-highway at some point today or in the future. We may well find that that interpretation in itself may provide the solution we are looking for in this debate.
December 19, 1984

While I am on my feet, I would like to make note of the contrast between the definition of logging and the reference to off-highway which is followed by the definition of mining and the absence of any reference to off-highway. The two are inextricably entwined in a constituency such as mine.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Chairman, the February, 1984 Budget contained proposals for a formal assessment and appeal system to be introduced into the Excise Tax Act. We are now almost at the end of this Bill and at the section dealing with interest and penalties.
It seems that the Government has chosen not to proceed with those proposals, which were an effort to have the appeal rights of Canadian taxpayers protected and entrenched in law.
I would appreciate an explanation of that.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance specifically indicated in the economic statement his intention to deal with the administration and appeals proposal at a later date. We would like to have some further consultations. Some private sector groups have expressed concern with certain aspects of the proposed system. The Government will be reviewing those concerns and we will bring them to the attention of the Flouse at a later time.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, 1 am sorry to say that in view of this Government's record of promises to date, that answer does not inspire confidence.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 43 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 55 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Excise Tax Act


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members. And the division bells having been rung:


Mr. Speaker:: After consultation with all of the Parties, I have made a simple decision. I intend to order that the bells be stopped. I am now suspending the sitting until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the bells will recommence. At 6.51 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 9 a.m., Thursday, December 20, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
And the division bells having stopped at 10.42 a.m.:
Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should rise at this time to indicate that when the House reconvenes for business today at the normal hour, eleven o'clock this morning, we propose to call forward for second reading the Bill dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code. If that were to pass we would then consider going on to the currency Bill which should receive first reading later today. The borrowing Bill would be the third option.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. House Leader a question? Firstly, what is the disposition of the Government to split the Bill amending the Criminal Code so that the drunk driving provisions can go through possibly immediately? I say this by way of inquiry. Secondly, when will I get a response to the very reasonable request that was made by our Leader in the House yesterday for a special debate on the subject of the protection of our social programs, before the House rises for Christmas?
Excise Tax Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in some difficulty given the fact that we are past six o'clock p.m. of this parliamentary day. I suggest that those matters could be discussed outside the House in context.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Members wish to discuss this matter by unanimous consent, we are going to run into a problem. The Hon. Government House Leader, briefly.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that of course we are amenable, with respect to the Criminal Code amendments, to working on the basis of consensus. As the Opposition House Leader will know, I have had discussions with both opposition Parties. At this point in time it is not possible to arrive at a consensus with respect to this matter, but I take it that he is opening that matter up for discussion.
With respect to the second item, I guess he will have to make up his mind, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to discuss matters in House Leaders' meetings and then ask for a response here, come on to the floor of the House of Commons and start negotiating in public, I guess he will have to decide how he wants, on behalf of his Party, if he indeed speaks for his Party, to conduct the negotiations with respect to House business. I am happy to carry on the tradition of dealing in a spirit of co-operation in House Leaders' meetings with the opposition House Leader, but I am not going to sit and negotiate publicly a matter that he initiated privately.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules require me to find that it is after six o'clock p.m. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on the same point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that anything useful is being achieved at the moment. I would like to invite my colleagues to join me and perhaps we can discuss these matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m. later this day.
At 10.54 a.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, December 20, 1984