1985-12-05

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Minister of State for Multiculturalism
(Mr. Jelinek):
That, in relation to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this motion for time allocation on Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes, reflects the urgent priority the Government places upon getting this important tax legislation into committee for detailed examination.
The Bill touches upon a wide variety of issues, including tax fairness, fiscal responsibility and taxpayers' rights. There has been ample debate on the principles of the Bill. 1 would remind Hon. Members of the six-day budget debate which took place in May and early June, following the budget presentation. Since the introduction of the Bill on November 29, it has been debated on another four days. In all, about 50 Members have taken part in those debates. They focused on a wide variety of experience and points of view, and their comments are of course on the record.
It is important to note that on this occasion we are breaking new ground in the parliamentary consideration of tax law. For many years it has been the practice to conduct the detailed examination of tax legislation within the House of Commons itself, sitting as the Committee of the Whole.
Our new procedure calls for a reference to a committee where, unlike in the House, experts from the private sector can appear to present comments and suggestions from taxpayers and professionals who work in the tax field. Members are no
doubt aware that, by agreement of all Parties, this particular Bill is to be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, rather than to a legislative committee.
This committee procedure is a major step forward and should not be delayed. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated on Monday, when he gave notice of this motion, many taxpayers have already expressed to him their concerns about the timely passage of the Bill to provide some certainty in tax planning. Many of the measures are of major importance to the business community, particularly to small business enterprises. These will have positive effects on the economic growth of the country, and Canadians are already responding to them in job-creating and investment opportunities.
For example, there are the provisions regarding capital gains; small business bonds, extended for another two years; and special investment tax credit, extended until the end of 1986. Small businesses may now obtain equity financing from pension and RRSP funds. Artists will be able to write off the costs of creating a work of art in the year that the expenses were actually incurred. Previously, as the House knows, they had to wait until it was sold.
1 should like to take this opportunity to point out briefly to Hon. Members that the Government's policies are already bringing about positive and encouraging results. We know that economic indicators show that Canada is well launched on the road to economic renewal. The prime bank lending rate is well down from previous levels, inflation is lower and mortgage rates have declined. Employment is up, consumer spending is up and confidence in the future is up. There is a feeling that our country is moving in a more positive direction. We are becoming more confident and productive.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) complained about the length of time taken to bring the Bill before the House. I suggest to him, given the size of the Bill and the wide range of issues it covers, that there was no inordinate delay. In addition to the extensive drafting involved, which incorporated many technical points raised in the post-budget representations to the Minister, a 150-page book of technical notes was prepared to explain the numerous amendments.
On the same point, other budget Bills of recent years have taken considerable time to prepare. The Income Tax Act revisions stemming from the Budget of June, 1982, which were not nearly as extensive as the ones now before us, did not arrive for First reading until December of that year. In the case of the April 1983 Budget, the tax Bill came to the House nearly eight months later. This indicates no unreasonable delay but rather, I would suggest, a commendable initiative in bringing forward this Bill. In the case of the 1983 budget Bill,

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
the House completed debate on second reading in four days and spent only one day in Committee of the Whole. In the case of the 1982 tax Bill, six days we spent at second reading stage and six days in committee.
As I said, on this occasion the committee examination will have a far wider scope than anything done in past years, and it is important that we get to it as quickly as possible. Therefore, I appeal to all Members to support the motion for time allocation which will move the Bill expeditiously to committee.
[DOT] (mo)


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues in this House are amazed that the Government would seek to terminate the discussion in this House on the principles of this legislation. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a major amendment to our taxation system which will change many basic principles that have been an integral part of this system for many years. The Government wants to change these principles, and for our part, we wish to debate these changes in the House. [English]
I find it incredible that the Government, having taken nine months to produce a Budget, having taken another six months to produce a tax Bill, given the obvious complexity of these fundamental issues of principle with which it was wrestling, would expect us to satisfy ourselves or the people of Canada, our constituents, that we had had a full opportunity to debate the principles of the Bill in this House for a mere 11 hours and 24 minutes. That is the amount of time devoted to this debate today. After 15 months of preparation of Budget, of drafting, we are given 11 hours and 24 minutes to debate the fundamental principles that are at stake here. It is outrageous.
Any reasonable person looking at this document with its 143 clauses going in the most detailed way into some parts of our system, which, as I said a moment ago in French, existed for many years, and being told that this document should be debated in principle in under 12 hours would find scandalous the treatment of Members on this side of the Chamber.
Let us look for just a moment at some of the issues in principle which we have only begun to debate. Believe me, we will serve the people of Canada well if we can dispose of some of these issues of principle in a positive way here on the floor of the House before moving this extraordinary document into committee.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) mentioned the lifetime capital gains exemption in Clause 58. [Translation]
We have told the Government that this proposal has been badly thought out and that it is certainly not helpful for our taxation system at this time. We even suggested other ways of dealing with capital gains, not here in the House, but elsewhere. These are major issues which should be discussed here.

If they do not accept our word for it, what about the independent experts who have looked at this provision? The Canadian Tax Foundation met in Quebec City a few weeks ago. We have comments from Ernst & Whinney saying it "will have a disastrous effect structurally on the tax system". What could be more of an issue in principle than that this provision will have a disastrous effect upon the structure of the tax system? Let me quote more from this report of that meeting. It states:
-after studying the proposal in more detail, the experts say it is badly flawed. As they wrestle with the massive legislation based on the budget proposal- which was tabled in the form of a ways and means motion last week-there is some embarrassment that they were unable to convey this message earlier.
They say it will create enormous complexity, that there will be scores of teams of tax lawyers, accountants and tax advisers seeking their way around the application of these provisions. They conclude that it will not in any way contribute to investment or job creation.
I find it interesting that the Minister of National Revenue, who has a vested interest in tax simplification, would come into the House this morning to deliver the message to us, his colleagues, that the Government wants to terminate debate. I would think the Minister of National Revenue would regard us as allies in this cause, trying to clean up this horrendous mess, make his life more simple and make the Tax Act more effective.


Mr. Deans:: Not only allies but perpetrators.


Donald James Johnston: Not only allies but perpetrators, says the House Leader for the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this proposal to change the structure of our law on capital gains is a fundamental matter of principle.

However, we have other issues as well. We have the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, something which the Government has determined it will eliminate. That plan was introduced to stimulate home ownership. It was designed to give young people the opportunity to save for their first home. That plan was introduced after much debate and much thought as a means of helping young people and of stimulating the housing sector of this country. There are major issues of principle involved in that approach.
Not only has it been eliminated, but the funds to be withdrawn from that plan are tax exempt under this proposed Bill and can be applied for any purpose whatsoever, completely and totally unrelated to the principle underlying the introduction of that provision in the first instance. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House that surely that is an issue which deserves a full airing of the fundamental principles involved here on the floor of the House of Commons and not in committee.
December 5, 1985

Let me draw another example to the attention of the House, the reduction of the annual indexing. The tax brackets were indexed. In fact, that indexing was introduced by the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), our Leader, then Minister of Finance back in the early 1970s. The whole purpose of it was to put some restraint on the amount of funds that flowed automatically into the coffers of Government through an erosion of spending power and the taxation of inflationary income. There is a fundamental principle involved. In fact, not only is that principle destroyed by this provision, namely to constrain Government to limit spending, but it represents a massive tax grab-massive. The Government's own numbers shown in the document which was leaked on or about budget night by the Department of Finance show that in the year 1990-91, an additional $4.3 billion will flow to the federal Government by virtue of the elimination of that provision.
Some spokesmen for the Government have had the gall to compare this approach to that which we took when we introduced the famous and very successful six and five restraint program back in 1982. There is a major difference in principle. The six and five program preserved full indexation up to 6 per cent and up to 5 per cent. It placed pressure and it gave a real incentive to the people of Canada, employers and employees alike, to bring down their demands, to take inflationary pressure out of the system. It was successful.
By 1983 when the 6 per cent number was there for the indexation of the income tax brackets, in fact inflation was lower. The result was, of course, that no one suffered. In fact, they still had full protection against inflation.

What we have here is the complete opposite. In this case, the taxpayers are automatically penalized because there is no protection against inflation under 3 per cent. It is therefore the complete opposite. This is another question of principle, a basic principle which concerns the indexation of our taxation system.

This very issue of indexation and what role it should play in our income tax system and in our various programs is one of great principle which in itself deserves at least 12 hours of debate in this Chamber. The thought presented by the Minister of National Revenue to this House and the motion to limit debate on a Bill of this importance, a Bill with this number of fundamental changes to our income tax system, is totally unacceptable.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take a long time dealing with this Bill but I would like to put on the record some concerns I have about the process through which we are going. This is not really a time to debate the Bill itself but rather to debate whether or not it is necessary for the Government to bring in time allocation in order to put forward its legislative program.
Time Allocation
I think it is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of people in the country do not understand what is going on here. It confuses them when we claim, and I think quite fairly, that we can manage the affairs of the country but somehow cannot manage the affairs of Parliament. They see us constantly wrangling over whether or not it is necessary for the Government to proceed with its legislative program and what would be an adequate length of time for the Opposition to express adequately its concerns about what is contained in various pieces of legislation.
The other day as I was going through an airport, I met a woman who, after having watched parliamentary television, recognized me. She came up to me and said: "Can we talk?" I replied that I thought it reasonable that we should be able to do that. She said: "Why don't they grow up? Why don't they understand that we expect Parliament to operate effectively and efficiently?" I said that I had certainly raised that matter on a number of occasions as had others. She said that it was sad for the country that we are not seeing the right kind of behaviour.
By behaviour, I do not mean behaviour in the sense that people are misbehaving. However, we are not getting the kind of management in Parliament that we ought to have. The woman went on to ask me if I would raise the matter in the House, and I said that I most certainly would, and 1 have. It is important that we leave the right impression with the public, and we are not leaving that impression at the moment.
It is sad that part of the reason we face this so often is the inability of the Government to bring forward a legislative program at a time when it can be given the careful consideration that it deserves. I say to this Government, as I said to the previous Government that it is wrong to put complex taxation legislation before Parliament in the last three weeks prior to the end of the year and expect that parliamentarians will be able to give it the kind of careful consideration it must have in order to ensure that people do not have foisted upon them legislation that is inadequate.
It is not the preserve of the Government to decide whether or not legislation is adequate. Parliament is structured in such a way as to have Government put forward its proposals so that Parliament can then deal with those proposals. Parliament must be given sufficient time to deal with legislation in the depth necessary to come to grips with the complexities of tax changes. That is impossible for us if the Government and its advisers cannot bring legislation forward within a short period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is very difficult for Members of Parliament and Canadian citizens. This bill is very complex. We must change the system immediately.
In the future, the Government should make its proposals and introduce its programs immediately after the Budget. [English]
I believe that it is necessary for the Government to have its legislative program ready for introduction immediately after

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
the budget debate. That is when we should be dealing with taxation legislation. 1 believe that it is not unreasonable to suggest to the Government that it should now embark upon a new system, a system which, out of necessity, should make the point with the civil servants who prepare both the Budget and the legislation that flows from it that legislation must be brought to Parliament within a maximum time of four weeks of the budget debate. The reason we are having to deal with time allocation today is that we did not get what we ought to have received early enough in the year.
I would like to go further by saying that it is not solely the responsibility of Government to manage the time of the House of Commons. When one manages the time of the House of Commons, one manages the time of all of its Members. It is therefore the responsibility of all of us to priorize the program of Government and to attempt wherever possible to move it forward, and to oppose it where opposition is necessary and desirable. It becomes therefore everyone's responsibility to pay particular attention to the over-all program the Government hopes to put forward and to work out a system among ourselves for dealing with that program. We cannot do that if we get the program in dribs and drabs. We cannot do that if we get the Budget in April and the taxation legislation that flows from it in December. How are we going to manage the time of Parliament if that is to be the case?
I hope, come the next session of Parliament beginning some time in the early part of 1986, that the Government will pay some heed to what I am suggesting. The legislation, if there is any, that flows from the Throne Speech should take no more than a month to introduce, and the legislation that flows from the Budget should not only be introduced immediately but should be dealt with forthwith. We ought not to be continually put in the situation in which we have been put over the many, many years of having to cram through at the last minute important, intricate, delicate legislation just because the Government or its advisers did not see the urgency of the matter and did not understand the complexity of the parliamentary system well enough to bring legislation forward in time to allow it to be dealt with.
This legislation can have and likely will have a detrimental effect on a large number of Canadians. How are they going to put their views before Parliament? How much time will there be for a committee to deal with this legislation given its diversity? How will people who have studied it have time to bring their concerns before the Parliament of Canada given that we are now entering the pre-Christmas season at which time the majority of people are already tied up with other important matters? Yet we are told that the legislation must be put through by the end of December which, in our case, means December 20.
I therefore plead, and if pleading will not do I do not know what else I can do, with the Government to change the system. I understand that it has been in place for years. I made the same arguments when the Liberals were in power. I suggested the same thing when I was a Member of the Legislature. I know it is difficult. 1 realize that those who-


Ms. Copps:: But we listen to you.


Ian Deans: My friend, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), said that she listens to me. I have never noticed any change in her attitude; but nevertheless maybe she did.
I believe that if the Government were to say to the drafts-people who draft legislation: "We need it by a week on Friday", then they would get it by a week on Friday. As long as we allow them to delay and procrastinate then, in fact, we will not have the legislation before us in time. That requires leadership. That requires direction. I ask the Government to provide both the leadership and the direction in order that we can manage the affairs of Parliament in a much more sensible way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the points which have been made by my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), as well as the points made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), illustrate in an effective way how the Government has sold a bill of goods to the Canadian people. The Government talked about openness. We have heard the Government House Leader say that he wants to have more discussion and more involvement by individual parliamentarians. We then heard the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) say this morning that he wants to cut, cease, abort the debate after only 50 Members have had a chance to speak. I am not sure whether the Government with its 211-person majority thinks that participation by 50 Members, many of them members of the Opposition, is enough. As was pointed out by my hon. friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount, the Government wants to cut off debate after 11 hours and 24 minutes.
The people of Canada should know that in the two tax measures which are before us specifically dealing with the issue of direct tax on persons and direct tax on corporations and government businesses the Government is cutting off debate after having spent only one hour on each $1 billion involved. We have been allowed only one hour of debate for every $1 billion which is being spent. For the Government to suggest that participation by 50 Members and debate of one hour for each $1 billion which will either be spent or taken from the Canadian people is adequate is to my mind an absolute farce. For the Government to suggest that it is somehow reforming the parliamentary process by insisting on a time allocation motion, the rebuttal of opposition arguments in the House, points to the fact that the Government has misled and lied to the Canadian people.
Let us consider the issue of direct taxes on corporations. Why is it that yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stood in his place in the House and talked about the wonderful minimum tax which will be imposed? He did not tell the Canadian people that, on balance, those people who will be charged the minimum tax will pay no more tax over the long term in their fiscal payments than they would have under the previous system. What he does not talk about is corporate
December 5, 1985

taxation. What he does not talk about is the $7 billion which is currently sitting in deferrd taxes payable by 10 companies, the names of which I picked at random from Fortune magazine.


Ms. Mitchell:: How did it accumulate? Under the Liberal regime.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member says that the previous Liberal regime was responsible. As a matter of fact, she has not gone through Fortune magazine. She does not know the facts. If she or any member of her Party had taken the time to look, as have members of my Party, at a random selection of the Fortune 500, they would have seen that, according to the annual reports for 1985, Bell Canada Enterprises deferred taxes amounting to $1,693,000.


Mr. Orlikow:: Because the Liberals gave them that opportunity.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This is because the Minister of Finance stood in the House and suggested he was bringing in tax reform.
We are here to debate the direct tax on corporations and Government businesses. Why does the Government not talk about the $7 billion in tax deferrals which have been given to Bell Enterprises, Commco, Great Lakes Forest Products, Imperial Oil, Inco, MacMillan Bloedel, Noranda, Norcen, the Oshawa Group, Tech Corp., Hiram Walker and Canadian Pacific? Why? Because the Government is not interested in real tax reform.


Mr. Vincent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) on a point of order.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that naming companies and so on is the point of this debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is very unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary does not even know what this Bill involves, because it deals directly with corporate taxes. Since we are discussing corporate taxes, it seems to me that this includes the taxes which MacMillan Bloedel, Bell Canada, Inco and Imperial Oil will not have to pay. It is unfortunate, but I can understand why the Progressive Conservative Members do not become involved with these issues, with the problems in Montreal East, with energy issues, and with the petro-chemical industry which is on the verge of disappearing in Montreal East.
I do not understand why they are not willing to become involved in these issues, just as they are not willing to become involved in the issues related to the footwear industry.

This morning, in the City of Hamilton, 70 per cent of the workers at a shoe heel factory will be laid off. The lay-off
Time Allocation
notices have already gone out as a direct result of the Government's lack of initiative on the quota issue. I wish to tell Hon. Members that Kinney Shoes is now buying all of its parts in Taiwan as a direct result of the Government's measure and initiative. Yet the Government tells the people of Canada that, yes, it is creating jobs. In fact, we heard the Minister of National Revenue laud the great economic record of his Government, a Government which fails to deal with the issues of the direct tax which is being imposed on people. The Government does not talk about the cut-backs with respect to family allowances or those which are being levied against every mother and child across the country by a Government which is still prepared to give a $500,000 capital gains writeoff to the rich. It does not talk about the $7 billion in deferred taxes which has been given by the Government to corporations across the country, names of which I picked at random. 1 did not deal with all of the 500 in the Fortune 500. I picked only 10. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the full picture, the number of billions of dollars in deferred taxes, one will see that those taxes are far greater than any amount of money that the Government will be able to squeeze from the single mothers and families with children who are seeing their tax credits and child exemptions cut back because of the Government's policies.
I must say that when the Minister of National Revenue can stand in his place and suggest that 50 Members have participated in the debate and that it is time to shut down the House and time for the matter to go to comittee-


Mr. Gauthier:: Only 32.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister says 50. My Party Whip says 32. I trust our Whip's figures far more than those of the Minister of National Revenue. He does not even know how to get his appointment book straight.
As a matter of fact, 11 per cent of all MPs have spoken on this issue. Where are the Conservatives? Where are the trained seals on the Conservative side of the House? Why are they not speaking out to fight for their workers? We have not heard a word from the Conservative Members with respect to the shoe industry issue in the City of Hamilton, the seventh largest major employer in the city. Where is the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin)? Where is the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson)? We do not hear from them. They are too busy in a docile and knee-jerk fashion supporting policies of a Government which is prepared to destroy Canadian jobs and to send off all Kinney shoe orders to Taiwan.
The facts are in place. Kinney Shoes was a supplier to a Hamilton company which is now giving lay-off notices and what may end up in termination notices to 70 per cent of its employees. That decision was a direct result of this Government's refusal to protect the men's shoe industry in Canada. To quote one of the company spokesmen, the men's shoe industry in the country is dead. The women's footwear industry is not far behind. Yet we rely on those few in opposition- 40 members of the Liberal Party and 30 members of the NDP-who have carried the responsibility, not only for deal-

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
ing with this Bill, which, as I said, includes more than $11 billion in tax measures which are being either added or subtracted-and I can provide the figures to the House if Members would like to see them-but we are being permitted one hour of debate for every $1 billion worth of government expenditure or tax grab. That is from a Government which promised a new era of civility in the House. That is from a Government which promised to allow full participation by all Members. That is from a Government that was elected because people believed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). People thought he was a man of his word. You may not have much in politics but what you do have is your word. If your word means something then people will support you. They may not always agree with your ideas, they may disagree with you on policy matters. I am sure that even in the Liberal Party from time to time we have disagreements on policy matters-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Beatty:: Never. Tell us it isn't so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If I am a person of my word, then the people of Canada will support me. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the Prime Minister is not a person of his word, and for that he will pay dearly.
[Translation}


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to speak to the motion for allotting a limited period of time for subsequent consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-84. As we know, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. This Bill is one of the major elements in the Government's strategy for injecting new vigour into the Canadian economy, hence the Government's emphasis on this legislation and the need for introducing a motion aimed at expediting its passage.
This Bill contains measures proposed in two Notices of Ways and Means Motions tabled in the House earlier this year, one a general Ways and Means Motion tabled on May 23 and the other a detailed Notice of a Ways and Means Motion tabled on November 21. The Bill is an integral component of a comprehensive strategy to secure durable economic growth and create jobs for all Canadians, and the Government's purpose in presenting this Bill is to provide a stable and consistent framework that will secure durable economic renewal. The major principles and broad parameters of this strategy were previously the subject of a clear and specific message when the Agenda for Economic Renewal was released in November 1984, and the first important measures were introduced when the Budget was brought down in May 1985.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the results are already being felt. The present rate of inflation is the lowest ever since 1971, and interest rate levels are such that major projects can now be undertaken. Of course the Opposition does not mention this, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Government came to office, the Canadian economy's performance has restored the faith of families and businesses in this country, and that is not being mentioned either. Economic growth has been far more vigorous than expected. Today, more than 300,000 Canadians who, a year ago, were unemployed have jobs. Consumer purchases, housing starts and investment are showing tremendous progress. The unemployment rate is still a little high but is dropping steadily, for the first time in ten years. This Bill marks a decisive stage in continuing our progress along the path we took on September 4, and its impact will undoubtedly be enhanced by the strategy already in place.
The Bill amends the Income Tax Act in significant ways, including a capital gains tax exemption of $500,000 that will encourage investment and enterpreneurship, although the Opposition prefers to take a distorted view of this measure. They cannot understand we are trying to work with and for Canadians. They cannot understand why a lifetime capital gains tax exemption of $500,000 is beneficial to business, to Canadians and especially to small businesses. Yesterday, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled his minimum tax measure, a measure the Liberals themselves had promised during the election campaign, instead of congratulating the Minister as the New Democrats did, they were complaining again. They can never find anything positive to say about what the Government does, and they have no alternatives to suggest either.
Mr. Speaker, these measures, which are aimed at increasing the fairness of the tax system in order to better protect the rights and economic effectiveness of Canadians, should be adopted as soon as possible.
Generally speaking, taxpayers will also get better protection with respect to search and seizure, audit and examination, and requests for tax information, and they do not mention that either. These are measures that tax experts and taxpayers have been asking for for ten years. This is the most extensive tax reform at the administrative level we have seen in the last fifteen years. They do not mention that and they did not even say once that it was a good measure.


An Hon. Member:: They don't understand.


Some Hon. Members:: They aren't even there.


Pierre H. Vincent: Right. There are not many on the other side either.


An Hon. Member:: There is not a single Liberal in the House. Not one. Where are the Liberals?
December 5, 1985


Pierre H. Vincent: The Liberals? Mr. Speaker, they must be preparing speeches or looking for things to criticize.
As to the personal capital gains exemption, Mr. Speaker, it will indeed make it possible for us-and this is something the Liberals have never understood-to make the grade from a nation of savers to a nation of entrepreneurs.
Well, here is one coming in, not too bad.
It will give us an incentive to become more prosperous ... Everything is just fine, Mr. Speaker. I like to have somebody in front of me when I speak.


Mrs. Mailly:: We were getting bored, there was nobody.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Try to say something intelligent!


Pierre H. Vincent: I always speak intelligently. That is the difference! We were getting bored, Jean-Robert!


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


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, we believe that these new tax rules to encourage people to take risks and make productive investments are important. These things have not been emphasized, the Opposition has failed to understand them.
This Bill will help the Government strengthen the economy and improve investment prospects. As we all know, the more people will invest, the easier it will be to get financial backing at reasonable rates. The new tax rules will promote the investment of pension funds in the shares of small- and mediumsized businesses. These are good measures for all Canadians. First they will convince people that they should invest in small businesses, and then small businesses will grow more rapidly. Of course, the Opposition does not see it that way, and I am sure they will find arguments to say it is not good.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, more efforts will be made in research and development as a result of the new provisions concerning the capital gains tax, the elimination of restrictions in the definition of research and development eligible for tax incentives, and the higher ceiling on research and development tax credit. They have not said a word about, they did not even mention it.
A well designed corporate tax structure which reduces market imbalance to a minimum while appropriately rewarding risk takers contributes significantly to encourage private initiative. Mr. Speaker, reference has just been made to the minimum tax on individuals as compared with corporate taxes. Companies pay their taxes. All existing measures concerning corporations were not introduced by the Government that came into office on September 4. They were introduced by them, and now they complain that there are taxes to be collected. A tax system cannot be revamped overnight, but we did improve it a lot over the past year.
Time Allocation
Mr. Speaker, the Government must be able to keep up the good work by adopting as soon as possible the measures contained in Bill C-84.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that those measures have already been the subject of four days of second reading debates, not to mention the fact that they had been discussed at length during the Budget debate last May and June. Under these circumstances, I should think that time has come to refer the Bill to committee so we might get an early start on the clause by clause study. This way, Mr. Speaker, Canadians will soon get to know the final wording of those important tax measures for which they are impatiently waiting.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I went to the Ville-Saint-Laurent Board of Trade to meet tax experts who told me: Introduce a budget, but adopt tax laws within a normal period. Do not do as the former Government who used to wait two years or two and a half years. And that is again the purpose of this motion. But the people in the field, those the Opposition ignore, want to know what are the tax measures. All of them want to see a final text and want to see it implemented. That is what they want. They do no want to wait an additional six months. One must be aware of reality. One must realize that there are people waiting for these tax measures.
To conclude, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize a number of measures which demonstrate our Government's will to establish an equitable and well balanced tax system for Canadians.

This Bill contains measures to address our concerns for tax fairness. Through this Bill we have moved to prevent the use of income splitting to gain tax advantage. We believe fairness demands that the tax law be amended to correct this fault and stop those who have the resources to hire tax advisers from unduly abusing the system.
I listened to the whole debate on Bill C-84. I have not heard a single Member of the Opposition deal with it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Because you are never here!


Pierre H. Vincent: I beg your pardon! I was here every time the House dealt with Bill C-84.


Claudy Mailly: That is absolutely true. I can bear witness to that.


Pierre H. Vincent: Four days ... I am not to blame if the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was absent. I have just told you so. During these four days, you had nothing to say, you only referred to capital gains.
Did you deal with the trusts' income splitting-[DOT]

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are imposing a time allocation. Give us some time and we will deal with it.


Pierre H. Vincent: -which we have removed? Did you talk about that? No, nobody did. You did not talk about trust funds either.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are imposing time allocation.


Pierre H. Vincent: Is it a good measure? Naturally, it could not be a good measure-


Claudy Mailly: Because it was introduced by a Conservative Government, I suppose-


Pierre H. Vincent: Instead of coming forward with useful suggestions, you keep on saying that there is never anything good-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is never much good in this Government.


Pierre H. Vincent: You did not even find the minimum tax scheme good yesterday.

Our concern for fairness also spills over into the area of tax administration. Any gains in substantial tax fairness would be inadequate without corresponding advances in procedural fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the time allocated to me has expired. [English]


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to join with the other Members who have already spoken to add my protest to the way in which we operate in this Parliament. Despite the report of the committee which looked into changing and improving the procedures of the House, which we heard discussed in considerable detail last night, I do not think that anything which it proposed will change the very serious defect in the way in which we are operating today.
Surely the way in which the Government of Canada raises the funds it needs to provide services to the Canadian people is of the utmost importance. Surely the tax system, who pays taxes, and how much they pay ought to be discussed in great detail. We ought to allot all the time necessary for that. Instead, we have a very short period of time for discussion. The Budget was introduced in May and now, in December, we are dealing with the Budget and tax Bills under the gun. It must be done quickly and the Government has now moved to limit debate. Surely there is something fundamentally wrong with that.
I could not get up to speak without making a few comments about what I consider to be the phenomenal gall of members of the Official Opposition. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) finally brought in a proposal for a minimum tax, an idea first brought forward by the Leader of our Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), which was
endorsed in a television debate during the election campaign by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). We see defects in the proposal of the Minister of Finance. We do not think that it goes far enough and we believe that there are too many tax loopholes for individuals and corporations. That proposal was criticized by the spokesperson for the Official Opposition, the Member for Saint-FIenri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). Today we observed the spectacle of the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) listing 10 corporations, including CPR, Bell Canada and Dome Petroleum, just a few of the major corporations, which paid no real corporation tax at all because those taxes have been deferred indefinitely. The Member listed only 10 corporations. There are probably 100 corporations doing that. Instead of the $7 billion or $10 billion which she talked about, the figure is probably $30 billion or $40 billion.
How did that happen, Mr. Speaker? It did not happen just because we have had a Conservative Government for just over a year. It happened because for 25 or more years Liberal Governments brought forward Budgets and implemented provisions which permitted and encouraged corporations to do that kind of thing. Large corporations have not been paying their fair share of taxes for generations. It was Liberal Governments which permitted and encouraged that and the Conservative Government still is allowing too much of that to go on.
Our criticism of the Budget and of the tax measure is that the Government started with a completely mistaken objective in designing them. The Government believes that the reason we have unemployment and that the country is not operating at full capacity is that the deficit is too big. Well, Mr. Speaker, the deficit is not too big because we are spending too much money providing services and meeting the needs of the Canadian people. The deficit is big because the economy is not working at full capacity. The deficit is too big because we have more than 10 per cent unemployment and because our factories are working at probably only 65 or 70 per cent of capacity.
During World War II the deficit rose from less than 1 per cent of gross national expenditures in 1939 to 21 per cent in 1944. However, unemployment, which had been almost 11.5 per cent, fell to 1.5 per cent. The Government has followed the rhetoric of President Reagan and not the reality of what he does. It has been pointed out to us that the American economy has been growing and producing more jobs. President Reagan has talked about the evils of deficit financing by government. However, the Government deficit in the United States was $1 trillion when President Reagan took office and, at the end of eight years in office, that deficit will have doubled. While President Reagan talks about the need to cut the deficit, it will actually double.
What will the effect be of the kind of deficit cutting the Government has done? We will be told that we are making these criticisms because we are partisan and will not accept anything the Government proposes. I will put on the record the views of the United Church of Canada which issued an
December 5, 1985

analysis of the proposed Budget shortly after it was presented in May. The United Church said that there is no decisive action toward ending poverty in the Budget and that, in fact, the Budget will deepen poverty in Canada. It stated that changes in the federal sales tax, for example, are regressive and mean additional tax cuts to poor families.
Not only did the Budget increase the sales tax by 1 per cent, it added a host of health and related items on which sales tax must be paid which were not previously included in the sales tax. This added cost affects poor people in particular. As a result of this Budget we will add to the several million people already living in poverty.
Instead of helping the poor, the United Church of Canada says that there is an erosion of social support. Instead of action against inequality, tax breaks are of greatest benefit to high income earners and corporations. These tax breaks will amount to billions of dollars. Rather than making a commitment to full employment and direct help with job assistance for investors, it places its faith in the private sector and trickle down economics.
The Government is taking credit for the fact that unemployment has come down somewhat-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the 10 minute period has expired.


David Orlikow: One more sentence, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment is still over 10 per cent and all estimates show that in the years to come we will continue to have unemployment of more than 10 per cent. I say that that is shameful and unacceptable.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on second reading of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes. This Bill is part of our Government's plan to facilitate lasting economic renewal by improving tax fairness, controlling and reducing high deficits and stimulating private initiative. Its passage will provide the legislative authority for several changes to income tax measures outlined in last May's Budget.
Changes that will encourage private initiative will include $500,000 personal capital gains exemption, measures to encourage RRSP and labour and pension fund investment in small business, improvements to tax incentives available for research and development, and a special tax credit for investment in Cape Breton.
Changes to improve Government effectiveness include an increase of $140 in the child tax credit and increased tax assistance for the disabled and artists. I can empathize with both those areas, Mr. Speaker, and I will expand on that in a moment. Furthermore, there are clear limits on Revenue Canada's powers of search and seizure.
Changes that will help to control the deficit include modifications to personal income tax indexation, an end to the
Time Allocation
federal tax reduction and an end to the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan.
The complexities of this Bill are obvious. Therefore, I urge the House to refer Bill C-84 to a legislative committee quickly, where it may be carefully and thoroughly examined.
Today, I would like to focus on the legislative changes that will aid artists, charities, small businesses and, time permitting, to examine the special investment tax credit.
Bill C-84 includes two measures that will aid the arts sector. Visual artists will be permitted to write off costs involved in creating a work of art in the year that the expenses are incurred. At present, they must wait until the work is sold. This alteration remedies the current rule that has caused difficulties for artists in valuing their finished works of art on hand, incurred expenses and the carrying of inventories for long periods of time.
This change will allow artists to write off the costs of creating art when they are incurred rather than when the art is sold and, very important, it will defer taxes in respect of the artistic endeavour until the artist realizes proceeds from the sale of his or her art. I believe that that is a tremendous change that will be applauded by artists across the country.
The second measure will permit an individual visual artist who donates his or her own work of art to charity after 1984 to elect any amount up to the fair market value of the work, as both the artist's proceeds of disposition and the amount of the gift. The current requirement has created an obstacle to giving by artists because the income inclusion often exceeds the 20 per cent limitation on the general charitable donation deduction and the gift can consequently cost the artist a substantial amount of money. This amendment alleviates the disincentive since an elected amount which is less than the fair market value of the gift will mean a smaller income inclusion and a greater use of the charitable donation deduction. This piece of legislation includes two measures of relevance to registered charities.
The first measure will permit registered charities, in the 1985 and subsequent taxation years, to engage in non-partisan political activities that are incidental to their primary charitable purposes or activities.
The amendment recognizes that it is appropriate for a charity to use its resources, within defined limits, for incidental political activities in support of its charitable goals. These activities would include advertising, rental of facilities or mass mailings to influence public opinion toward the organization's views on matters of law or Government policy related to its charitable purposes. I emphasize that it has to be related to the charitable purposes of that organization. Furthermore, this measure does not affect the present unrestricted ability of charity to provide information and express its views in briefs to Government to effect change in laws or policies.
The second measure concerns the donation of intangible capital property, such as shares, to charity. Currently, a taxpayer who donates tangible capital property to a charity is permitted under a present rule to elect to have an amount less

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
than fair market value treated as both his or her proceeds and the amount of his or her gift. Bill C-84 will extend this special rule to donations of intangible capital property made after 1984 and will remove the requirement that the property be suitable for use by the charity directly in its activities.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated in his Budget speech, lack of access to start-up capital has been a constraint for many small and medium sized businesses. Our Government is taking strong steps to remedy this situation.
At present, farmers and small businesses can arrange financing of up to $500,000 under the small business bonds program, at interest rates that have typically been 5 to 6 percentage points less than they would otherwise have had to pay.
The small business bonds program was scheduled to expire in 1985. It has played a useful role in providing interest rate relief in cases where a business failure might otherwise have resulted. The program has been particularly important to agriculture and there is a growing awareness of its role in that sector.
Bill C-84 will extend the program for a further two years to cover debt instruments issued before the end of 1987. Bill C-84 also introduces measures which will allow taxpayers who have borrowed under this program to either refinance existing loans or obtain new loans at any time before 1988 where the borrowers are in financial difficulty.
Moreover, the present rules provide that the aggregate face value of all such bonds issued by the taxpayer and other related parties cannot exceed $500,000. The measures contained in this legislation ensure that a taxpayer in financial difficulty may issue a small business bond at any time after May 23, 1985, and before 1988 if the total principal amounts outstanding does not exceed $500,000.
The last measure 1 would like to mention briefly is the special investment tax credit. Five years ago a tax credit was introduced to encourage investment in areas of Canada suffering from high unemployment and low per-capita income. This tax credit was scheduled to expire on December 31 of this year. Bill C-84 extends the expiry date for one year to accommodate investments made on or before December 31, 1986. A further extension of the credit applies for buildings under construction on December 31, 1986. In such cases, the tax credit will be available if the property is acquired before 1988.
In conclusion, I move:
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a), the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing its consideration of the motion now before it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Would those Hon. Members who object to it please rise in their places?


Ian Deans: I object to it most strenuously. It is an abuse of the House.
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There being fewer than 25 Members rising in the House, pursuant to Standing Order (9)(4)(f*), the motion is deemed to have been adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, for a sixth time since this Government came to power, it is using its overwhelming majority in this House to gag Opposition Members. For the sixth time, Mr. Speaker! Is this the kind of democracy the Prime Minister had in mind during the election campaign? Is that the kind of civility he was also referring to during the campaign? I really wonder whether this Government has not decided, by using closure on every occasion, to prevent the Opposition from doing its work, notwithstanding the limited number of its Members.
Mr. Speaker, having Parliament gagged after just nine hours of discussion is truly a shame for democracy. Nine hours of debate on a piece of legislation that has scores of pages, hundreds of clauses.
A while ago, the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent), I believe, mentioned the fact that quite a number of items have not been considered, that the Opposition has not raised all the questions concerning some aspects of the Bill. That was to be expected, Mr. Speaker, because the debate has been going on for nine hours only, and because of the alternation of speakers from both sides of the House, it must be realized that the time needed for an honest, open and complete discussion of the Bill has not been made available, and the motion introduced by the Government House Leader is really a motion that I would brand as shameful for democracy and for the Government majority.
They are so imbued with power, they are so comfortable with their majority that they can no longer hear-I know that this is not your case, Mr. Speaker, but that of those backbenchers-they are so permeated with the power that has befallen them that they want to strangle democracy in this House by imposing closure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the "father of the Quebec deficit" should be allowed to speak on this Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member needs to listen to a parliamentary debate or needs to go to the hospital for an injection because I believe there has to be something wrong buzzing between her ears. There has to be something that does not work well.
December 5, 1985

Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will ... I think it is better to leave it at that, yes, it will be better. Because if anyone wants to discuss the Quebec financial administration at the time I was Minister of Finance, I am quite ready to take up the challenge any time, either in this House or on TV-


An Hon. Member:: Especially with her!


Raymond Garneau: Yes, especially with her.
Mr. Speaker, those back-benchers are so obsessed with their lust for controlling everything, for imposing their dictatorship over everything, that after only nine hours of debate on such a major Bill, they decide to gag this House.
1 heard some of the Members say earlier that certain aspects of the Bill had not been dealt with. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the reason why we are fighting this motion, to give those backbenchers an opportunity to explain, for instance, why the Government has decided to increase by $11 billion personal income taxes by the end of this decade. It would be important to have this provision fully discussed, and to be told why they are going to take $11 billion more from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers by the end of this decade.
I would like them to say, for instance, why they scrapped the plan through which young couples could accumulate funds in order to own their own homes eventually. In my view, it would be important for them to explain why young couples will henceforth be prevented from saving tax-free dollars for the purpose of buying their first homes. This will indeed mean an increased tax burden in the future, not to mention the negative effect it will have on home building in Canada, on jobs in the construction industry and on the quality of housing.
Mr. Speaker, had they not imposed closure, I suppose they would have explained why they chose by way of that provision in Bill C-84 and by way of changes in the family allowance scheme, why they chose to deprive Canadian families by the end of the decade of a little over $1 billion in benefits they used to receive as family allowances or child tax credits. This added together means a $1 billion loss by the end of the decade. It would be important for Progressive Conservative Members, who are so happy to sit with the majority, to explain to us why. Moreover, could we conceivably examine in only nine hours of debate all aspects of such an important Bill which contains hundreds and hundreds of clauses? Mr. Speaker, there is the whole aspect of capital gains, considering that the Government Party has been complaining for many years, and especially since the election campaign, about the extremely high deficit and what it costs Canadians in interest rates.
Well, I should like the Government to explain to us why, if it is so anxious to reduce the deficit, it has granted a capital gains tax break of up to $500,000 to the most affluent people in our society, a tax break which will result in a total revenue loss of nearly $5 billion by the end of this decade.
Yesterday, the Government announced a minimum tax scheme, and I urge all Hon. Members to read carefully the
Time Allocation
explanatory notes concerning farmers. I know that there will be temporary measures concerning farmers, but a farmer who has been told ever since the introduction of this budget that he would benefit from a capital gains tax exemption on the sale of his farm, and when we look now into the minimum tax scheme, we realize that this is a once in a life time tax break opportunity, and that if he has already used it as a great many other Canadian taxpayers have, he will have to pay an income tax of
12.5	per cent or even 25 per cent. I think that Government Members should explain that to us in the context of the capital gains tax, because an exemption is not a gift or something which happens at the time of death, because I do not see why a farmer should be penalized as a taxpayer for the rest of his life. Under this Conservative measure, he could not benefit from his investments. He would have to keep his tax break until he sold his farm to a son 25 years hence; if he has already enjoyed that tax break, he will be taxed up to 25 per cent or
12.5	per cent ... The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), is signaling that such is not the case. He should read the document again and tell me today if it is not true that a farmer who has used his capital gains tax break will be taxed just as he would have been before this new measure when he sells his property at age 65. And Progressive Conservative Members have been bragging about the enormous benefits for farmers.
We on this side of the House did, and do, agree that farmers should not be penalized with respect to capital gains on the sale of their farms. We said in the past that we thought they should have owned them for a period of ten years or so in order to be subject to that provision, but the Conservatives after having done a flip-flop are bringing in a tax: they closed the front door and opened the back door. Those Government Members, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) and others, could use their allotted time to explain why, under what rationale, and how they can claim on the one hand that they are fighting the deficit and, on the other hand, that they are giving away some $5 billion in fiscal benefits. In my view, they should do that. I think you should explain why. And the Conservatives could also explain why, when they are so anxious to fight the deficit, they grant benefits to the rich, why they give close to $9 billion in benefits to the multinational oil companies.
Perhaps we could be told about that, and clearly nine hours of debate have not been enough because nobody has referred to that. Certainly there are measures the Conservatives would want to brag about more, and we have nothing against that. But in the Opposition, we believe our duty is to point to the weaknesses in any legislation. We know very well the majority will revel in the strong points, but go ahead, discuss them, tell the Canadian taxpayers by way of this debate why you are going to increase taxes, why you are going to deindex income

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
tax tables, which will be costing taxpayers an extra $11 billion. Yes, you tell us! Tell us why you are going to add a surtax, yes, tell us, a surtax that will mean $610 million over the next two years. Tell us why you have removed the federal tax ... the federal tax reduction, which will be costing millions, that is $80 million the first year, $500 million the second year, $600 million the third year. Tell us why you will be imposing such taxes on Canadians.
You will say that it is in order to reduce the Liberals' deficit? But in the same breath you will be granting tax benefits to the rich and to the multinational oil corporations. I believe it is possible in a democratic debate to explain such flip-flops and contradictions that exist between on the one hand personal income tax increases and $1 billion cuts in family benefits, and on the other hand tax benefits that are handed out to oil multinationals and to the most affluent people. Concerning the capital gains tax, we are not the only ones suggesting that this makes no sense at all. My colleague for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) pointed out earlier in this debate, for instance, a most interesting report in the Financial Post, which gives the views expressed by tax experts.
This is not just a partisan debate whose only purpose is to hinder the Government, as these are tax experts who got together and who clearly said that, in spite of the fact that they will personally benefit from the Conservative Budget, because naturally, they will have to be consulted in view of the mess of the capital gains tax situation and they will make money, but in spite of these personal benefits, if I may quote from a Financial Post article written by Mr. Gordon Pitts about this meeting of chartered accountants:
-meaning the chartered accountants-
"They will earn hefty fees", but just the same they say, and I have to conclude, "that the proposal is ill-conceived and poorly designed."
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not the only ones to say so. Closure is a disgrace for Parliamentary democracy and for the Conservatives, and the taxpayers will eventually be the ones to pay for it.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, as other Members have mentioned in this House, this debate marks the sixth time in its brief and inglorious history that the Government has imposed closure on this House.


Mr. Boudria:: You did say inglorious.


John Edmund Parry: Inglorious is the word I used and inglorious is the word that I am prepared to justify. If my hon. friend wants to go further in his condemnation, he will have his chance later.
I was somewhat amazed to hear the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) in proposing this closure motion compare his Government's record to that of the previous Liberal maladministration, because, of course, it was precisely because this Government stated that it could and would perform better that it was elected with such a large majority. The improvements are really not worthy of the sort of trumpeting that the Minister gave to them.
Even those of us who were not in the House at the time know the record of the Liberal Government with its Budgets and how legislation sometimes never even made it to the House of Commons, how it was delayed for this and that.


Mr. Nunziata:: Go easy.


John Edmund Parry: The Hon. Member should ask me to go easy. This is a record that is worthy of further exposure and further examination.
This Government stated that it was going to do a lot better than that. We might categorize the improvement in the gesture of a well-known if not well-loved international leader as being a tiny little bit. That is all it is. For the Government to be introducing after such a short period of debate, barely into double figures in terms of hours, a measure which has such far-reaching impact-the Government says it is for the betterment, but we know, having done the calculations, that it will have far-reaching impact for the worst for the majority of Canadians-that it should have the nerve to introduce a motion of closure after barely double figures of hours of debate in this Chamber, does not reflect very well on this Government's stated commitment to consultation. First and foremost, it is in this Chamber that the consultation that the Government trumpeted so loudly should be taking place.
It is unfortunate that the Government has shown that it too is having difficulty in managing a parliamentary agenda. It is particularly unfortunate when we consider the very housekeeping nature, I would not use the word "trivial", but the fairly basic and simple nature of some of the legislation that has been put before us, that the lack of management of the parliamentary agenda should have led us to this point where we are debating closure of Bill C-84 which essentially enshrines the major Government budget measures in legislation. Just the size of Bill C-84 surely is illustrative of the importance the Government should give it in debate in this House. Just the thickness of that bill should give us an indication that it is something to be taken seriously and exposed to broad and far-reaching and, yes, let us not be afraid to use the word, lengthy public discussion in this Chamber.
When I look at the nature of some of the amendments, I have to acknowledge that they are worth while. Indeed, in my speech on the Bill I stated that if 1 was not able to say something good, I would not say anything at all. I mentioned that there were worth-while measures. We saw another one put before us yesterday. Of course, we have not had the opportunity to analyse it sufficiently. Again, it was a sign of some common sense in the tax system. The good effect of that common sense, 1 am afraid, is very much negatived by the bite
December 5, 1985

which Bill C-84 proposes to take out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians. I was surprised to hear the use of that phrase criticized by a Member of parliament quite recently in the debate on Bill C-84 because I think most ordinary Canadians know that they are ordinary Canadians. They can tell when they come to do their income tax form not only where they stand in the relative strata of income in our society-where the top 10 per cent takes 40 per cent of the income and the bottom 20 per cent takes 4 per cent-they know where they stand and where they will be standing after this Government's Budget. It is not going to be in a position of relative advantage to where they stood before that Budget.
The proposal to take away the indexing provisions from the tax bans in the present income tax system, to cut out the first 3 per cent, can best be characterized as profiteering on inflation. If there is one thing on which the previous Liberal Government could be complimented, it is that it did have the intelligence to realize in the early 1970s that inflation was supplementing or swelling Government revenues to a degree that was inordinate. Inflation was taking too much out of the pockets of individual Canadian taxpayers. The Government of the time realized that those taxes should be indexed in order that the effect of inflation on income would not lead to an excess tax burden when considering taxation in relation to disposable taxable income.
I am afraid to say that that approach is now going by the boards. The deduction of 3 per cent from the indexing provisions means that we will be in the position that we were in before 1973 of the Government making a profit on inflation. I do not think that is progressive nor is it the sort of provision that we want to see in our tax system. I for one would like to see the House spend much more time debating that sort of measure.
Yesterday we heard the Government's announcement on the alternative minimum tax. I think it would be worth while to take a few minutes to juxtapose the effect that will have on the effect of the changes in the pension deduction limits particularly on those with higher incomes. When the Registered Retirement Savings Plan and Registered Pension Plan deductions combined reach the level of $15,500 in 1990, we can anticipate that far from the cut-off point today of someone who earns an average income of $50,000, Canadians earning up to $200,000 will have the opportunity through contributing to pension plans of sheltering as big a portion of their income as those making a contribution of $1,200 or $1,500 per year for a much more modest pension. I would like to put on the record the effect that this will have on earnings that are far from modest but not by any means the highest.
Before the Budget, someone earning an income of $80,000 per year would have protected through his pension contribution that which was allowable for the deduction and would have saved $1,761 in taxes. After the Budget, by 1990 they will be able to save $4,328 in taxes. These are figures put together by the National Council on Welfare, the contribution
Time Allocation
of which we acknowledge. That represents a very considerable increase in the tax break on RRSPs and RPPs. I do not say that that is necessarily bad. I do say that there must be further discussion on this sort of measure. This is the sort of thing that is worthy of detailed consideration because that $2,500 would make up a very substantial proportion of the income of a person on welfare. In fact, under the welfare regime in the Province of Quebec, I believe that that would pay for the welfare of a single person under 30. While those amounts may seem to those of us who are fortunate to have reasonably high incomes to be modest figures, they are in fact very significant figures when related to the other social goals and objectives to which we in this Party certainly subscribe and for which the Government has expressed support, support which we do not see in practical terms.
When I rose to speak in the debate the other day, I spoke at some length on capital gains. I heard my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), quote from the report of the Financial Post, from which I too had quoted, concerning the way in which the $500,000 capital gains exemption could be used. Since I last spoke, other examples have appeared in the newspapers of the way in which these tax loopholes may be used.
We heard of the example of a research tax credit that was being converted into Brazilian cruzeiros in order that the people who were investing the money could presumably profit from the forecast fall in the value of that unfortunate country's currency. That is but one example. I am sure there will be many other examples of ways in which present tax loopholes and the newly introduced capital gains exemption can be misused. That is why I feel that Bill C-84 deserves a lot more debate than the Government is prepared to allow.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a situation where the Government with its huge majority decides to gag the Opposition. It is disquieting to note that this is not an isolated case. On the contrary, if we examine the Government record over the past year, this is the sixth time the Government resorts to Standing Order 80 to silence the Opposition and avoid a serious debate on important measures.
The first time the Government used this tactic was on Bill C-15, the Investment Canada Act. Then came Bill C-62, the employment equity legislation. As we recall, that particular Bill was badly drafted, it did not include any kind of enforcement mechanism, a Bill which was discredited by all the designated groups which were supposed to benefit from it.
After that we had Bill C-70 with its cut-backs and deindexation of family allowances: the Government chose to drop the guillotine, gag the Opposition and get the House to pass quickly that despicable Bill to which most Canadians are opposed. Then in turn came Bill C-80, the excise tax on drugs sold over the counter, the tax on all kinds of health products about which the public has again voiced strong opposition. The

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
Government also ended the debate as soon as possible by imposing closure on the House of Commons with respect to Bill C-86 which will enable the Government to re-imburse the major depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and of the Northland Bank, people having deposits in excess of $60,000 which are not covered under deposit insurance. Again the public raised hell, so the Government imposed closure to silence the Opposition.
Here we are today with Bill C-84, a rather special piece of legislation. A simple look reveals that the Bill has 234 pages, 143 clauses, then a schedule with 11 more clauses. It is almost an encyclopaedia, Mr. Speaker, a telephone directory, a Sears catalogue, a Bill thick enough to make Government backbenchers understand our position. Indeed, as we hear in the TV commercial, "there is no need for a dictionary to understand that". It is a huge Bill which will affect every facet of taxation. The Government lowers the boom, not after two or three weeks of debates, but barely after two days, even before the end of the second day of debate. Earlier today my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said after nine hours of debate, if Hon. Members want to know, I checked with the Table officials. We had discussed the principles of this bill for exactly nine hours and 45 minutes when the Government decided to put an end to the debate. I am beginning to understand why. The more I look at this bill, the more I realize that it does not involve only one principle. There are 25 principles involved, as the bill affects many provisions of many acts including, naturally, the Income Tax Act, but also the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act.
It is therefore a very complex bill, and I believe that the reason why this Government wants to ram this measure through the House of Commons is that it includes atrocious proposals, the worst one being the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption that will benefit the rich. Naturally, this proposal has been hidden in this Bill. It has been burried with some 50 others. The Bill includes 69 proposals. We have spoken about the others and I can tell you all about them. Personal exemptions are being de-indexed. This is an underhand way to collect taxes without anyone taking notice. Deductions for dependent children will be reduced. All these proposals are hidden in this Bill. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members opposite do not want to hear the truth and that is why they have imposed closure. Indeed, that is why the Government uses closure more and more.
We have a Government which uses its enormous majority to force its views on the Opposition. Instead of being content to win one vote after another in the House of Commons, the Government wants to prevent the Opposition from having reasonable discussions about its legislation.
This Bill is so far-reaching that there can be no justification for cutting off debate after only nine hours and 25 minutes. It is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker.
A Canadian Press article had this to say:
It is a real disgrace. The Government is steamrolling the Bill.
[ Translation]
This means that the Government is ramming the Bill through the House of Commons. It is exactly what is happening.


An Hon. Member:: Using the steamroller.


Jacques Guilbault: Exactly, using the steamroller. You can correct me if you want, but what I am trying to do is to stop you from using your majority abusively. You will be held accountable not only for the way the country is being managed, but also for how the way you are dealing with the democratic rights of the voters we represent in this House.
I do not have much more to say. I think that I have made my point. It is a national shame that this bill is being rushed through the House of Commons. This is the thickest Bill, both literally and figuratively, that we have had in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to witness that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my serious concern about the use of time allocation with respect to the measure which is before us. Last night those of us who stayed in this place quite late in the evening had a moving experience in talking about parliamentary reform. We had hoped that, perhaps, we could work together in a more positive way in the House to benefit all Canadians. Again, today, we have not only time allocation imposed but the fact that the debate will take up the lunch hour is symbolic.
I wish to concentrate my remarks pertaining to Bill C-84 on the social aspects of it. I wish to deal with the effects the Bill will have on child and family benefits. The Bill which reflects the Conservative Budget is really the beginning of a process of erosion with respect to family benefits generally. I wish to illustrate this point with several examples. It is not just I and my Party who say that this measure is a serious erosion of family benefits, it is all the social policy groups in Canada which have appeared both before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and the legislative committee to which Bill C-70 was referred. There was not one witness who appeared before either committee who agreed with the measures being taken by the Government.
The combined package of tax changes which will affect the child tax credit, the child tax exemption and the family allowance is definitely an attack on families and children. In
December 5, 1985

particular, it is an attack on women. I have said this before in relation to the family allowance issue. I say it now in relation to the changes and supposed reforms which are now before us. In my view they are not at all reforms to tax measures in a positive sense but something which will really hurt families.
I would like to remind Hon. Members that we are talking about not just average families who have to pay the costs of raising children and who have many more expenses and responsibilities than taxpayers who have no children at all, but we are talking about families which have several children and who are hurt several times over by the tax changes which will reduce benefits for families with children.
I would like to remind Members of the House about the very high incidence of poor families in Canada. The number is not decreasing in my Province of British Columbia. In fact, it is increasing. It increased 400 per cent over the last four years in British Columbia. There are over 4.4 million poor still in Canada and there are 1.5 million poor children. We hear these figures but I hope Hon. Members will take a moment really to comprehend what they mean.
We have already spoken about the family allowance which will be deindexed by 3 per cent. We will continue to protest this move. We have petitions flooding into our offices every day protesting such a cut. This is a measure which, by 1990, will take away $1 billion from the children of Canada. It will reduce the value of the family allowance, the only universal program which goes to all families. When representatives of the CLC appeared before the legislative committee they said that in 20 years' time, by the year 2005, the family allowance will actually decrease in value from $32, which it is today, to $18. That is a substantial decrease. If one thinks of the effect that this will have on families with several children, it can be seen that it is a major erosion in terms of the universal family program.
Of course, with regard to the Bill which is before us we are referring to tax measures. In this respect let us consider the child tax credit. We will agree, as will all the authorities, that this is a progressive tax measure. It is targeted at the low and middle income families in society. At any rate, it has been that in the past and according the Conservative Government it is really a program that is in place to help those in greatest need. The Government professes to be focusing on improving the child tax credit while it reduces other benefits to children. If we look at the measure before us more closely we will see that even the child tax credit, which will be increased next year, will be reduced in the long run. I would like to be more specific in this respect.
As I have said, the child tax credit will be increased by about $70 next year. I would like to point out that this increase will be cancelled by the sales taxes which the Budget will impose on these same families. Thus, poor families will not really have any more in their pockets. The amount of money will increase to $454 per child by the year 1987.
However, let us remember that the Conservative Government while pretending to give with the one hand is actually taking away with the other hand through the deindexation of
Time Allocation
the child tax credit. It will be reduced considerably. There will be a cap placed on the cost of living index with respect to the child tax credit by the year 1989. The eligibility requirements for the child tax credit are being seriously reduced. To qualify for the child tax credit this year a family will have to earn $26,500, which is just getting close to the average income. We would rather see that figure set at $30,000. However, the eligibility requirement is being reduced to $23,500. That might not sound like a big reduction in one year but if the deindexation is added to the level of the child tax credit the eligibility goes down year after year after year.
Let us listen to what the CLC had to say with respect to the child tax credit. It says that by the year 2005, in 20 years, the value of the child tax credit as a result of the measures in this Bill will be reduced to $326. It is projected that it will go down from $480 in 1988 to $384 by the year 2005.
Not only is the value of the child tax credit decreasing but the eligibility requirements are being drastically reduced. Families earning $13,800 will mark the eligibility level for the child tax credit in 20 years' time. That is down from $26,000. Even the poorest families will not be receiving the child tax credit by that time. This is something that is extremely serious. It is dishonest and hypocritical of the Government to say that the tax measures it is bringing in will benefit those in greatest need. It will not benefit those in greatest need. Instead, it will penalize them.
The National Council on Welfare says that by the year 1990 even the poorest families will lose $8 just in specific family benefits. And if you add all the other measures in the Budget, they will suffer even more. But that is reflective of Tory philosophy. There is no question about that. It is a philosophy which leads to finding $1 billion overnight to bail out the banks, at the same time taking $1 million away from Canada's children by 1990. It gives $9 billion to the oil companies and takes away the benefits from families. It is incredible that the Government can say that it is interested in strengthening families and in helping those in greatest need. These measures do not help families. In fact, they are very harmful to families and reflect the true philosophy of the Tories. They do not really care about people and families, particularly those people who are hardest hit.
We feel that the minimum tax is a step in the right direction, but is only a step, let us not kid ourselves. It has not erased the errors imposed on us by the Liberal Government. We feel we should reduce the marginal tax rate to the 1981 benefits. If we did this, we would have lots of money to improve family benefits, to increase employment programs and to reindex the family allowance. We would gain over $1.7 billion in revenue just this year if we went back to the 1981 marginal tax levels.
Even with the minimum tax, we will have money coming in which I believe should be used to do away with the deindexation of the child tax credit and the family allowance.

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation
I have just a short time left to mention the child tax exemption. This is a very regressive measure. We said over and over in committee that this should be done away with, but only if we increase the child tax credit to cover the average and middle income families, and only if we maintain a fully indexed family allowance. The Government has not had the guts to do much for the child tax exemption. It will reduce it gradually by 1989 to the same amount as the family allowance. It will be deindexed as well.
Here again, this is an attack on taxpayers who have children. It is causing them to contribute, whereas those families who do not have children are not contributing in the same way. It is the middle income families which are hardest hit by these measures.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 would very much like the opportunity to debate Bill C-84 but I am precluded from doing so because of the motion of closure which was moved by this Conservative Government. As a duly elected Member of this House, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a right to speak to the merits of this particular piece of legislation in order for my constituents, and others, to understand and appreciate where I stand and where the Liberal Opposition stands on this important piece of legislation. However, I am precluded from doing so because of this shameful, undemocratic motion put forward by the Conservative Government.
This is the sixth time since Parliament began a year ago that the Government has found it necessary to invoke closure, notwithstanding the fact that when that Party was on this side of the House it cried foul on the rare occasions in which the former administration invoked closure. The Conservative Government is showing contempt for every Hon. Member of this House. It is showing contempt for the democratic process and for Parliament. We have had only nine short hours of debate on a piece of legislation which implements the major budget measures which were introduced last May.
One could ask why this Government has decided to invoke closure after only nine hours of debate. Why is this Government so hypocritical when it comes to the issues of closure? I think the answer is obvious, and I am sure you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the Government is doing so because it is embarrassed. It is because it cannot stand the heat of the criticism arising out of its Budget of last May. Hon. Members of the Conservative Party cannot stand up in this House and defend this Bill, so what did they do? They decided to cut off debate and preclude Hon. Members of this House from speaking to the merits of this particular piece of legislation.
When I say that my privileges are being breached, I am speaking for all other Hon. Members of this House who want to speak to this piece of legislation but who cannot, and it is a shameful situation. It shows the arrogance of this Government and the hypocrisy.
The people of Canada spoke on September 4 of last year. They clearly wanted a change and they got that change. They
elected 211 Conservative Members of Parliament. But they also elected 70 opposition Members and one independent. The people of Canada did not elect a dictatorship, nor did they expect that a dictatorship would result. By invoking closure on this occasion, and on the five other occasions, the Government is leading Canadians to conclude that this Conservative Government would like to rule Canada as a dictatorship. The Opposition Party is essential. It is a check and balance that this Government, or any other Government, does not run rough-shod over the people of Canada. Why is this Government stifling debate on this particular piece of legislation? Why has it done so on five previous occasions, which I indicated is unparliamentary and undemocratic? It is the basis of a parliamentary system that the Opposition be heard but, more importantly, that it be given an opportunity to debate in this House items of concern to Canadians. What has happened is that closure is becoming the rule rather than the exception to the rule. All Hon. Members recognize that closure is a tool which may be necessary in certain circumstances. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that those circumstances are extreme circumstances when, for whatever reason, a piece of legislation must be passed and passed expeditiously. Closure is not meant, and was never meant, to be a tool used by Government to stifle healthy, constructive debate in this House. But that is precisely what the Government is doing with this piece of legislation.
This Parliament and our democracy can only work with a healthy and vigorous Opposition. Had it not been for the Opposition, the Government would not have backed down on issues like the deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. It was because of the work done by the Opposition in this House and in mobilizing public support for the position taken by the Opposition, that the Government eventually backed down. We had a healthy debate, a good debate, on the issue of deindexation of senior citizens' pensions. The Government realized that it had erred and it backed down.
All we are asking for now is the opportunity for Members on this side of the House to speak on Bill C-84. However, we cannot do that because the Government is using its overwhelming majority to cut off debate. It would not take long to give every Member of the House an opportunity to speak for 10 or 20 minutes on Bill C-84. In that way the Government could avoid being criticized for bringing in closure. However, the Government has decided to drop the guillotine on the Opposition members.
What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Government is thinking of proroguing Parliament. It is obvious that the reason the Government is thinking of doing that is that it is without direction. It does not know where it is going. It realizes that its legislative agenda is stale. Yet, it wants to prorogue Parliament and give its Members a two-month vacation, but it refuses to allow members of the Opposition an opportunity to debate important pieces of legislation.
December 5, 1985

There is also a suggestion that the Conservative Government wants to extend the Christmas break by two weeks. I call that shameful. We could be here debating important pieces of legislation. I invite the Government, rather than extending the Christmas break, to restrict it in order to give members of the Opposition an opportunity to debate this piece of legislation. I want the opportunity to articulate the reasons why-you are about to cut me off, Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that I have one minute left in this very important debate. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you would be an accessory to this shameful act if you cut me off. I do not intend to sit down of my own accord. You are going to have to cut me off when my time expires on this particular motion. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are being an accessory to this unparliamentary action by the Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite wishes to rise on a point of order. She, too, is now trying to stifle debate-


Mr. Blenkarn:: You know better than that. Act like a Member of Parliament.


John V. Nunziata: -on this particular piece of legislation. I want to be able, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am amazed that this Government having such a strong majority should use a rule it so often disparaged in the past. I will always remember those thundering speeches, the unbelievable crises Parliament went through in the past when those Government Members were sitting on this side, in Opposition.
The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made blazing speeches against a Government which, after weeks of debates, would decide exceptionally to make use of this Standing Order, and I repeat, after weeks of debates, hours and days and days on end, on subjects much less important than the one now before us.
But this Government has decided it had a program of action, and I see my good friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who is smiling. He is saying to himself: I will wear them down once more. And since they are good Opposition fighters, I will impose closure. Closure after closure after closure, five times within-


An Hon. Member:: Six, six.


Marcel Prud'homme: -and this is now the sixth time. Five times before, and once again against such important pieces of legislation, where a small handfull of survivors if 1 may say so from that great landslide led by those Conservatives who had
Time Allocation
promised: "We will do better. The Liberals abused the rules, we will not do that." Well, Mr. Speaker, they are now abusing them, and it is regrettable that this House should be reduced to using such important rules, such-


Mr. McDermid:: Order.


Marcel Prud'homme: You are not the Speaker, by the way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am the Speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, and I respect you, but I do not like to be called to order by another Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is always with regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).
It being 1.04 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 84 have now expired.
Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.

Mr. Hnatyshyn (for the Minister of Finance), seconded by Mr. Jelinek, moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Financial Administration Act and the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

December 5, 1985
Time Allocation


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
It being past one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.34 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
IMPACT OF ELECTION OF NUMEROUS WOMEN MPPs IN QUEBEC
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize the presense since Monday in the Quebec National Assembly of a large number of women. As a matter of fact, 18 women have been elected.


An Hon. Member:: -as Liberals!


Lucie Pépin: No, 18 women altogether. Of course, we are still very far from equal representation, but this represents an increase which I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, the more so because it has been announced that a woman would act as Deputy Premier. I therefore congratulate the new Quebec Government.


An Hon. Member:: A Liberal Government!


Lucie Pépin: 1 want to emphasize also that beyond the mere number of women, what is important is the willingness to support women related issues. In this connection, we should deplore the defeat of several candidates who had vigorously and constantly worked for the advancement of women related issues: Employment equality, day-care centers, and half-way houses.
Women's group deplore the absence of Mrs. Pauline Marois and Francine Lalonde.
Concerning the project to include women in pension schemes, I should like to remind the people involved in federal-provincial discussions that women will not accept demagogic statements which are sometimes easy to issue.
In this context as in many others, it is not enough to come up with half-measures or empty bills which settle nothing, such as Bill C-62. Women are no fools . .. Consider yourself told once and for all! And again, I say bravo! to all the women who have been elected.
December 5, 1985


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker,
1 should like to call the attention of the House on the uncertainty which exists among working men and women at the CN workshops in Moncton, New Brunswick. These employees are aware that CN is currently reviewing its maintenance services and they fear that final recommendation to the Federal Government will be to close the Moncton workshops. The result would be a direct loss of 1,200 jobs. Already, Mr. Speaker, the CN has announced that it was laying off 225 workers.
On October 9, in reply to a question of mine, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated that the lay-offs in Moncton were the result of reduced railway traffic and wished that these lay-offs were only temporary. How does the Minister explain the fact that 140 of these employees have been notified that their dismissal is permanent?
So far, the Government has neither taken a firm stand nor assured the workers that it would preserve these jobs in Moncton.
Although these employees are disappointed and very concerned, it is with determination that they intend to continue to fight for the Government to preserve these jobs.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is in dire straits, to say the least. Because of the huge deficit inherited by the Government, government assistance has been minimized and this could close down or eliminate much of the shipbuilding industry in Canada.
How can our industry compete with other countries which give their shipbuilding industries massive subsidies, including concessionary financing and selling below cost? It is totally unrealistic to expect the Canadian shipbuilding industry to compete with predatory prices from abroad. There is no free market in shipbuilding in the world today.
A moratorium on foreign-built ships and offshore platforms and rigs being brought into Canadian registry is imperative for the survival of the shipbuilding industry.
Governments after Governments have urged Canadians to buy Canadian. This must apply as well to the Government to buy Canadian ships made by Canadian taxpayers.
[DOT] (M05)
The two large ferries that the federal Government is now considering for CN Marine must be made in Canada. This
would provide 10,000 man-years of work and millions of dollars in tax revenue for the Government.
I strongly urge the Government to bring forth positive solutions for this important industry as soon as possible. Tomorrow may be too late.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1982 the National Film Board produced a so-called documentary on the military service of Canadian war hero, Billy Bishop, V.C. Director Paul Cowan has used Billy Bishop as a tool to reflect his own views on war and the making of war heroes. A committee of the other place has examined the movie, and the script which has attempted to destroy the reputation and record of a great Canadian hero. It is a scandalous, misleading, and spurious twisting of fact.
For almost seven decades Canadians have known Billy Bishop as a hero of unqualified and unequalled calibre. Mr. Cowan has blatantly attempted to tarnish the war record of our hero through unsubstantiated comments by people who surfaced decades after the facts had been well documented.
The National Film Board has qualified its support for the film which was released as a documentary. This documentary should be withdrawn immediately and without reservation by the Government. Canadians did not make Billy Bishop a hero, as the film suggests. Canadians did not glorify a man who did not deserve recognition for his service to his country. The film documents Billy Bishop as a man who methodically tried to manufacture his own record. This is a slap in the face to Billy Bishop, and a slap in the face to every veteran who knew him. It is a slap in the face to his dedication to our nation's war efforts overseas.
The film The Kid Who Couldn't Miss is a travesty. More than 35 factual and historical errors have been isolated in this so-called documentary. The film-


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


PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, not content with flying in two jets, using a presidential podium, and flashing red lights in the grill of his limousine, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is now trying to control information by way of centralized public opinion polls.
The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes) has reportedly given this measure his personal blessing already. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will now have the Big Brother himself in

December 5, 1985
control of all information. Is it not a strange coincidence that the Tory pollster, Decima Research, will likely get the untendered lucrative contract for doing this? The information gathered could then be shared by the Government and the Tory Party.
There is another country in which Government and Party are synonymous. Although I will not name the country I will offer a name for this new agency. Let us call it "Pravda Canada". Polls will now run Canada, not the Prime Minister and not this Government, but public opinionpolls, of course by "Pravda Canada".


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from a constituent of mine in Aspen Park, British Columbia. It reads in part as follows:
I am a single parent with 3 children-I have been the sole supporter of these children for 8'/2 years.
I get $870.00 per month from Human Resources, plus the family allowance.
I pay $465 per month for rent, which is more than I can afford on Welfare.
My point in all this-is that I think it would really do us in if I lost the family allowance. We would not have enough money for groceries if that happened.
I would like Mr. Mulroney ... and many others in their financial category to try to live on less than $1,000 per month and look after 4 people on that amount like I am doing. I would be willing to bet they couldn't make it.
This is a reality faced by thousands of families today. It is why the Government should rescind the deindexation of the family allowance. I cannot think of a better time to announce such a decision than 20 days before Christmas.


FISCAL MEASURES
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the important tax measure announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the form of a minimum tax for individuals earning over $50,000. The House will recall that in 1983, 7,036 Canadian taxpayers who had incomes of over $50,000 managed to pay not a cent of income tax, thanks to all kinds of tax deductions.
Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of inequity and injustice Canadians were condemning. They asked for amendments to the Income Tax Act to close this loophole.
Mr. Speaker, this is now being done, and let me tell you I consulted with Canadians whose incomes were over $50,000. "We agree with the principle", they said, "and it is entirely
fair and normal that Canadians should pay a minimum tax . .." Those were their own words.
Our Government is on the right track with this measure, which is the kind of change Canadians have been asking us to implement. It was unacceptable that the rich could avoid paying income tax, and I want to remind Canadians that it was the Government opposite, the previous Government, that made this possible. We have put a stop to that now, and our new tax measure which is more equitable, will involve a minimum tax of between 24 and 27 per cent and collect $300 million for the federal treasury.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a matter that is of considerable concern to the footwear industry in my riding of Quebec East. I have complete faith in the Minister's decision on import quotas in the footwear industry.
However, doubts persist in the manufacturing sector. After consulting with the GRENICO and FLEET firms, 1 can inform the House I was pleased to be able to examine the issues and work together with these two businesses and their directors. 1 am convinced that under the new rules, both business and industry will experience new growth.
That is why 1 intend to follow developments in this area in co-operation with senior management, which will let me know about any signs of dumping in our area. I will also table a monthly report here in the House, under S.O. 22, to inform the House of progress being made under the new rules.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that our footwear manufacturers can prosper in a climate of healthy competition. However, we have a duty to protect the security and success of this important industry in my riding.


THE SENATE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Christmastime is fast approaching. No one understands what this means more than the many Conservatives who are surely dreaming of a trip to pork-barrel heaven, the red Chamber. Imagine waking up on Christmas morning, the phone rings, and that unmistakable deep voice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says: "Good morning, Senator".
December 5, 1985

It is kind of like early retirement. After all, in November Senators sat for only six days, amounting to a total of 10 hours and 50 minutes. Combined with October's legislative sittings, a mere 21 hours were spent in debate during the last two months.
Among the heavy pondering of the Senators was whether or not Senators, and 1 quote the Deputy Government Leader of the Senate: "Can safely take the extra week without running afoul of public opinion". They were, of course, referring to the Remembrance Day recess. In fact the Senators could not even remember whether or not they had adjourned for one or two weeks in the past.
The cost of those 21 hours spent in the other place amounted to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I think the Hon. Member knows that he is verging on something which is in fact, by our traditions, out of order in terms of commenting on the other place.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is tough. That is the message we want Canadians to understand about the new drinking and driving laws which came into effect yesterday, December 4. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) visits cities across the country over the next 10 days to publicize these new laws, let all Canadians be aware of the new, tough penalties for impaired driving; fines up to $300 for a first offence and a minimum of three months' suspension from driving, mandatory jail terms and much longer suspensions for second offences.
This legislation has had unprecedented public support from community groups such as MADD and PRIDE who have led the way, police, doctors, and even the distillers themselves. Only with tough penalties can we hope to reduce dramatically the tragedy and high costs of the loss of human life and suffering now caused by individuals who drink and drive.
Yes, as we approach the Christmas season, Canadians have much to rejoice about, but if you have had a drink to celebrate, stop. Before you go to your car, think. Do you want to face the costs of the fine, the increased insurance rates, the fallout of having your licence suspended and a possible jail term? Act, as this Government has done; please, don't drink and drive.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, although Uganda is being torn apart by civil war, a Canadian couple, Jerry and Sarah Kambites, continue to
Oral Questions
operate a medical clinic and school on Bukasa Island in Lake Victoria.
Over the past two years Dr. Jerry Kambites has had some 25,000 patient visits in a small 12 foot by 14 foot clinic. He has immunized 2,000 children, and made 200 emergency trips across the lake in a 16-foot open boat with a 20 horsepower motor. Sarah Kambites helps to teach 210 students in a school building built by hand with lumber from local trees.
Canadians can be proud of people like Jerry and Sarah Kambites, but we cannot be proud of our record of support for them. They went to Uganda sponsored by Westmount Rotary under a matching CIDA grant. When Rotary asked that a Rotarian be named to the projects board, Kambites pointed out that this was not possible since their constitution called for a locally elected board and, obviously, there were no local Rotarians. The Minister of State for Mines at the time was the Rotary Club's contact person. When the request was refused, he threatened to cut off funding. In effect this is what has happened.
Both CIDA and Rotary International have an obligation to the Kambites and to the people of Bukasa Island. I call on them to get together to make sure that adequate funding gets through to the Kambites' project.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, it looks like the entire Cabinet was invited to Chicago to have a good time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: They are out looking for John Turner.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will address my question to the one Minister who obviously did not receive an invitation.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is Turner?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the team is here. I would like to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister who obviously did not receive an invitation.
The statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister reiterated for the hundredth time that the Government intends to protect cultural sovereignty during negotiations. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think it is time the Government spelled out what it means by "protecting cultural sovereignty"?

December 5, 1985
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What do you think it means?


Lloyd Axworthy: Could he tell us today whether the Government believes that it is essential that the present rules, regulations, and laws which protect Canadian content in broadcasting, Canadian ownership in publishing, and the advertising in Canadian magazines, are essential to the protection of Canadian cultural sovereignty?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman himself has admitted that nothing has been so clearly spelled out and so often and concisely put by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the House than that which was indicated by the Prime Minister in Chicago. If the Hon. Member cannot understand that after hearing it a hundred times, I am afraid I cannot help him.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is dissembling. He knows full well that protection of Canadian cultural sovereignty means nothing unless we are prepared to specify that during those negotiations the Government will in no way change the rules and laws affecting our broadcasting industry, our publishing industry, and our magazine industry. We would like to have assurance that the negotiations will not change those particular rules and laws. Can we have that assurance right now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's speech in Chicago should have set that kind of fear to rest once and for all. The cultural sovereignty of the country and its languages will not be bargained away. The Prime Minister said that, if there is any danger of that, there is no deal.


MINISTERS' STATEMENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that there is continuing confusion in the country, but we now have confusion in the Cabinet itself.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: It is only in your mind.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yesterday in the Senate, in response to a Liberal proposal that cultural industries be excluded from the agenda, the Senate House Leader agreed and said that he supports that. Are we to believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Communications, or the Senate House Leader whose position contradicts what the Secretary of State has already said? When will this confusion be cleared up?


Erik Nielsen: The only confusion, Sir, exists in the mind of the Hon. Member. The position has been stated and restated ad nauseam from this side. If the hon. gentleman cannot understand it yet, I cannot help him.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and is with regard to his statements yesterday about the Canada-U.S. defence agreements that were deleted from the list given to the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
We now know that the Minister's claims of national security were, at best, convenient excuses for his usual secretiveness, because the complete list was made public to members of the committee in 1980. Will the Minister explain why agreements that were made public in 1980 suddenly become secret in 1985?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Could you repeat the preamble?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a ridiculous tempest in a teapot that they are trying to exploit over there. The Hon. Member, and some of the media reports that I have read, fail to make that distinction between a list of the names of the documents and the documents themselves.
He is right when he says that the list of the names of those documents was released in 1980. I am surprised that that did not occur to him yesterday.
However, there is a distinction to be made between that and the documents. The documents that could be released were sent to the chairman of the committee, I believe. If there are other documents that the Hon. Member or members of the committee want to see that will be helpful and are within the power of the Government to release, we would be delighted to make that information available.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the Minister's answers is that he does not trust the members of the committee. He does not even trust his own Tory members in the committee with the information that is either politically embarrassing or, indeed, affects national security. Will he simply tell us why he does not trust his own colleagues in the Tory Party?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I trust all Hon. Members in this House and those who sit on the committee particularly. Indeed, I trust them to the point where I offered yesterday to consider in camera briefings of the committee if that was its desire. I do not know how much more open we are expected to be.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 5, 1985


Erik Nielsen: We are a very open Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I do not know why the hon. gentleman does not take me up on that offer. In any event, I will be before the committee next week; he can ask questions to his heart's desire and I will answer them all fully and completely, as is my custom.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the Hon. Solicitor General, concerns the subject of the Young Offenders Act. Much has been said about the shortcomings of the Young Offenders Act in dealing with what are often exceptional cases.
Will the Solicitor General tell the House, based on the findings from his consultations to date, whether it appears that the general approach taken in this legislation is effectively addressing the needs of young offenders, their families, and the criminal justice system, as was anticipated, notwithstanding the criticisms of law enforcement agencies across the country who have experienced a great deal of frustration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is long enough.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: -with certain aspects of the new Act?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the philosophy that underlay the Act as passed by Parliament was a good and sound philosophy. It is clear that there are some problems with administration.
Consequently, the Government has embarked on a process of negotiations which will culminate in meetings with our provincial counterparts and subsequent legislation being presented to Parliament. Our goal is to ensure that the Act will work in the way in which it was intended by Parliament.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the President of the Treasury Board would be here today, but he is not. I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister or whomever is filling in for the President of the Treasury Board.
We have been trying to obtain some crucial information pertinent to the giveaway of the de Havilland Corporation to Boeing. Yesterday we on this side of the House tried to get four or five documents and were turned down. There has been a study produced for the Privatization Secretariat that con-
Oral Questions
sidered a number of options about the future of de Havilland-whether to keep it as a Crown corporation or to sell it off. There was a cost benefit analysis of both. Will the Government produce this study so that Hon. Members on all sides of the House can have a look at it and the people of Canada can understand in real terms what the options were?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. gentleman's question as a representation, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated, as has the President of the Treasury Board, that all pertinent information will be available through the appropriate machinery of the House at the appropriate time.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF DEAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Government having made its announcement, we think the appropriate time is now, not after the deal. Considering that the Deputy Prime Minister has used the phrase "at the appropriate time", as did the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister in the past, will he give us clear assurances today that before the deal is consummated that information will be made available to the House and to a committee of the House, so that we can have a solid assessment of what is involved before the Government signs?


Erik Nielsen: We have a solid assessment now, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: We don't.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party says that he doesn't.


Ian Deans: I said "we".


Erik Nielsen: He is not in Government. Government has decisions to make, and this decision has been made on the proper assessment.


Ian Deans: What about Parliament, Erik?


Erik Nielsen: The machinery exists for this kind of information to be examined. He knows that. He has been here long enough to know that those normal channels exist.


Ian Deans: Don't you believe in Parliament any more?


Erik Nielsen: However, in genral response to the Hon. Member's question, I might quote from the Winnipeg Free Press in which it is editorialized that "it will be a hell of a deal for Canadians, who will have in place a company which is employing Canadian workers, selling Canadian product all over the world and paying taxes to a Canadian Government".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 5, 1985
Oral Questions INFORMATION INQUIRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister is quoting editorials, newspapers in Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Montreal have all said that Parliament ought to have this information. Will he provide it before the deal is made?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I only repeat the answers that I made before. He knows full well that there is machinery in the parliamentary process for this kind of information to be made available, and it will be in the usual way that has been the time honoured practice of the House-


John Edward Broadbent: But you promised a change over there.


Erik Nielsen: -as long as I have been here, which is somewhat longer than the hon. gentleman.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to the Acting Minister. Published reports today indicate that Agriculture Canada has approved for sale to Canadians buffalo meat from animals infected with tuberculosis. One official in the Department of Agriculture says that there could be a risk to humans in eating this meat. Why has the Government allowed this meat, infected with tuberculosis, to be sold to Canadians, when its own inspectors are questioning its safety for human consumption?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, what I understand from my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture-and he is unable to attend in the House because of other commitments-


An Hon. Member:: Surf 'n turf.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -is that all regulations were followed-


John V. Nunziata: That is what they said about the tuna.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -that pertain to the case. Also, the full letter of the law has been followed. If there is further information in this regard, the Minister of agriculture would be pleased to provide it.


UNSAFE FOR EXPORT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The buffalo meat was shipped to Edmonton after being processed in Toronto and was marked as unsafe
for export purposes. Could the Minister explain why meat which is not safe to be sold for people to eat in other countries, is acceptable and has been approved for human consumption in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Minister of Agriculture will be willing to provide that information.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pass the buffalo.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would say to the Hon. Member that it would be best for him to convey or to ask those questions at that time.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Deputy Prime Minister. With respect to the sell-out of de Havilland, will the Deputy Prime Minister specifically undertake to table with this House now, before that deal is consummated, the studies about privatization of de Havilland in order that this House can be able to judge the wisdom of that decision before the deal has been put through by the Government without parliamentary accountability?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question three times now. The President of the Treasury Board has answered that question. The Prime Minister has answered that question. If there is any further doubt about the judgment call that was made, I might quote again the Winnipeg Free Press which states that "Lloyd Axworthy should be down on his knees on behalf of Canadian taxpayers thanking the Government for removing this millstone from around their necks."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister not aware that Paul Marshall, the head of the CDIC, said over television this week that if he had told Bob White in advance about the deal that Bob White would have screamed like a banshee and screwed the deal? Is he saying that if Parliament was told in advance that Parliament would scream like a banshee on behalf of the people of Canada, and screw the deal?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think that the reference to a banshee is a self-definition of the questioner. There was not a
December 5, 1985

question there. I repeat to him that the information that is customarily placed before Parliament and its committees-


Ian Deans: What are you hiding?


Erik Nielsen: I am not hiding a thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. House officers at least should know not to yell back and forth across the floor.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns expenditures of taxpayers' funds by his predecessor who has since become the Minister of State for Transport, no doubt because of her great travel experience. In view of the fact that it has now been proven from official Government documents that the "April in Paris" trip had no reason to proceed and had been cancelled a long time before the Minister left, has the Minister yet asked his predecessor to reimburse the taxpayers of Canada for the total cost of the trip? If not, when does he intend to do so?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in international travel since of late he has become such an authority on the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: There is no new information in the public domain. We have always conceded that part of the Minister's travels were for tourism purposes, some very small part, for which she paid all the expenses herself.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, those comments certainly do not coincide with what the Minister had to say about his predecessor in his householder mailing.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RESIGNATION OF FORMER ENVIRONMENT MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplemenatry for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In view of what Canadians now know, why does the Prime Minister not demand the immediate resignation of the former Minister of Environment?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is obviously not in the House today. The Hon. Member should know that it is his, and his prerogative only to respond to questions
Oral Questions
like that. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to do so on his behalf.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will know that a herd of 56 buffalo were quarantined after one died with TB. Eleven had positive tests for TB and six of those 11 were found to have lesions on their internal organs. Will the Minister confirm that the meat from this TB-infected herd was put on the market and sold to Canadians before Agriculture Canada had a chance to do the tests on the internal organs and verity that this meat was not in fact contaminated?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. Again, as has been stated in this House many times, the Department of Agriculture, as have other Departments such as Fisheries, has full responsibility for inspection. That question in terms of the inspection process would have to be directed to the appropriate Minister.


MINISTERIAL DISCRETION INQUIRY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Government of Canada has an absolute responsibility to guarantee that the food which goes on the table of Canadians is wholesome and pure. Will the Minister acknowledge at this point that the Minister of Agriculture was apprised of this situation and had a chance to exercise ministerial discretion on allowing that material to proceed to market? Can he confirm that for this House?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again in terms of the wholesomness of food on Canadian tables and the safety, that is a mandate the Government is absolutely fulfilling. As well, if the Hon. Member takes a look at the record of Agriculture Canada, in fact since 1907 that record is very clearly established and it is a very good record. People in the industry know that. On the specifics as to action, the answer that 1 gave to previous questions applies.

December 5, 1985
Oral Questions


CORPORATIONS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The dealings of the Gulf and Ultramar owners look so suspicious that today seven Liberal Members of Parliament from eastern Montreal requested an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, and a letter has been sent to the Minister in this regard.
Is the Minister willing to follow up on this request and will he use all his powers as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to prevent this merger?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker I can say that this issue has been the subject of concern on this side of the House also and that the Government certainly did not wait for the Opposition Members to put pressure on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to take action. We have had consultations, and these concerns have also been raised on this side of the House by our own colleagues, especially the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier.
Naturally, the Hon. Member knows that it is the responsibility of the Director of Combines Investigations to take action as soon as he believes that there might be an infraction to the Act. As a precautionary measure, I asked the Director this morning for a report on this transaction.
If his conclusions and recommendations justify it, I shall consider it my duty to inquire further and to ensure that this matter is investigated.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S INTERVENTION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister may not realize that, under Section 7 of the Act, six people can request an investigation. Moreover, we do not want a simple check, but a formal investigation by the Director of Combines Investigations. This request has been presented in due form, and we hope that the Minister will act on it.
I would like to know whether the Minister realizes that the closing of this refinery jeopardizes hundreds of independent gasoline distributors in the Montreal region. Will the Minister use his powers under the Investment Canada Act to stop this transaction?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that we shall act as conscientiously as usual.


INCOME TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Finance introduced his minimum tax proposal. He indicated that in the calculation of their tax payable, upper-income earners would get a $40,000 automatic deduction. In the interest of fairness and equity, and recognizing that all Canadians must pay their fair share of tax as well as a minimum tax, will the Minister explain why he decided to give upper-income earners this special deduction?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in designing this tax I looked very closely at the proposal that was put forward by the New Democratic Party as one of the elements that we analysed. If the Hon. Member would think carefully, he would understand that under their proposal, which said that anybody earning over $50,000 would be taxed 20 per cent on total income, he would see that that means that someone who is not paying any tax who earns $49,999 would pay no tax. A person earning $50,000 would pay $10,000 worth of tax on that additional $1 worth of income. I do not think that is fair, and I am sure the Hon. Member does not either.


CARRY FORWARD OF TAX DEDUCTION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is playing a bit of a shell game. Our proposal was anything but what he has indicated. We felt that everyone should pay their fair share no matter what their level of income.
Would the Minister explain why he has included a carry forward provision in his proposal when he knows that even Ronald Reagan felt that it was inappropriate for the American minimum tax proposal? Why does the Minister allow people to roll ahead their tax deductions up to seven years if they cannot use them in one year now that there is a minimum tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on July 29, 1984, the NDP Leader called for a 20 per cent minimum tax on the incomes of those Canadians earning over $50,000. That is the proposal to which I was referring, and I think the Hon. Member should consider that proposal carefully when he reflects on his first question.
The reason for the carry forward is quite clear. There are a number of very valid social and economic objectives that are encouraged through the Income Tax Act. We do not feel that this minimum tax should be used to discourage that type of activity in the social and economic policy sphere. It is for that reason that we have allowed for a carry forward so that those incentives are not lost forever by those who will be asked to pay a minimum tax.


CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that your Government has decided to close down the Gulf refinery in the east end of Montreal, to create 450 unemployed and contribute to the shutting down of the BASF Company in Laval, can the Minister tell us on what date he will announce the closing down of the Petromont and the Union Carbide plants in the east end of Montreal?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state first that in his preamble the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is once again trying to mislead us. The Gulf case is a matter involving two corporations. The Government of Canada is not and will not be closing down the Gulf refinery.
Mr. Speaker, on the other point, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie as usual is talking through his hat. We are in consultation with the BASF Corporation. This morning I met people from the petro-chemicals industry in Montreal and Toronto, and we are looking for a medium- and long-term solution, instead of doing what the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government did in the past, namely shut down refineries in Montreal, to the tune of three during the last three or four years.


REQUEST THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BE MADE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses, now that he is allowed to answer questions. Since you are saying you met people in the petro-chemi-cal industry, people from BASF, did they tell you that your decision came too late, that they closed down because of the failure, the wavering and incompetence of your Government? Did they tell you that at Petromont, because of the Gulf and BASF shutdowns, even if you do not want to bring in solutions as fast as possible, could you tell us when you will be announcing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We already have two questions there.


Jean-Claude Malépart: When are you going to announce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André Bissonnette: No, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH IN CHICAGO
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications who will know that the only way to ensure that our cultural industries are not bargained away in free trade talks with the United States is to keep them off the bargaining table altogether. Will the Minister tell us what the Prime Minister meant by what he said in Chicago last night? Does this mean that the specific industries of film, broadcasting, and publishing will not be on the bargaining table at all?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: In
Chicago yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was perfectly clear. He dealt with the issue raised by the Hon. Member when he explained that everything that relates to our cultural sovereignty is not included in the negotiations with the United States.


MAGAZINE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer very much. I would like to focus in on one specific industry and that is magazine publishing. Will the Minister give assurances to this rather precarious industry, that now holds only 25 per cent of the magazine market in Canada, that the postal subsidies will be continued, or is he willing to risk this industry losing its 25 per cent of the market and falling even further behind?


Marcel Masse: It is
evident and clear that from the moment we explain, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that everything concerning our cultural sovereignty is not negotiable, it is up to us to decide what will or will not be negotiable. It is our responsibility, depending on the benefits which we can foresee, among others, for our cultural industries.


CLOTHING AND SHOES-REQUEST THAT DOMESTIC JOBS BE PROTECTED
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. I should like to call his attention on a situation which is continuing and which is entirely deplorable. For some time, I have been receiving complaints from consumers to the effect that

December 5, 1985
Oral Questions
imported pieces of clothing and footwear do not meet the specifications as described on the label.
Could the Minister advise the House wether he will take steps to protect jobs in the textile industry, given the importance of that industry which is vital to the survival of my constituents?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we are extremely aware of the importance of both the textile and footwear industries to Canada. If the Hon. Member would refer to my speech of November 25 as reported in Hansard, he would see that I said that we intend to see that the footwear industry remains a viable industry, and the same principle applies to the textile industry. We are presently reviewing the situation in the textile industry. We are very concerned about the importation of goods from other countries which are not properly labelled or marked, and we are also addressing that question. We hope to be able to report further to the House within the next month or so.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He has quoted from an editorial which indicated that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, should be on his knees. The fact is that the Government has cut the Canadian aerospace industry off at the knees. Was Boeing ever offered a joint venture by the Government of Canada and, if not, why was it not considered as an option?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. gentleman does not care to believe the views and opinions of the Winnipeg Free Press with respect to his colleague who sits in front of him, let me quote the words of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, the opposition critic, who has said the following:
I would much rather see a couple of billion dollars in our educational system bringing on our great human resources, than in the Canadairs and in the de Havillands. I say let's not displace private capital and if we can sell Canadair and if we can sell de Havilland, let's do it as quickly as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN FIRM'S INTENTIONS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, we have had enough evasion. I would like a clear answer to the question. Rimgate Holdings has indicated that it was prepared to offer job guarantees but was never offered the same financial conditions as Boeing. Why was there discrimination against a Canadian firm?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member will not believe the Winnipeg Free Press with respect to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, nor the words of his colleague who sits on the front benches, let me quote the words of his Leader who has said the following:
Canadair and de Havilland .. . are prime examples of what can go wrong when the government gets into commercial businesses and fails to exercise proper supervision and control.
The sometime Member for the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Mr. Rodriguez:: A reasonable question, brother.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will it be on de Havilland?


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Documents released by the Department of External Affairs today clearly prove that the trip taken last spring by the former Minister of the Environment was indeed touristic in nature and, in fact, the answers given at the time this issue was raised in the House were less than truthful and forthcoming. Since the Deputy Prime Minister has the reputation of being a slasher in Cabinet, can he tell the House if he thinks this is a good example which his Government should be giving to the people of the country with respect to this Government being able to spend like drunken sailors and get away with it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the description given by the Hon. Member of my character. As a matter of fact, 1 rather resent the demotion.
I can tell the Hon. Member that, rather than spending money like drunken sailors, some control has been brought back to the management of the Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Who are you kidding?
December 5, 1985


Erik Nielsen: -in bringing its fiscal affairs into order. Every economic indicator and figure which one reads today bears out that statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF PORTION OF COST
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister this specific, uncalled for expenditure which cost the taxpayers of the country $64,000, most of it not paid for by the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John R. Rodriguez: Will the Government, and I am asking this of the Deputy Prime Minister, at least try to collect from the former Minister the money it cost for that part of the trip which her husband, her assistant and his consort, enjoyed at taxpayers' expense?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it was the hon. gentleman himself, in his preamble, who introduced the national economic argument into this exchange between us. I respond to him, since the gist of his question has been answered many times before, that the real output, as measured by constant dollar gross national expenditure, has gone from 1.6 per cent to 6.6 per cent on an annualized basis.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: Residential construction has increased by 52 per cent and economic statistic after economic statistic will bear out that statement.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Tory Minister of Development in the Province of Nova Scotia said the following:
-in the Maritime region of Canada we have a faced a very difficult task of developing an economic revival at a time when Federal support is a scatter-shot operation and less than adequate as a result.
Will the Minister tell the House when he and his Government will stop these discriminating policies against Atlantic Canada and fully restore transfer payments in the year 1986?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, far from being scatter-shot in our approach to the development of Atlantic Canada, we have introduced the most positive and most generous tax incentives in the Hon. Member's own area of the province, that is to say, the Cape Breton tax incentive.
Oral Questions
We have introduced a subsidy for electricity in Prince Edward Island. There is the Atlantic Accord and the offshore development funds in both the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The Hon. Member continues to bring out this red herring with respect to our cutting transfer payments. I remind him that these transfer payments to the provinces will be increasing from $65 billion to $90 billion in total. That is a huge increase. I think the Hon. Member should remember that.


LEVEL OF FEDERAL PAYMENTS IN 1986
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Minister of Development in the Province of Nova Scotia disagrees. He said:
-is there anyone up there who will speak for the Hinterland-who will give such a voice to regional problems and legitimate desires as was given in the heat of an election campaign.
You have broken your election promises-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Charles Dingwall: Why would the Minister-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question, please.


David Charles Dingwall: Why will the Minister of Finance not live up to his election promises with regard to regional development? Why will he not answer the question with respect to restoring full transfer payments to the provinces for 1986?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the Hon. Member is $65 billion up to $90 billion not a substantial increase? Is that not a very substantial response to the commitment we have to federal-provincial transfers? I say it is, yes.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. As I am sure he is aware, last week in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated categorically that there will be no consideration given by Canada to voluntary restrictions on softwood exports to the United States, export taxes on softwood, to taxes on reforestation or to any other restrictions on Canadian softwoods. Just what does the Minister have on his agenda for the December 15 meeting with his U.S. counterpart! In particular, will he advise the House if he will make some kind of special offering of Canadian raw logs to the United States?

December 5, 1985
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that I sometimes do not know everything that is going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We finally got a clear answer from the Government side.


David Charles Dingwall: That is enough.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rossi:: That is the most honest statement I have ever heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Francis Kelleher: This is obviously one of those occasions, since I am not aware of any meeting whatsoever which I am having with my counterpart, Mr. Yeutter, on December 15, nor have I even heard from Mr. Yeutter yet as to what he proposes to discuss if and when discussions ever take place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we are likely to hear some heavy breathing in a few minutes. The Minister sent me a note yesterday saying that he was meeting with Mr. Yeutter on December 15. I find it interesting if that is what is going on here.
Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said what he has said, I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade what he has on his agenda with the United States in relation to lumber. Will there be just a lot of heavy breathing down there?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member has more problems than I have because I told him quite distinctly yesterday in my note that no meeting had in fact as yet been arranged and, as a matter of fact, Mr. Yeutter was not even returning from Europe until December 15.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUTURE OF FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. An article from Canadian Press published in Quebec newspapers last week has spread uncertainty among footwear workers. Mr. Minister-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's true!


Gilles Bernier: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton East could listen too.
Mr. Minister, does the Government believe it is necessary to protect the footwear industry in Beauce, in Quebec and in Canada? If so, what sort of future is there for the workers in the footwear industry in this country?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do intend, and this Government has every intention, to see that the footwear industry is maintained as a viable industry. I would like to remind all Members of the House that, indeed, the tribunal, after its most far-reaching inquiry, found that with the exception of girls' and women's shoes it was able to compete world-wide with anyone else's shoe industry. I would also remind all Members of this House that they are still protected by a 23 per cent tariff.

[ Translation]


GRANTS FROM SECRETARY OF ST ATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. There are rumours that the Conservative Government is preparing to cut grants from the Secretary of State to women's groups. Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the Minister could inform the House why the Conservative Government has decided to cut back and reduce grants earmarked for women's groups?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Outremont started by saying: There are rumours. I do not understand why she went on to say that we are going to proceed with cutbacks. I think we can both agree these are rumours and that we are not talking about cuts in funding for women's programs at this time.


ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR GRANTS
Lucie Pépin: Could the Minister give the House the assurance that there will be no changes in the objectives and conditions of these programs, so that women's groups can still qualify for funding by the Secretary of State?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only normal to reassess the criteria for programs like these that have been in existence for some time, and that will certainly be done, but it does not mean that women will not be entitled to available funding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 5, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps Hon. Members could carry this on somewhere else.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 4, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: If I can get the attention of the distinguished Government House Leader, I would like to ask him the customary question, which will enable him to describe the business of the House for the ensuing week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties with respect to second reading consideration and disposition of second reading stage of Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. As a result of those discussions, I would like to take this opportunity to announce a change in the line-up of business for this afternoon.
The first item which will be up for consideration will, therefore, be Bill C-83. Should we happen to complete Bill C-83, 1 will call Bill C-74, Bill C-79 and Bill C-70, which concern the Representation Act, the provision of compensation for depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank and an Act to amend the Family Allowance Act respectively. We will carry on in that sequence tomorrow.
Monday I would like to call Bill C-84 to have the final day with respect to the second reading stage of that Bill so that we can conclude it, hopefully, before the end of the day but, in any event, by the end of the day.
Tuesday, being the final day of the current Supply period, will be the final allotted day in the current period of Supply.
Assuming that we are able to make progress today and tomorrow, I hope that on Wednesday and Thursday of next week we will be able to complete consideration of the remaining stages of, first, Bill C-70 and, second, Bill C-79.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader will know that I wrote to him yesterday requesting that he give consideration to referring the pending sale of de Havilland to Boeing Corporation to a committee of the House for study prior to the sale being
Petitions
consumated. I wonder if the Government House Leader would undertake to raise that question with his cabinet colleagues and perhaps report back to the House on whether or not it can be arranged and an appropriate time found for the committee to commence its deliberations.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) have also asked that this matter be studied by Parliament, preferably by a parliamentary committee. I would urge the Government House Leader to give favourable consideration to this request as soon as possible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the message has been received and understood. I am just not in a position to respond yet. I want to carry out appropriate consultations with my colleagues to make sure, before I respond, I have an appropriate answer from my distinguished colleagues.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the fourteenth report of the Striking Committee.


TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS' ACT, 1985- PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, I have the honour to present the report, with amendments, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Penticton, British Columbia, who are of the opinion that the deindexation of universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in the public commitment

December 5, 1985
Petitions
of child benefits are really an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers. Therefore, they are asking the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases introduced in the last Budget.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition which states that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990. I believe that in view of the fact that we now have more income from the minimum tax, I would join with these petitioners in asking the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance immediately.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: 1 also have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of residents in my own constituency, and another petition from petitioners in various areas of Toronto. These petitioners state that they endorse the Ontario Coalition for Family Allowance and its representation to preserve and improve family allowance benefits and to withdraw the deindexation of family allowance as proposed in Bill C-70. This petition was circulated under the auspices of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some residents of Saskatoon who point out that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits which will reach $600 million annually by 1990, on top of sales tax changes and increaes, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases, are unfair and place an extraordinary burden on middle and low income households. They, therefore, call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and responsibility to present a petition dealing with the deindexation of the family allowance. This petition comes from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. These petitions are signed by the Office and Professional International Union of Office and Professional Employees and call upon the Government to withdraw the deindexing and return to the full indexation of family allowance.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and responsibility to present four petitions dealing with unemployment insurance. Three petitions come from the Unemployed Action Centre in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and the other comes from the Labour Council in Ottawa.
The signators to all of these petitions call upon the Government to reverse its position with respect to pension income being used as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, which change is scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 1985.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is my duty to present a petition with a number of signatures from residents of Winnipeg with regard to the family allowance deindexation. This petition is in the traditional form, a form which I hope we will have an opportunity to re-examine at some point.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a number of petitions from residents of communities of Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Errington, Lasquet Island, Lantzville and Nanoose Bay in the immediate vicinity of Nanoose. They are concerned about the test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They are concerned that the naval policy of the United States neither denies nor confirms the presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. vessels using the test range. They call for a full public inquiry with power to investigate the above concerns before the present agreement is renegotiated next April.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions in support of the "Save our Shop" campaign in Moncton. The petition is signed by residents of Memramcook, College Bridge, Dieppe, and Moncton. The petitioners respectfully request and pray that the Government of Canada will bring an end to the constant rumours which strike fear into the minds and hearts of the employees and citizens of our communities by taking appropriate action to ensure that there will be no further downsizing or closure of the CN main shops in Moncton.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a very large petition from the residents of Skidegate, Masset, Port Clements, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Queen Charlotte City and several other communities. The people who have signed the petition wish that a public inquiry be held regarding the Nanoose test range. In particular, they are concerned that radiation monitoring should be made public, that Section 1 of the agreement between Canada and the United States should be looked at again, and that the naval policy of the United States of neither denying or confirming the presence of nuclear weapons on board their vessels while in Canadian waters, particularly internal waters, is totally unacceptable.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of the greatest riding in the country, that is, the riding of Hamilton East. All of these fine and intelligent people are calling on the Government to back off on its decision to cut back on family allowances as
December 5, 1985

well as the child tax credit. They feel that the Government has misled the people and they call on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to live up to their words that universality is a sacred trust. They add their voices to those of thousands of other people across the country.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and privilege to present to the House a petition signed by approximately 647 citizens whom I represent in the federal constituency of Moncton. In this petition they express their concern for the future of the CN shops in Moncton and the 1,100 people employed there.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Essex County and Windsor which expresses the protest of our communities against the deindexation of the universal family allowance, against the cut-backs in the child benefits and against the unfair increases in taxes on ordinary Canadians. The undersigned, therefore, call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by residents of Summer Beaver, Ontario, a small community which is reached by neither road, rail, scheduled air service or television. Yet, even in this community the people realize that the Government's plans for family allowances constitute an attack on their living standards. They call upon the Government to rescind the deindexation of family allowances.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an Act to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Incorporated and to provide for other matters in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.
Order Paper Questions LOBBY REGISTRATION ACT
John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-256, an Act to register lobbyists.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I have introduced would establish a lobbyists register. In addition, it would impose an obligation upon MPs to declare all benefits from lobbyists or foreign Governments in excess of $20.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties and I think you would find a disposition to accept and have passed without debate, by unanimous consent, the Order as follows:
That, further to the Order made on Tuesday, November 26, 1985, the membership of the Special Committee of the House of Commons on Child Care be composed of the following Members of Parliament: Messrs. Clinch and Duguay, Mrs. Duplessis, Mrs. Martin, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Nicholson, and Mrs. Pepin.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent necessary to introduce such a motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that Question No. 484 will be answered today.

December 5, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act


Mr. Angus: 1.	With regard to the collapse of the wall of Lock 7 of the Welland Canal, has any blockage of the Penstock been discovered and, if so, what was the nature of the blockage and where was the blockage in relation to the wall which collapsed?
2.	Was the reinforcing steel in the wall exposed and, if so, in what matter and for what reason?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has been advised by its solicitors not to discuss these matters publicly as they may be reviewed by the courts in suits with which the authority has been threatened.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Michel Côté: That Bill C-84, to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I am very pleased to be able to take the floor today and introduce Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act.
For the benefit of those who might not be too familiar with the tax rebate discounting practice, I would say that it enables a taxpayer who expects a tax refund to go to a discounter who will prepare his return and pay him cash on the basis of the expected refund.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to be able to tell Members of the House that the measures we are proposing will remove the abuses that have grown up in this field. At the same time, consumers who want and need the services will be able to make a free and informed choice. Some have suggested outlawing the service entirely, Mr. Speaker. The Government has
rejected this option. Even though that would have been very popular in some quarters, we firmly believe that Canadians should have the right to make such decisions and choices for themselves. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, they also have the right to be protected, and the measures I am proposing will ensure that low-income Canadians are not victimized by unscrupulous practices.
At this point I would like to summarize the main features of our comprehensive package of reforms. First, Bill C-83 will lower the maximum rate discounters can charge. Second, the Bill will provide for tougher enforcement and better administration. Third, we propose periodic payments of the child tax credit. Fourth, we will encourage and assist financial institutions to provide alternatives for discounting. Finally, we will ensure that Canadian consumers are fully informed about discounting and alternative options.
These are the elements of our program and I am convinced that they are both practical and equitable. They will, as 1 intend to make clear, eliminate the disadvantages of tax discounting while retaining its advantages. In short, they are shaped by the Government's approach to the establishment and maintenance of an efficient, equitable market-place.
I want to stress that this package of measures was brought forward with the advice and active co-operation of my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I want to thank them in the House for their interest and support in this matter.
It is worth noting that although tax discounting has always been legal in Canada, the practice was not federally regulated until 1978 when the present Tax Rebate Discounting Act was passed. In 1979, the turn-around time for tax returns was 17 weeks. This has now been reduced by at least 50 per cent. Also, in 1979 only 7,000 people used the services of tax discounters. By this year the number of Canadians who have sold their tax refunds has grown to half a million. With so many Canadian consumers using the services of tax discounters, the Government wanted to ensure that their interests were being looked after in the best possible manner. As Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I decided to review tax discounting and update our present legislation in order to deal with current realities and initiate a wide range of measures in order to address the practice of tax discounting in its entirety.
As I mentioned, the Government is proposing five initiatives. The first two are legislative and are addressed by the legislation now before the House.
First, a new rate structure on the maximum allowable rate charged by discounters will be put in place by Bill C-83. The rate charged on any portion of a refund over S300 will be limited to 5 per cent. The rate for the first $300 of a refund will be 15 per cent, which recognizes the fee charged for filling out the client's tax return.

December 5, 1985

Second, proposed revisions in Bill C-83 will improve the Government's capacity to administer, detect and prosecute violations of the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. For example, the time limit on prosecutions under the Act will be extended from the present six months to two years.
Third, measures will be introduced at a later date to provide for the periodic payment of the child tax credit. These measures will ensure that recipients receive a majority of their child tax credit payment before income tax returns are due and will thus virtually eliminate the need to discount the child tax credit.
Fourth, through simple administrative measures we will be making it easier for financial institutions such as credit unions and caisses populaires to offer alternatives to tax discounting. For example, such institutions could offer loans at normal consumer rates on the strength of expected tax refunds.
Finally, we will initiate and stress information programs so that consumers who choose to use discounters will know what is involved and what their options are.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, consultation has always been the hallmark of this Government, and the measures proposed to revise the tax rebate discounting practice are indeed the results of many wide-ranging consultations. Before making any decision, we have had consultations with provincial Governments, discounters, social service agencies, consumers' associations, businessmen, Members of Parliament, and the Canadian public at large. A working paper was published last June and a special conference was convened in August of this year. The question was also examined at the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference of Ministers of Consumer and Corporate Affairs held last September 10. Those consultations made it possible to reach a general consensus, namely that it was necessary to reform tax rebate discounting. For practically all parties involved, the statu quo was quite simply unacceptable. [English)
Undoubtedly, some will contend that the practice of tax discounting should have been abolished entirely. I am aware of the arguments for such a prohibition and I reject them. It is our considered view that Canadians must have the option of discounting money owed to them by way of any tax refund. To deny this kind of market choice to Canadians would have been unfair. Canadians should be free to choose discounting services if they want. The challenge was to reform tax discounting, eliminate the flaws in the way it is practised and leave a legitimate service in place. At the same time, we wanted to ensure that there was adequate protection for the consumer.
Likewise, it was argued that discounting of the child tax credit should have been prohibited. Again, our goal here is to prevent the diversion of child tax credit payments away from low income recipients. This will be done effectively and fairly through a periodic payment of the child tax credit rather than through a ban on discounting those credits.
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
From an administrative standpoint, such a ban would be impossible to define and enforce effectively. Because of the different types of tax credits under the present system, it was not clear what portion of the refund is a child tax credit. As well, such a ban would keep discounting legal except for those who appear to need it the most. That is precisely the kind of situation that leads to loan-sharking and rule bending.
Constant monitoring of complex laws and formulas would have been necessary. Even then, unscrupulous discounters who were faced with a demand for needy child tax credit recipients would have found ways to defeat the intent of the prohibition.
Furthermore, outlawing the discounting of the child tax credit would have made discounting available to all Canadians except low-income mothers. Imagine a child tax credit recipient going to a discounter and finding out, after her tax return had been prepared, that she could not discount the child tax credit. Instead of the large cheque which she expected, she would receive a bill of perhaps $30 for her tax return preparation. In my view, such discrimination cannot be justified.
Our solution is to pay the child tax credit periodically, thereby eliminating the need to discount the child tax credit.
Our approach has been to attack the cause of the problem rather than just its symptoms.

Thanks to the measures proposed in Bill C-83, Mr. Speaker, consumers will pay a lot less for the services of a tax rebate discounter. Under the new rates, the maximum a taxpayer will have to pay on a $1,000 reimbursement would be $80. These costs would include the preparation of the income tax return by the discounter. Under the previous rates, the consumers' cost was $150. This means savings of nearly 50 per cent. To set up this new rate, we have duly taken into account the limits imposed by the Criminal Code as well as the difference between a loan and a discount.

First, in contrast to normal lending practices, discounters prepare their client's tax returns. The fee for that service would normally vary from client to client but is always included in the discount rate. Second, when cash is advanced by a discounter there is no agreement on when the discounter will receive his or her money back. Therefore, a comparison to normal lending rates is difficult.
However, I would like to illustrate what will happen to such rates under Bill C-83. Assuming a turn-around time of eight weeks and a tax preparation value of $35 to $40, the discount rate proposed in Bill C-83 provides the equivalent annual rate of about 25 per cent to 30 per cent for a refund of $800. This rate is well below that in the current Act, and is also far below the criminal rate of 60 per cent. The discount rate proposed in Bill C-83 demonstrates a clear intention to rationalize discounting with the criminal law while appropriately accounting for the differences between lending and discounting.

December 5, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
Discounting is one alternative which consumers have to obtain needed cash. Other initiatives have been undertaken to make it easier for consumers to find alternative sources of immediate cash. 1 have mentioned that it will be easier for Canadians to get loans on the strength of their anticipated tax refunds. During our consultations, representatives of credit unions and caisses populaires told us that they would be willing to offer loans on tax refunds at normal consumer rates if there is enough demand within the community and enough co-operation and assistance from community organizations. These institutions themselves suggested a few administrative measures which could be put in place quite easily. For exem-ple, tax refund cheques could be sent directly to credit unions in repayment of loans, but not other correspondence which Revenue Canada might want to send to taxpayers. The Government will be taking such steps to help financial institutions to provide alternatives to tax discounting.
Some of the other items in the over-all reform package concern the provision of information. Freedom of choice works best when consumers can make informed decisions. We will provide facts about the true cost of discounting, alternatives to the practice, the availability of tax preparation assistance and the speed at which tax returns are normally processed. All these things should help consumers decide the options which are in their own best interest.
People should be aware that the turn-around time for receiving tax returns has decreased. I think there are many Canadians who, if made aware of this fact, would choose to wait what is now a relatively short period of time and claim their entire refund rather than go to tax discounters.

Mr. Speaker, many community groups are now helping people prepare their income tax returns and 1 believe that is true all across Canada.
They could easily share their experience with credit unions and caisses populaires and thus contribute to the good operation of the new loan programs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we believe that Canadians should be able to make free and enlightened choices. Which means that they must have available all necessary information, and we have a responsibility in this regard.
We will therefore launch a dynamic information campaign, so that all Canadian families will receive information on tax discounting together with their January family allowance cheque. We shall also be contacting interested groups, so they may properly advise their members.
Also Revenue Canada will offer Canadian taxpayers all the information needed through its extensive system of regional offices. Finally, we will make extensive use of the media to reach the public at large.

Related to the issue of making sure that consumers are well informed, the revisions which we are proposing to the Act will also contain specific provisions to ensure that people who use
the services of discounters will be given all the information and documentation related to their transactions. In the past, people who used discounters often dropped off the relevant information, got their cash, and that was it. Some discounters even refused to give copies of the completed returns back to taxpayers. The new Act will require discounters to provide clients with copies of their tax returns and related information slips upon request. Furthermore, under Bill C-83, tax discounters will have a legal obligation to retain copies of all documents related to a discounting transaction. Thus, these will be available for examination by officials, if necessary.
It will also become an offence for a discounter to provide false information to a client or to an official. A common complaint which led to these measures was to the effect that the time limit on prosecutions under the present Tax Rebate Discounting Act was far too short. Indeed, in the past it was not unusual for suspicions to be raised about an unscrupulous discounter, only to have the time limit expire before the suspicions could be fully investigated. This will change, since Bill C-83 extends the time limit of prosecutions under the Act from six months to two years. In addition, the new Act permits income tax officials to disclose information necessary for enforcement to administrators of the Act.
In summation, the Government is presenting a complete package of initiatives to reform the practice of tax rebate discounting. Through Bill C-83 discounting will still be available but at a lower cost, and enforcement of tax rebate discounting will be beefed up. Canadians will therefore be able to make freer, more informed choices. The price of discounting will fall, which will help lower income Canadians who are the main clientele of discounters.
Free enterprise and consumer interest both depend on the provision of choice. The steps which the Government is proposing will ensure that better choices are available in the Canadian market-place, in that Canadians will have the information they need to take advantage of those choices.
The practice of tax rebate discounting will continue because it can still provide a service for which there exists a market demand among Canadians. At the same time, this total package of measures will correct serious shortcomings, the impact from which has been felt by those least able to bear it. It will protect both legitimate business interests and the consumer's right to fairness and choice. I am confident that it will receive swift passage by the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to replace my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), the Official Opposition critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I rise today to speak about this bill because, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, our colleague is now convalescing. I am certain that the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic would have liked to have been here to take part in this debate and we all regret her
December 5, 1985

absence from this House. 1 believe that all the Hon. Members here today will join me in wishing her a very quick recovery and a return to this House early in the new year.
I would like to apply myself, as my colleague would certainly have done herself, to making the most constructive possible criticism of the proposals and amendments regarding income tax discounting.
The speech made by the Minister today is well balanced, and I think that if he is a victim of circumstances, it is because he wants to please everybody at once, which is certainly very difficult to do in politics.
However, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I am happy to take part in this debate since it concerns a Department which I have had the privilege and the honour to head in the past.
There is no need to remind this House that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was created by the previous Liberal Government, and today's debate confirms in my opinion the necessity and the appropriateness of having such a Department.
When the Minister announced his proposals regarding income tax discounting, many comments were made by various organizations. I believe that one of the most important of these comments, and I would like to repeat it in this House, is that the Minister apparently did not have the courage to go as far as he could have gone, and I would like to explain what I mean by that. Each year, Canadians must report their income, and several taxpayers are in a position to claim an income tax refund because they paid in too much. And if they paid in too much, it is because in many cases their income is so small the Government cannot ask them to contribute any more without jeopardizing their own survival.
We in the Liberal Party would like people who have paid too much income tax to get back this overpayment in full. Nobody in my view should be penalized or exposed to any income loss because of a slow-moving Government machine, in this case the Income Tax Refund Department of Revenue Canada which unfortunately may take not just weeks, but months to deliver. At the present time, such is the situation as we must admit, and the working paper published by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in June 1985 provides evidence of that. Mr. Speaker, the decisions announced by the Minister on November 21 do not address the problem from that angle. Instead, it accepts what I would call an improved status quo allowing or giving an opportunity to the most in need to go on using a service that is charging rates that are, if not criminal, at least too high for low-income people.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party feels the time is ripe for a specific policy that would allow those who are entitled to an income tax refund to receive the full amount, or at least as large a part as possible without having to wait far too long. And if that were impossible, there has to be at least a guarantee that the most in need are offered
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
one of the most competitive rates, rather than what could be called loan shark rates.
What I think is needed is an overall vision, an overall understanding of the problem and its solutions. It is my hope that this House, and especially the Government will wish to relinquish that piecemeal approach put forward by the Minister, and take alternatives that may require more courage indeed but that will prove more fair and just for all the taxpayers involved.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dwell too long on the history of that problem faced by this House. But as far as the assignment of income tax refunds is concerned, the situation now is different from the one we had in 1978, when the Act went into force.
In the early seventies, the practice of tax rebate discounting was not regulated or even recognized by law or by a professional association. So it was not unusual for people seeking instant tax refunds to be charged 40, 50, 60, or even 65 per cent of the rebate expected. Calculated over the long term, these rates were entirely out of proportion to the amounts being discounted. Tax rebate discounting was criticized because of its usurious rates and what I would qualify as flyby-night operations. It was therefore not surprising that a number of organizations defending the interests of low-income groups made representations to the provincial authorities, who then, for various reasons, made their own representations to the Federal Government, asking it to take steps to deal with the abuse occurring in these operations.
That was the situation we had in 1978. The phenomenon was not very widespread but demanded immediate attention. The Tax Rebate Discounting Act was a way to regulate these activities by putting a 15 per cent limit on the rates that could be charged for early income tax refunds. In fact, the cost of filing the income tax return was included in the 15 per cent, and everyone expected this practice to cease and disappear altogether, since the profit margin had obviously become too narrow for anyone to get a reasonable return. That was unfortunately not the case. On the contrary, the legislation gave an aura of legitimacy to the practice of tax rebate discounting and more and more people were using this service. When the child tax credit came on the scene, it made the business expand even more and became a kind of bonanza for all those establishments involved in the discounting trade. Mr. Speaker, at the time, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act was adopted unanimously. In fact, it took only 25 minutes for the House to adopt all three stages of the Bill.
This time, I don't think a decision should be made without careful consideration. We want legislation that considers all aspects of the problem and the potential consequences in relation to the various options available. I think this can be
9222

December 5, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
achieved by sending the Bill to a legislative committee, far removed from partisan considerations. 1 believe the Minister is acting in good faith, and I think the Minister has a problem that he wants to solve in a fair and equitable manner. And I hope the proposals we will make within the framework of a legislative committee will be given due consideration and, if possible, accepted by the Minister. We hope that witnesses will appear before the committee when it examines this legislation in detail.
In 1981, need I remind the House, the legislation was amended so that the 15 per cent charged to cover the transaction not be considered as criminal. Calculated on a yearly basis, this rate could reach over 60 per cent, which is now considered an illegal rate in Canada. At the time, all this appeared quite acceptable because there were still relatively few customers. I must say that because of the economic crisis which we lived through in the early 1980s, the increased number of unemployed, the high rate of inflation and the reduction in the purchasing power of most Canadians, many people decided to avail themselves of tax rebate discounting services to make quick transactions or to meet, in a number of cases, their most basic needs. It should be recognized, therefore, that the cession of the right to an income tax reimbursement has now become an instrument which makes it possible for a number of taxpayers in need of cash to find some at this time of the year, and I think that this time of the year is a good sales season because of the cut prices offered consumers by both manufacturers and retailers. We must therefore recognize that these services have become greatly popular. But this should not prevent us from considering the economic predicament of the people who avail themselves of these services. In fact, two-thirds of the customers of the tax rebate discount industry earn $8,000 or less a year.
In 1985, we have experienced the fourth consecutive year in which the number of Canadians living below the poverty line has increased. There are now approximately 4.35 million Canadians living below the poverty line. Included in this important group are women who are heads of single parent families.
1 am very sensitive to the fact that poverty has become a woman phenomenon in Canada. And if the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) was here to deal with this Bill, I am sure that she would pay special attention to this phenomenon and explain it far better than I. And I feel that we, as Parliamentarians, and especially the Minister, on behalf of the Government, should deal with these 33.5 per cent of poor families headed by women, and that we should not overlook this context when we deal with the income tax rebate discounting problem.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to poverty, because it is the most disadvantaged who generally use these services. As a matter of fact, the percentage of male clients who declared an annual income of less than $8,000 was 61.6 in
1983. More disquieting still, the percentage of female clients who declared an annual income of less than $8,000 was 82 in 1983.
In fact, the average income of all clients is $5,573, whereas the average income of all female clients is $1,625. It tells us a lot, Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the underprivileged are the main users of the services of that growing industry. More specifically, female heads of single-parent families constitute the majority of those users.
Can we still say that the measures introduced by the Minister improve the ot of discounters's clients? One thing we can say for sure is that these measures will attract even more clients. It is my opinion, but not mine alone, for discounters themselves think so. Most Members will agree that it is impossible to save money with incomes like that. Most people with such low incomes live in dire misery. Can we really talk about protecting the consumer's choice, as the Minister tells us in such cases? We in the Liberal Party do not believe there is really a choice to be made. That is why the rates the discounters ask for their services must be, in our opinion, as low as possible when they are figured out on an annual basis.
What makes the matter even worse, in my judgment, is the growth of the industry.
In 1979 there were 7,000 discounting transactions because, as compared with today's figures, in 1985, there have now been 515,000 transactions.
I suggest that such a phenomenal growth can only endure, given the Minister's propositions. All the more so since he said he intends to advertise and tell the public about this service. Well, I hope Canadian taxpayers will not have to foot the advertising bill.
I hope the Minister will make agreements with the industry-doing very well as it is, thank you-so that it will pay for the advertising campaign. In my estimation, those firms should pay for the information we must give the public in that field.
It is important to realize that if we cannot or do not want to abolish this service, we have to make sure that the rates stay as low as possible.
I see no reason to believe the Minister received any overwhelming support from the Provinces, or for that reason from the various interest groups on those proposals.
The various interest groups' response to the working paper was not as spontaneous and unanimous as stated by the Minister. Quite the opposite, many spokesmen for the low-income class felt that the solution was wrong, because they would have preferred a total ban on discounting, in conjunction with a faster income tax refund procedure.
Provinces also were not unanimous, because Quebec as we know does not allow that kind of operation. Any amount owed citizens by the Government is deemed unassignable in Quebec. And at this moment, two other Provinces have some doubts,
December 5, 1985

because they are considering measures more stringent than those announced by the Minister, and I understand they are even considering outright banning of such practices.

We should remember that in the United States, such a practice does not exist. I would like to cite the following American legislation:
Any person who is an income tax preparer who endorses or otherwise negotiates (directly or through an agent any check made in respect of the taxes imposed by subtitle A which is issued to a taxpayer other than the income tax return preparer) shall pay a penalty of $500 with respect to each such check.
[ Translation]
I think that the United States, which we could call the cradle of free enterprise, are giving us a very good example in that respect. Indeed, the Americans would not allow that kind of operation, recognizing that overpayments to the state belong exclusively to the overpaying citizens. They do not accept that such funds be diverted, and there is a fine for violators that discourages any discounting operation. In my view, such an example should motivate the Minister in this debate.
Finally, I would like to outline the proposals we could put forward, in the Official Opposition, and it is indeed my wish to be somewhat more specific as to our position on that issue of the assignment of rights to income tax refunds.
Concerning the announcement made by the Minister that the child income tax credit would be paid in a number of instalments, this is not enough in my view. The idea certainly is interesting, except that the income tax child credit is still discountable. Low-income groups and Provinces would hope for a ban on any discounting transaction of that credit. It is also the opinion of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, and the prohibition must also apply to the child tax credit, otherwise, we have reason to believe that there may be further abuses in the future.
Moreover, in my opinion, the rates are still too high for most customers of this service. If you want to borrow $1,000 or even $2,000, you will discover that not many Canadian banking institutions are willing to lend you the money. The efforts made by the Minister show that he is aware of these difficulties. However, we are going to find out that interest rates on these loans are relatively high since they apply over a one year period.
This is why, after the bill has been referred to a committee, we intend to move an amendment to provide for a maximum set rate.
The Minister has used all his accounting expertise to try and keep the amounts as low as possible, but I think that when he is dealing with amounts of over $300, if there is no set maximum rate, some people may lose too large a part of the money which is theirs and which should come back to them, if not in its entirety, at least as completely as possible.
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
The problem of discounting, and I shall close with this in a short while, hides another problem, that of providing access to financial institutions for small wage-earners. 1 do not necessarily want provisions in this regard to be included in this legislation, but I simply want to point this out and to make sure that the Minister will accept to consider this issue in the near future.
Our Party will want to look closely at the cost of the proposed measures to the Canadian taxpayer, as compared to the cost of strict cancellation. I believe this would be most interesting and useful for the Members of the legislative committee.
I think the Minister will want, also, to continue having a yearly study of the tax rebate discounting industry in order to get an idea of the impact of the proposed measures and to find out the social and economic characteristics of consumers. This could be done with a view to taking action should the problem get larger and more serious, instead of getting better.
If the child tax credit is excluded entirely from any discounting transaction, I believe that we should continue paying it in one or at the most two payments, rather than in a series of installments, because studies have shown that the money is used to buy more expensive goods like furniture or appliances, to pay dentist's bills or to get essential clothing for the smaller children in the family.
To sum up, I think I should repeat to the House that it is very important to us that we exclude the child tax credit from any tax rebate discounting. I hope the Minister will be willing to try and convince his cabinet collegues of the necessity of it. If he fails to do so, the Bill he is defending today will not have the results he is seeking. I think that when the original Act was passed unanimously at the end of the 1970's, we were all convinced that it would resolve the problem of the neediest in our society. We soon realized that such was not the case.
I dare hope that the Bill introduced by the Minister will not result in a proliferation of tax rebate discounting activities in Canada. I hope that this Bill will make it possible, as suggested by the Minister, for Canadian taxpayers to get their refunds more quickly and also provide a better protection for all those who unfortunately cannot wait for their income tax reimbursement, want to get their cash as soon as possible and who, therefore, rely on companies which provide them with a service at a cost, which, in my opinion, is much too high. It is with this in mind that I conclude my remarks. I wish to assure the Minister of the constructive co-operation of the Official Opposition, provided he accepts a number of amendments which we feel are absolutely essential.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my comments in respect to this Bill by protesting the timing of its presentation. We now know how poorly Parliament acted in 1978 when it passed the legislation which this Bill proposes to replace. In 1978 the Bill was passed in just 20

December 5, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
minutes by the House. The entire policy-making process in the Civil Service and the working out of the details took just one month. We are now repeating the same process because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) has delayed so long bringing this Bill forward.
I asked the Minister questions about this a year ago and brought to his attention the dimensions of the problem. I told him of the thousands of people who are adversely affected by the law. I was told then that the Minister was keeping a close watch on the procedures and that he would be doing something fairly quickly. We were then told there would be a discussion paper in June. Of course, the discussion paper did not appear at that time.
We were finally promised that we would see a Bill in September. We did not receive the Bill until the end of November and we are debating it today for the first time. We are debating it with a gun to our heads because we are told it must receive second reading today. We are told that if the Bill does not reach committee and if it is not dealt with there and brought back before Parliament adjourns for Christmas, in January when the tax returns go out people who have used discounters in the past, and who will probably want to use them again, they will be able to go to the discounters who will be able to charge them the fees at the old rates which were so reprehensible. Thus, we have to agree to get this Bill through today, although we are not satisfied with it.
We do not think the Bill deals with the problem as it should, and neither do different organizations in the country. 1 refer to the consumers' associations, the church organizations, national anti-poverty organizations-the Minister is shaking his finger. We have talked to these organizations and we know what they have said. What they have said is that they want this Bill through, not because they think it meets all the problems but because the provisions of this Bill are better than the old one. It is not because they are satisfied with it.
I ask the Minister why we had to wait until the end of November to deal with the problem? After all, the problem was brought to the attention of the former Government. If I have the time, I may have something to say about the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and what he said on this subject when he was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: do it now.


John Horton McDermid: Don't wait for spring, do it now.


David Orlikow: I am being encouraged to do that now. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), wrote to the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Papineau. If Hon. Members will give me a moment I will find the document to which I refer.


John Horton McDermid: We will give you all the time you need.


David Orlikow: It was written February 8, 1983 and concerned the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. The then Minister replied on March 7, 1983. I would like to read one paragraph from his letter. He said, and I quote:
While the 15 per cent rate may not satisfy all interested parties, it allows legitimate lenders to carry on business, and accordingly allows Canadian consumers to decide whether or not to use a service which is now controlled by legislation.
That is what the Minister said then.


André Ouellet: That sounds like a good answer.


David Orlikow: And that is exactly the kind of answer which we are getting from the present Minister who says he wants the free enterprise system to work, that he wants people to have a choice. But telling people that they have a choice in this kind of situation reminds me of a saying by that famous French author, Anatole France. He said: "The laws of France permit every French person, rich and poor, to exercise the option to sleep under a bridge, if they want". This Bill gives people an option but the Minister knows very well that the only people who are likely to exercise that option to go a tax discounter are not the wealthy people, not the middle income earners, nor even the working people who have full-time permanent jobs. The people who go to the tax discounter-and the numbers have been doubling and tripling every year so that we are now talking about close to a half a million people-are the poor people, the people who are living on welfare, the single mothers who have children. They have living on the edge of poverty. They are living in a crisis situation. When it comes towards the fourth week of the month they have run through their welfare cheques. They are the people who go to the tax discounters and they are the people who are going to continue to go to the tax discounters and will continue to be ripped off by these tax discounters.
We are talking about a very large amount of money. It is pretty obvious that these hundreds of thousands of Canadians who go to tax discounters have been paying, as we have all said, extremely high interest rates for loans. Because that is what they are; they are loans from the tax discounter and those companies are getting rich.
Two of the richest companies H & R Block, and Ben-Tax, which is a subsidiary of Beneficial Finance, together handled more than 80 per cent of discounting transactions in 1983. These two companies have increased their volume of business over the past four years and their profits have soared dramatically. H & R Block recently reported its profits for the year ending April 30, 1985. These reports make interesting reading and I hope the Minister will pay some attention to them. Its revenues were over $59 million, up from $37 million the year before. Revenues from tax discounting were $25.2 million, up from $18.2 million. Profits were $5.9 million, up from $4.9 million. So there was a 38.5 per cent increase in revenue from tax discounting operations in one year.
December 5, 1985

That is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the problems and difficulties of close to half a million of the poorest Canadians who are being ripped off by corporations. I cannot blame the corporations. They are operating under the provisions of the laws which we enacted in 1978 and they will operate next year under the provisions of the laws we are going to pass this month. However, they are making tremendous profits from the backs of the very poor.
We ought not to kid ourselves that these are anything but loans, and I say forced loans given to the very poor by these tax discounters. The Department has always known this. When the previous Bill was being debated in 1978, a representative of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said: "This type of transaction is a disquise loan. It may have a term of two months or an indeterminate term, but it is nonetheless a loan transaction". What we are proposing today is to make some changes in the amount of payment which will cause the interest rate to drop somewhat.
Revenue Canada has, by its efficiency, shortened the period that people have to wait to, in many cases, four weeks or a little less. If we take into account the fact that it no longer takes eight or more weeks to deliver these cheques, the real interest rate is very high.
Under the old provisions a formula was included for the calculation of the interest rate in Schedule 1. It is this simple interest rate which has led to a good deal of confusion because it was always presumed that tax returns would take four months to be processed. In the debate which took place in committee in 1978, a Government witness said that the assumption in the Act is that there is a term of four months. That is the outside limit of what it would take for a return to come back. So on every form which was printed, in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Act, a box had to be filled in for the customer showing the discount at an annual rate, and giving the standard annual interest rate for the calculation. So the tax discounter was able to reprint it in his form, and we have a sample from Ben-Tax showing the real interest rate to be 62.8 per cent. That is a lot of money to pay for a loan to a clerk making the minimum wage.
This 62.8 per cent, as large as it is, not an accurate rate of interest for those transactions, because in the vast majority of cases it did not take nearly that long to deliver the cheque. Today Revenue Canada processes returns not within four months but within an average of four weeks. We have been informed that Revenue Canada processed the first 31 batches of 1984 returns in an average of just 4.3 weeks. This is particularly relevant to our discussion because the T-l specials under which most child tax credits are claimed, have been processed in 3.7 weeks and the T-l general form has been processed in an average of 4.7 weeks.
So we can see that the old interest rates in the Act, as it was, were dangerously misleading, and though the 62.8 per cent interest which those companies charged exceeded the minimum interest rate under the Criminal Code, it required a special provision in the Act to exempt this rate of interest in tax discounting transactions.
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
What are the true rates of interest we are talking about? We went to the research branch of the Library of Parliament and asked them to prepare some calculations for us. We appreciate the help they gave us. They said that under the old interest provisions, which this Bill will change, the annual interest rate was 62.8 per cent for a four-month term, 91.6 per cent for a three-month term, 165 per cent for a two-month term, and 600 per cent if it were processed in one month. Mr. Speaker, discounting at 15 per cent really means loans at interest rates of between 62 and 600 per cent. Under his new proposal the Minister is still permitting the 15 per cent charge on the first $300. Under the so-called reform which the Minister is bringing forward the new rates are blended rates because, as I have indicated, the amount charged is 15 per cent on the first $300 and 5 per cent on the balance.
Again we asked the Library of Parliament to analyse the new rates for some typical amounts. They said that for a $100 rebate processed in four weeks the interest rate would actually be 727 per cent and so on. These rates are grotesque rip-offs of the people who can least afford it but have no other choice if they need the money immediately. It is a revelation to some of us that so many poor people need money immediately, especially to some Members who have not paid attention to the problems of their constituents.
The Government does not seem to worry about that. Two-thirds of the people who used discounters in 1984 had incomes of less than $8,000. They are the working poor and the people on welfare. Waiting for money is a hardship for most of them and the supposed choice of using or not using the discounter is really no choice at all for many of them because they live so close to the poverty line.
When the Conservatives were in Opposition they were critical of the system we had. The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was very indignant about the role being played by tax discounters. He was quoted in The Citizen on February 23, 1983, as saying that it is a shame and a tragedy that taxpayers have to give up $150 of their $1,000 tax refunds. Is he not ashamed of the fact that today, under the proposal made by the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the same taxpayer with a $300 refund will lose the same 15 percent which he lost three years ago? Is it not a shame that the improvement of Revenue Canada in processing tax forms really means that tax discounters will be lending at even higher rates than previously because they will get their repayment that much faster?
A committee of this House expressed itself very clearly on tax discounting. In its report on child and elderly benefits dated April 2, 1985 the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs said:
The federal Government, in consultation with the provincial Governments, should take steps to outlaw tax rebate discounters.
That is a committee on which the substantial majority of members were and are Conservatives. They got the same information that was available to the Minister and they recog-

December 5, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
nized the tremendous injustice in the system and called for the outlawing of the tax rebate system.
The Government has made much of being the champion of taxpayers in the country with its taxpayers' bill of rights. When I look at what the Minister is proposing in this Bill I have to assume that when the Conservative Government was talking about the taxpayers' bill of rights it was talking about a bill of rights for taxpayers in the middle and upper income brackets. We do not find any mention of taxpayers who use income tax discounters in this document, but surely these taxpayers should be protected too. Presumably this Act is supposed to protect their rights, but does it do that? Let us test that assumption.
A person using a tax discounter is entitled to a professional evaluation of his income tax in return for paying his fee for service. Of course, this does not happen. Any person in Canada can operate as an income tax discounter and have no standards to meet beyond the ability to lend money. A person using a tax discounter should not have to pay interest rates higher than the Canadian law allows. This does not happen either since the Act with which we are dealing today specifically excludes the Criminal Code provisions forbidding interest rates higher than 60 per cent.
A person should have an alternative to using a tax discounter. This, of course, is what the Conservatives promised with its slogan of "free choice". However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not delivered that. There are no provisions in this Bill or any other that would make an income tax return collateral for a loan at commercial rates. The Minister has talked prior to today and again today of getting credit unions and caisse populaires interested in these kinds of loans, but we have yet to see any firm commitments and programs which will make an alternative to tax discounters possible on a large scale. Surely the Minister and his Department had the time to meet with the credit unions, the caisse populaires and the banks to work out, if possible, a system whereby people who needed to get their money quickly could do so and at a legitimate rate.
We can also ask whether people who use tax discounters get the same kind of consideration which the declaration of taxpayers' rights says they are entitled to from Revenue Canada. Are they entitled to full information, impartiality, courtesy, consideration, and the presumption of honesty, all of which the declaration states? We know they have not had that up until now. Although the Minister said in his speech today that he was going to try to provide some of these factors, they certainly do not exist at the present time.
That is not the reality of tax discounting which is really far closer to the atmosphere of a pawn shop than an office at Revenue Canada. The truth is that tax discounters have a minimal law to satisfy in terms of service. As I have indicated, by using the figures of H & R Block, they do extremely well by doing as little as possible. This legislation does not ask much of them.
We believe that this Bill does not deal with the problem. We say that knowing that we have the support of many organizations which have expressed their views. We know that the
consumers' association is not satisfied with this Bill. We know that the National Anti-Poverty Organization is not satisfied with the Bill. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial Ministers of Consumer Affairs cannot be satisfied with this Bill because they were unanimous in their belief that at least the discounting of child tax credits should be prohibited. The Minister did not listen to them.
This Bill does not meet the needs of the Canadian people who have been hurt so much by the process of tax discounting. It was bad in 1978 and became a tremendous tragedy with the implementation of the child tax credit. It was that provision which led to the tremendous increase in the number of people who go to tax discounters. The ones who are hurt the most are those people who must use tax discounters because the only income tax refund they get is from the child tax credit. They still will not be dealt with fairly as a result of this legislation.
This debate concerns what really happens to the child tax credit as an effective social payment and how it is delivered to Canadian mothers, particularly low-income mothers. The child tax credit in its present form of a refundable tax credit on federal income tax has been in place since 1979. It is not accident that the increasing value of the child tax credit has coincided with the growth of income tax discounting.
The refundable credit was valued at $218 in 1979 and will be worth $384 in 1985. It will be enriched further until 1988 to offset losses of family allowances indexing and will then be capped at $524 in 1988.
Clearly that credit is an important social program and has been equally important to income tax discounters since it has fueled the growth of tax discounting. For example, 43 per cent of all those who used a tax discounter in 1983 claimed a child tax credit and 83.5 per cent of women who used discounters claimed the child tax credit.
There is a clear link to low incomes for child tax credit claimants who used discounters. In 1983, 21 per cent of women claiming the credit had family incomes below $2,000. Imagine a family with an income of less than $2,000 having part of their tax credit discounted. Not only is it a disgrace that we permit that tax credit to be discounted, it is a disgrace that they have such a low income. As well, 24 per cent of women claiming the credit had family incomes below $2,000 and no spousal income. Women who have income like this have no attraction to discounters beyond the child tax credit and other credits.
Obviously, we are talking about the very poor, people who desperately need money. They will likely be ready to file a return in January before Revenue Canada is prepared to handle the return unless this Bill, with all its deficiencies, is passed within the next couple of weeks.
There is no freedom of choice for these people. No bank will give them credit for a loan. There is no way that they can use their income tax return as security except by going to the tax discounter. The only choice these people have is between one discount and another, and all their rates are extortionate.
December 5, 1985

We now have some idea of who is getting hurt by tax discounters when we see that in 1983, 45,000 women with no spousal income and personal incomes below $2,000 used tax discounters. We also know from the same records from the Ministry of Consumer and Corporation Affairs that of the $41 million earned by tax discounters, between $15 million and $20 million came from child tax credits. That is almost half. It is quite clear that this program is haemorrhaging in its waste of public money.
This Bill does nothing to rectify the situation. Despite the Minister's statements about freedom of choice, it does not give a woman with little income beyond child tax credit a low-interest alternative. There is no way that she can use her tax return as loan security. There is no ban on tax discounters taking child tax credits although this was a proposal agreed to by Ministers of Consumer Affairs in Manitoba last September. There is even a delay on the new payment scheme for child tax credits which will not go into effect until 1987. These tax discounters do not only rip off the child tax credit, because many provincial Governments have provincial income tax credits designed to help those who are less well off. In British Columbia there is the renter's tax credit. In Alberta there is a renter's tax credit. In Ontario, there is a property tax credit, a retail sales tax credit and a pensioner's tax credit which was later replaced by a grant. In Manitoba there is a property tax credit and a cost of living tax credit.
According to the Canadian Tax Foundation's book, Canadian Tax Policy, it has been demonstrated that these tax credits inject fairness into the tax system in these provinces by providing: "The greatest relief for lower income tax payers and the least relief for high income tax payers". The Canadian Tax Foundation study makes no mention of what happens when tax credits from the provinces are discounted and 15 per cent of these benefits are still taken away on the first $300 from those who qualify.
It is not surprising that the Minister of Consumer Affairs in Manitoba, Mr. Rowland Penner, was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press in February of this year as saying:
These are supposed to be benefits to help the really poor. If they are losing as much as 15 per cent of this support program then we are failing recipients to that extent.
This legislation is failing the poor. We now have the means to rectify this failure but it is not accomplished by this Bill. The Government's defence of the integrity of tax credits is to allow a charge of 15 per cent on the first $300 and 5 per cent on the rest of the refund. It is still failing the poor.
By this lack of consideration for provincial jurisdiction in income tax matters, the federal Government is telling the provinces that they must abandon tax credits if they wish to see the integrity of their programs protected. It also means that the approaches toward a negative income tax system for helping the poor is hopelessly vulnerable to tax discounters.
This is how the authors of Canadian Tax Policy summed up the impact of Canada's tax system on the working poor:
There is virtually no federal program designed to assist the working poor. They do receive preferential treatment under the personal income tax system and
Tax Rebate Discounting Act
may be tax exempt owing to various deductions and exemptions. But they do not receive income transfers. Some provinces (for example, Ontario) provide a modest amount of tax credits to low-income persons, ostensibly to offset provincial sales and property taxes.
Rather than those people benefiting as the provinces have proposed, they are ripped off because the Government will permit tax discount operations to continue.
It is quite obvious that what little the tax system is prepared to transfer to the working poor will still be subject to the activities of the discounter. Is that how the Conservatives wish to treat the vast numbers of people who keep small and marginal businesses operating in Canada? Those poor people who will be ripped off will have less money to purchase goods from small businesses.
Bill C-83 comes no closer to helping the working poor. In fact, tax discounting will make the situation far worse for the working poor.
Canadians cannot afford this legislation. The poor cannot afford to be short changed as they will be under the provisions of this Bill. We say that it is wrong to permit discounters, including some of the largest companies in the field, to make the kind of profits they have made. This Bill fails to address this very poor situation.
We believe that tax discounting should be outlawed as it has been in the United States and the Province of Quebec. If the Minister is not prepared to outlaw tax discounting completely, he should certainly have followed the advice of the provincial Ministers of Consumer Affairs who said that the discounting of the child tax credit should be prohibited. This Bill does not fulfil its proposed purpose and we intend to vote against it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is the following one. Mr, Cote (Langelier), seconded by Mr. Hnaty-shyn, moves that Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.

December 5, 1985
Tax Rebate Discounting Act


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


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


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You missed the bus.


Mr. Cardiff:: We are all on the same bus.


Ian Deans: He ran.
(Division No. 142)


Mr. Speaker:: Was the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre present when I began the reading of the question?
++YEAS
Andre
Beatty
Belsher
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais-Grenier
Bouchard
Bourgault
Brightwell
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clifford
Clinch
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crouse
Darling
Domm
Dorin
Edwards
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Althouse
Angus
Benjamin
Berger
Broadbent
Deans
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West)
Members
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fretz
Gass
Gervais
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hudon
Jardine
Jelinek
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-Conception) Kelleher Kilgour Ladouceur La Salle Layton Lesick Lewis
MacDonald
(Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Malone Mantha Martin Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McCuish McDermid McGrath Mclnnes McKenzie
++NAYS
Members
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Henderson
Hopkins
Jewett
Keeper
Langdon
Lapierre
MacLellan
Malepart
Manly
McCurdy
Mitchell
Murphy
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Mitges
Mulroney
Murta
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Plamondon
Porter
Ravis
Redway
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Suluk Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Toupin
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Wise-106.
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Skelly
Tobin
Young-38.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, because of traffic on the Hill I was unable to be here to vote. There were at least three Members who were detained. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) was one of them. He was on the same


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am not sure if it was when you began, Mr. Speaker. I could not make out all the words. 1 wish to say that Members of the NDP are faster on the draw than the Conservatives. However, I will certainly live by your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be very clear. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre may not know this but once I begin the reading of the question it is not normally permitted to enter the House and vote. Therefore, I take it the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is telling me that I had already begun the question when he arrived.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I cannot vouch for certain that you were at the beginning. Therefore, if you wish me to take away my vote I will do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that. Under the circumstances, we will have to take the vote of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre off.
Therefore, I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault)-Transport-Request that European travel vouchers be tabled by Minister, (b) Demand that travel documents be produced; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture

Farm Debt-Government position. (b) Farm groups' demand; and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)- Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements-Federal payments to Atlantic Provinces. (b) Level of federal payments in 1986.
December 5, 1985

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on Today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CANADA PENSION PLAN ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act to
1.	provide more flexibility so that all contributions can be taken into consideration at the discretion of the Minister; and
2.	extend the time in which an individual can apply for a disability pension to 12 months or such longer period as approved by the Minister.
She said: Mr. Speaker, Canada's provincial Treasurers will be meeting with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in Edmonton soon and an important item on the agenda will be amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. The Canada Pension Plan was introduced in the mid 1960s and improvements or amendments to it have always been slow and difficult to realize. This is so, in part, because of the requirement that all amendments be not only approved by Parliament but also by two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population of Canada.
Another difficulty in bringing about improvements to the Canada Pension Plan has been the financial reason. Over the years provinces have borrowed very extensively from the Canada Pension Plan. I believe the cumulative amount which Ontario has borrowed over the years is now at about $14.5 billion. Under those circumstances, the provinces tend to resist any further costs.
The Canada Pension Plan provides workers and their families with a basic level of earnings related protection agains the contingencies of retirement, disability and death. The Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform which reported at the end of 1983 raised the question of whether disability benefits belong in a pension plan, but did not make a recommendation on whether disability provisions should continue to be found within the Canada Pension Plan or should be in a separate program. However, the committee did recommend an increase in the amounts and it that respect 1 quote from the report:
-current benefit levels do not reflect relevant living standards. As MPs we believe that a significant and early increase in disability benefits is essential.
The question of disability benefits was also discussed by a special committee which considered matters relating to the disabled and the handicapped during 1983. That committee had some very far-reaching recommendations which I hope we will see in law fairly soon. One of them was that a comprehensive disability insurance program be established and integrated
Canada Pension Plan Act
with the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan. Another was a proposal to change the definition of disability so that it would exclude fewer people. Another was to allow earnings on a sliding scale while a person is in receipt of benefits. These are all very progressive recommendations but what we are left with now is very much more restrictive.
Disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan consist of a flat rate portion and an earnings related portion of 75 per cent of the imputed retirement pension. Disability benefits are payable in the case of severe and prolonged disability as a result of which the person is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Clearly, that is a very restrictive definition.
First, the words "incapable of pursuing substantially gainful occupation" imply, really, giving up hope. The injured person is unwilling to face the fact that he or she may be unable to pursue any gainful occupation. Relatives are willing to encourage that kind of expectation. Doctors are reluctant to take away hope from people. So what tends to happen after the disability is that the patient tries every conceivable chance of rehabilitation and further treatment. He tries to go back to work and then a year has passed and he or she is no longer eligible for benefits because the application must be made within 12 months of becoming disabled. That is in the statute and there is no ministerial discretion. That is the first matter which I would like to see changed. I would like to see greater flexibility in the time for applying for disability benefits.
The second matter concerns the requirement that the contributions to the Canada Pension Plan must have been made in a fixed timeframe. The timeframe varies but essentially, for most people, they must have contributed within five of the last 10 years. Women, particularly, often fail to qualify, if we take on the year they have been ill and then, perhaps, four years when they may have been home with young children. Time and again they have failed to qualify even though they may very well have had 10 years of contributions. The contributions should be looked at in another timeframe.
Having dealt with a number of people who have lost their eligibility to Canada Pension disability benefits, either because of the 12 month limit or because of the timeframe in which they should have contributed, I am proposing that the Government include in its next meetings with the provinces for discussion proposals to bring some flexibility into these two matters in particular.
These are two very specific issues, and while my motion only concerns those two issues, 1 am not, of course, suggesting that that is the end of the debate on the needs of the disabled. 1 would in fact like to see a much more comprehensive plan in place, as was advocated by the all-Party committee on the disabled. However, I think the proposals I am putting forward are simple and practical and it might be possible to get agreement on those with the provincial Ministers concerned.

December 5, 1985
Canada Pension Plan Act


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) which would essentially, if it were to be adopted by both the federal and provincial Governments provide more flexibility so that all contributions could be taken into consideration at the discretion of the Minister and, second, extend the time at which an individual could apply for a disability pension to 12 months or such longer period as might be approved by the Minister.
As the Hon. Member for Trinity has already pointed out, the Canada Pension Plan has a very stringent definition of disability. It can only be applied to persons who can never again be re-employed. We also know from a whole variety of reports which are available to Governments, both provincial and federal, that among those individuals who have been unfortunate enough to leave the workforce because of a disability and have applied to the Canada Pension Plan for a benefit under that plan there is widespread poverty. Those persons are poor for a number of reasons. First, because they applied for a disability pension under the CPP they are not permitted to accept any form of work while they are in receipt of the benefit and, second, of course-and this has been argued very strongly in the Obstacles report, to which the Hon. Member for Trinity referred-is that simply because you become disabled does not mean that your expenses come down, by any means. In fact, more often than not when one is disabled one incurs additional expenses which an able-bodie person would not normally have.
I was a member of that special committee, along with other Members from all sides of the House, and in our report we said that within the insurance companies, disability is called "the living death" because the family of the disabled person is deprived of a regular income as if the person were dead but is left with equal or greater expenses because the person is still living. That may be a harsh way to put it but I think it is the reality of many people once they become disabled on the job.
There is also no doubt that trying to reform Canada's pension plan is an extremely slow process. I recall that when I came here in 1980 there was the National Pensions Conference. I was fortunate enough to be a delegate from the House to that conference. To say there was no consensus arrived at at that conference would not be to exaggerate. But something which did come through from the conference was the need to reform Canada's pension system. Since then we have had the second national conference on pensions, and we still have not arrived at any form of consensus.
In fact, I just quickly ran through some notes I had on pension reform and found that the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, Monique Begin, announced proposals on December 7, 1981 while she was at the United Nations. She set out a whole series of proposals to improve the disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
The following day there were news reports emanating from the Treasurer of Ontario at that time, Mr. Frank Miller, who very bluntly and strongly said that he did not think that disability benefits should properly fall under the Canada Pension Plan but should come from somewhere else. He did not define where the "somewhere else" would be. I just say that to illustrate the difficulty there is in getting provincial-federal agreement on improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, and that is required as we all know under that plan.
In spite of the special committee on the disabled, and announcements from Ministers of National Health and Welfare over the years, including the present Minister, not too much has been accomplished. I believe that is why I and other Hon. Members welcome the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Trinity which will again give us the opportunity to speak about some of the problems associated with that issue in the House and, hopefully, bring some pressure to bear on the Parties who are responsible for the negotiation to go at it in a much more serious way.
We all have constituents who have had great difficulty with the Canada Pension Plan. When they have attempted to apply for a disability pension they found out fairly quickly that the interpretation of the section of the Canada Pension Plan means that they have to be practically comitose in order to receive a benefit. If they are fortunate enough to receive a benefit, the benefit itself is totally inadequate to allow a person to live with any degree of dignity or financial independence.
The proposals in the Obstacles report received broad support from provincial Governments, the federal Government and all kinds of Canadians. Yet, those proposals have not yet been adopted.
In February of 1983 the advisory committee on the Canada Pension Plan, which reports to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), presented the Minister with further proposals on how to improve disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. In that report it was pointed out that there was widespread poverty among persons in receipt of that benefit.
They made two suggestions to improve that. I will use the figures that they used in 1982, although they are out of date now. They said that disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan could be improved by increasing the flat rate component from its present level of $70.68 per month to a much higher level such as the equivalent of the Old Age Security pension of $227.73 per month which prevailed from January to March of 1982.
The second recommendation was that raising the earnings-related component from 75 per cent of the contributor's imputed retirement pension to 100 per cent-that would be from $230.74 a month to $376 per month-would make the benefits to these individuals equal to a benefit that they could receive at age 65. It would, in effect, double the pension income for disabled individuals.
This is something that is sorely needed. This has been recognized by many groups and individuals who have been requested by the Government to conduct examinations into the Canada Pension Plan and, indeed, the entire pension system. I think the House would be doing a service to Canada's present
December 5, 1985

disabled, as well as future disabled Canadians, if we were to agree today to refer the motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. In that way we could once again ensure that the problems faced by that group of Canadians are receiving the kind of public attention they fully deserve.
I do not think I need say too much more. I think the Member who introduced the motion put the case very well. I only wanted to indicate my support for that measure.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can only applaud the motion by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Ms. Nicholson) regarding the advisability of expanding eligibility for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. However, I think this measure alone would not solve all the problems connected with disability coverage, and I would prefer to seek a solution based on a comprehensive review of our disability benefit system.
Before examining the system and its shortcomings, I would like to give a brief overview of the situation facing many disabled individuals. First of all, it is extremely difficult to establish an accurate profile of the disabled in Canada. It is difficult because we have no single definition of what disability is. Even programs for the disabled are based on widely varying definitions of disability. Furthermore, our statistics on the disabled population in Canada are very limited. However, the few data we do have point to a situation that is extremely disturbing. It is estimated that about 12.5 per cent of Canadians are disabled to some extent. Eighteen per cent of disabled individuals between the ages of 15 and 64 have a serious disability. It is also true that both the percentage and the seriousness of the disability increase with age. For instance, it is estimated that only 5 per cent of the disabled are under 15, while about 30 per cent are over 65.
Economically speaking, the disabled are certainly one of the least advantaged groups of our society. There are a number of factors that account at least partially for this situation. We see that the unemployment rate among disabled individuals who are able to work tends to be higher than among the general population. It is also true that individuals who are unable to work usually have a very low income. According to a 1981 survey of recipients of disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, their average income from all sources was equal to or below the low-income threshold established by Statistics Canada.
The precarious financial situation in which the disabled find themselves is not due to a lack of Government programs for this particular group. The disability benefits system in Canada includes a range of programs that provide workers with income protection in case of disability. However, the most effective programs have been designed to meet specific objectives such
Canada Pension Plan Act
as protecting workers in case of accidents on the job or meeting our obligations to disabled veterans.
I would now like to give a brief description of the main programs that constitute our existing disability benefits system. These programs can be classified in two major categories: general disability programs and category programs.
The general disability programs are those under which benefits are payable regardless of the cause of disability. It is the case, for instance, of the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Those are mandatory social insurance programs under which wage earners and the self-employed have guaranteed coverage in case of disability. Eligibility for disability benefits however is strictly limited because of the limited scope of the definition of that word as used in those plans.
There are also voluntary private insurance programs for prolonged disability. These programs cover about 43 per cent of the work force. Generally speaking, they provide a substitute income roughly equivalent to 60 to 75 per cent of the income earned before disability. It should be noted however that such programs provide for an integration formula under which benefits are reduced when the recipient gets other disability benefits.
Social assistance is the last program in the category of general programs. Social assistance benefits are paid to the needy, no matter what the cause may be. These programs are administered by the provinces, but the federal Government shares the costs.
As to the second group of programs offering income protection in case of disability, it also includes so-called category programs. These programs pay benefits to people in particular circumstances. An example would be the system of provincial workers' compensation programs. They compensate workers who suffer from disability due to a work accident. Category programs also include disability pensions paid to veterans, car accident insurance plans, and compensation for victims of criminal acts.
This description of the Canadian system of disability benefits would indicate that ours is a relatively complete and efficient system. I am sorry that I have to say that such is not the case, unfortunately. Our system has major short-comings which can be grouped around three major problems. The first of these problems stems from the difficult task of determining what a disability is. The universal income related programs such as the Canada Pension Plan, the Quebec Pension Plan or the long term disability insurance plan essentially provide benefits in case of a very serious disability, but do not provide any benefit to people suffering from a partial disability.
Specific programs providing compensation for work-related or automobile accidents provide benefits in case of total or partial disability. However, these benefits are paid only if the disability is the result of a specific cause, like a wound suffered or an illness incurred on the job, or in an automobile accident.

December 5, 1985
Canada Pension Plan Act
In fact, it is not always possible to identify the single cause of disability. For instance, certain types of cancer can be the result of smoking and or working conditions. When in doubt as to the cause, unfortunately, the application for benefits may be turned down. Naturally, this all or nothing approach is a source of much criticism.
The second problem concerns the target population. People who are not earners can hardly expect protection except for provincial social assistance, legal aid, or private insurance programs. The problem concerning self-employed workers is different. As I said, nearly all wage earners are covered by the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. They can also receive benefits as compensation for a work-related accident or under a private insurance plan. The fact that these people are seeking similar objectives inevitably result in an over-lapping protection. Such a situation generally arises when an invalid person is eligible for benefits under more than one program. Some of the results of this over-lapping of measures are an increase in administrative costs for the system and a more complicated procedure for the applicant.
The third and last major short-coming of our system, but not the least, concerns the limit of benefits paid. It should be emphasized first that the level of these benefits vary widely from one program to another. The programs which cover the greatest number of people are unfortunately those which also pay the lowest benefits. In fact, the social assistance program which has the widest coverage provides only a minimum income to the needy. Social assistance benefits are subject to a means test and do not take into account the salaries previously paid to the worker.
As for the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, they provide a level of income based on previous earnings. The maximum amount of the disability benefit in these cases represents approximately 20 per cent of the average industrial wage. In addition, the great majority of recipients have benefits much lower than the maximum amount of benefits payable. About 14 per cent of disability benefit recipients must depend on provincial welfare programs to meet their needs. This clearly indicates that the level of disability benefits under the CPP is quite inadequate.
On top of this problem, there is the difference in the disability benefit rates of the two plans. I am certain that this question will be debated during the federal-provincial discussions on pension reform. Moreover, neither plan offers complementary programs to meet special needs.
Workmen's compensation programs also replace, but more substantially, the previous earning income of the disabled. However, the maximum level of benefits is limited by the ceiling of insurable earnings which varies with the provinces.
However, these programs offer the most comprehensive range of services to meet the special needs of the disabled.
Private insurance programs for extended disability also provide a very high rate of replacement of previous earnings. However, there is little protection against inflation in the long term. On the other hand, these programs pay benefits related to special needs under certain circumstances.
I trust that improvements can be made to the existing system. Indeed, this is why the federal and provincial governments are actively working on a comprehensive review of disability benefits. Under its terms of reference, the task force must identify the weaknesses of the present system and define possible options to provide a complete disability insurance system. The task force is expected to report to the federal and provincial social services ministers by the end of this year.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the motion today presented by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). The Government recognizes that Canada's disabled population needs improved assistance. We are already taking steps to facilitate this goal.
In this regard I would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to changes to the disability tax deduction which were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget address of May 23, 1985.
Effective for the 1986 and subsequent taxation years, this special income tax deduction will be available to any individual who is certified by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) as being a person who, during the year, was suffering from a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment. This is a major improvement in that currently only the blind and those who are confined to a bed or wheelchair are eligible for the special disability deduction.
As the Minister of Finance pointed out, if the effect of the disability is to markedly restrict the person in activities of daily living, and if the disability has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months, the person will be eligible for the tax deduction. About 185,000 people are expected to benefit under this broader definition, a substantial increase over the 65,000 current claimants.
There is no doubt that one of the major problems facing the disabled today is inadequate income support. The above change is evidence of both our recognition of this serious problem and our commitment to find a solution. Nevertheless, the Government knows that despite the fact that a myriad of programs exist to assist disabled persons, this group remains among the poorest people in Canada.
I think it is obvious that the motion before us today is an attempt to alleviate this situation. The Hon. Member has identified the Canada Pension Plan disability provisions as being in need of improvement. Her criticism is not with the level of benefit or the definition of disability which are the two areas most commonly looked at with regard to CPP disability benefits. Instead, I think the Member has asked the Govern-
December 5, 1985

ment to modify the eligibility criterion that requires a disabled CPP contributor to meet the minimum contributory requirements and to extend the date at which disability can be deemed to have occurred. These are two changes which, even though they may seem of minor significance at first glance, could improve the financial situation of at least some disabled persons.
Before commenting in detail on the two proposals contained in this motion, 1 believe it would be useful to first review the current legislative requirements for the receipt of a CPP disability pension. As well, I want to outline for Hon. Members why legislators at the time the plan was introduced in the mid-1960s chose the criteria they did.
In order to qualify for a disability benefit, the CPP currently requires a contributor to have contributed for a minimum of five calendar years and the lesser of: 5 of the last 10 years and, in total, at least one-third of the number of years in the individual's contributory period; or 5 of the last 10 years and, in total, at last 10 years.
The underlying rationale for these minimum contributory requirements was twofold. First, it was felt that because of the substantial flat-rate benefit which makes up a portion of the CPP disability pension, it was only reasonable to require that contributors demonstrate a substantial attachment to the paid labour force.
Second, given that the CPP is designed to provide contributors and their families with a measure of protection against the loss of earnings income, it was felt that a test of recent attachment to the labour force was not unreasonable. However, since the introduction of the CPP in 1966 the minimum contributory requirements have been criticized and proposals have been made for changes.
I am sure that it will not surprise Hon. Members to hear that the Hon. Stanley Knowles, who is well known to all of us for his concern and efforts on behalf of disadvantaged Canadians, made one such proposal as far back as 1977. During a 1977 meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Mr. Knowles suggested possibly reducing the minimum contributory requirement for receipt of a CPP disability pension to one year. At that time the then Minister of National Health and Welfare agreed to refer the subject to the Canada Pension Plan advisory committee.
In a June 1980 report to the Minister, the advisory committee rejected in principle the proposal by which a single year's contribution to the CPP would entitle a contributor to coverage at any future date, regardless of the contributor's future labour force participation. The committee felt that some test of recent labour force attachment was still required. Instead, what the committee recommended was that the current rules be maintained and supplemented by an additional rule which would allow a contributor to qualify for disability coverage if he or she had made one valid contribution, either in the year of disability or in the immediately preceding year. This proposal was formally submitted to the provinces for consideration.
Canada Pension Plan Act
In this regard, I should point out that a major change to the CPP requires the approval of both the federal Government and two-thirds of the provinces having two-thirds of the Canadian population.
However, a decision on this and other CPP disability benefit improvements was deferred until such time as a federal-provincial study could be completed on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive disability protection scheme.
As Hon. Members may remember, such a scheme was recommended by the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped in its 1981 report, Obstacles. I believe that report has been alluded to in the Chamber today. I am pleased to note that the study is expected to be submitted to federal and provincial Ministers of social services by the end of this year. This study, along with proposals to improve CPP disability benefits, will be included in upcoming federal-provincial consultations on comprehensive pension reforms.
In addition, it may interest Hon. Members to know that the minimum contributory requirements for receipt of a disability pension under the Quebec Pension Plan were amended effective January 1, 1984, for persons between the ages of 60 and 64. Persons in that age group, who are no longer able to do the job they had prior to disability, are entitled to receive a QPP disability pension if they have contributed to the plan for a minimum of seven years. However, while the recent labour force attachment test has been abolished under the Quebec Pension Plan, it must be kept in mind that it is only for a small group of QPP contributors, the near elderly.
Let us now turn to the Hon. Member's suggestion that there be an extension in the time limit allowed for the determination of when an individual can be deemed to be disabled. Currently, a CPP contributor cannot be deemed to be disabled earlier than 12 months before the month of application for a disability pension.
At the time the CPP was introduced, legislators recognized that in many cases disabled persons would not apply for CPP disability benefits as soon as they became disabled. There could be many reasons for such a delay, not the least of which is the fact that it takes time to recognize and accept that one meets the severe and prolonged definition of disability under CPP. Thus, it was felt only reasonable to allow some measure of retroactive determination. However, while some retroactivity was desirable, it was recognized that it would be very difficult in many cases to determine exactly when a contributor became disabled for CPP purposes. A maximum of 12 months prior to the month of application was deemed to be a reasonable length of time to allow for a retroactive determination of disability. As Hon. Members can appreciate, it would be difficult to administer a provision which had no fixed date.
The Hon. Member's motion suggests that the time period be left up to the Minister's discretion, but 1 am sure that we can all recognize the potential inconsistency of protection that such an approach could create. Nevertheless, it may be that a longer period of time should be allowed, such as 24 or perhaps even 36 months, and that this issue could be included in the federal-provincial consultations on CPP changes.

December 5, 1985
Canada Pension Plan Act
There may be another reason disabled workers are not applying for CPP benefits as soon as they might. I think we should ask ourselves whether Canadians are delaying application for CPP disability benefits through ignorance. Is it that they are unaware of the protection afforded by the CPP? If so, this is the problem that must be dealt with. Canadian workers and their employers pay for the CPP. They pay so that when they meet one of the contingencies for which a CPP benefit is available they can receive the needed earnings replacement the CPP provides. New and innovative efforts are being made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to acquaint CPP contributors of their rights under the plan. Those who are entitled to CPP benefits should apply for and receive these benefits at the first opportunity, and every effort is being made to ensure that individuals know this.
The Hon. Member is to be complimented today for her concern for Canada's disabled. I assure her and all Canadians that the Government shares this concern. Every effort will be made to bring about much-needed improvements for disabled persons in the very near future.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the broader issues associated with the motion to amend the Canada Pension Plan put forward by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).
In response to the concerns raised in Obstacles, the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, federal and provincial Ministers of social services agreed in February, 1982 that prior to proposing any legislative initiatives, they would establish a joint federal-provincial task force on income protection.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the study was to identify means to provide adequate benefits to all disabled and handicapped Canadians, both in and out of the work force.
The first phase of this study was completed as mandated with the task force submitting its report to Ministers in September 1983. I understand that the Ministers have agreed to continue the work of the task force. It is expected that the second phase of this study will be completed in time to meet the December 1985 completion date.
In closing, I want to emphasize that this Government is prepared to make specific changes. I compliment my colleagues from Trinity on her excellent motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour set aside for Private Members' Business has now expired.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the few minutes allotted to me to deal with the trips made last summer by the Hon. Minister for Environment, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mrs. Blais-Grenier).
Several documents were obtained recently under the Freedom of Information Act, which clearly show that although the main purposes of the trip made by the Hon. Minister, despite the fact that such purposes and such meetings had been cancelled to the Minister's knowledge, she nevertheless decided to travel "through the Europes". As it seems in this matter, the more documents that get out, the clearer it becomes that originally there was a reasonable purpose, an official purpose for the Minister to go to Europe. We can appreciate that the Minister added to that official activity other ones of a personal and touristic nature, which she probably intended to carry on at her own expense. It appears however, that when the main reason for the trip was cancelled, the Minister was in quite a dilemma, namely: should she then forgo the interesting, entertaining, touristic part of the trip? And this is where, unable to resist the temptation, she decided to proceed nonetheless with her European tour.
I have here a few documents that are interesting to quote. For instance, I have in hand a telex from our embassy in Stockholm to External Affairs here in Ottawa, dated March 27, which was before the April trip, and I am simply quoting from the telex:

There is a 98 per cent chance that the Stockholm ministerial meeting will be postponed. Please advise if we are correct in presuming that if the ministerial meeting is postponed. Minister Blais-Grenier's visit to Sweden will also be postponed.

The embassy was them assuming that were the official part cancelled, the Minister would forgo her trip. But we know that the opposite happened. Indeed, the Minister went in spite of that.
I have here another telex to External Affairs from the Canadian embassy in Moscow: it may sound a bit strange but I should like to quote a few words from it. It is stated that certain Soviet officials whose names I will not mention since they are not needed for the purposes of the discussion, "cannot therefore greet Mrs. Blais-Grenier in Leningrad, although the
December 5, 1985

Soviet party appreciates the touristic character of the visit to Leningrad". Those are documents written by federal officials.
I have another one here sent to Helsinki from External Affairs, in which one instruction is given:

-would like to emphasize the private nature of the trip.
And at that point, the Minister having requested that the host country look after hotel reservations:

We are advised that Moscow will not process item like this. Please contact Intourist in Helsinki for arrangements.

So even host countries did not want to get involved.
I could go on with that kind of quotes. But I feel that what we now need to know is, what did the Minister pay for herself, because we have several invoices which we examined and it does not appear that during the entire trip, except for one part that is quite identifiable where the Minister visited Corsica at her own expense, it seems. And there, I believe it because no invoices were tabled or obtained under the Freedom of Information Act to indicate that the Canadian taxpayers paid for anything with respect to that trip. So that part of the journey, where she went to Corsica, is not involved.
But, on the other hand, for all the other parts of the two trips we know of, the one in April and the one in June, we have hotel vouchers showing continuity. We have limousine vouchers, and there is no evidence whatsoever as to how the Minister herself would have paid part of the costs. So we are wondering what part the Minister should pay back to the Canadian taxpayers.
Finally, I would simply stress that coming from a Minister in a Government that is preaching austerity, restraint, it is bad example to go sightseeing at the taxpayers' expense. In my view, on the one hand the Minister should reflect on what she did, and on the other the head of the Government should put out stringent guidelines to make sure such things do not happen again.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the piety of the Member of a previous Government that on average spent at least 40 per cent more on travel than this Government.
In specific answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and in further response to the question that was asked some time ago, since the question was first asked several significant pieces of information have been
Adjournment Debate
proffered publicly as far as possible. I have in my hand documentation which provides details of the Minister's personal expenses. As the Hon. Member will know, it is not possible to table these in the House because they are in fact personal expenses.
There has also been a further public indication of the second official invitation from Sweden, which accounts for the Minister's visit there. In addition to that, we have had further indication of the significance of the visit the Minister made to France for a cultural occasion which was well recognized and appreciated by people from France and Quebec. I think that those pieces of information, on scrutiny of the Canadian public, if they are exposed, will provide the information for which the Hon. Member has asked.


AGRICULTURE-FARM DEBT-GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) FARM GROUPS' DEMAND
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on November 25, I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) as follows:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. A week ago Saturday, 800 farmers demonstrated in front of the Minister's constituency office in St. Thomas to protest the lack of action on the farm debt crisis. Can the Minister say when the Government is going to take action as demanded by the seven responsible farm groups, on a comprehensive farm debt moratorium and farm credit arrangements legislation?
I did not get much of a response from the Minister that day, and I will refer to that later.
Essentially, many of the people who were at that demonstration were tobacco farmers from that area as well as beef farmers from the Bruce Peninsula and the Bruce-Grey riding. They were all protesting the lack of action on the part of the Government on farm credit legislation and on the extension of the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loans to other loans. Of course, we received no answer from the Minister.
The demonstrators who are in front of the Parliament Buildings today are mainly tobacco growers. It is little wonder that they are demonstrating. They have seen a litany of broken promises. For instance, back in June, 1984, they met with the then Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley) and the then Minister of Agriculture. At that time the Minister gave a commitment that there would be national marketing and legislation for tobacco.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wrote a letter to a Mr. Garry Balthes in November of 1984 which reads:
Dear Garry:
Thank you for your letter of August 14.
I was pleased to have an opportunity to meet with you and your co-workers from the concerned farmers group during the campaign, and can assure you that our government will be acting quickly to establish a National Tobacco Marketing Agency, as well as other measures designed to assist tobacco producers.

December 5, 1985
Adjournment Debate
A rally took place on November 9 at which about 800 farmers protested and demanded action. One of the farmers with whom I communicated is in his seventies. He said that it was the angriest and most ugly farm demonstration he had seen since the 1930s.
Last weekend, on November 30, there was another rally in Delhi. 1 asked the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk why he did not attend that rally. I did this because farmers were contacting me to complain about the fact he was not attending. Of course, he brought in the explanation that he had to go to a Santa Claus parade in an adjoining community.
Next Tuesday, December 10, there will be an even larger rally here in Ottawa to protest the lack of action with respect to the establishment of a farm marketing agency and all of the other things which farm groups are waiting on. They are waiting because of a litany of broken promises and broken commitments by the Government.
When we raise the subject in the House the Minister just gives a smart alec answer such as he did on November 25. On that day he said he did not take any action because the House was not sitting that week. That type of answer may receive great guffaws and a great response from back-benchers on the government side, but it certainly does not give the Minister credibility. Nor does it put him in a favourable light with farmers who are facing the most devastating financial crunch since the 1930s.
What we see from the Government and the Minister is a litany of broken promises and broken commitments. We have not seen any action with respect to establishing any of the agencies about which the Government has talked. The farmers are getting bloody mad. They will continue to rally. They will continue to demand that the Government take action. They were promised this years ago. Then the Conservatives came to power and the action is simply not forthcoming. It is just stall, stall, stall. When action does come about it is in the form of a dribble and really amounts to no action at all.
1 am acting on behalf of these people tonight demanding that the Government move ahead with these demands and keep the commitments it made, not only in the election campaign but several times since. There has been no action forthcoming up to this point in time.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has to forgive Government Members if at times we do not take him seriously. It is difficult to appreciate someone who was in Government for so long and who accomplished so little; he tries to tell the Government, or impress
upon us, the serious nature of the problems in the field of agriculture.
It is not difficult at all for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), or for most Members on this side of the House, to appreciate the serious problems in agriculture which have arisen over four or five years of constant neglect by the previous Government. I do not say that in defence because, in fact, I think we have a record which is now evolving. Because of the time I will only list two or three items in this respect.
In the recent past we made a payment of $40 million on the federal level under the ASA, because Bill C-25 was passed. We can now make quarterly payments to red meat producers.
We do have an enabling legislation for the tobacco marketing board-


Maurice Brydon Foster: How does that help our cow-calf operators?


Gary Michael Gurbin: In conjunction with the provincial governments those programs in fact are there.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There is nothing for the cow-calf operators, and you know it.


Gary Michael Gurbin: There is also $150 million for drought relief for the western farmers. I am going to stop there, Mr. Speaker. There are many more things which could be mentioned but I know that they upset the Hon. Member for Algoma. But he talked about them for two or three years and did not do a bloody thing about them. What I would like to say very quickly, because the time is running short, is that the amendment which will be necessary to the bankruptcy legislation is being considered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The question of urgency is there and is impressed upon the Government. We have been in government for 15 months now and during that period of time-


Maurice Brydon Foster: There is no act yet. It's been promised since last July.


Gary Michael Gurbin: -in discussions with different groups the importance of the bankruptcy legislation has been understood, as well as changes to the Farm Credit Corporation. A private sector group has been established which has given its recommendations to the Minister. In close consultation with the Minister of Agriculture the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) understands we need that legislation in order to deal with that very significant segment of the agricultural population which will not, in fact, be accommodated-I agree with the Hon. Member for Algoma on this point-by the
December 5, 1985

traditional measures because in fact they have been allowed to sink so low under the previous Liberal regime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly,
Adjournment Debate
the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursu ant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.﻿HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 6, 1985