1985-10-24

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today amends the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. It seeks to raise substantial new revenues from the commodity tax system. While no Government likes to raise taxes, this Bill clearly reflects the Government's determination to achieve the economic renewal goals of the May 1985 Budget. These measures emphasize the Government's continued commitment to fairness in its approach to policies, programs and people as outlined in the May Budget. These measures, for instance, reflect a number of objectives in the Budget which address the need for greater fairness in our tax system.
Before I address the substance of the Bill, I want to point out to Hon. Members that the principles of this Government's Budget can be seen as the right prescription for the times. For example, witness recent economic indicators, as well as forecasts published by both the Economic Council of Canada and the Royal Bank of Canada.
Since September, 1984-in one year-we have seen the Government's policies restore economic confidence in the country. This Government's policies will see that Canada does indeed become a land of prosperity. We are beginning to see what the dismantling of the National Energy Program can do to our energy sector. Already, exploration activity is beginning to increase and the prospects of long-term domestic supply of energy reserves are improving. Also, the Government's shift in job training strategy from makeshift and make-work projects toward long-term career-oriented skills training will bolster our economy by employing productively more and more Canadians.
This Government's forward-looking policies have already created 305,000 jobs. We look to the expansion of the economy to further reduce unemployment. Today's unemployment level
of 10.1 per cent is the lowest it has been in three years-not low enough for this Government. We shall continue to promote policies which create meaningful work for Canadians.
We have seen about 155,000 new housing starts this past year as well. This bodes well for the construction industry. In the past year, interest rates on mortgages have continued to drop. We have seen the interest rate on one-year mortgages fall 2.75 percentage points to 10 per cent; and we have seen the reintroduction of the five-year mortgage. This is, indeed, good news, not just to those engaged in the construction sector but to Canadians everywhere who want to own their own home.
Early this week the Royal Bank of Canada confirmed that economic growth in this country is proceeding at a steady pace, that inflation and interest rates will continue to decline and unemployment will be at its lowest level in years. The Royal Bank says that the Canadian economy is looking better because Canadian businesses are spending more money, producting more goods and employing more people.
Along with certain tax increases in our May Budget, this Budget also introduced a capital gains tax exemption. It is this capital gains tax exemption which is encouraging investment by small and medium-sized business. It is this Government's initiative which is helping to restore optimism, confidence and prosperity in this great country of ours.
I would now like to turn to some of the tax measures we introduced in the May Budget in order to bring the deficit under control and to manage Government more effectively to achieve and sustain the benefits of economic growth which we are just beginning to enjoy. Our policies, to wrestle the deficit and manage the Government better, are part of a comprehensive set of actions designed to deal with a wide range of economic and fiscal needs.
We must manage to control the deficit and administer Government operations more efficiently, if we are to reap the benefits of economic renewal and consolidate those benefits.
We must achieve these goals through a series of comprehensive measures aimed at responding to a broad range of economic and financial needs.

The Bill should, therefore, be viewed in the context of all of the changes and proposals which were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in May. As a fiscal initiative, this Bill concentrates heavily on the control of the national debt through a number of revenue-raising measures and reductions in tax expenditures. To achieve more effective

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
Government management, this Bill implements many of the recommendations of the ministerial task force on program review.
To improve tax fairness, the Bill introduces a comprehensive system of assessments, objections and appeals. It provides protection for taxpayers from collection action with respect to amounts in dispute until the issue has been settled by the courts. The decision to increase taxes was taken after much soul-searching and in light of the very serious economic situation in which we find ourselves as a nation.
The national debt, as we have said many times, is unacceptably large and growing at a dramatic rate. The magnitude of the deficit and debt problem poses serious risks to our ability to achieve economic renewal and sustained economic growth. It is only by tough measures to take control of the deficit that the Government of Canada can avoid a financial and economic morass. Uncontrolled increases in the deficit and the debt would not only frustrate efforts to foster further economic growth but would also jeopardize many existing Government programs which provide services to the public.
Inaction, in light of these facts, would be an abdication of responsibility. The hard decisions and dramatic changes reflected in this Bill show that this Government can and will face its responsibilities.
The deficit affects us all and it threatens us all. Deficit control measures must be shared as broadly as possible if results of the magnitude required are to be achieved. Therefore, effective January 1, 1986, all the ad valorem federal sales tax rates will increase by one percentage point. The federal sales tax applies to a broad range of goods purchased by all Canadians and while the impact of this change on individual purchases will be small, the increase will raise federal revenues in 1986 by an estimated $825 million.
This Bill also implements a two cents per litre excise tax which has applied since September 3, 1985, on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuel. This two cent levy will generate $160 million in 1985 and some $930 million in the full year 1986.
In response to the May Budget proposals, Canadians showed that they strongly support deficit reduction and are willing to share in that effort. They are not only willing to participate but have shown their compassion in preferring broad measures to measures which raise anxieties and uncertainties within a financially vulnerable group. Thus, in response to public concern, this Bill contains the provision whereby the broad-based excise tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuels will be increased by one cent per litre effective January 1, 1987, to help meet the continuing cost of fully indexing old age pensions. This measure will yield $450 million annually.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, also rationalizes certain elements of the tax system. Prior to the May Budget, for example, the specific per unit excise levies on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products had been adjusted automatically in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index. This Government believes that increases in such excise levies in accordance with
a rigid formula are not appropriate. Therefore, the automatic indexation of these levies is being eliminated. Indexation of these levies would have resulted in a 4 per cent increase effective September 1, 1985. In its place, the levies on spirits, beer, and wine are being increased by 2 per cent effective from the budget date.
[ Translation]
The slight increase is in response to problems currently being experienced by certain parts of the alcoholic beverage industry. Subsequent increases will be submitted to Parliament from time to time, for consideration.
This Bill also makes it possible to improve the tax base by increasing excise levies on tobacco products. The increase works out to the equivalent of 1 per cent per cigarette, effective from the Budget date. The serious threat to health and the high cost to society of dealing with smoking-related illnesses are reflected in the substantial increases being proposed.

The over-all impact of the measures affecting alcoholic beverages and tobacco products will be to increase federal revenues by $135 million in 1985 and by $245 million in 1986. This Bill also implements a number of technical amendments. For instance, the Bill repeals the constraints on individuals who produce home-brewed beer for non-commercial use by themselves and their acquaintances. Home brewers of beer will now be treated similarly to persons who produce wine for personal consumption.
This Bill includes measures to improve Government effectiveness through better management in line with the first report of the ministerial task force on program review. In its report tabled with the Budget last May, the task force made a number of comments on the commodity tax system. In particular, the task force made the following observation:
The number of manufactured goods which have been exempted from federal sales tax or which have enjoyed reduced rates of tax has increased. This, in turn, has led to an erosion of the tax base and the need to impose higher tax rates on those remaining goods which are taxable. These exemptions have also created a complex network of boundary problems and inequities. Exemptions of individual goods have led to pressures to make similar goods, or goods of like class, also exempt from tax. Exemptions have also tended, in the absence of sunset provisions, to outlive the purpose for which they were initially granted.
Action is clearly needed to reverse this process of costly tax subsidies and expenditures that distort the normal functioning of the market-place. Even where benefits accrue to intended recipients, commodity tax exemptions have shown themselves to be very inefficient and costly. Often tax relief can be provided to a specific target group only by providing much broader and more general relief than is really desired. This increases the cost and extends relief to many persons who are in little need of Government assistance.
This Bill contains significant steps to counter the problems identified by the task force. Effective July 1, 1985 a range of goods for which exemption from federal sales tax has been provided will again be subject to tax. Goods affected by these measures include candy and confectionaries, soft drinks, pet
October 24, 1985

food, beauty and health goods and energy conservation material. Changes in the taxation of construction goods manufactured other than at the site of construction are also proposed. These goods will become taxable on their sale price rather than on the cost of materials as has been the case in the past.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tough Bill. It raises substantial new revenues by broadening the base of the federal sales tax and increasing the rates of tax. I am sure all Hon. Members recognize that the economic problems facing this country are not easy to solve, and in the Budget the need for economic growth, deficit reduction and job creation were addressed realistically. The measures announced in the Budget should be considered as a whole. The tax increases are balanced with Government expenditure reductions, and the impact of tax increases on the economy are balanced against tax decreases, the freeze on unemployment insurance premiums, the release of existing RHOSP funds into the economy, and major proposals to boost private initiative and productive investment throughout the economy. We faced the reality of deficit reduction and the fact that only strong and sustained policies such as these measures can restore the economic activity which creates satisfying employment for Canadians. This Government has openly asked a wide range of taxpayers to contribute in a fair way. Together, the expenditure cuts and tax changes are an important and fair way of restoring fiscal order to this country.
I said it was a tough Bill but I believe it is also fair. It asks all Canadians to share in the effort to restore the fiscal health of our country. This Bill is an important step in addressing the serious financial deficits we face. Therefore, I ask Hon. Members to give their full support to this Bill and ensure its speedy consideration in this Chamber.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister certainly toed the Party line this morning when she introduced this Bill for second reading. It is too bad that the Minister has to do the dirty work of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We now have confirmation in this morning's newspapers of what we suspected, namely, that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougal!) was against the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank. Apparently she was overruled by the Minister of Finance and, of course, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

I ask you, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister brings the same insights to the Bill before the House today, I wonder whether deep down, she might not be opposed to the Bill. It is clear that this Bill is poorly drafted and unfair and that it will probably have a disastrous and totally negative impact on the Canadian economy.
If the Minister continues to present the point of view of the Minister of Finance, she may end up acting as a scapegoat for the Government and the Minister.
Excise Tax Act

The Minister of State for Finance cannot always count on the revelations before a judicial inquiry to reveal to the Canadian public that she is in fact exercising sound, independent judgment.
[ Translation]
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Minister does not support the avalanche of taxes to be levied under this Bill.

Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? I say it because I am convinced that the Minister is aware that these taxes will have a severe-I repeat, severe-dampening effect on the Canadian economy. They will reduce consumer demand and, as we already know from the most recent reports of Statistics Canada, they will be inflationary.
May I remind the House of the dollar impact of these proposed measures? The numbers I am about to present are based upon an analysis made by the Department of Finance, a document which, you may recall, was leaked on or about the date of the Budget. These taxes are indirect but they will hit hard at Canadian consumers. Looking at the departmental analysis we see that in 1986-87, the total of these taxes will come to something like $2.67 billion. I arrive at that number by totalling the sales tax base broadening, the sales tax rate increase, the tobacco excise tax, the alcohol levy and the energy excise tax. I have deducted the alcohol and tobacco indexation, which is $100 million. I have not deducted the Canadian ownership charge, which will come to approximately $921 million next year, nor the oil export charge. They should not have been deducted as the Government has done in making its presentations because there is no evidence that these reductions will be passed on to consumers at the pump. Indeed, we know that the other sales tax increases can only be borne by consumers.
Again, as we look at the Department's figures, moving to the fiscal year 1990-1991, we see that the total impact will be $4.1 billion. That is only part of the multi-million dollar tax bill which the Minister of Finance handed to us last May.
I would remind the House that the Minister of Finance himself admitted the obvious dampening effect of taxes of this magnitude. During a television interview on March 1, I believe, when questioned about his future Budget, he said that taxes are not the way to go because they will have a dampening effect on the economy. He went on to point out that he thought there was sufficient room on the expenditure side to get at the famous deficit. Apart from this issue of dampening consumer demands and putting inflationary pressure on the economy, there are certain sectors and industries that are especially hard hit by the taxes which the Minister described to us today as being fair.
The Government had almost nine months to prepare that Budget and evaluate the impact that these taxes would have on

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
various sectors of the economy. Canadians, and certainly members of my caucus if not all Members of the House, cannot understand how the Government spent so much time preparing this Budget without accurately estimating the negative impact it would have on various sectors.
As the Minister knows, many groups made representations in preparation for the Budget. However, nearly all of them were stonewalled. Of course, our elderly finally broke down that stone wall last June when the Government finally backed down on deindexing the old age pension. Of course, as a countermeasure, the Government immediately increased the tax on fuel. However, the fact is that most groups have been stonewalled.
I have seen a copy of letters that have been sent from the office of the Minister of Finance. They are typical form letters, with a few modifications to let the individual groups know at least that the Government is aware of their name and address. However, they all contain the same rhetoric which we heard once more this morning from the Minister of State for Finance. It is the old rhetoric about the twin objective of economic renewal and deficit reduction. Of course, the letters inevitably contain one other comment that was also offered to us this morning by the Minister of State for Finance. They all contain words to the effect, "On balance, the Budget was designed to share the burden fairly among Canadians*. What a joke.
Of course, the fairness of the Budget is a main issue. I will only touch upon it very briefly because the question of fairness has been and will be spoken to at some length. The unfairness of the Budget is apparent on its face. Today I essentially want to talk about the impact of this Budget in a macro sense. However, I will simply refute the Minister's comments about fairness this morning by reminding her of the deindexing debate on old age pensions and the current deindexing debate on the-

-family allowances. She is probably aware of the representations made yesterday on Parliament Hill by people who are going to be affected in a very negative way by these recommendations and the impact of the measures contained in the Budget.
I remind her also that she is putting forward a massive sales tax increase. The Minister knows as well as anybody else that a tax increase on many of these items hits the low and middle-income people first and hits them the hardest. Sales taxes are, by definition, regressive. When the Minister comes in here and puts a tax on health care products, products essentially used for the most part by the elderly who have the lowest incomes, she knows she is hitting the elderly in their pocket books. She also knows from the report of the National Welfare Council that we have a lot of Canadians living below the poverty line and they are all consumers of these products. Yet she comes in here with a proposal to increase the tax on
these products and has the gall to stand up and say that this is fair. Admit that it is not fair and demonstrate to us that if it is not fair it is in some way justified, economically or otherwise. I suggest it is not only unfair but economically it is dumb.
Without spending much more time on the issue of fairness, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that history will record that this is probably the most unfair Budget ever. Of course, the Prime Minister himself has gone on the record with respect to the gaffe made in terms of the deindexation of old age pensions. I hope to see him on the record a number of times more before the year is out admitting to the gaffes that have been made in the other aspects of this Budget, which are equally unfair.
Enough on the issue of fairness. Is this Budget intelligent? Is this Budget a response to the economic requirements of Canada in 1985 as we look at the economic circumstances? I talked about the over-all dampening effect but I want to refer, as I said a moment ago, to certain specific sectors.
[ Translation]
The Minister is probably aware of the fact that hundreds of small- and medium-sized construction companies are going to lose their profit margins altogether, as a result of the 6 per cent tax on construction materials.
The customary fixed price contracts in this sector are going to be a major problem for many of our construction companies.
The Government totally ignored the very practical and, I must say, not very popular suggestion to introduce this tax gradually, allowing for these fixed price contracts and the usual problems in this sector. However, it seems the Minister was not conscious of the challenges and problems in the industry.

And the tax on fuel-
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we already know that according to the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the 4 per cent increase in the price of gas is expected to cause 900,000 fewer U.S. tourists to come to Canada every year, while the resulting loss to our economy will be $135 million and probably 5,235 jobs. [English]
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Minister in the pre-Budget analysis should have consulted-perhaps the industry was consulted-but should have taken that into account. This short-term measure with a view to deficit reduction has had probably a more than compensating negative impact in terms of lost revenues and lost jobs.
Let me look at the trucking sector for a moment in particular, again with respect to the tax on fuels. I want to demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, and I want to emphasize that this is one example that I have looked at and that 1 hope the Minister of State for Finance has looked at. Because the cost of commercial transportation fuel must be passed on to someone else, why did the Minister not measure the full impact of what that
October 24, 1985

would be? Who are those costs going to be passed on to? What is the impact on the competitive position of the Canadian trucking industry? What is the impact on Canadian consumers? Again it appears to me that no homework was done.
Anyone at all familiar with taxation knows that ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere, and when a tax is imposed on a corporation, when a tax is imposed on a trucker, that tax must be passed on in the cost of goods and services or, perhaps, in employees' incomes. It has to be passed on somewhere. Did the Minister of State for Finance or the Minister of Finance take the time to do an analysis of where this tax would actually end up? I suggest they could not have done it. Had they done so, they would never have come forward with this tax on our trucking sector.
The commercial transportation fuel has been exempt from the initial 1.5 cents per litre which was imposed several years ago. Now with this 2 cent increase as of September 1 plus, of course, all the provincial ad valorem taxes, we are likely to see a cost of approximately 3 cents a litre being imposed on the commercial fuel consumption in Canada. For inter-city truckers who carry something like three-quarters of all consumer goods and something like 80 per cent of all food products, this translates into almost 3 cents per mile. It does not end there because the transportation fuel will be hit once more at the end of the year with a 1 cent per litre increase plus the sales tax increase. The 1 cent a litre increase is to make up for the retreat from the deindexation proposal on old age pensions.
What are the pass through implications of a tax of this kind? I cite this as only one example, but it is one with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. First, the carrier who has to pay this tax has no choice. The carrier has to Find some way of passing through the entire cost. The carrier's capacity to do that is limited somewhat by the economic clout that that carrier has in the particular sector. Obviously some small carriers will probably not be able to pass on the tax as easily as large shippers.
To the extent that it is passed on, to the extent the carrier is able to go back to the shipper of those goods, of those tomatoes, of those products that go on to the shelves of our stores, les depanneurs, in the shopping markets, that is where it is going to add up, right in the pocket of the consumer. It makes it a regressive tax of the worst kind affecting, as I say in the case of inter-city trucking, something like 80 per cent of all goods that are shipped.
It is effectively a tax on distance, Mr. Speaker. It is a direct tax on distance. It is the same as a tax on alcohol or on cigarettes, yet we are applying it on distance. With all the regional difficulty we have in the transportation sector and the efforts we must make to ensure that those sectors benefit from comparable costs, imagine imposing a tax of 3 cents per mile on distance that can only be incorporated into the cost of goods that people in outlying regions must pay. It is outrageous and obviously not thought through.
What are the international implications? First, the Minister knows full well that U.S. truckers already enjoy a substantial advantage over their Canadian counterparts. At the present
Excise Tax Act
time they enjoy an advantage of something like 7 to 10 cents per fuel gallon vis-a-vis their Canadian competition.
[DOT] (U40)
The excise tax which is being imposed by the Minister in Bill C-80 will more than double the disadvantage Canadian truckers already suffer. That, coupled with the other cost factors which are being exacerbated by the policies of the Government, obviously puts Canada's international trucking business very much at risk vis-a-vis its U.S. competition. It is a signal to Canadian carriers that to survive in this market they will be better off with a U.S. base.
What does that mean? What does that imply? It implies lost economic opportunity, lost jobs and an increase in jobs and trucking activities south of the border. I am absolutely astonished if the Government intended to create that kind of competitive hardship for Canadian truckers. We see two things-a direct assault on the pocketbooks of consumers, as is the sales tax by including a fuel tax, and it places the Canadian trucking sector, which is already under siege, in a more disadvantaged position than before.
I hope the Minister is paying attention. I say to her that it is not too late to back down. It is not too late to apply a little economic common sense to the tax measures which have been brought before the House for discussion today.
Let me talk very briefly about another sector. The Minister intends to put a tax on health care products. Apart from the issue of fairness to which I referred earlier-the effect on the elderly and those least able to support the cost of health care products at the present time, never mind having an additional tax applied thereto-there is a much greater economic issue. The Government does not think long term. It is strictly interested in the statistical data for next year and perhaps prior to the next election. Has the Government addressed the issue of long-term increasing health costs? When we look at the statistics, we see that from a level of 5.6 per cent of GNP on health care in Canada in 1960, we have moved to 8.44 per cent in 1982, or $22 billion, and we see that trend continuing. I suggest that the way to get at this trend, to make health costs supportable and to reduce the amount of public sector expenditure on health costs in years ahead, is to have better preventive medicine. Fundamental to that is the ability of Canadians to purchase health care products at a reasonable cost. If anything, the cost should be reduced, not increased. It is an example of short-term thinking, placing long-term issues in serious jeopardy.
I suppose I share the belief of many in the House, many in my own riding and elsewhere, that indeed Canadians are prepared to make some sacrifices to get the deficit under control, to get the fiscal framework well defined and in order. However, when this Minister, who has been directly involved in expenditures which may amount to $2 billion to bail out Canadian banks, comes into the House and says, "Our concern is to get the deficit under control", pardon me if I regard that as somewhat of a joke.

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
This Minister, her colleague in Finance and her other colleagues in Cabinet are squandering billions of dollars, and they come into the House and ask us to accept a tax on health care products. They ask us to accept taxes which will amount to something like $4 billion out of the hands of consumers by 1990-91. They ask us to accept taxes which will take over $2 billion out of the hands of consumers next year. She is effectively telling us that in 1986-87 consumers should pay for the bank bail-out; that is what she is telling us. There will be no deficit reduction under this Government. We have seen approximately $2 billion there. We have yet to know the full cost of the tax ruling in the Gulf acquisition. We started with number of $1 billion. Some have put it as high as $1.5 billion. An interview was given by one of the principals who said that it might be only half a billion. If we assume that the figure will be $1 billion, we are up to $3 billion.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tells us that we will buy a half billion dollar ice-breaker. That is only the beginning. To come into the House and make a speech telling us that the taxes being imposed upon Canadian consumers are designed to get the finances of the country in order has to be one of the best jokes we have heard in this session. The way the Government is going, I am sure we will hear many more. It is pretty difficult for us to reconcile $3.5 billion of money squandered against tax increases which will have a medium and long-term serious impact upon the Canadian economy, a major impact upon consumers, and a major negative, unfair impact upon those consumers at the low end of the income scale.
We know the Budget is unfair. There will be much more said about that by my colleagues. We know that it is economically unsound. We also know from evidence in every jurisdiction that the best economic stimulus one can have, or the best bang for the buck as economists say, is a sales tax cut. Of course the corollary of that is that the worst thing that can be done for consumer demand in terms of dampening any possible strong economic recovery is a major sales tax increase. That is what we have in Bill C-80. It is economically unsound and unfair in every way.
I suggest that the Minister has good grounds to go back to her colleague, the Minister of Finance, and tell him what she really thinks. I hope the judgment which she apparently brought to bear initially in the Canadian Commercial Bank bail-out will prevail in this case. I hope she will exercise that same good judgment, foresight and sense of fairness to Canadian taxpayers. Had her initial decision been accepted, Canadian taxpayers would not have been called upon to fork out up to $2 billion. Just for the benefit of Hon. Members, I might say that there are something like 10 million to 11 million taxpayers in the country. When we are talking about $2 billion, we are talking about close to $200 on average out of the pockets of every taxpayer. I presume I am including all Members of the House and you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the people of Canada, I say to the Minister that she should exercise that good judgment, go back to the Minister of Finance and tell him that the Bill which she has
been asked to sponsor on his behalf is wrong. It is wrong for Canada. It is unfair. It is not the remedy which we need today, in October, 1985.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-80. I remember so vividly in the period leading up to the September election of 1984 that the Conservatives continually talked about the need to simplify the tax system, that it was too complicated and too burdensome. As a matter of fact, the Income Tax Act is a massive document. Referring to the tax experts themselves, I will quote from one of the most recent publications on the news-stands wherein the author said: "A full understanding of the Income Tax Act is impossible. Even for the true tax expert it is impossible".
We have the Excise Tax Act and, when we returned to the House in the fall of 1985, the Government did not say that it was time to simplify that Act. It introduced Bill C-80, which is "only" 125 pages of changes to the Excise Tax Act. We should think about what we are doing for a moment. We are making the income tax system more complicated.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Excise tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are trying to make the excise tax and the income tax system more complicated, more exact and more precise. We are deleting a few things, adding a few things and adding a few more loopholes. Because of this, we are systematically biasing the tax system of Canada in favour of the sophisticated as opposed to the unsophisticated. We are biasing the tax system in favour of those who can afford to hire tax lawyers or tax accountants. The ordinary Canadian is even now more baffled by what the Government is attempting to do. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, because I think this is a very critical point. Bill C-80 makes the tax system of the country even more biased.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) made an interesting speech today when she introduced the Bill. She reminded me of Johnny Carson who tells a few jokes at the beginning of his show before he invites his guests to say something. I thought it was rather humorous when the Minister told the people of Canada that the reason we have to add more taxes on to construction materials, cable television, candies and pet foods, gasoline, beer, cigarettes, cigars and a variety of other goods is that we have to get the deficit down. Let us think about that for a moment, Mr. Speaker.
For the last number of weeks, we have been hearing time and time again of the need for bringing a Bill before Parliament that would provide for $875 million as the first instalment in the bail-out of the uninsured depositors of the failed Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. That is only the first instalment of the bail-out. In the end, it might amount to $1 billion, which is $1,000 million. It might amount to $2 billion in the end. We are not certain yet. We have to bail out depositors who should never be receiving the full amount of money. The Government is going to bail out
October 24, 1985

uninsured depositors, whether they be depositors in the Bank of Shanghai, the Bank of Hong Kong or the Bank of America. We will never know. These depositors are simply going to receive their cheques for $1 million, $2 million or $5 million from the taxpayers of Canada. That is a priority of the Government.
The Gulf deal is going to cost the taxpayers perhaps $1 billion for a major tax boondoggle. That is okay. Presumably it is acceptable. I can go on and on about the unbelievable tax boondoggles that apply to those folks who do not pay any income tax at all year after year. I am not talking about poor people, I am talking about people who have annual incomes in the range of $500,000 but are able to use the tax system to pay nothing year after year. You know, Mr. Speaker, because you are an intelligent man, that if these people do not pay any income tax or their fair share of income tax, who is paying more than their fair share? It is the ordinary Canadian citizen who cannot afford a tax lawyer or a tax accountant to do his or her tax planning.
Ordinary people make perhaps $25,000 per year and pay all of the taxes that are owing. There are no loopholes or tax expenditure exemptions for them. They pay through the nose year after year to make up for those folks who do not pay their fair share.


Mr. Orlikow:: How are they going to pay more in excise tax?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), reminds me that on top of all of the giveaways and all of the billions of dollars the Government has shovelled out to people who are undeserving of it, we are asking people to pay an extra few cents for their gasoline.
The Minister has said that this measure is equitable because we are asking everyone to pay more sales tax. Poor people, rich people and middle-income people are all going to pay the same. It sounds equitable. However, a single parent with an annual income of $7,000 and an upper-income earner with an annual income of $400,000 will pay exactly the same tax when they go to the corner grocery store to buy some confectionery items. The poorest people of the country will be paying the same amount of tax as the richest people in the country when they purchase their goods. Is this equitable? Is this fair? Is this an honest approach to the tax system? Of course not.
There is something very insidious about Bill C-80. It results in a significant increase in the taxes on transportation fuel. In the coming year, these taxes will total $930 million. Again this tax on transportation fuel will apply to everyone. However, there are some regions of Canada in which the cost of transportation is of much more significance than it is in other regions. Canada is the second largest country in the world. In central Canada, the distances that are travelled are much shorter than those travelled in western Canada or particularly in northern Canada. This means that the tax on fuel is directly biased against western and northern Canada. In those areas, goods have to be transported over vast distances. We all know that when goods including refrigerators, mining equipment and oil rig equipment are transported over great distances,
Excise Tax Act
those costs are ultimately passed along to the consumer. This means that people in western and northern Canada will be paying more for their transportation costs and therefore by definition more for the items that are purchased and make up one's cost of living.
This is not a fair Bill. This is not a fair piece of taxation. It is quite the contrary. I do not know if the Minister really made her case when she defended the 7 per cent tax on construction material. Is this not the Party that said that it would be appropriate to take the taxes on construction materials away in order to provide an incentive for the construction industry and particularly the home construction industry of Canada?
When he was in opposition, I remember hearing my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), rising on occasion after occasion to say that one of the answers to the economic problems of Canada was to encourage the home building sector because that would put a lot of people to work immediately, both directly and indirectly, through all the manufacturing sectors that provide for the housing industry. What does the Government do? It slaps a 7 per cent tax on construction materials. How is that going to assist the housing industry? How is it going to encourage more construction across the country? There may be some way that it will do so, and I would be interested to hear what Hon. Members from the Government side have to say about that.
When we add 7 per cent on to the cost of construction materials, 7 per cent on to the cost of cable and pay television services, 14 per cent on to the cost of alcoholic beverages, 14 per cent on to the cost of tobacco products and 11 per cent on to the cost of other taxable goods, the total package for the coming year will come to about $990 million. That is what it will cost Canadians in extra taxes.
Many people from Kamloops-Shuswap, the riding which I have the honour to represent, have asked me a question. 1 will raise this question here because I see that the Minister of State for Finance is present and is interested in the comments of Hon. Members. Perhaps I will pass along to her the questions that I have been receiving.
My constituents have told me that they are now struggling to get their businesses back on track, they are struggling to get their small farms or ranches going again or they are simply trying to get their lives together and are struggling to find part-time or temporary employment. They ask how it is that an increase in taxation will help this process. How is it that taking $990 million out of the pockets of Canadians will be of assistance in getting the economy of Kamloops-Shuswap going? It is not clear to me how that will work. As a matter of fact, I do not understand how taking money away from people will assist in generating wealth and economic activity in the regions of Canada.
When one looks at the Bill which is before us one sees two areas which are always hit, that is, tobacco and alcohol. It is a hard area to criticize as a politician. It is difficult for a politician to stand up and say: "We want to reduce the taxes

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
on alcohol and cigarettes". Elowever, I would like to make a case for the tourist industry. If there is one industry in Canada which makes a great deal of sense when one looks at future possibilities in terms of economic development, it is the tourist industry of Canada. We have a magnificent country which people enjoy visiting. I do not think we have even begun to explore the potential for expanding this industry as a leading industry of the future. Currently, the industry employs about 600,000 Canadians, 60 per cent of whom are women employed in about 50,000 businesses. The industry involves a major factor in terms of foreign exchange for the country. Of course, the industry is suffering very seriously as a result of the recession. It suffers because the gas taxes keep rising and a great many of our American friends think twice about visiting the country because of the high costs of transportation, the high costs of accommodation and the high costs of beverages in our beverage rooms. I do not not want to make a big item out of this point; but when we talk to tourist operators we are told that the prices of drinks in lounges keep going up and up as a result of increased taxes. That is not a factor in terms of increasing the tourism industry. It is quite the contrary. It is a factor which makes the development of that industry very difficult indeed.
I wish to speak for a moment or two about the tax system itself. It is a system which is basically an honour system whereby people are expected to be honest and forthright. They fill out their tax returns to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, now that often requires help from outside advisers because those tax forms are so complex. I remember a previous Minister of Finance standing in his place one day and saying that even he could not fill out his tax return any longer because it was simply too complicated. Apparently, he was a simple man, at least that is what he said, and he needed outside help with his tax return. For the ordinary Canadian citizen it is a complex document, one which we all await to with horror now that we are approaching that time of year again. However, it is a system based on honour. It is based on the assumption that people will be honest and that they will clearly indicate their income and expenses, tally up their deductions and decide on the bottom line if they owe the Government more money, if they have paid adequately or if they can expect a return because of an overpayment.
This honour system is based on the assumption that the system is fair. In other words, you can only expect people to be honest if they sense that the system in which they are operating is an honest one that is not biased in favour of one group, region or industry as opposed to another. I want to say clearly that the people of Canada no longer believe that the tax system is fair. I have no hesitation in making that remark. I do not think anyone would dare stand up and say that the tax system of this country is fair. I have tried to make the point that increasing gasoline taxes is a bias against western and northern Canada where distance is such an important factor in the transportation of goods. In a sense it is a tax on distance. Those who happen to live far away from central Canada are being asked to pay more.
Then, we have a sales tax which is regressive. Regardless of whether someone is rich or poor he pays the same amount of money for a loaf of bread, a bottle of milk or whatever the case may be. Now when we buy Pamper cat food for our pets or seeds for our budgies we have to pay more taxes on that, for gosh sakes. I suggest that that is a very desperate bid indeed. The point is that the tax is regressive. It is punitive to the lower income people. Rich people do not mind paying a couple of cents more for a package of birdseed, for a bottle of milk or for a loaf of bread. However, for the poor people of the country it is a major factor.


Mr. Waddell:: Look at the recent report which came out.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend from Vancouver reminds me of a devastating report which was released earlier this week indicating that, indeed, the rich in Canada are getting richer and that the poor are getting poorer and are becoming more numerous. I believe that there is now something in the neighbourhood of four million who are described by Statistics Canada as having an income which places them in the poverty category. That is a sad comment. It is also a sad comment when one considers that families earning more than $50,000 are actually creating 40 per cent of the wealth of the country. That is just a handful of people when one looks at the entire population. It just points to the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Bill C-80 will simply add to that process because it is unfair legislation. It is an unfair tax levy.
The point I am trying to make is that our tax system is based on an honour system which assumes that the system is honest and fair to everyone. It assumes that it is equitable. It is not. What it means is that people no longer have faith in the Government. It means that they no longer have faith in the tax system. Therefore, the economy is moving underground. More and more transactions are being conducted with cash or through a barter system. For instance, a lawyer will say: "I will do some of your legal work and since you are a dentist you can do the dental work on my children's teeth". Or a plumber will say: "I will fix the plumbing in your rec room and you can come in and do a bit of masonry for me on my fireplace. We will not mention it and there will be no record of this transaction". As a result, no income tax or business tax is paid, as the case may be. How much of this is taking place in Canada today? Does anyone know of instances of this having taken place? Does anyone know of instances of abuse of the tax system? I suspect there is not a person who does not know of such an instance. This presents a serious challenge to the tax system of the country. It is a serious challenge to the country itself since $30 billion, $40 billion or $50 billion going underground annually also goes untaxed. With this unfair tax system it simply means that the Government has to go after those people who are paying the taxes. We know who they are. They are not the large corporations nor the upper income earners. They are Canada's ordinary tax-paying citizens. More and more the tax system has become biased against the average citizen of the country.
October 24, 1985

When I look through the Bill I notice that as a result of increased sales taxes effective next year the Government plans to raise $990 million out of the pockets of taxpayers. People will say that that money will be well spent because services will be received for it. The point is that there will not be any additional services because the Government is cutting back on traditional services which the people of the country have come to expect.
The Government even tried to cut back on increases to old age pensions. I remember the day the Government came in and said it was about to bail out two banks and that it was giving tax boondoggles to the big oil companies as part of the Western Accord. I believe that will amount to something in the order of $9 billion over the next five years. The Government gives away these vast amounts of money, billions and billions of dollars, and in doing so it has to collect more taxes. Thus, the Government said that it would hold back on increasing senior citizens' pensions. It took the same stand with respect to increasing family allowances. As a result of a massive public outcry, thank goodness, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) realized he had made a disastrous decision and he forgot about capping the increases on old age pensions to allow pensioners to at least keep up with the cost of living. However, that is not the case with family allowances. The children of Canada will have to pay, if you like, for the giveaways which this Government has made to large oil companies, foreign banks and the like.
Only a 1 per cent increase in the sales tax involves $990 million coming out of the pockets of Canadians. Broadening of the federal sales tax will take another half a billion dollars out of the taxpayers' pockets. Actual tax increases will result in $990 million being paid out of the taxpayers' pockets-basically out of the consumers' pockets, which means that the people living in Kamloops will not have that money to buy some goods or purchase some service. That money will not be circulating time and time again in that community; it will be pulled out down here to Ottawa. I do not see how that move will help small communities across the country, the rural areas or even the large cities. The alcohol and tobacco excise taxes in this coming year will result in $240 million being raised in additional taxes from this sector.
What does it all mean? When one takes into account the sales tax it means that an average household with an income of $15,000 will be paying out $140 more in sales tax. If one's income is in the $20,000 range, it means paying out an extra $282 in taxes. A household which earns $40,000 a year pays about $361 in increased tax burden in the upcoming year. This means that these dollars will not be in circulation in the small communities and regions throughout the country. They will be focused in Ottawa to assist in attempts at deficit reduction, particularly now with the deficit increasing as a result of these massive giveaways.
There is another interesting point with respect to our tax system. There is no question that people do not pay the same
Excise Tax Act
tax. Mr. MacEachen, the former Liberal Minister of Finance, brought in a Budget which resulted in a reduction in the rate of tax paid by the upper income earners. He thought that those people in the $200,000 or $300,000 a year income level were paying too much tax, so he dropped the rates down. That lost us hundreds of millions of dollars in uncollected taxes. That is what he left us with.
The new Minister of Finance thought that some people who make money through capital gains should not even be taxed at all. Let the person who is a miner, a logger, a fisherman, an office worker or a teacher be taxed on whatever amount of money he or she makes. If they make $30,000 or $35,000, they should pay a proportionate share of tax, with a minimum amount of loopholes if any. But those people who make money through capital gains should be exempt to a point. That flies directly in the face of the report of the Carter Commission. It looked into the tax system, and at the top of the list of things it said we must do in this country is to recognize that a buck is a buck, that a dollar of income is a dollar of income regardless of how it is earned and that it should be taxed as a dollar. At the top of the list of the Carter Commission was the recommendation that capital gains should be taxed as any other income. When there is no income tax at all up to $500,000 in lifetime capital gains-and we are talking about a very select group of Canadians-then ordinary working Canadians will have to pay, therefore, more tax than they should because someone has to make up the difference.
The Minister of Finance made a speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation on November 28, 1984, wherein he stated, and I quote:
Our recent figures indicate that the effect of tax incentives has been to reduce the average federal corporate income tax rate from 36 per cent to 15 per cent. . . Particular activities qualify for very high rates of incentives, especially under certain grant programs. When the benefits from special tax incentives are added we are looking, in some cases, at an extraordinary generous level of assistance.
That is nice for the corporate sector. It has had its effective tax rate drop from 36 per cent down to 15 per cent. Was that not a nice gesture, Mr. Speaker? Again, there is a certain group in the business community which is considered as being entitled to a significant drop in the effective tax rate. To the struggling logger or truck driver out there in the regions, this would be interesting news.
The accelerated capital cost allowance allows a business to write off against income depreciation of assets at a faster rate than is actually the case. This cost us back in 1981 about $2 billion. What this does is to give an incentive to a corporation to use capital instead of labour. The Government is saying that because you can write down the cost of your equipment, rather than hire people, you should purchase and install equipment. This incentive should certainly be questioned at the time of the high unemployment we are facing today.
The boondoggle which the previous Government brought in was the scientific research tax credit. That cost us in 1984 about $2 billion, through quick flipping, whereby corporations could sell their research tax credits even though the research was never done. One could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but it gets depressing after a while. Once we start looking at this tax

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
Act, all we keep finding are pages and pages of tax exemptions for certain kinds of people and for certain kinds of economic activities.
There is one group of people who is almost always excluded from any kind of tax incentive or loophole, and that is the ordinary Canadian. They are not taken into consideration in the tax Act or in legislation such as Bill C-80 when tax changes are made. We cannot say that loud enough, Mr. Speaker, and we have to say it time and time again until the Government starts to accept responsibility and does something in terms of developing a more equitable tax system.
The Minister of Finance had this to say about the tax system, and I quote:
As we grapple with the technicalities, the subtleties and the complexities of our tax system, we must never lose sight of the citizens it is ultimately meant to serve. That is what our efforts are all about. The real bottom line is people.
What he did not say is which people he is talking about. What he meant was that certain kinds of people were the beneficiaries of all of these subtleties and complexities of our tax system-not the ordinary Canadian, but a very privileged few in our society and within our business community. It is not the struggling small business person who is being rewarded or encouraged or who is receiving incentives through the tax system. The most tragic example of that was a few years ago when both Shell and the Bank of Montreal used the tax system to pay no income tax at all in spite of significantly large profits.
This is the kind of system which we must recognize is in existence and when the Government stands up and tells it is introducing Bill C-80 today in an effort to bring equity and fairness to the tax system, we must recognize that that is absolute balderdash. We cannot have equity and fairness built into a system when we increase the sales tax which, by definition, is regressive and punishes those people who are least able to afford paying taxes at all.
I would be remiss today if I did not raise one important point about tax discounters. It is the time of the year when we start filling out tax forms. A rather insidious practice has developed over the last number of years and it is growing very rapidly as people realize that the tax system is so complex that they cannot fill out their tax form and must have some help. More importantly, the tax discounters thrive on the victims of oppressive economic times, who include the poorest people in society who are eligible for such items as the refundable child tax credit. A single parent, for example, knows that because of the family's low income and the child tax credit, there will be a refund after the income tax form is filed. Single parents are desperately in need of cash because they are inevitably living below the poverty line. They go to the tax discounters who tell them they will give them cash for the privilege of filling out their tax return and sending it away. In other words, the tax discounters make their money helping those people fill out their tax forms, giving them a portion of what they are entitled to and keeping the rest as a fee for their service. That is a terrible situation, Mr. Speaker.
It is hard to believe that a Government which is seriously interested in equity and fairness would permit such a thing to take place. There are many countries which abandoned this type of practice because they realized it preyed upon those least able to afford paying out a portion of their tax refund. Many Hon. Members have pleaded for an end to this practice, especially the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, who has repeatedly in the House asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) when he is going to move to bring in a Bill to prohibit this exploitive practice, and after hearing time and time again from the Liberal administration that it would be getting around to that sometime, he hears the same thing from this Government. In the meantime this practice grows and victimizes more and more people who can ill afford to pay that kind of price to these tax discounters.
In conclusion, Bill C-80 comes at a very inappropriate time. Canadians are struggling to get on their feet and are doing what they can to encourage economic activity in their own communities. They are working very, very hard and, I might say, going to some extraordinary lengths to ensure that economic prosperity returns for them and their families. It is a very delicate and difficult struggle, yet the Government introduces a Bill which will result in hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars being taken from the pockets of those same people. There are increases in sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and confectionery goods taxes. It is a very inappropriate step for the Government to be taking. It is difficult to encourage people to remain optimistic and hopeful when, on the one hand, the Government says we must all sacrifice and then, on the other hand, it brings in a Bill which asks ordinary people to sacrifice even more than they already have.
As for myself and my colleagues in the NDP, we certainly do not support the Bill and we will vote against it. Quite frankly, we have many, many questions about its details. Since this, unfortunately, is an opportunity to talk only about the Bill in principle, we will be looking forward to examining the logic of those clauses which exempt certain kinds of goods from federal sales tax but not others. We will have an opportunity in committee to look at those details, but at this point in time we certainly do not support this Bill.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and saddened to participate in this debate on Bill C-80. Saddened, because unfortunately we now have to face the music-the S200 billion deficit which our Liberal predecessors left the country saddled with as a result of their indecent mismanagement. Yet they are the ones who now want us to account for the measures we want to take in an attempt to get Canada back on the right track. Pleased, because I want to support the approach taken in this case by our Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall).
What did we say on September 4, 1984? That we would promote national reconciliation, economic renewal and
October 24, 1985

renewed Canadian internationalism. Mr. Speaker, we must not lose sight of the general rules. Practically every time we advocate new propositions, the Liberals especially have so little foresight that they get lost in details without ever dealing with guiding principles or traditional economic precepts. I happen to know they have competent spokesmen in that field, but for some unknown reason they seem to lose their bearings when they become politicians. We had promised to restore a climate of national reconciliation, and the starting point was the Western Accord which led to a significant economic upsurge in that part of the country. I see the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is in the House, and I am sure she would attest to the economic revival of her region since the Western Accord, in contrast with the days when the Liberals never missed a chance to create a wide gap between the interests of the central Government and those of Western Canada.
And then the agreement with Newfoundland was a historic occasion. The Liberals had been dragging their feet for years and years, but we did settle the issue as we had promised during the election campaign before September 4.
Since we came to office a good many Quebecers have seen the futility of the separatist option and took stock of their Canadian heritage. In that respect we have to wonder today whether the proponents of separatism did not stand to further their cause by playing the game of the Liberal Government. The dust settled after our election and separatism is on the wane.
We had also promised economic renewal. We are now beginning to feel the impact of our politicies in this regard. We have seen 340,000 new jobs being created in the last year. Unemployment and interest rates have gone down. Inflation is under control. Inflation rates of 10, 12 or 13 per cent had serious repercussions on the most disadvantaged in our society and on senior citizens in families with very low incomes. At the time, the Liberals did not want to index the social benefits enjoyed by Canadians. However, we are now beating inflation, with rates of around 4 or 4.5 per cent, which means that the most needy among us can have a nearly constant standard of living. There is also a positive picture in the increase of the gross national product which continues to surprise the experts and to surpass the forecasts of economists.
On September 4, 1984, the Canadian public gave us a very formal official and significant mandate asking us to tighten our belts and reduce our budgetary deficit. There are now 211 representatives of Canadian men and women in this House to fulfil this mandate. At the time, we told the Canadian population that it would not be easy because we had inherited a difficult situation and the building was on fire. This fire had been burning since the Liberals had been in power. They left us a deficit of $200 billion. They had forgotten that the role of a Government is to distribute part of the public resources to the most needy. They modernized somewhat too quickly. They
Excise Tax Act
decided to distribute public borrowings, not only to the needy, but also to companies, wealthy people and their friends. We saw crown corporations vote themselves extraordinary amounts for their administrators. There was the unfortunate example of the Canada Post Corporation. This corporation, under Liberal administration, has 17 vice-presidents who each have their own car and chauffeur. It is quite a sight to go to the headquarters of the Canada Post Corporation and to see all those cars with chauffeurs. You would think it is a much more important corporation. This shows the mismanagement of the Liberals and how they were able to accumulate a deficit of $200 billion.
They made excessive investments, created a paper empire and left us with only constraints. The Liberals are gone, but we are faced with expenditures of $105 billion. How is this money spent? We spend $25 billion, or 25c. on each dollar, to pay the interests on the borrowings of the Liberals, some of which were distributed among wealthy Canadians and their own friends.
We also spend $45 billion, or another 45c. out of each dollar if we are speaking about a budget of $105 billion, for social welfare programs. The Liberals are now asking us not to increase the revenues of our Government. These $45 billion allocated to social programs represent 57 per cent of the expenditures of the Canadian Government if we exclude interest charges on the debt. Therefore, 57c. on each dollar, or more than half of our revenues, are spent to help the most needy Canadians, out of a total budget of $105 billion. There therefore remains $35 billion which must be distributed among all the other departments and Government programs.
We inherited a technically disastrous situation as concerns Canadian Armed Forces which need to be modernized. However, we must operate within very restrictive budgetary limits.
What have been the effects of this mismanagement by our predecessors? All Canadian men and women lost whatever incentive they might have had. They could gain nothing by being creative as they were being stifled by Government regulations and constraints. Our entrepreneurs, and about 15 per cent of the labour force in a country should be in this category, lost all incentive during the last decades. They have practically disappeared from this country.
Because of the runaway inflation that prevailed under the Liberal administration, our productivity has decreased, and we can no longer sell our products abroad-except for our natural resources because they were always willing to sell our natural resources abroad-we shut ourselves out from external markets.
What are the solutions to the problems we inherited from Liberals? The first one is for Canadian men and women to tighten their belts, an effort that must be made by each and every one of us in Canada.

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
We have seen a significant example of this belt-tightening exercise when the Prime Minister decided to have his salary reduced by 15 per cent when he came to power. When all Cabinet Ministers in this Government accepted to have their own salaries reduced by 10 per cent as an effort at national restraint. It can be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, that no such effort was ever made or agreed upon by the Opposition Leader or the Leader of the New Democratic Party. They are asking us to make all those efforts, they get them from the people, but they themselves fail to set the example.
To this day, our solutions have brought about results. We have our 340,000 new jobs. Entrepreneur confidence has returned. We are now in the process, through collective efforts, of reviving an economy that was in a most unhealthy state, a state which the Liberals have brought about and which they would have gladly kept going for a few more years to come.
But under the laws of economics it was impossible to go any further, this country could no longer borrow money. Our people, in such a declining state of affairs, could sustain no additional effort. It was therefore essential to create a new climate, and this is what we did. Our goal is to have balanced budgets from year to year, positive cash flows as between revenues and expenditures. This is one of the only means of putting the economy back on its feet. It is imperative that this country regain confidence, that our citizens wake up, and this is the climate we are providing.
Mr. Speaker, reference had also been made to our international openness, from coast to coast, a new economic impetus, an international outlook.
As recently as the day before yesterday, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to all intents and purposes, won the day at the meeting of member states of the British Commonwealth. Our Prime Minister asserted himself following his first year of public life and assumed the leadership within the Commonwealth, suggesting at that recent meeting concrete steps for helping to settle the crisis experienced in South Africa.
When reference is made to the international involvement of our country, it should also be pointed out that in New York our Prime Minister yesterday delivered before the world powers one of most straightforward and significant message on disarmement.
Our Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) is now trying hard to give Canadian within the next 20 years the best record as far as developing our international trade is concerned, opening up the largest and most powerful market in the world, the American market.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, we must amend our legislation to continue to give Canadian men and women a clear indication that we want to carry out our programs and this legislation is merely aimed at giving them what they asked for on September 4. We are giving them a chance to tighten their belt so that after that short term effort, we will benefit
from it thanks to a new economic impetus, the welfare of Canadians and the international prestige of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat absurd that some hon. members should take this opportunity to make an overview of the situation, without dealing in any way with Bill C-80 which is before us today.
They keep saying that the Liberals are responsible for all the problems Canada is facing today, and that they are responsible for all positive aspects, for low rates of interest and inflation, and so on. The fact that they keep saying that is ample proof that they know nothing about the economy. In fact, all experts unanimously agree that the current situation is the results of steps taken by the previous government.
What I should like to know from the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) is this: You keep saying that on September 4, 1984, you were elected by the Canadian people to tighten our collective belt. If such is the case, how could you allow over $500 million in tax dollars to disappear in the course of the recent purchase of the Gulf Canada assets, or how could you introduce a legislation currently before the House and calling for $800 million to compensate those investors with more than $60,000 in uninsured deposits? How could you give $2.5 billion to the major oil companies under the so-called agreement which you referred to earlier? And now you dare stand up in the House and say: We have been mandated by the Canadian people to tax basic necessities and health products, and all taxpayers across the board will have to pay because of that odious bill. How can you reconcile being so callous with low and middle income taxpayers on the one hand, and so very generous with those who can easily afford it on the other? I should like to hear what the Hon. Member for Levis has to say about that.


Gabriel Fontaine: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) for his question and, by the same token, put one to him.
How do you, Liberals, who made up the previous Government, explain those $15 million you gave to CCM, a company that did not make any profits at all? What about the $2 billion you gave to de Havilland and the $1 billion you gave Cana-dair? What about Maislin and Massey Ferguson? You Liberals threw $3.2 billion down the drain!


An Hon. Member:: Maislin in LaSalle-


Gabriel Fontaine: So I think you people should explain. I thank you for your question. You also mentioned a tax matter, and you know perfectly well that was settled by the Department of National Revenue. You mentioned $800,000... Out West,
October 24, 1985

because of your so-called energy policy and the house of cards you set up, people started construction and established companies with very little equity, and because of the economic conditions you created, they got into trouble, and today we have to clean up the mess. So I think you have a lot of explaining to do, not us!
We are here to deal with the problem and that is why today we are asking Canadians . . . Your Leader refused to have you tighten your belts, and so did the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Our Prime Minister tightened his belt, $15,000 worth, 15 per cent of his salary. Tighten your belts first, before you ask us any questions!


Alain Tardif: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), for a supplementary.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not share the views of the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), but 1 would like to inform the Hon. Member that the billions invested by the previous administration have created and safeguarded thousands of jobs.


Mrs. Champagne:: Ask the people at Maislin!


Alain Tardif: And if we add up the millions to which he was referring, I think we should remember that this was over twenty years, and the total amount you gave to those rich Canadians is far more than we apparently "wasted", to borrow your expression, in twenty years.
You did it in six months, and worst of all, you did it at the expense of the average taxpayer, at the expense of Canadian men and women who aren't able to tighten their belts.
You don't seem to realize what it means to lose $10 or $15 per month when people have trouble making both ends meet. You are making them pay for your handouts to the rich friends of the Conservative Party.


Gabriel Fontaine: 1 appreciate that the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and I do not see eye to eye, for if he did he would have seen the light and be sitting on this side of the House.
The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe talks about the peculiarities of Canadians. Are you aware of the fact that all Canadians enjoy the right to vote-be they poor or very poor, rich or very rich-and that they are the ones who gave us 211 out of 282 votes here in the House? They gave us an unmistakable mandate to administer and balance our budget, and that is what we are doing now, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 can hardly believe my ears when 1 listen to a debate between two Quebec Members. The Tories blame the Liberals, and the Liberals blame the Tories. Fortunately the electors of Quebec will have another option on December 2, the NDP of Quebec. 1 want to say to the Hon. Member that the Liberal Government's National Energy
Excise Tax Act
Program was designed to help Quebec consumers. There were problems, but that is the kind of program it was. Here is my question: How much does ordinary gasoline cost?


Mr. Della  Noce@: The word is "regular".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Regular gas in Levis.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). First I want to congratulate him for speaking in French, it is commendable.
You refer to the Liberals' energy program and its advantages for the Province of Quebec, but you seem to make a distinction between Quebec and Canada as a whole, yet Quebec is a part of the country. Canada stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The economic fallout of our policy concerning the energy program can be felt throughout Canada. As to the current price of a litre of oil, it is now lower than a year ago by today's cost of living standards.


Mrs. Mailly:: A comment, Mr. Speaker. 1 wish to congratulate my hon. friend. Coming from a Member who was not present in the House in 1979 when we were sitting on the Government side, this is quite a good speech. He obviously fully realizes the kind of economic situation we have inherited from the Liberal administration. 1 had the pleasure and the unforgettable experience to act as assistant to Mr. Crosbie, the then Minister of Finance, when our party was in power, unfortunately, for a very short period in 1979. I must say Mr. Crosbie would be very much interested in the remarks my hon. colleague has just made, because he has clearly indicated what was wrong. It was that enormous debt which was jeopardizing our country making it impossible for many regions, such as Western Canada, to recover and get out of this mess for which the Liberals, who are liberal to a fault, were responsible.
I should like to call the attention of my hon. friend to an article which appeared yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen, under the headline:

"The Canadian economy beats U.S.".

According to the Royal Bank of Canada-

"The key to optimism" is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I must regretfully interrupt the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) in the expression of her objective opinion-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I was just quoting from an article-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The reason 1 have interrupted the Hon. Member is that the time allocated for

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
questions and comments is over. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 now under consideration is completely useless in my opinion and could have been avoided if this Government had taken a different approach. We are told that this Bill was introduced, as the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has just said, because the Canadian public gave his Government, or at least his party, the mandate to make all Canadians tighten their belts. I think that all Canadian men and women were aware of the fact that, after the worst economic crisis ever in Canada and the other industrialized countries in 1981 and 1982, we would have a serious public debt problem.
My first criticism of this Government would be that it did not take this fact into account during the 1984 electoral campaign. Who made promises representing additional expenditures of $20 billion according to the figures of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)? Those promises were not made by the Liberals, but by the Conservatives themselves. Who promised during the electoral campaing, for instance, to solve the oil problem and especially to do something for the private retailers who do not work for the big oil companies? It was not the party on this side, but the party opposite. Yet, after criticizing the Petro-Canada problem for so many years, what did they do after coming to power? They invested even more money, allowed Petro-Canada to spend even more, and because of this, a refinery in eastern Montreal will close its doors, 450 jobs will disappear, and in addition, all private gasoline retailers in Quebec will be facing even larger cartels than before.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this Bill could been avoided if the Government had taken a different course of action. I am aware that the public debt is serious. I am aware that 25 per cent of our expenditures, or 25 cents out of each dollar, are used to pay interest charges on the debt. However, if this is so, why not have worked on this angle?
Why is it, for instance, that the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tell us that we must reduce the deficit? What did they do in the budget? Why do we now have to examine such a piece of legislation? Why will all Canadians have to pay taxes on nonproprietary medicine? Why will Canadians have to pay higher taxes on gasoline? Why will they have to pay taxes on building materials, such as pre-mixed concrete? Why do we have to do this? It is very simple. It is because this Government decided to give money to the multinationals and make the taxpayers pay for it.
It must be emphasized that this is the basic philosophical difference between the Conservatives and my own party.
According to the Conservative philosophy, one should give to the rich and tax medium- and lower-income groups, and keep hoping that within the next 10 or 15 years the rich will be
rich enough to spend, and that ultimately they will create jobs for the poor. That, of course, is the story of the horse and the sparrow, as has often been explained. We on this side think that the best way to ensure a distribution of wealth, a more democratic, more liberal way, is to make sure that wealth is distributed more adequately and that the rich pay more, so that we may maintain a better and fairer balance in wealth distribution among all middle-income groups, especially in the less favoured regions, and this involves regional development.
They say they want to tackle the deficit, but what are they doing in the Budget? They did away with the tax on oil multinationals, and this means that by 1990, $8.5 billion will have slipped out of this Government's coffers into those of ten odd oil multinational corporations. I repeat it: $8.5 billion. They decided to do away with the tax on capital gains, and certainly people earning $25,000 and $30,000 a year do not earn enough capital gains to benefit from that deduction offered by the Conservatives. You know something, Mr. Speaker? By 1990, it is nearly $5 billion that will have gone out of the Canadian Government's coffers into those of a mere 4 per cent of Canadian taxpayers who had capital gains over these last years and will now get those tax benefits.
What have we done to that Government? We are told: Middle-income Canadians, tighten your belts! And at the same time, they decide all of a sudden to take close to $ 1 billion out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers so that the Government may reimburse nameless depositors, individuals or companies, or foreign banks that had deposited more than $60,000 in the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are asked to tighten their belts. Middle-income and lower-income Canadians are asked to pay a higher sales tax. The Government has enough money to forego potential tax revenues of something like $1 billion- some say it is even more-for the benefit of a couple of shareholders in a company that just bought the Canadian assets of Gulf, which may amount to $1 billion in tax expenditures, and then they say it was just an administrative decision. We read in the papers that the former Deputy Minister of Finance clearly stated that his Minister allowed him to keep from discussing the issue because of the possibility he might work with the Reichmanns, and his Minister was kind enough to look after that matter himself. And we are being asked to believe, today, after the tainted tuna affair and the banks affair that those people speak the truth and only the truth and that neither the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), nor the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mrs. Carney) knew about that administrative decision which handed out $1 billion to a few shareholders of a big company. And also we are asked to pass legislation which will force Canadians to tighten their belts.
Mr. Speaker, nothing much has been said in the House about another issue which was discussed at the same time as Domtar, in the Eastern Townships, an issue which had my colleagues for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and the member for Granby-Stanstead-Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) working very hard. The Government did not want to give a cent. Finally,
October 24, 1985

funds which were earmarked for other projects under regional agreements already signed were granted to Domtar, that is $60 million. However, at the same time our angelic Minister of Revenue (Mr. MacKay) who used to bawl out against advance rulings, gave one out for the Reichmanns and another one which may have cost $250 million of lost revenues in the case of Algoma Steel and CPR. You should perhaps look into this other matter.
And, billions are given to multinationals either by way of advance rulings for the purchase of Gulf as well as in the case of Algoma and the CPR or in the case of the banks and I maintain that as a result of this Government's incompetence, we are asked to hand out so much money for the banks. And today, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) and the Minister of State (Finance) had the nerve to come and say, Mr. Speaker, that they have been given the authority to tighten our belts, the belts of people earning $15,000 and $20,000 by increasing the sales tax, by reducing family allowances, by reducing the amount which enables families with average incomes to obtain the child tax credit. And they want us to believe that today, Mr. Speaker.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is a limit to trying to stuff people like suitcases. I think that truth must be clearly stated. If we look at the impact the Bill will have by 1990, it all means that this Government is going to take $16 billion more out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, and I would rather not go on again about the sales tax, which we all know is going to hurt low income families far more, proportionally, than other Canadians. All this is going to add up to $16 billion. And you know what? The special benefits for oil multinationals, which add up to $8.5 billion, capital gains-$5 billion, the Algoma deal-$200 million, plus one billion dollars' worth of "advance ruling" for Reichmann and one billion dollars in the bank fiasco, do you realize that all this adds up to $16 billion? And the sum total of this whole exercise is, that this Government's deficit will not be reduced by a single cent. In fact, it will increase.
To the Hon. Member for Levis who says that the Government is doing this to bring down the deficit, I say this: It's like trying to water your garden when you turn on the water but you don't open the nozzle. It won't do much for your garden and it won't do much for the deficit. And the worst part is that all these cash payments and foregone revenues benefit exclusively a certain privileged class, and I am referring to the oil multinationals, the big banks and people with deposits of $60,000 and up. The benefits go to the people who buy a company and manage a tax benefit of one billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, all this money goes into the hands of... I think if I had two more hands, if I could find two extra hands, I could almost show what these people are like.
Unfortunately, 10 or 11 million Canadian taxpayers are probably going to have to pay the bill. And that is the whole philosophy of this Government. They think they can activate the economy by taking money from those who have less-and I am referring to the middle class and those with very low incomes-to give it to the rich.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this economic assumption is wrong, that it will create social problems in Quebec and in Canada, and that it will also create problems for regional development in this country, because in a country like Canada, we cannot expect the market to meet all the needs of our various regions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest figures, every day some 19,800 pounds of priority pollutants are discharged into the Niagara River. Of these, 350 pounds are caught by the recently reopened sewer treatment plant in Niagara Falls, New York. The remaining 19,450 pounds flow unchecked into the river and eventually into Lake Ontario, posing a serious long-term threat to public health. While this goes on, here in Ottawa the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) remains silent on the clean-up plan he received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
On Monday the Minister refused to provide facts about the plan proposed by the United States. From his performance, one has to conclude that the Minister prefers to engage in cheap politics rather than deal with the health of millions of Canadians.
There are important questions which need to be answered. First, does the plan set stiff controls on polluting industries for their toxic discharges? Second, how much money, if any, does the plan provide for the incineration of toxic chemicals buried in the four major dumps on the United States side of the river? Third, will funds be given to municipalities for the construction of facilities intended to catch toxic pollutants as they enter sewage plants? Fourth, what is the implementation timetable? Fifth, which are the agreed upon toxic substances to be brought under control?
I call upon the Minister of the Environment to make the U.S. plan public and to seek input from public interest groups-

October 24, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.

[ Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: On June 29, 1983, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government had announced the adjudication of major contracts for the building of six frigates as well as the repairing of destroyers and submarines of the Canadian Navy. It had shared these contracts fairly among the various regions and shipyards in this country.
Now that the rules of the game have been changed, the Conservative Government is shying away from its responsibilities in the area of regional development by not forcing the Versatile Vickers Company to fulfil its contractual obligations.
The contract which had been adjudicated to the St. John company provided for two major subcontractors, namely, Paramax Electronics and Versatile. Why would we have insisted at the time on Paramax relocating in Montreal if three of the six frigates were not to be built in the Montreal area?
The decision to callously take away this contract from the Vickers company in Montreal will affect some 500 senior employees who have between 10 and 15 years of service and who have the necessary advanced technology in the area of ship repair and construction.
We are told that 185 employees are already at least 55 years of age, and if this decision-


Mr. Speaker:: I must regretfully interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allocated to him has expired.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia speak with one voice when they address the management of that delicate balance between the preservation of our environment and the survival of our resource industries. No one wants to see that balance upset. Most recently that voice has been loud and clear on a number of controversial conflict areas, including South Moresby, British Columbia. I am pround to report that the voice of the people is now recognized as the voice of reason.
My colleague, the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), has had an opportunity to see firsthand the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands. After touring
the area, the Minister spoke of accommodation and compromise.
The provincial Government also realizes the importance of approaching issues as crucial as the South Moresby issue with a view to seeking a compromise. The announcement last week by B.C. Environment Minister Pelton of his study commission is welcomed by those who reject extremism in either the environmental or the industrial communities.
There is a place for both the development of our resource industries and the preservation of our wilderness environment. Our role is to search for that compromise solution, to listen to the voice of reason, and to maintain the delicate balance.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my whole-hearted support of our Government's efforts in seeking a new trade agreement with the United States.
It is only common sense that we should seek to secure and expand our access to the markets of our largest trading partner. Seventy-six per cent of all Canadian exports go to the United States. This represents approximately three million Canadian jobs and almost 30 per cent of our national income.
At present there are 300 protectionist Bills before the United States Congress. Many of these measures would seriously impair various sectors of the Canadian economy.
In its final report the Macdonald Commission indicated:
It is imperative that Canada reduce both the uncertainty of access to U.S. markets and the adverse effects that might result from any trade-restrictive measurs.
The commission concluded that Canada would "benefit substantially from a new trade agreement with the United States, particularly from access to the expanded unrestricted market and from economies of scale".
Are members of the Opposition really willing to risk the status quo! They should ask a pork farmer in Ontario, or a logger in British Columbia, if he is happy with the status quo.
The Government believes in the ability of Canadians to compete and to succeed. A new trade agreement with our largest trading partner will preserve jobs now and create jobs in the future. Let there be no illusions. These negotiations will be long and difficult, but the bottom line is: if we do not get a good deal, there is going to be no deal.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
October 24, 1985

'	EMPLOYMENT



FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME JOB STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, unemployment remains the most serious concern of and problem for Canadians. The marginal decline in the unemployment rate to 10.1 per cent glosses over the fact that much of the decline is due to an increase in low-paying, part-time jobs which are replacing unionized, full-time jobs with standard pay and benefits.
The report of Statistics Canada released on October 11 indicated that in September full-time employment decreased by 24,000, with the decline entirely due to lower full-time employment for females, while part-time employment rose by
47,000.
This was confirmed on Monday in a report out of Toronto which appeared in The Globe and Mail. It indicated that job openings for full-timers dropped by 24 per cent. According to the Toronto-based Technical Service Council, total employment in Canada increased in the past year largely because of temporary, part-time, and contract positions. In its report on September 24 the OECD forecast little improvement in unemployment in Canada in 1986.
All these facts indicate that the Budget and the employment policies of the Government are not adequate. It is time for the Government to stop patting itself on the back and to re-examine its employment policies in respect of these serious issues.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I stand to applaud the statement of condemnation of South African racist policies which was made before the United Nations yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It reflected the views, I am sure, of all Parties in the House and of the vast majority of Canadians. Its enthusiastic reception by delegates at the UN reflected not only the power of the statement but the expectations created by it.
Canada has assumed the focus of the expectations for change of the Third World that hopes to see western industrial nations, which have heretofore supported South Africa, now effectively join the battle against that regime. Any failure to live up in full measure to what is expected of this new leadership role could lead not only to immeasurable disillusionment with Canada but to increased cynicism about the West's commitment to the values underlying our democracies.
We have promised a tough stand, and we must take that stand. If in six months South Africa has not responded as demanded, we dare not answer with more words, however
eloquent. We must respond with action which goes much further than "a tiny little bit", "a tiny little bit".



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out how satisfied the people of the Beauce region and the people of all of Canada are as a result of a decrease in interest rates. From now on, it will be less costly to become a property owner. Farmers, fishermen and small businessmen will see their costs decrease and jobs will be created for the unemployed.
Last Thursday, the Bank of Canada rate reached 8.77 per cent, and this means a 3.6 per cent reduction since the election.
The chartered banks' preferred rate has decreased from 1 to 10 per cent, its lowest level in seven years. Consequently, the interest rates provided under the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Farm Improvements Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act will be reduced.
In more specific terms, this will represent an average saving of $1500 per year on a $50,000 loan.
Payments on 5-year mortgage loans have been reduced 2.5 per cent. In the case of a $50,000 mortgage, this means a saving of more than $5000 in the first 5 years and of around $26,000 over a period of 25 years. The people of the Beauce region appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, since the election, housing starts have increased by 29 per cent, as a result of lower interest rates. It will give rise to the creation of thousands of jobs in the construction, lumber and furniture industries.
We are creating a very favorable climate. Let the media dwell more often on the good news, and this country will be all the better.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC has done it again. It wins and Canada loses. The Friendly Giant is dying, and the CBC pulled the trigger.
Talk about an arm's-length relationship: the CBC is so far removed from reality that it cannot tell what is worth keeping any more. Just because Friendly is 66 years old and has been on the air for 26 years is absolutely no reason to write him off.

October 24, 1985
Do you recall the expression, Mr. Speaker: "If it works, don't fix it"? Well, here we go again.
The last letter I received regarding Friendly from the CBC President was dated September 12, 1985, and read:
-it may surprise you to know that I share your feelings about Friendly. I, too, think it was valuable and worthwhile, and I can appreciate that its cancellation has created considerable concern.
What is wrong with admitting you made a mistake? We did it in June regarding the Old Age Security pension issue.
We are seeing another nail being driven into the Canadian cultural coffin. Friendly will be no more. Rusty and Jerome are being put to pasture and we cannot even offer them a Senate seat. I tried, goodness knows I tried.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House should be asking why the Native Economic Development Fund which was set up to assist native business people is distributing its funding so slowly. The whole process is creating frustration among native people awaiting start-up assistance for business ventures and depriving them of their chance to create jobs for the many unemployed native people of Canada.
Why has the NEDP, which is well into its second year of operation and more than one-third of the way through its mandate, distributed less than one-tenth of its funds, only some $20 million of the $345 million allocated?

On May 21st last, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) told me in this House that requests for financial assistance were efficiently dealt with as they always are.

If this is so, why are we still hearing reports of delays and applications resting in the Minister's office?
This program must become a priority of the Government if we are to see any improvement in the economic conditions of Canada's native people. I fear that there will be even further delays with the expected major turnover of advisory committee members at the end of this month. There is no excuse for these delays. If the process for reviewing the applications has to be revised, then the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) should do so. Let's get going.



INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PEACE


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in New York City this afternoon the United Nations is going to declare 1986 the International Year of Peace. In the words of the General Assembly, the objective of this international year will be to make an even greater contribution to promoting international peace and security on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations.
Canada can enter this international year encouraged by the way 1985 has already been a year of victories for peace by Canada. First, the Canadian people and Government set the pace for world relief to Ethiopia. Second, our Ambassador for Disarmament was a key player in gaining renewed support for the non-proliferation treaty. Third, the Government made a courageous decision on the issue of the Strategic Defence Initiative. Fourth, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) announced that Canada will join the multinational peacekeeping force in the Sinai. Fifth, Canada hosted the World Conference on Human Rights. Sixth, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has given leadership to the Commonwealth and the world in challenging apartheid in South Africa.
The International Year of Peace will involve not only peaceseeking Governments such as our own. Its appeal is also to churches, clubs, lodges and associations, to open up that vast reservoir of support for peace that exists in all our constituencies and neighbourhoods. International years have already raised world consciousness-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Every day a little bit of truth about the Government's behaviour regarding the Canadian Commercial Bank affair trickles out. The Estey Commission confirmed that the Prime Minister was directly responsible for the CCB decision. Today we also learned that the Government orchestrated the bail-out knowing that losses were understated. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance defended themselves by saying that they relied on the best available information. Does the best available information mean only the information that the Prime Minister wants to hear?
October 24, 1985


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK BAIL-OUT
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in a matter as serious as this one, I must say I am very surprised. The Minister is not deaf, he understood my question quite clearly, but he obviously does not want to answer. I will try with another question, and maybe he will want to answer that one.
In the tuna affair, the Prime Minister informed the House that he had acted "innocently", as though he knew nothing. In the bank affair, it seems the Prime Minister did not want to know the facts.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, considering the importance of this matter, what kind of documents the Prime Minister had in front of him when he made the decision to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been a member of a Cabinet. He knows that that is a question that cannot be answered in the House. All the information that was needed for this decision was presented to the Prime Minister, and that is all I am able to say.


SURVIVAL OF CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK
Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
We were informed in the House on several occasions that $255 million was enough to guarantee the survival of the CCB. Yesterday, before the Estey Commission, it transpired that the Inspector himself from the Office of the Inspector General of Banks had said it would take $120 million more, in other words $375 million. Could the Minister of Finance inform the House why he concealed such important information from the House and why he deceived Parliament and the Canadian people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are going to be different points of view presented before the Estey Commission from time to time over the course of its hearings. The whole purpose of the Estey Commission is to get these different points of view on the record so that Mr. Justice Estey can make a decision. Once he has made his report available to the public, we can then decide where to proceed from there.
Oral Questions


SHAREHOLDERS AND DEPOSITORS- MIN ISTER'S POSITION
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. As late as August 9 the Minister was encouraging shareholders and depositors to hang in with the Canadian Commercial Bank by saying unequivocally that the Government's actions in March had ensured the long-term viability of the bank. We now find that the Minister knew in July from at least two sources that the bank would not return to profitability. Will the Minister tell the House why, on August 9, she made statements that she must have known were at variance with the facts?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question any number of times in the House. I have indicated to the House more than once that this is exactly the kind of information that is going to come before the Commission within its proper context and all the facts will determine the conclusions.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is not true either because the question of ministerial responsibility is not before the Estey Commission. That question belongs in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF FIGURES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Government has not been open with the House or with the people of Canada from the start. We were told at the time that $255 million would make the bank viable. We now learn that officials advised on March 24-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to ask her question, please.


Aideen Nicholson: Will the Minister table in this House documents, and will she make a statement on Motions, dealing with the difference between the two figures of $255 million, which we were told at the time, and another $116 million, which we now learn would have been essential to make the bank viable?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we have learned that another $116 million was essential. I think that we have learned is that there are a number of figures from the balance sheet and the support package being placed before the Estey inquiry. All those facts will go into the conclusions which the inquiry will reach.


INFORMATION PROVIDED TO MINISTER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On March 28 in this House the Minister of State for Finance said the following, and I

October 24, 1985
Oral Questions
quote: "... a support package in the amount of S255 million would be sufficent to ensure the continuing operation of the Bank." Yesterday we learned from Neville Grant, the man in charge of bank inspections, that on the day before the bail-out decision was announced he had informed the Inspector General of Banks that the CCB was going to lose some $350 million and that a bail-out of that amount would be required for survival. Was the Minister made aware of that information?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the question in the same way as I responded to the previous question from the Liberal Party. These are questions which are being discussed before the Estey Commission.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Are you going to testify there?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are matters of opinion before the Estey Commission.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a fact.


John Edward Broadbent: I asked a factual question, not opinion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is the whole purpose of the Estey Commission. Once it has assessed all the information before it, we can then decide at that stage where we go on the whole matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question with wording I chose with care. It was not a matter of opinion; it was a matter of fact.


INQUIRY CONCERNING MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who has responsibility over the Inspector General of Banks is simply the following. Was he made aware before the decision was made and before it was announced in this House that the CCB would lose $350 million, that, if there was to be a bail-out, a sum of money up to that amount would be required? That is a factual question which the Minister should answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me expand a little bit on my first answer, then.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What the Hon. Member has drawn into the preamble to his question are conclusions which he is drawing from statements that were made before the commission yesterday. I will not comment on the conclusions which the Hon. Member draws. The conclusions which the Government and I are waiting for are those from Mr. Justice Estey. That is the basis upon which I should be commenting.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is a cop-out if 1 ever heard one. The Minister was asked a factual question and he should answer a factual question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have another question which pertains to ministerial responsibility. Also, according to very important testimony which was given, the decision to save the bank was made on Saturday, March 23. We now know regarding the $350 million sum that the inspection which led to that sum was not completed until 24 hours later. Is it the Minister's notion of ministerial responsibility to make a decision first and get the facts later?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I say that the Hon. Member is drawing his own conclusions from statements which are being made in front of the Estey Commission.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: With respect, I would prefer to listen to the conclusions drawn by Mr. Justice Estey-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Are you going to testify?


John Edward Broadbent: Ministerial responsibility is here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would listen to the answer, I say that it is more important for us all as Members of Parliament to listen to the conclusions drawn by Mr. Justice Estey, based on the range of testimony which will be presented to him during the course of the inquiry, and not piece-by-piece judgments drawn by the Hon. Member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the U.S. Trade Secretary William Brock said that Canada must, and I quote: "Put everything on the table in free trade talks . .. including social programs and the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact." On October 2 in the House the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I quote: "Canada's social programs are not on the table." Why is the Government allowing President Reagan to dictate the terms of the free trade negotiations to Canada by insisting that everything be placed on the table despite the wishes of Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 24, 1985


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked, Mr. Brock was not the Secretary of International Trade but the Secretary of Labour in the United States. Perhaps the hon. gentleman might want to update his reference library.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Get your amanuensis to fix the question.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he was expressing Government policy, the approach of the Government to discussions with the United States, and that is still the approach unaltered.


Mr. Crosbie:: Straight from the heart, Jean.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the U.S. Secretary changed departments, but the fact remains, he still is a senior member of the U.S. administration.


INQUIRY WHETHER UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, MEDICARE, AND PENSIONS WILL BE SUBJECTS OF NEGOTIATION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether unemployment insurance, medicare and pensions will be subjects of negotiation with the United States. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Isn't it time to tell the United States that this country is not for sale and its survival is not negotiable?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the question posed by the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously, he has not read the statement of the American Ambassador to Canada who said recently in a television interview: "I would like to put these fears with regard to Canada's social programs to rest". The United States is not without a structure of social support of its own . .. and we have no more interest in asking Canadians to determine such matters for us than you do in having us determine them for Canadians."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance who will know that at the judicial inquiry the Director of Inspec-
Oral Questions
tions for the office of the Inspector General of Banks said, under oath, that it would cost $350 million to ensure the continued operation of the bank. Was she aware of that information when she made her recommendation to the House?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, once again we are getting into a situation of trying to judge numbers in this House. The proper context for dealing with all of the balance sheet items-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: What are you here for?


Mr. Cassidy:: What's a billion, Barbara?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The proper context for dealing with this type of information is in the Estey inquiry. That is where the final recommendations will be made.


John Edward Broadbent: You are responsible here.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is why we established the commission.


MINISTER'S MARCH STATEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what is $100 million in this case?
In the House on March 28 the Minister of State for Finance said that the support package in the amount of $255 million would be sufficient to ensure the continuing operation of the bank. Under oath the individual who is responsible for inspections for the bank-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question is simply this, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister obviously had that information at the time, did she therefore intentionally mislead the House when she said that $255 million was adequate?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: She won't answer questions that are in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I know what the questioner is trying to get at, but I think the Hon. Member also knows that our rules do not allow us to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

October 24, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The situation is serious enough considering that the Government's and the Minister's integrity is at stake.
In the paper tabled last January, the Government stated that no savings would be used to reduce the deficit. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance admitted for the first time that family allowance cuts would be used to bring down the deficit.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this: Will he tell us which of the two misled the people of Canada and Members of this House?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all no one has been misleading the Hon. Member and he will know that if he has been listening to the answers. Second, if the Hon. Member takes a look at the very question he asks, namely, what are the actual expenditures of this Government on social programs, he will find year over year that in fact there is an increase in the social spending of $2 billion.


IMPACT ON FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of National Health was junketing to China with his official agent, he forgot about the answer given by the Minister of Finance yesterday.
I am repeating my question to the Minister of Finance who, for the first time, admitted that reductions in the growth rate . . . could the Minister explain why he could not respect his Government's commitment when he decided to use family allowances to reduce the deficit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be clearer than the answer given by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Spending in the social envelope this year is going up by $2 billion.


Raymond Garneau: That's not the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The deficit is going down this year. Surely, the Hon. Member is capable of adding.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT INQUIRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and refers to the comments made by Cabinet Secretary Brock who is trying to widen the range of items to be discussed in the free trade talks. Will the Government now clearly confirm the words spoken to this House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 27 that the Auto Pact would not be renegotiated, despite the fact that this Cabinet Secretary in the Untied States has called for putting that crucial piece of trade legislation on the table?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty at all in confirming the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I put it to the Government-


John Carnell Crosbie: Put it to yourself.


John Edward Broadbent: Watch it.


Steven W. Langdon: Is the Government aware that the parts sector and the auto manufacturers estimate that over 10,000 jobs would go down the drain if the Auto Pact is changed? Will the Government see to it that the Auto Pact and its safeguards remain a complete and total sacred trust in these negotiations?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. gentleman obviously prepared his supplementary question before he was aware of how I would answer his first question. That answer still stands.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister continued to boast about creating 300,000 jobs during the past year.
An Hon. Member:: So he should.


Mr. Allmand:: When is the Minister going to tell Canadians the whole truth about these statistics, that a large percentage of those jobs-over 30 per cent-are low paying part-time jobs and that that trend is growing? That the wages for these jobs are low paying has been confirmed recently by the Canadian Council on Welfare which states there is a growing number of working poor in Canada. When is the Minister going to tell Canadians the truth about those statistics?
October 24, 1985


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I did acknowledge the fact that 30 per cent of those jobs were part-time jobs, as I think my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, acknowledged the other day. But surely the Hon. Member is not saying that 304,000 new jobs during the course of 12 months is not a good record because I believe those same people to whom he referred are saying that it is a very good record, and are encouraging us to achieve more like it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister, and through him, the Government, if he is content with the situation where we are moving at a rapid rate from full-time jobs which are unionized, with standard wages and benefits, to a situation where we are moving to part-time jobs which are low paying, usually not unionized, and without benefits. As the Canadian Council on Welfare showed this week in a report, we are moving toward a situation in which there is a larger number of working poor in this country. Is that what the Minister is satisfied with?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker, of course we are not satisfied, and that is the reason why we have introduced the Canadian Jobs Strategy which will benefit some 400,000 people this year. But more to the point, what is important is that we have introduced training allowances for people who are attending on a part-time basis, primarily women and those who are supporters of single-parent families, so that they have a chance to benefit from training for new employment. That is something which was not even contemplated by the former Government.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is prompted by my meeting earlier this week with the Committee for the Survival of the Textile Industry in Sherbrooke.
Does the Minister know that made-in-Canada textiles account for only 43 per cent of the Canadian consumption of textiles, and would it not be fair that as a minimum, the share of Canadian-sourced textiles, those coming from Canadian producers and industries, represent half the Canadian consumption?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's question as a representation. The suggestion of 50 per cent of the Canadian market being reserved for domestic
Oral Questions
producers has been mentioned by various other people and, as the Hon. Member may or may not know, I am meeting with industry and union representatives, for example, Tom Bell of Dominion Textile Limited, this afternoon, and we will certainly bring matters to what I believe will be a constructive conclusion for the industry very shortly.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN PRODUCTION HAVE 50 PER CENT SHARE OF MARKET
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary for the same Minister. On behalf of the Mayor of Sherbrooke, of the Municipal Council for the Industry, in Sherbrooke, of the Industrial Board and the workers of Sherbrooke, I ask whether the Government is indeed ready to take the steps needed to guarantee as a minimum a 50 per cent share of the Canadian textile market to Canadian textile workers and manufacturers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my response to the earlier question, we will take the question as a representation. But, frankly, Mr. Speaker, surely the time has come when opposition Members can start acknowledging some things. For example, according to the Construction Association of Canada, spending on manufacturing is going up 19 per cent between now and next year, and in the year after, 20 per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: What's that got to do with the question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Canadians are going to have the factories in order that they can get back to work, and unemployment is coming down.


AIDS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Canadians have recently received a great deal of conflicting and often misleading information about AIDS. In order to quell the fears of Canadians and to ensure that accurate information on AIDS is available, will the Government initiate a factual awareness program at the local level in order to inform Canadians about this tragic disease?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct, and I think Members of the House generally share her viewpoint. The time available in Question Period does not allow me to get into a full discussion of this issue. However, there has been the appointment of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, as well as the publication called AIDS in Canada: What You

October 24, 1985
Oral Questions
Should Know. Also, there is public information documentation as well as ongoing research. If it is helpful to the House, at the end of Question Period I can table information along these lines.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who, on Monday, announced the federal Government's new educational policy which washes its hands of any responsibility for the amount or direction of funds going to post-secondary education. How will the Government now ensure Canada's economic and cultural future without taking at least some responsibility for adequate funding so that national objectives for postsecondary education can be met?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, what I said this week was that the Federal Government transfers certain amounts to the provinces which, under our confederative system, are responsible for the allocation of these sums. I never said that I would refuse to co-operate with the provinces, and we are indeed co-operating with them, to try and find mechanisms which would allow the universities, colleges, and other institutions to receive the necessary support, naturally. When we transfer $4.5 billion to the provinces, this is already a meaningful involvement, but when we then obtain guarantees from these provinces, whose jurisdiction we must respect, through mechanisms, discussions and support programs, it is quite obvious-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Minister that he is now making a speech. Supplementary.


ACCOUNTABILITY OF PROVINCES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in addition to cutting $6 billion of anticipated transfer payments, is the Minister saying that his Conservative Government is going to abandon the amendment it passed when in opposition which requires that he see to it that the provinces are held accountable for how they financially support postsecondary education? Or has that now gone by the boards?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what this Government can promise is that we shall see to it that the amounts transferred under the agreements signed and accepted by your own Government in 1977, namely an unconditional transfer to the provinces, will be paid. The concept of these arrangements is that it is up to the provinces to decide. There have been no cutbacks, as we have repeated
many times; the amounts transferred to the provinces will increase. However, once more, we will have the necessary discussion to ensure that the various institutions will receive the money transferred to the provinces.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY ANNOUNCED REOPENING OF WELLAND CANAL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it concerns the Welland Canal. This morning his officials announced that the Seaway is going to be reopened on November 6. Have those officials determined the cause of the blow-out, and is this going to be a temporary repair of the Seaway wall?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the cause of the failure has not been precisely determined. I can give the Hon. Member no further information as of right now. I will be meeting with Mr. O'Neil, who is returning to Ottawa this afternoon, and he will be giving me a full briefing on the details of the repairs.


REPAIR WORK
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from Seaway Authority officials that this is going to be a permanent repair. How can the Minister justify permanently repairing the facility when it is not known what caused the problem in the first place? How can we be assured that this repair job will hold, not only for this year but for years to come?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will be in a better position to respond to that question perhaps tomorrow.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Negotiations have been going on since July regarding a tripartite red meat stabilization program. There are reports that the producers and at least four provinces representing the vast majority of beef and hog production are ready to sign an agreement to be phased in over a three-year period. Can the Minister indicate if he is prepared to sign this agreement and when it will come into effect?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in a very important subject. The industry has attempted to make some progress on this program for at least 10 years. It might be of



October 24, 1985

some interest to the Hon. Member to know that this very day Deputy Ministers are meeting here in Ottawa and I would hope that when the meetings are concluded we will have a number of signatures on the agreement. However, there is no question about the fact that we have been prepared to sign, for quite some time.


REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVITY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister indicate whether he is willing to make the program retroactive to the first of the year as requested by Alberta and Ontario?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the Act allows for this program to be retroactive to January 1, 1985. However, we are one of 10 or 11 parties involved. I am not going to dictate the terms concerning retroactivity. That was one of the problems in the past where certain parties tried to dictate. That is not our task. Our task is to co-operate and consult with our partners equally, and I am sure we can come to some agreement which is acceptable to as many parties that join the plan.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DEPOSITORS COMPENSATION ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Legislative Committee concerned with Bill C-79. Since this Bill deals with uninsured depositors, many of whom are charitable and church organizations as well as municipalities, and since many people have questioned their motives, will the Chairman be inviting uninsured depositors as witnesses so they can tell the Committee why they supported the CCB and Northland Banks?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is in order to ask questions of a committee chairman concerning decisions on matters which the committee has discussed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Which this is.


Mr. Speaker:: I might have been willing to allow the question, but that may change my mind.
I think, given the context, I am going to allow the question.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the all-Party steering group of the committee had a meeting this morning and the Chairman was requested to obtain written submissions from Canadians directly affected by the current affairs of the CCB and Northland Banks. Indeed, we hope that some group will come forward to express their concerns and explain why they continued to have faith in the regional banks.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


POTENTIAL LOSS OF JOBS IN SUDBURY AREA
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. At present the Sudbury area is faced with the potential loss of 1,500 jobs at Inco and Falconbridge. This will further exacerbate an unemployment rate which is presently the third highest in Canada. Can the Minister tell this House what she intends to do about this situation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, I indicated initially that I was not satisfied with the origianl benefits package originally put forward by Inco, and since that time Inco has come back and enriched its benefits package by some 70 per cent. I see that it has extended the date for acceptance of that benefits package to the middle of November, and I am hopeful that there will be sufficient take-up of that benefits package through early retirement, and that it will not be necessary to effect further lay-offs. I am hoping that is what we will see in the Sudbury area.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, at the danger of repeating my question, which 1 wouldn't want to do-


John Carnell Crosbie: Good man.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has answered a question that I did not ask.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, don't ask it again.


John R. Rodriguez: We are going to lose 1,500 jobs in the Sudbury basin. Can the Minister tell the House specifically whether there is anything that the Minister is thinking about which can be done for those workers and that community?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I have already met with the Ontario Minister of Labour in order that we can jointly explore new ideas for fostering employment opportunities in the Sudbury basin. And as that initiative is developed I would invite the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and, indeed, the Hon. Membr for Sudbury, to join us in those efforts.

October 24, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Not only does the Government lack of action with regard to the frigate issue threaten the jobs of Vickers workers, but it may very well lead to the shutdown of the Montreal shipyards. I want to ask the Minister if he would be kind enough to spare some time today to meet with the Versatile Vickers workers who are here today and who are anxious to seek solutions likely to prevent the shipyards from closing down?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that a short time ago I gave an undertaking that I would secure an appropriate legal opinion concerning our right to intervene. I have now received that, and I have read and reread it seven times with a view to determining whether there was any opportunity for us to do anything legally. I can find none. The reason for that is that the authors of the contact, who sit over there, including the Member for Papi-neau, failed to protect the interests of the Montreal workers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!


Mr. Hees:: Next question.


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


DEMAND THAT MINISTER MEET EMPLOYEES PRESENT IN GALLERY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have to substantiate his allegations. In the meantime I would ask him to answer a much simpler question: Does he have the nerve and courage to do his job this afternoon and meet with the Vickers workers who want to see him and who are here in the galleries? Yes or no, that is easy enough to answer!


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I have also indicated that the Government is very much concerned with this situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: I have met with union representatives once and have given my undertaking that I will meet with them immediately following this Question Period to bring them up to date on developments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stewart Donald McInnes: I have today, Mr. Speaker, sent a telegram to the chairman of the board of Vickers because I want to be apprised of its corporate policy with respect not only to the Montreal yard, but all of the Quebec yards.


Mr. Boudria:: Did you send it seven times?


BANKS AND BANKING
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I assume that he accepts the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which is the basis of our parliamentary system. I would like to put a factual question to him. Did he know that Mr. Neville Grant told the Inspector General of Banks, on the day before the $225 million bail-out was announced, that the Canadian Commercial Bank was expected to lose $350 million and that a bail-out of that amount was needed? That is a factual question and I would like a factual answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I have given on two prior occasions in this Question Period still stands.


John Edward Broadbent: You didn't answer.


ESTEY COMMISSION-POSSIBLE APPEARANCE OF MINISTERS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice who complains he does not get any questions. I want to ask him one in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada.


Mr. Nunziata:: Remember, he is not as astute as he should be.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Has the Government ruled out the possibility that some of the Ministers will be testifying before the Estey inquiry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for that question. He must have stayed awake last night thinking it up. Mr. Speaker, with the Opposition which we now have in this Parliament, we rule nothing out.
October 24, 1985


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and involves a very serious situation in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, where a truck carrying deadly sodium cyanide has left a road and the RCMP have had to evacuate the residents within a three-mile radius. I understand that officials from Environment Canada are at the scene. Can the Minister inform the House what is taking place there and perhaps of the causes of this particular incident?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, briefly, the accident, which is severe, occurred at 9.30 this morning Nova Scotia time. My Department pressed its top emergency officers into action on the scene. The Nova Scotia Government is the lead Government in this respect, but my own Department is the only one with the equipment and special facilities required to cope with the situation. The Member is correct that evacuations have occurred.
I have just now received the most recent report, having been monitoring the situation all morning. Briefly, the RCMP are on the scene. They have initiated an evacuation of all those residents living within a two-kilometre radius, which radius has been extended to five kilometres in the northern direction to include the village of Wellington. Two schools, two senior citizens' dwellings, and some 2,000 people have been affected. The situation is very much under control. I congratulate the Hon. Member for being on top of it and for his concern.


CAUSE OF ACCIDENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the Minister for his frankness. Due to the seriousness of the situation, would the Minister consult with his colleagues, the Ministers of Transport and National Health and Welfare, and perhaps tomorrow under Statements by Ministers he could give a comprehensive statement with regard to the causes of this particular accident as well as the possible liability of the transfer company.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will consider that suggestion very carefully. In the meantime I can tell him that the cause, to the extent that one can explain it with the little information that is available today, is that apparently an ordinary driver, driving a car on the relevant highway, stopped to look at a deer on the highway and backed up into a truck carrying drums containing the offending cyanide. A collision occurred and the truck left the highway. The cyanide is leaking and because of weather conditions it has become damp, compounding the situation.
Petitions


GOVERNMENT'S CONSULTATIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. In my conversations with young people across the country I have found a great deal of evidence that they are concerned that parliamentarians hear their viewpoints on all the issues. They are very much concerned, too, that the Government seems not to be listening to them. The Minister of State has been holding fora across the land. When are we going to see the recommendations that she is going to present to the Government as a result of her consultations in these youth fora?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for the question. I have seen that he has met all of 14 young people in Victoria early this week or last week. This very weekend we will be holding our fifth regional forum in Ontario where there will be over 100 young people. Again, it will not only identify the problems that are of concern to them but they will work with us toward solutions.
There will be an important report after the end of the fifth forum and in preparation for a national forum which will be held in 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it was not just Victoria. It was Nanaimo, Edmonton, Saskatoon, and a good deal more than 14. Will the Minister of State indicate to the House whether in fact she has made strong representations, as the young people of the country expect, with respect to their concern about the effects on university funding as a result of the transfer payment cuts recommended by the Minister of Finance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I specifically asked that the Member ask a short supplementary because we have run out of time. I am sorry.


CLERK OF PETITION'S REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of four, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, October 23, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

October 24, 1985
Business of the House


PRIVILEGE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mcln-nes) said here in the House that I was the author of a contract concluded between the Government of Canada and the St. John company.
1 think the Minister was seriously mistaken, and I would ask him to withdraw what he said immediately, because I never was the Minister responsible for Supply and Services Canada.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I think my message was that this Government did not draw up this contract.


Mr. Gauthier:: You said Papineau.


Stewart Donald McInnes: It was the Liberal Government that did so, and the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who then was the Minister from Quebec, was very much involved in that contract.


Mr. Speaker:: It is clear that this is a dispute as to the facts. However, it is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Rossi:: Check the "blues".


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, even though the Government House Leader, myself and the NDP House Leader will be having a meeting later this afternoon, which I presume will involve discussions about business of the House, I thought I should ask the Government House Leader formally if he will make a statement on the business of the House today because this is the customary time to do so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to keep the meeting this afternoon a secret but since it is now public, I will say that its purpose is to discuss business generally and also to discuss various items of mutual interest and concern to the Parties.
I am quite happy to announce the sequence of business. We have now entered into second reading stage of Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act. I propose to carry on with that today and, hopefully, we will make progress.
Tomorrow is the first allotted day of this trimester. If, by chance, we do not complete second reading stage of Bill C-80 today, we will continue to deal with it next Monday, Tuesday
and into next week. However, I am confident that we will complete second reading stage of this legislation. Therefore, Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity, and Bill C-42, an Act to dissolve Canagrex, will be the back-up Bills to Bill C-80.
As usual, I will keep in touch with the Opposition House Leaders and report to the House if there is any change in the order of business that has been announced.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Government House Leader which I believe is important for the record. Could he indicate whether it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the collective bargaining legislation for the House of Commons employees and if the Government intends to proceed with that before the Christmas break?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I take that as a representation by the Hon. Member he wants me to introduce that legislation so it can be passed. On the basis that it is a representation of support from the NDP, I am encouraged to bring it forward at an early date.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above-mentioned report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SECOND REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 70(16), I have the honour to lay upon the table two copies, in both official languages, of the Government's comprehensive response to the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Program.
October 24, 1985


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2) I wish to table in both official languages what most Members of the House wanted to see for years. I refer to the final annual report under the Foreign Investment Review Act. That is right, the final report from FIRA.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Resign.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The next report in this area of Canadian and non-Canadian investment will cover the activities of Investment Canada, a much more positive approach.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has paid much attention to what has been taking place with respect to the weather in western Canada in the past few months will know there have been some very severe problems. They have ranged from very severe drought over the growing season and grasshopper infestation as a result of that drought and high temperatures in the southern part of the provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, to large amounts of rainfall and snow since the middle of August. There have been reports of as much as a foot of snow on occasion in the southern parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba in particular.
Consequently, the amount of harvesting that has been able to be carried out under normal conditions has been very limited. These conditions are rather abnormal, although not unique. The last time we had such conditions was in 1968 and those of us who have been here longer will know that the last time we experienced such conditions previous to 1968 was in 1951.
However, much has changed since 1968. Not only is there much more drying capacity on the Prairies but it is much more efficient in terms of drying and maintaining the quality of grain that goes into the dryer.
A week ago today I had a meeting with grain industry officials in Winnipeg, which involved the grain companies, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission, the grain transportation agencies and the terminal operators at Vancouver and Thunder Bay, to get an assessment of the situation with regard to the harvest including how much grain is still there, how much has been harvested in a tough and damp state and the extent of our drying capacity on the Prairies.
Statements by Ministers
The preliminary results would indicate that if everyone co-operates and makes the use of the drying capacity we have, it appears that we can dry the crop we have in its present condition.
However, the area in which I believe the Government must show some leadership concerns the fact that about two-thirds of the drying capacity we have for handling this crop in the condition in which it is being harvested is on prairie farms. Therefore, anything that we can do as far as the federal Government is concerned to encourage people to dry grain on the farms will be very worth-while. Hence, I have the pleasure to announce today that the federal Government is making available, under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, a $3,000 cash advance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: This is a $3,000 interest-free cash advance that is available on top of the interest free cash advances available normally. It is available on wheat, oats and barley, and is to be calculated on the basis of $9 a ton for wheat, $11 a ton for barley and $16 a ton for oats. It is a little larger than the discount shown at elevators that one receives for delivering tough and damp grain. I hope it is an incentive for prairie producers to make the best uses they can in terms of working with neighbours and anybody else who can help in making the best use of drying facilities.
The forms are already printed, Mr. Speaker, and are in the mail this afternoon. Farmers will be able to go to the elevators as soon as the forms arrive, which I expect will be in the next day or so, certainly by the beginning of the week, to apply for the cash advances.
In addition to that, I have put in place a reporting system to keep up-to-date information literally available on a daily basis so as to make sure we do everything we can to co-ordinate the drying capacity we have on the Prairies.
I have a couple of other points. First, there was some concern on the Prairies that the amount of propane necessary for drying is not available. On checking into the matter, 1 am assured that the propane is in production. The problem is one of distribution. I am also informed that as of now there is a 24 delivery period at the most as far as having energy in the form of propane to dry the grain is concerned.
Second, there is another provision under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. If sufficient harvesting has not been completed by November 15, we will look at the situation very closely and make available additional cash advances for unthrashed grain giving producers an opportunity to complete their harvest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we have to be thankful for every blessing, and even small blessings like this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
80173 51

October 24, 1985
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Gormley:: We are the Government that gets the job done.


An Hon. Member:: What did you ever do?


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Minister knows full well that essentially what he is providing here is an interest-free loan of $3,000 until the grain is delivered.
The Minister did not bother mentioning that the Canadian Wheat Board estimated this morning that some 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the grain has been harvested. As I understand the provisions of the Act, this interest-free loan will apply only to the drying of grain. For anything that has already been dried on which money has been spent by literally thousands of prairie farmers, no interest-free loan will be available to them.
We must realize that we are talking about a $2 billion to $3 billion disaster on the Prairies because of last summer's drought. This interest-free loan coming at this stage, with only 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the crop left, clearly will be an advantage and helpful to some producers, but it does not address the major problem, namely the drought.
Clearly the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other groups, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), have called on the Government to make available a $50 per seeded acre acreage payment. When the Progressive Conservatives were in opposition with the support of the provincial Premiers in the summer of 1984, they demanded and received a commitment by the Liberal Government of the day that an acreage payment would be made. People in western Canada want to know when the acreage payment for the drought disaster will be made, which disaster has not only put the prairie farmers in dire straights but is also making communities in the West suffer tremendously. Surely this payment should have been announced in August just as it was in 1984. We are well into October, and we want to hear what the Government is going to do in that regard.
We want to know as well why the Minister is not announcing today the final payment on the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. Surely there must be at lest another $100 million or $200 million which is due and payable to the farmers of western Canada. That is what we want to hear. We just do not want to hear about a short-term $3,000 interest-free loan which will benefit some but which will certainly not benefit those farmers who have suffered as a result of the drought last summer. Neither will it benefit those farmers who have already harvested their grain and carried out their drying operations.
We are thankful for small blessings, even if they are extremely small. Some individual producers who still have not been able to harvest their crop will be helped. This measure does not in any way address the major problems facing western Canada today.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board has recognized the need for assistance because of the
weather conditions which forced producers to harvest either damp or tough grain.
The $9, $11 and $16 a tonne which the Act allows will be much appreciated by those farmers, particularly those with cash flow problems. The $3,000 maximum is adequate probably for a large number of those who will be doing the drying where most of the tough and damp grain is found.
The Minister is to be congratulated for the early action he has taken. 1 can only wish his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) felt the same urgency in dealing with drought victims. In other parts of the Prairies, the painful irony over which the Minister exclaims is magnified by his Government's inability to come to grips with the larger and more debilitating disaster of drought.
The producers in the drought area have been waiting since July for Government relief. All they have heard about is the possibility of Government relief, but they have had no assurance and no indication of when or if the relief will come, and if it comes whether it will be enough to be of any value to pay for crop failures.
We are pleased the Minister has taken the action which is allowed him by the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act and has made the loans for drying grain available.
We hope he will take the same quick action after November 15 for those producers who still have unthrashed grain in the field. Those farmers will have as great a need for the possible one-half payment available to them as do the farmers who have no crop because of drought.


PETITIONS
Carlo Rossi: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from the undersigned residents of the federal riding of Laprairie, who now avail themselves of their right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy and that the Government of Canada will reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from the undersigned residents of the federal riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, who now avail themselves of their right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy and that the Government of Canada will reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I think he knows perfectly well that if he has several petitions on the same subject, he may mention that he has petitions from several ridings, name the ridings and table the petitions in the House, but he does not have the right to go through a long list of individual petitions. I think he knows that.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, 1 at least have the right to mention the ridings concerned.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from residents of the federal riding of Longueuil, who now avail themselves of the same right.


An Hon. Member:: There is a Member for Longueuil.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, but he doesn't do much.


An Hon. Member:: It doesn't look like it.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, that is because the Hon. Member for Longueuil (Mr. Leblanc) doesn't do anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Prud'homme:: They asked for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Marcel Prud'homme: There is no Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but we have one for Gatineau here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I hope the House realizes it is time for petitions, not politics!


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie, and there is a Member for that riding. They now avail themselves of their rights, Mr. Speaker, and they ask the Government of Canada to-
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Gabriel Fontaine: 1 wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents from Saint-Jean-Chrysostome, Saint-Redempteur and Charny.
Essentially, this petition calls on the Government to protect their environment which is being polluted intolerably by the emanations from the Societe Alex Couture's chimneys.
I conclude by saying that 7,284 residents of the city of Charny have signed a similar petition.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions to present from my riding of York West. One was collected by Mr. Pio Bertoia and the other one was collected by Mr. Nizio Daneluzzi. Both petitions ask the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation to the family allowance and indicate that this regressive budget measure will take away some $55 million.
I have also received a number of petitions in my office from the ridings of Montreal-Mercier, Saint-Jean, Saint-Michel, Montreal-Sainte-Marie and Rosemont, in the Quebec region, as well as from the riding of Victoria in our great Province of British Columbia and from Saint-Hyacinthe. The petitions from outside my riding also petition the Government to restore full indexation to family allowance benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: That, may I say, is the correct procedure.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, have a petition from the riding of Parry Sound-Mus-koka in Ontario, asking the Government to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit, and saying that this budget measure will take away $55 million from family benefits by 1987.
I also have petitions from the ridings of London East and London West.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of residents of the federal riding of Terrebonne, in the province of Quebec, I have the honour to present a petition calling on the Government to reinstate full indexation of the family allowances and Child Tax Credit.
1 have another petition from residents of the federal riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve calling again on the Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances.

October 24, 1985
Petitions

I also have another petition from the riding of Stormont-Dundas in Ontario, asking the House to restore full indexation to the family allowance and child tax credit, and saying that it will take away $55 million from families by 1987.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have also a petition from the federal riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, in the province of Quebec, calling on the Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and Child Tax Credit, because these cuts will deprive Canadians of $55 million by 1987.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to table a petition from my riding of Richmond-Wolfe in which the petitioners, notably the members of the Cercle des fermieres from the municipality and community of Ham-Nord, deplore again the Government's cruel decision to deindex family allowances.
I have here other petitions in which the petitioners strongly object to such discriminatory action against Canadian families. These petitions are from residents of the federal ridings of Victoria, Brampton-Georgetown, Northumberland, in the province of Ontario, as well as Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Saint-Hyacinthe, and Saint-Jacques, in the province of Quebec. Each of these petitions has been signed by several dozens of constituents who all deplore the de-indexation of family allowances.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which was circulated by the Women Against the Federal Budget. They strongly oppose the deindexation of family allowances and call upon the Government to withdraw this proposal as soon as possible.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the towns of Bancroft, Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Orillia and Woodville, all members of the Lindsay District Labour Council. They call upon the Government to withdraw the proposal which would see pension income being used as earned income for purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have here several petitions, but I am sure you would not like me to table all of them today, so that all my friends may hear about them.
Mr. Speaker, my first petitions are from my own constituency. To spare you, I am going to table most of those which
strongly object to the Government's decision to cut the increase in family allowances and which ask the Prime Minister not to reduce his deficit on the backs of Canadian children.
Mr. Speaker, I have another series of petitions from people who are not my constituents but who insist that they be heard and recorded as being against the Conservative Government's proposed family allowances deindexation. These are residents of Regina West and of the riding of La Prairie who have asked me to convey their objections.
I have another petition from residents of the ridings of Joliette and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot who are also against the Government's decision.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a petition from the riding of Montmo-rency-Orleans, and another one from the riding of Calgary East in Alberta.
Tomorrow I will be pleased to present petitions from Gatineau.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition from the riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic. Hon. Members know that our colleague from Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) was involved in an unfortunate accident. On behalf of all Members, I am sure, we wish her a speedy recovery. I make it my duty to present a petition from her riding.
It is my duty as well to present a petition from my riding of Montreal-Saint-Denis.
I also have the honour to present a petition from the ridings of Longueuil and Rosemont. The petitioners urge the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to restore full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit, wondering as they do why the Government can spare $56 million for new uniforms while being unable to come up with $55 million to maintain full indexation.
1 must also present a petition-and I do so with pleasure- from residents of the federal riding of Terrebonne who want to exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a similar grievance.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a great many residents of Montreal's Hochelaga-Maisonneuve riding who now want to exercise the same right and who also urge the Prime Minister to restore full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows our practices. He is a senior Member of the House. I now invite him to finish using the proper procedure.
October 24, 1985


Marcel Prud'homme: It is the same procedure, Mr. Speaker, and as a senior Member I am only listing the petitions, but since there are so many of them the people who are listening to us will eventually wonder if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I just have one petition to present today from a large number of Canadians who are of the opinion 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 the year 1990 and will fall further and further behind. They are therefore asking the House of Commons and the Government to reinstate full indexation to universal family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases contained in the last Budget.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I too have one petition signed by a number of women who live and work in the East end of Vancouver. They say that in the opinion of the petitioners, the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, particularly single-parent mothers, and they pray that the House will reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I also have several petitions from residents of the federal constituencies of Gatineau, Cardigan, Malpeque in Prince Edward Island and Trois-Rivieres. I also received petitions from the federal constituencies of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, Montreal-Sainte-Marie, Humboldt-Lake Centre, in Saskatchewan, as well as Victoria-Haliburton, in Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, all those petitions humbly ask the House and the Government of Canada to restore full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Mr. Speaker:: I could perhaps indicate that the procedure followed by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) is the right one. Very fine. 1 thank you. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions as well. The first one that I have here is signed by 147 people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who are workers in the Canadian footwear industry. This
Point of Order-Mr. Tardif
petition asks the Government to continue the import quotas for at least five years in order to protect the jobs in the footwear industry.
I have another similar petition and this one is signed by employees of another factory in my riding, Brown Shoe Company's factory. It is signed by 555 people and the total of the signatures on the two petitions is 702 and these people of my riding want assistance for the people working in the footwear industry.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table a number of petitions. The first one comes from the constituency of Gatineau and has been signed by several dozen people. There are also petitions from the federal constituencies of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Northumberland-Miramichi, in New-Brunswick, Labelle and Kitchener, in Ontario, Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, La Prairie, Longueuil as well as Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
The people who signed those petitions are all asking the Government to restore full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.


Alain Tardif: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) on a point of order.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Otto Jelinek (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-8I, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (lotteries).


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.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 130 and 415.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	From April 1, 1984 to September 17, 1984, what was the amount spent in the departmental office of the Minister for Social Development?
2.	Were the budgetary guidelines exceeded and, if so, by what amount?
3.	For the same period, how many exempt staff, including those on personal services contracts, were employed by the Minister and what were their names, date of appointment and salary?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: I.	$326,288. 2. No.
Ablett, Joan	10-09-82	up	to $36,729Hill, Alice	04-07-84	"	" 36,729McCurrach, Mary Ellen	14-05-84	350 per week	Dewit. Antoinetta	12-09-83	up	to $36,729Dickson, Jennifer	25-10-82	" 36,729Grauer, Cynthia	10-09-82	" 36,729Hearn, Christine	10-09-82	" 36,729Parkinson, David	19-09-83	" 36,729Hendren, Dove	12-09-83	" 36,729Hendrickson, Beverly Anne	01-10-82	" 36,729Martin, David	12-09-83	" 36,729Sauve, Pauline	10-09-82	" 42,850Scott, Florence	14-05-84	350 per week	
There were no personal services contracts during the period of April 1, to September 17, 1984. During that period, the above exempt staff were in the employ of the Minister. It should be noted that most of these employees came with the Minister from his previous portfolio; this explains the employment dates which precede the Minister's appointment to MSSD.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Department of the Environment allocate funds for the restoration of the Halifax Citadel and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Were such funds cut and, if so (a) which groups were consulted before a decision was taken (b) was the Minister of State (Tourism) consulted by the Minister of the Environment?
3.	(a) Will funds be allocated in 1986 for completing the work (b) how many persons were working on the site before the work was stopped (c) how many persons were laid off following the budget cuts (d) will the Department replace the lost jobs?


Thomas Michael McMillan: 1.
Yes. For 1985-86, the tenth year of a $29.4 million restoration program at the Citadel, $5.1 million had been allocated.
2.	Yes. Further expenditures were deferred on April 1, 1985. (a) Senior officials of the Department, (b) No.
3.	(a) No. However, on May 3, the Minister of the Environment and The Friends of the Citadel Society signed a Memorandum of Intention to cost-share further restoration. The Department of the Environment will contribute funds in accordance with the Memorandum in 1986-87 if the Society raises $500,000 or more, (b) 73 (49 permanent and 24 term), (c) 33 (20 permanent and 13 term), (d) Of the 20 permanent employees who were laid off, 19 have been placed in other positions in Parks Canada; nine term employees were rehired for the 1985 summer season.


David Kilgour: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 24, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Prior to giving the floor to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), may I inform the House that because of the Ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes this day.

Consequently, the hour set aside for Private Members' Business will begin at 5:12 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when the debate on Bill C-80 was adjourned for the lunch hour, I was trying to show to this House that the Bill would have been unnecessary if this Government, instead of giving so much money to the multinational corporations, the big corporations, had kept that money in its coffers. It could then have avoided the tax increases in Bill C-80.
On Budget night, I indicated in my comments that what it boiled down to was a shower of taxes.
We can already tell Canadian taxpayers they had better take their umbrellas out, because this Bill is the first in a series. It covers all excise taxes, the tax on drugs, the tax on the sales tax increase, indeed its extension, a whole litany of taxes that were announced in the Budget and which, because of their Government's majority, will become law applying to all Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this Bill would have been unnecessary because in four or five areas only where the Government has taken action, namely the oil multinationals, the capital gains tax, the SI billion gift in the Gulf affair to three or four shareholders, and also the problem which resulted from the way the Government assumed its responsibilities in the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank affair.
Because of all that, there are almost $16 billion which over the next few years will come out of, or will not go into the
Excise Tax Act
Government's coffers. And only to cover that kind of expenditures, this Bill is forced upon average families, low-income families with its taxes, and we already know what action the Government has taken with respect to family allowances. All that was done to collect revenues in order to give to the rich, to the most affluent in our society.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will have a serious impact on quite a number of things, as I said, including regional development. We know that in the case of regional development, we can have natural resources, we can have individuals or groups who will step forward, who by developing their sense of responsibilities, their entrepreneurship, will set up businesses, but those businesses in our regions must face very special conditions.
The first, and perhaps the most sensitive is their distance from the markets. Within the context of this legislation, such distances will impose upon those small and medium-sized businesses, and also the larger ones that have settled in our regions, an additional tax burden, to such an extent that the products manufactured in the Gaspe area, in Nova Scotia, in other regions farther away from large consumers' markets such as Toronto and Montreal, we will be burdening those manufacturers, those businesses, with extra costs that will make them less competitive, less able to compete with others located around the larger urban centres.
Mr. Speaker, in the little time I have left, I would simply like to say a few words on the impact of the tax on another sector, that is the tourist industry. We know the tourist industry is an important one. The tax increases, including the one on fuel, will have an impact because it will increase the cost of driving everywhere in Canada. Mention could also be made of the impact of such taxes on the air travelling public, because people do not use cars only. In a bill that covers 120 pages or so, I can tell you that not many Canadians are spared. Everyone is affected, especially the weak because the strong will be able to compensate by using the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption they will be given later; eventually, they will be able to make up for this within a few years. In addition, the reverse deindexing of the income tax tables will hit middle-income Canadians harder than those with a higher income.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my comments by saying that the economic philosphy of this Government will have extremely negative results. We have been told that a certain number of jobs have been created recently. Mr. Speaker, 1 had ministerial responsibilities for some time, not at this Government level, but at another, and 1 have always found that eight or ten months, one year and sometimes longer could elapse between the date when a budget is brought down and the time when its economic effects are really felt. Because, of course, unless a direct subsidy is paid the next day, it takes some time before the whole system is geared up. This is why 1 find it curious that Hon. Members opposite, after tabling their Budget on May 23 just imagine that-are already bragging

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
about all the marvels which the Canadian economy has brought forth since then. Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of gall to speak that way.
You certainly remember, Mr. Speaker, that in December I think, interest rates started to go up again. We directed questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). What did he answer then? He answered that it was due to the international forces, to the American policy, that Canada could not isolate itself. This in effect was what he said. Today, mind you, that interest rates are coming down, it is no longer because of the Americans. He goes around bragging, suggesting that they are responsible for that. At one point they will have to decide on which side of their mouth they will be speaking, that when things go wrong but perhaps that is their policy-when things go wrong, then they blame others, but when things are going fine, then they take the credit.
We see that same thing with regard to the inflation side. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) sang a great song, but he knows very well that this was not due to the action of this Government, quite the opposite. This Government's actions led the other way, because a certain increase in the consumer price index was blamed on the Budget's impact.
Mr. Speaker, my time having expired, I will now conclude and I am sorry because I would have a lot more to say. But I can tell you now that my colleagues and 1 certainly will not support this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the last remark of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who accused us of patting ourselves on the back because we take full credit for the economic recovery. I would like to refer to an article in yesterday's Citizen, and I quote in English:

Canadian Economy Beats U.S.-
The Canadian economy moved out of the shadow of its U.S. counterpart this year and will continue to outshine it in terms of expansion both in 1986 and 1987-
The key to this optimism is an expected increase in business investment-
The recovery in business spending is the No. 1 reason why we think the Canadian economy relative to the U.S. economy is going to look better-
And the economic growth should be spread more evenly across the country than has been the case in the last two years, when Quebec and Ontario experienced sharp rebounds from the recession while the western and eastern provinces lagged behind.

Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that the remarks of my colleague about our taking credit-undeservedly, he claims- are irrelevant because we are talking about the year 1986-87, not 1984-85 when it could have been said that we were reaping
the benefits of measures implemented before we arrived on the scene.
Secondly, the article stresses the fact that we now have a little more elbow room, which was not the case when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was forced to realize that, his efforts notwithstanding, he could not operate entirely free of the American economy. So it is quite obvious that since we have been administering the country as a Government-except perhaps during the first six months when we had to make do with measures adopted by the previous administration-the way we manage the country has brought positive results with respect to both inflation-for which we can take credit-and the lower unemployment rate.
1 would like to ask him a question about something he said in his remarks. I do not recall the exact figure but I think he said our Budget contained an $8.5 billion handout to the oil multinationals. I would like to ask him whether he is referring to the Budget measures which will reduce or eliminate the petroleum and gas revenue tax which, as it happened, created such a mess in western Canada and brought the petroleum industry to a standstill, the very sector on which we were relying to create new jobs.
Then he went on to complain about the reduction in the capital gains tax, so would he be prepared to tell the House that this measure will be phased in over a six-year period, that it will be a boon to small- and medium-sized businesses because, when they are faced with cash flow problems, they will at least be able to take advantage of this measure and make profitable investments?
In addition, could he tell us-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Claudy Mailly: Listen, you held the floor for twenty minutes, I certainly can ... I have the right. . . besides he mentioned the fact that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. 1 will not prevent the Hon. Member for Gatineau from carrying on the debate, but in all fairness, the 10-minute period of questions and comments becomes a matter of discretion as to what is a comment or a speech. Each time, it is a case in point-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: One moment please, a case in point. 1 wish to point out that you have asked several questions from the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). There will be three or four minutes left for the anwers. Now, to be fair, that is not long enough for answering all your questions.


Claudy Mailly: One single question, Mr. Speaker.
October 24, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: So, one single short question. I will allow you to ask it, but-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your guidance. My last question is as follows: Would the Hon. Member remind the House that when the previous Liberal Government bought Petrofina, the transaction did cost almost $1 billion to the Treasury and the funds were exported to Belgium whereas we allowed by law the Reichmann brothers to purchase Gulf Canada, which will remain Canadian, and this will cost half less in unearned revenue to the Canadian Treasury and, in addition, this will crease jobs in Canada rather than-


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


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) to tell the people at Gulf in Montreal this is going to create jobs, just when they are fighting tooth and nail to survive and will be laid off on December 31. That is the kind of Christmas present they will get from this Government.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me where I got my figures. I got them from papers prepared by the Department of Finance which indicate that by 1990, eliminating the PGRT is going to cost the Canadian Government nearly $8.5 billion in revenue lost. These are papers I released myself, because the Government did not want to give them to us. Not one Minister has contradicted this.
Regarding the surtax on capital gains, you say that small companies with cash flow problems could invest to benefit from the elimination of this tax, but where are they going to get the money to invest if they have liquidity problems?
Finally, about the economy in general. I was not trying to say that one Government was good in every respect and the other Government bad. That was not what I was trying to do. What I said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond Garneau: You can shout all you like, but what I was trying to say is that when interest rates went up under the present Conservative Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), he said it all depended on the Americans. And what I want to say is that if interest rates go down, they should stick to that line.
As for the Americans, do you know why interest rates went down? They went down because at the international level, they held-

Do Hon. Members opposite know why interest rates went down? It is because a decision has been taken by a number of countries and because of the value of the U.S. dollar, and the Canadian Government was not even invited to participate in this meeting. Do not tell me now that if the interest rates in Canada are going down it is because of the actions of the
Excise Tax Act
Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is completely foolish. You cannot win on both sides.
[ Translation]
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously technically impossible that the facts to which the Hon. Member for Gatineau was referring when reading that article be the result of the Budget brought down last May 23. It is impossible because an economy takes longer than that to react.
What I am trying to say is that a 4.5 per cent rate of economic growth in 1984 and a real growth in the GNP must produce certain results. As we know, the rate of growth was 3.5 per cent in 1985, but this is simply a continuation of the same tendency.
What we are trying to tell you however, is that, during the next five or six years, you will try to take $16 billion from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, as shown in the forecast up to 1990 which was published by the Department of Finance. You are going to take nearly $16 billion out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers in excise tax alone. Since your party is in power and since you are supposed to believe that individual initiative must be the motor of the economy, what effect do you think the fact of taking away such a considerable purchasing power from the middle classes, which are those who pay the most, at least in total, and the poorer classes, will have on consumer demand?
I also wanted to point out that you are taking away additional growth factors from an economy which had already been on the uprise since 1984 or late 1983. Within two years, you could have boasted of creating more jobs if you had taken a different attitude.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the economic studies published by a department in their own Government-I think it was the Department of Transport-show the unfavourable effects of a massive tax increase on consumer demand and economic growth. The same thing is true of Econometra, which published a document showing the unfavourable effects of such a bill.
That is why I am surprised at the reaction of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). She is repeating certain things, but I do not think that she really knows what is going on. It is incredible that she should say that the capital gains tax exemptions will provide opportunities for small businesses now facing cash flow problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we all make a point of listening to all Hon. Members of the House but I must say that we especially listen to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) as a former Finance Minister in Quebec and as an Hon. Member who makes a lot of good sense. I would like

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
to ask the Hon. Member where he got the figure of $8 billion because I believe that was the most important figure mentioned in his speech. I believe he mentioned $8 billion was a result of the loss of revenue to the federal Government because the Government gave up, as I understand what the Hon. Member said, the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, I think the Hon. Member used a figure of $8 billion. I wonder if he could give us a more exact figure and tell the House where he got the figure.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. I made that figure public a few days after the Budget. It is from a secret document which was leaked and I had a copy of it. Finally, later on, it was confirmed by the Government and by a senior official in the Department of Finance as a document which had been prepared by the Department. It states that in 198586 the Government will lose $124 million; in 1986-87, $920 million and in the last-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Questions and comments are now over. Debate. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier).


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill implements budget proposals relating to the federal excise and sales taxes and the excise duty as announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget of May 23 last, which incidentally followed upon the financial statement and primary adjustment that took place earlier in November.
Our economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, therefore originates both in the financial adjustment of November and in the progressive provisions contained in the last budget.
This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is indeed not just an income generating instrument. Most of its provisions deal instead with legal matters in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our tax system and clearly define the rights and duties of taxpayers, not to mention the fact that we also made a point to clearly enshrine in this legislation the tax collection process as well as an appeal mechanism for taxpayers. Until now, there has been no provision in the Excise Tax Act to establish the direct assessment of a taxpayer in terms of sales or excise taxes. There was no provision for a possible limited use of an appeal procedure, a so-called independent arbitration procedure, if the taxpayer disagreed with Revenue Canada.
This Bill provides a complete assessment and appeal system which is based on if not directly lifted from the new income tax system. We have included in that system the principle of non-payment of appealed taxes, a provision similar to what is found in the Income Tax Act, namely the basic principle that no Canadian citizen should be condemned until he has been tried.
Appeals can be lodged either through the grievance procedure or the assessment system. The Minister of National Revenue can also refer to the courts any matter arising out of the provisions of the Act. The first appeal procedure provides a three-step process for refund applications. The Minister will then have to consider with all due dispatch the notice of objection and establish whether a refund is payable, and send to the person objecting a notice of decision. Under the present legislation, the Minister shall pay the amount owing and as the case may be, specify on the notice of decision the reasons for rejecting the objection.
The appeals procedure may also be used as a result of a new power given to the Minister of National Revenue to determine the official tax assessments. These assessments will generally be made on the basis of a check of the files and registers of the taxpayer if his overall assessment is limited to the four years of operation prior to the assessment notice. Only in cases of obstruction, fraud and blatant misrepresentations will there be exceptions to that procedure.
Taxpayers will also have the opportunity to discuss in an informal way the conclusions of the auditor with representatives of Revenue Canada before an assessment is made. This is an important step, even in an official appeal mechanism, because experience has shown that many differences can be settled out of court at this preliminary stage. If taxpayers wish to have other informal discussions, they will also have the opportunity to give up the prescription period for assessments on any matter. This mechanism could also be used when an immediate audit would cause specific difficulties to the taxpayer.
The Canadian taxpayer will be able to oppose an assessment he finds unreasonable or a decision on a refund application he finds questionable, by producing a notice of objection within 90 days after receiving the assessment or decision. An independent appeals division already exists at Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, to advise the Minister on the validity of objections. After that preliminary study, the Minister will have to give a justified notice of appropriate decision.
This Bill will give the Canadian taxpayer the right to be heard by the Minister himself when the latter objects to an assessment or a refund application, and to be clearly informed of the reason why the Minister thinks the objecting taxpayer owes taxes or has no right to a refund. The new mechanism increases the rights of the taxpayer under this new legislation. For example, the Canadian taxpayer can appeal the decision of the Minister within 90 days to the Tariff Board or the Federal Court Trial Division.
The legislation will give the Tariff Board new powers similar to those of the Tax Court of Canada. It will enable the Tariff Board to hear most cases dealing with objections to assessments and it will even permit it to take direct corrective action if necessary.
October 24, 1985

The new mechanism recommended today will make it possible to refer appeals concerning the decisions of the Tariff Board to the Trial Division of the Federal Court. However, if the Minister appeals a decision of the Tariff Board to the Federal Court and if the amount involved does not exceed $10,000, the Minister will have to pay the expenses incurred by the taxpayer to defend himself in appeal, whatever decision is made. Mr. Speaker, this is a progressive measure because at the present time, the Canadian taxpayer, even the smallest, and even the middle taxpayer since the claim is $10,000, will see his expenses reduced, because court costs will be borne directly by the Minister himself. Appeals brought before the Federal Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada will be subject to the usual proceedings of these courts.
In some instances, the people the most affected by the Minister's decision to assess the taxes due or to reject a refund application are not directly the taxpayers but rather their customers. In fact, the number of tax exemptions will depend on the use of the goods intended by the buyer for his personal purposes. Sellers usually sell goods at an adjusted price to those customers who are entitled to a tax exemption. Subsequently, sellers do not pay the sales tax or even ask for a tax refund if the tax has already been paid.
This legislation recognizes the unique position of the buyer in those particular instances. When the Minister assesses the seller or rejects a refund application on a sale for which the buyer has asked a tax exemption, we are proposing to allow the buyer ot oppose or appeal that decision. Thus, that buyer will be able to make a proper claim for tax purposes and get any refund due. However, those provisions only apply if the seller has yielded his rights to the purchaser or given them up either by prescription or willingly.
This new and equitable system of assessment and reasonable appeal will meet the concerns of many taxpayers who feel disadvantaged and actually follows up the wishes of several task forces from the business community. Its coming introduction is already welcome by all Canadian tax lawyers. However, we are very pleased and we are also waiting for the Opposition Members' congratulations with the fact that the vast majority of Canadian taxpayers will never have to resort to that complex appeal system. We have an excellent indirect tax system and a commendable record of self-assessment of taxpayers and compliance with the existing law.
However, that system is certainly not perfect and some existing provisions require drastic changes for fairness and rationalization purposes. For instance, the present progressive legislation introduces additional changes as regards the refund provisions of the Excise Tax Act.
For several years, the existing Act has allowed taxpayers to claim a sales tax refund over the last four years following the date when the refund becomes payable as far as routine and regular operations are concerned, and within a year for
Excise Tax Act
refunds that proceed from a legal or departmental interpretation of existing tax legislation.
This dual system proved difficult and costly to implement, and this indescribable mess of unecessary red tape is a source of confusion for the business community.
The changes brought about in this Bill will replace the old provisions with a new system whereby all similar claims arising from transactions subsequent to May 24, 1985, shall be filed within two years following the transaction whatever the circumstances may be. Refund claims arising from transactions previous to May 24, 1985, will still be processed under the current system.
The Bill now before the House also contains provisions to modify other provisions of the Excise Tax Act. Although the number of taxpayers concerned is low, these significant changes are important as they demonstrate to the Canadian people that their rights are fully protected both against dishonest or shrewd taxpayers and against overzealous public servants in quest of rewards. For example, if a taxpayer requested from a customer the payment of a higher sales tax than is required by law, he would be compelled under this Bill to hand over to the Treasury the amount of tax levied in excess thus precluding the taxpayer from taking undue advantage, as my friends in the legal profession would say, from a situation where he is acting as a collector of a tax that does not exist.
The new legislation also contains measures relating to investigation procedures and enforcement of rulings that are similar to the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act. The authority to seize documents in the course of an audit or inspection will be replaced by a provision allowing such documents to be copied as well as the use of the copies as primary evidence in judicial proceedings. Mr. Speaker, this is a much needed update of a part of our judicial system that had become well-nigh obsolete. It is high time that during a preliminary investigation, business people or a company or industry should not be prevented from attending to their business just because they do not have certain papers which are being kept somewhere or being used as evidence in the courts or have been seized or even impounded.
As a result of another proposal, requests for information addressed by Revenue Canada to a third party regarding transactions of unidentified taxpayers will be subject to the same legal, requirements that have now been included in the Income Tax Act. In other words, Canadian citizens must be protected against all undue interference with their private lives.
Similarly, the administrative provisions of the Excise Act have recently been subjected to a strict and thorough review, and as a result, this legislation will also inject a more reasonable attitude into procedures being used by Government, that faceless monster, in its dealings with the average citizen.

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
We want it to be easier for Canadian manufacturers to comply with the present legislation. Revenue Canada has therefore been authorized to approve, on a case-by-case basis, the use of non-standard techniques and equipment to measure the alcohol content of spirits for the purpose of determining the excise levies payable. At this point, I may remind the House that there are people who are particularly sensitive to this measure, especially in the riding of LaSalle which has a major distillery and breweries which were hampered by the outmoded measuring procedures imposed by a legalistic bureaucracy.
I join my constituents in welcoming these new measures.
Further changes concern cases where manufacturers may recover the excise tax paid on beer and tobacco products when these are destroyed because they are unfit for human consumption. The changes are not spectacular in themselves but will have a major impact on the general public and especially on the industries directly concerned. What they will not do is stimulate economic renewal or significantly reduce the deficit!
However, the people directly concerned by this legislation are saying that at last they have a Government that is fair and up-to-date. In addition, these changes will consolidate the basis of our national taxation system.
Were there no such determining factors and standardized procedures, the assessment system would not operate efficiently, in other words it would operate haphazardly and inequitably, much like the previous administration did.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud to support the Bill now before the House and to assert that our Government is as much concerned about the scope of the tax system as it is about the taxation process, for at long last we will have a modern, simplified and fair system from which all Canadians will benefit.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) kept repeating that this Bill is a regular cornucopia of benefits for low and middle income taxpayers.
Shortly before the Hon. Member began his remarks, my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) in his presentation proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the measure before the House will siphon SI5 billion from the pockets of low and middle income Canadians, and that those $15 billion will be handed over to 1,000 to 1,500 businessmen. How can anyone claim, pretend or affirm that this Bill is a godsend for low and middle income Canadian taxpayers?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, someone objected to my reading a prepared text, but at least it proves that I can read. I doubt whether my colleague opposite even took the time to read the Bill. There are two ways to deal with it.
This morning the Minister dealt mostly with measures related to the Excise Tax Act. Today I chose to talk about the way taxes are collected, which is an important aspect of this Bill. Paying taxes is painful enough as it is, Mr. Speaker, but it is made even worse when businessmen have to cope with red tape which thwarts them at every turn. The way taxes are collected is what irks most people, not whether they are going up or down.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I talked about a modern, fair and simplified tax collection system. If the Members opposite had listened a bit more closely to small businessmen, they would know that the major problem is bureaucratic red tape. It is not the tax itself. This is certainly a burden, but it is necessary. What I wanted to examine more particularly in the comments I addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, was the procedure itself. 1 believe that it is quite refreshing that, instead of going over the same old song about the just society with which the previous Government tried to con the Canadian population, we, the members of the Progressive Conservative Government, want to establish an equitable society based on natural justice and simplified procedures rather than on the complexities of legalistic considerations. That is the first comment I wanted to make.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I should remind the Members opposite that this Bill contains four elements. First, in agreement with the recommendations of the Nielsen taskforce, the Bill proposes to extend the base of the sales tax, to make the sales tax fairer for businesses, to make it more competitive, so that everyone will be treated equally instead of there being preferential or accidental treatment in certain cases as happened in the past.
Second, the Bill implements some of the strategic plans of the Government to reduce the deficit by increasing certain taxes. Naturally it does!
Third, the Bill fulfils the electoral promises that automatic indexing of the taxes on alcohol and tobacco would be eliminated. The indexing of taxes on alcohol and tobacco-I can see that you are smiling, Mr. Speaker, because I know that there is also a large distillery in your constituency, which means that you were yourself faced with this problem of tax indexing. The taxes have finally been brought back to a reasonable basis as everything will be taxed proportionately. What was the idea of taxing on the basis of one gallon of pure alcohol? This retrograde and certainly regressive formula was tolerated until September 4 of last year. Our consultations with the private sector showed that these changes would be reasonable. We are not afraid to innovate in this field and to say that it is not because the alcohol had been taxed that way since 1921 that we must continue to do the same.
The fourth objective of this Bill was to simplify the assessment and appeal system and make them fair and equitable.
Mr. Speaker, after being in business for a long time, I know that it is unpleasant to have a tax system in which the taxpayer
October 24, 1985

is viewed as a gangster and is treated like a criminal from the start. He was supposed to pay his money and the Government would give him a refund if it felt like it.
What we now want is an arbitration system. Everyone is on the same footing, including the Government in relation to the taxpayer.
If the Opposition has not yet understood the importance of this provision, it has missed a good opportunity to learn something. I would refer the Member opposite to the legislation if they want to see how up-to-date our proposals are.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) can read, I submit to him he cannot answer without reading from his notes, because he is not giving a straight answer to the question. I understand from his statement, and 1 am even willing to accept and admit that where paperwork is concerned there may be some slight improvements, this I will recognize, but I must add, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point of my question, when they are using taxes to take additional money from the pockets of people earning between $10,000 and $20,000, whether they do it on pink or blue paper, what hurts is the amount they will be taking, however they go about it.
Somebody in private enterprise who is highly paid, $100,000 or more, perhaps will look at the way it is being assessed, claimed or asked for, but I will remind my colleague for LaSalle that for someone earning $15,000, $16,000 or $17,000, the way it is done has little meaning, what is important is its costs, and how, and so I will come back to the point of my main question: How do you reconcile the fact that you take $15 billion from the pockets of small- and medium-income Canadians and you redistribute that money to a few thousand Canadians who are very well off, and in a position to contribute their share to the situation that now prevails in Canada?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, the major objective of the last Budget was to put Canadians back to work. That tax balance let us say, that is referred to here, was not the objective. Our objective is not to balance the Budget immediately with an additional tax. We have seen that it certainly will help the Budget, but this is not the measure that will balance the Budget, and to prove that we still have a deficit. The objective is to stop that deficit from growing. Our objective is not to cover the growth of the deficit by collecting more taxes in order to apply that to the deficit; our objective is to put people back to work, and we have succeeded, quite apart from such comments. The decrease in the unemployment rate, the fact that inflation is being controlled, the strength of our dollar, lower interest rates, all that directly results from the assessment made of Government by Canadians on September 4, 1984, a memorable date, and then our response. We did not wait for the Budget date.
Excise Tax Act
The major measures for putting the economy back on course started on September 4, 1984, and were confirmed by our direct actions in November. The Budget came to finalize those measures last November. So, when Members say it is the decline-it takes six months at least before we have a decline, six months for sure, look at those six months which followed November, that decline in interest rates was already beginning to be felt, so was the decline in the unemployment rate. You can rest assured-we were told: Come and see us in a year from now. Well, this is a date for six months from now, Mr. Speaker. At that moment, we will have it both ways; we will have the month of November, which will be in full swing, as well as our Budget measures which already are beginning to show very clear signs, because our recovery fares better than in the United States.
We will not compare with the United States now; we are not putting the blame on the United States anymore; there is no mention of the United States, they are our first clients, but I can assure you that our economy is now sound, Mr. Speaker, and this is due simply to our Budget measures and our measures to reduce that unfortunate deficit we have inherited from you. It is now under control, as 1 can assure all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: The time for questions and comments has now expired.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a package dealing with some of the economic and financial details contained in the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in May of this year. In the months before the election, the Conservatives promised Canadians that if they were elected they would maintain and indeed improve the services which were provided to Canadians, create tens of thousands of jobs and at the same time cut the deficit of the federal Government which they maintained was higher than we could afford.
Once they were elected they quickly realized that it was impossible to fulfil their promise to provide and improve services while cutting the deficit at the same time unless there was great improvement in economic growth in this country. Instead, we have seen a series of proposals to cut services, including such programs as the old age pension which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised was a sacred trust and would not be reduced. The Government only backed down from cutting back in this area when it saw the unanimous opposition from senior citizens and their families.
Another proposal on which the Government intends to act is the deindexing of the family allowance. It is also proposing cuts in services and programs for such things as forestry, scientific research and national parks. The Government has realized, now that it is in office, that it is not possible to maintain services while cutting the deficit at the same time when there is close to 1.5 million unemployed.

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
One of the major criticisms made by people such as economists and taxpayers, who are knowledgeable in the field, is that cutting back on the real income of Canadians will limit the opportunity to improve the economy and therefore bring in higher revenues. Arthur Donner, a business consultant and economist, said in a recent article comparing what is happening in Canada with the Government's proposals and what has happened in the United States:
The Canadian budget, on the contrary, accepts the fiscal restraint goal which Reagan preaches, but does not practice.
Although President Reagan has talked about cutting the deficit, the fact is that in the eight years he will have served as President of the United States the deficit will be double what it was in the 200 years before he took office. When President Reagan took office, the deficit was $1 trillion. It will be $2 trillion when he retires. This is what Arthur Donner said about the Government's proposals:
-the extensive consumer tax hikes and the program expenditure reductions will do little to improve economic growth in Canada. If anything, the budget will probably slightly retard economic growth.
While the Government is proud that there has been a 3.5 per cent increase in the GNP and that unemployment has gone down slightly, it ignores the fact that the number of people working full time has decreased and the increase in employment is due to people who are working part time, most of whom earn relatively low wages.
If the disposable income of Canadian citizens is reduced they simply will not have the money to purchase the goods and services they require. Yet, the Budget proposals and this Bill which will increase a whole series of excise taxes will reduce the purchasing power of Canadians, particularly low and middle income Canadians who save very little of their income. Many middle and low income Canadians spend most of their disposable income.
This Budget and this excise tax proposal, as part of the over-all budgetary proposal, is to make big savings and to give more income to people in higher income brackets, precisely those who do not spend all their disposable income.
It is our belief that if we want to get the economy moving better than it has moved, you have to increase people's disposable incomes. For 10 years, former Liberal Governments and the present Tory Government have followed austerity policies believing that was necessary in order to keep the deficit down as low as possible. It is our belief the Government deficit is not the problem, that attempts to cut the deficit will worsen unemployment and will increase the deficit.
It is obvious now that the business community, which believed the Government would make massive reductions in the deficit, is realizing that even this Government cannot make those massive reductions in the deficit, and the business community is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the Government for that reason. I do not have the time to quote, Mr. Speaker, but any number of representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and Chambers of Commerce have
called on the Government to reduce the deficit by $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion rather than by the smaller amount which has been done.
We believe if we want to deal with the deficit that it is time to look at the whole tax system. We say that tax reform is long overdue. The tax burden on the poor and middle-income earners should be reduced both on the grounds of savings and on the grounds, as I have indicated, of stimulating economic demand. We say that social policy expenditures produce jobs and, therefore, should be recognized for their positive contribution to economic activity. We say the attempted reduction, which this Government is making, will only result in a serious erosion of this country's social fabric and in an increase in unemployment insurance and welfare costs.
Let me give some facts and figures to show the fundamental differences between the thinking of Members of the New Democratic Party and Members of the Government. Having seen how radically we differ on tackling this fundamental budget problem of creating employment, I want to outline where the Budget stimulus did go. It went to the friends of the Government in the business community.
Let me summarize how this was done in the Budget and what happened to those who do not have links to the corporate sector. The big winners in 1986-87 will be the corporations with a tax decrease of $540 million. The wealthy, people with incomes over $50,000 a year, will get a tax decrease of $600 million through the capital gains exemption of $500,000. Oil companies will save $920 million through the phase-out of the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax. High-income earners, who can afford to invest in programs such as RRSPs, will gain $1,000 in tax breaks in 1986.
Who are the losers, Mr. Speaker? Individuals who will see tax increases of over $1 billion. Families earning under $40,000 a year will have tax increases of $490 million through changes in the federal income tax system, increasing the amount they will have to pay. Because of the increase in the excise tax on gasoline and oil all users of transportation will see increases of $930 million. This is happening at the same time that we see a continuing and we say a completely unfair decline in corporate taxes, taxes which should be helping to pay for the services Canadians receive.
I remind Members of the news we got a couple of weeks ago that in the purchase of Gulf Canada by Olympia & York, avoidance of close to $1 billion in corporate taxes was made possible. According to information which we now have, that is just one illustration of many cases which have and can occur because of defects in the corporate tax structure.
What we have seen in the last 30 or more years is a dramatic shift in the way in which taxes are collected. In 1950 the balance of income taxes paid to the federal Government was roughly equal between individual and corporate taxes. By 1960, the balance was 58 per cent paid by individuals and only 42 per cent by corporations. By 1970 the balance was 64 per cent paid by individuals and 36 per cent paid by corporations. By 1980 the balance was even greater, 70 per cent of taxes came from individuals and 30 per cent from corporations.
October 24, 1985

Since 1983 budget forecasts have predicted further shifts in the tax burden toward individuals and away from corporations, in spite of the fact that individual incomes have either been shrinking below the rate of inflation or barely keeping pace, while corporate profits have been rising. This Budget projects that personal incomes will rise by only 19.7 per cent between 1984 and 1986 while corporate profits will grow by over 49 per cent. Taxes on individuals are projected to go up by over $1 billion in 1986 and to drop by over $500 million for corporations.
I think I have proved that while individuals are paying more and more, those better able to pay are paying less and less. We know, for example, for the 1983 tax year that 1,020 people with incomes over $100,000 paid no income tax, an increase of 33 per cent in those who paid no income tax in 1982. There has been no hurry on the part of the Minister of Finance to plug those kinds of loopholes, despite the fact that during the election campaign the Prime Minister agreed those loopholes should be plugged and that all Canadians should pay a fair share of the taxes required to finance the services which the Government provides.
Let me deal for a few moments with the particular Bill before us now, which proposes sharp increases in sales taxes paid by Canadians. The National Council of Welfare in its May 1985 report called "Giving and Taking: The May 1985 Budget and the Poor" said this about the increase in sales tax:
Sales taxes are regressive, which means they take up a larger proportion of the income of low income consumers. The Budget will add hundreds of dollars in federal sales tax increases for most Canadians. Poor people-welfare recipients, the working poor, low income pensioners-obviously can least afford them. The Canadian Council on Social Development has estimated that sales tax, gasoline, alcohol and cigarette tax hikes will amount to increases of $140 for a $15,000 couple with two children in 1990, $282 for the same couple with $20,000 and $361 for a couple with $40,000.
They also pointed out that for the fourth year in a row, poverty has increased in Canada. The number of men, women and children living on low incomes, has now risen over four million. That is almost 18 per cent of the population. The number of children under 16 years of age living on low incomes has risen steadily each year. It is now estimated to be 1.2 million, or one child in five is poor. Fifty per cent of single-parent families, most of which are headed by women, are living in poverty. That situation is a disgrace in a country as wealthy as Canada. Newspapers from one end of the country to the other have reported in some considerable detail the kinds of situations which exist.
I have talked on other occasions about the City of Winnipeg and the sharp increase in the number of people who depend upon charity and voluntary organizations for food baskets. Let me put on the record just a couple of illustrations from other cities. The following was reported in The Globe and Mail about a week ago:
In the past few months, the four-year old Edmonton Food Bank, which has served as a model for many similar organizations in Canada and Europe, has provided free food for about 30,000 of the city's 650,000 citizens.
Excise Tax Act
It went on to quote some actual cases. For example, a single 38-year old Edmonton mother of two teenage children earning $585 per month from part-time work in a cafeteria was ineligible for partial assistance from the Alberta Social Services Ministry because she earned more than $549 per month. She has to depend upon charity. She has to go to the Edmonton Food Bank. Also a story in The Toronto Star quoted the head of the Metro Salvation Army, Mr. Bobbitt, as saying:
Up to 600 new cases a month of people needing food and help, people who have never before been to social agencies-
At the Scott Mission-traditionally, a soup kitchen for transients-the numbers of families seeking food soared by 33 per cent from 1982 to 1985-
It went on to indicate:
One small Bloor-Christie area food depot that mostly sees single street drifters and roomers feeds 1,200 people a month and expects to feed 1,500 by winter.
It may come as a shock to the Minister of Finance who told Hon. Members of the House yesterday that the way to help the poor was to find them jobs, that the majority of low-income people and families in Canada already have jobs. Their jobs pay so little that they have to depend upon charity to supplement their income to meet their needs. It is a disgrace. It indicates that the system is breaking down. After all the new programs which have been implemented in the last 30 years, people now have to depend upon charities.
We say that taxing the poor and the sick is not the way of a caring or compassionate Government. That is what the Government is doing, in addition to hurting those least able to fend for themselves, when it presents this Bill. It goes far beyond abstractions about the deficit; it is very real in every day life where each nickel is counted before any purchase is made.
The Government has brought in this Bill. We think it is wrong. It hits people who can least afford to pay the increased costs proposed in it. We intend to vote against it and to oppose it here in the House and outside.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the Hon. Member had an opportunity to analyse the Government's statement of financial operations for the period in this fiscal year ending July. If he has, he will note that at the present time, despite a reduction in expenditures in almost every Department, except those Departments involved in the statutory payments of pensions to individuals, payments for postsecondary education or something of that nature, the Government's expenditure or deficit is up by $200 million strictly because of the interest on the public debt. At one point the interest on the public debt was $3 billion in four months. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should continue to borrow more and more money? Is he suggesting that it is good fiscal policy to take 63 cnets out of every $1 spent in taxes and then to borrow the other 37 cents? Would he have us borrow more? Would he have us increase the debt and increase the interest expense? Does he have any definit suggestions as to how we can come to grips with this problem?


David Orlikow: It is my belief-and that belief is shared by many people, economists and other experts in the field of financial administration-that the deficit we face is not caused

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
by overspending. The deficit is caused by the fact that we have, according to official figures, one and a quarter million people who are unemployed. There are probably another 300,000 or 400,000 who are uncounted because they have given up and are not even trying to look for work. If that 1.5 million people were working, they would be earning income and paying income taxes. They would be making purchases for which they are not able to pay now. On these purchases there would be a collection of federal and provincial sales taxes. Instead of being producers and earners contributing to the financial welfare of the country, they are recipients. Instead of paying income tax, which would be a plus in terms of the financial affairs of the Government, they are drawing unemployment insurance. We are paying billions of dollars in unemployment insurance for people not to work. I want to say that I am completely opposed to the cut-backs in the system of unemployment insurance benefits which the Government is implementing. When these people run out of unemployment insurance benefits, they go on welfare. Instead of helping to finance the revenue of the Government of Canada, they are in fact costing the Government of Canada money.
It makes a great deal of sense to us to put people to work, to have 4 per cent unemployment as we had for many years after World War II instead of double-digit unemployment of 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent. In its budgetary papers and economic projections, the Government continues to predict that unemployment will remain at 10 per cent or more for the next few years.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member has not been looking at the current projections of the Economic Council of Canada, for exemple, which indicate that unemployment will continue to fall as long as the policies we are putting forward are carried out. The Hon. Member will know that over 300,000 people joined the workforce as new contributors to our society over the past year. Also he will know that the figures remain horribly wrong and difficult. That is not a result of substantial cut-backs, because there have not been substantial cut-backs.
I ask the Hon. Member to analyse the figures. When we are debating budgetary matters, certainly tax matters, it is important that Hon. Members understand the financial affairs of the Government. In Employment and Immigration alone, the expenditures by the Government for the first four months of the year are up $70 million. That is a substantial increase in helping people to cope with retraining and that kind of thing. We are on that track. Surely the Hon. Member must realize that we cannot forever borrow and borrow and continue to run a budgetary deficit for which it is doubtful we can find the financing to support.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with the Hon. Member that we cannot go on forever. However, it is not only Governments which are running deficits. The debts of individuals in Canada, because of their ability to buy homes with mortgages and because of their ability to buy appliances
on credit, has grown even faster than government deficits. We can take a look at what is happening in the United States.
As I indicated in my speech, in the eight years that President Reagan will have served as President of the United States, the American deficit will have doubled from the amount of debt created in almost 200 years of American history. In Great Britain, the Thatcher Government did exactly what this Government seems to want to do. There is now an unemployment rate of over 13 per cent in Great Britain, the highest percentage of unemployment that has existed there since the Great Depression.
Cutting the deficit by cutting services will not solve the problem. We need to help people who need the help most and we need to get a tax system which collects from the large corporations and high-income earners their fair share of taxes. That is what we are not doing at the present time.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am literally amazed by the Hon. Member who is a member of the political Party that supported the former Government for 16 years while the deficit went from $17 billion to nearly $200 billion. If that is evidence that spending beyond our capacity to earn and our ability to tax creates prosperity, I would like to know why we inherited an unemployment rate of 11.6 per cent. The answer is that the former policies do not work and cannot work. We have to use more sensible policies and that is what we are doing. I am surprised that the Hon. Member does not recognize that and I am surprised that he does not get rid of his old ideas and support the Government and its policies.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to look at the record of other Governments. He would see that every provincial Government in this country, whether it be Conservative, Liberal, NDP or Social Credit, runs at a substantial deficit. If this Government follows through with its intention to cut back on the increases in post-secondary education, health services and welfare funding and takes the $2 billion which it is proposing to take from the provinces for those shared cost programs, we will see very substantial increases in the deficits of the provincial Governments. Trying to deal with the deficit by cutting back on services and holding the line has not worked either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Before giving the Hon. Member the floor, I have to take care of a matter of housekeeping.
October 24, 1985



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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 Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Copyright (a) Introduction of legislation, (b) Arts funding; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)- Environmental Affairs-Niagara River pollution (a) United States clean-up plan, (b) Contents of plan; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Corporations-Take-over of Montreal East company (a) Economic impact, (b) Situation in Montreal East-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in connection with Bill C-80, a Bill to amend the Excise Tax Act. As all Hon. Members and all Canadians know, this is one of a number of Bills which is being presented in order to implement the Budget that was put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on May 23. This particular Bill is one that deals almost exclusively with tax increases. That is no secret to anyone. There are about four different types of tax increases included in the Bill.
The first tax increase included in the Bill broadens the base of federal sales taxes to include a great many more items. It is interesting to note that at the present time, only about 30 per cent of all commodities in Canada are subject to federal sales tax. The Government, in its wisdom, has considered it to be unfair that only 30 per cent of commodities should be subject to federal sales tax so it is increasing that base to cover a great many more items.
The second tax increase contained in the Bill deals with the federal sales tax itself which is to rise by 1 per cent on January 1, 1986. That means that things like construction materials and cable and pay-TV will be subject to something like a 7 per cent federal sales tax. The sales taxes on alcohol and tobacco
Excise Tax Act
products will rise to 14 per cent and the taxes on all other items will rise to 11 per cent.
The third area of tax increase included in this Bill deals with the tax on gasoline. On September 3, as we know, gasoline prices increased by two cents per litre. That was as a result of the tax increase announced in the Budget and being implemented by this particular Bill. On January 1, 1987, not 1986, there will be a further one-cent increase per litre in the price of gasoline as a result of the provisions of this Bill.
Finally, there will be an end under this Bill to the automatic indexing in the increase in taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The increase will be limited to 2 per cent over-all on alcohol and 25 cents per package of 25 cigarettes. This is one of those Bills which is not always welcome to Members of the House and it is certainly one that is not exactly viewed with wild glee and enthusiasm by the people of Canada. None of us like tax increases but all of us are realistic. Certainly Canadians are as realistic as any people in the world.
Canadians realize that we have problems in this country. They realize that we have unique problems at this time which include not only an enormous deficit but high unemployment as well. Somehow we have to deal with both of those issues at the same time. That is really what the Budget of May 23 was all about. It was an effort to put people back to work and create jobs while at the same time try to keep the deficit under control and not let it climb sky high. That, then, is what this Bill is all about. It is one part of the budget legislation package which tries to do those two things. They seem to be very opposite and not to have any relation to one another.
Hon. Members will recall that in September of 1984 when the Government took office unemployment was running at about 11 per cent. I suppose it is down somewhat from that figure right across the country. However, it is down in some places more than it is in others. In my constituency in Metropolitan Toronto unemployment is down to 8 per cent or 9 per cent. However, in other parts of the country it is up substantially above that. It is in the 15 per cent to 20 per cent range in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland. So there was a substantial problem which had to be dealt with when the Government came to office in respect of unemployment. That is what the Budget was agreed to do, as was the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord.
These measures were geared to try to create some jobs in order to put people back to work and to do what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) referred to when he spoke about putting people back to work to generate some tax dollars to help pay down the deficit. That cannot be done by waving a magic wand. It cannot be done by just wishing or dreaming. Something positive has to be done. The Government did something positive when it introduced the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord. Those were measures geared to help the areas which were experiencing extreme unemployment.
In the Budget of May 23 there were measures dealing with pension funds which can now be used for investment in small

October 24, 1985
Excise Tax Act
business. Measures such as training programs were introduced, as was the capital gains tax exemption measure, which is a measure members of the Opposition deride. However, all of those measures, along with the two accords, were aimed at creating jobs. Frankly, that is what they have been doing. We have seen evidence of that over the last year. We can see it in the statistics which come out each month. We see that there are more and more jobs which have been created. We know that that is something in the order of 304,000 new jobs which have been created in the last year since September 4.
At the same time as trying to deal with the unemployment problem, the Budget was also aimed at trying to deal with the problem of the deficit. Hon. Members know as well as I that this year we will have an annual deficit of something in the order of $35 billion. Canada has an accumulated deficit of something in the order of $200 billion-an enormous amount of money. This year, 1985, the Government has tried to restrain its own expenditures as much as it possibly can. However, it started off with a $100 billion deficit left by the former Government. Against that amount there was only approximately $65 billion coming in as revenues from all sources, so there was a deficit of something in the order of $35 billion in the last year of the former Government. We are continuing on with a similar situation this year, in spite of the restraints in expenditures, and because certain measures are indexed and must increase, such as Old Age Security payments and the guaranteed income supplement. Those programs are indexed to the rate of inflation and have to increase whether the Government wants to increase them or not. Thus, Government expenditures continue to climb.
The measures contained in the Bill which is before us will assist to keep the deficit situation somewhat under control. They will not solve the problem. No one suggests we will eliminate the deficit altogether; but these moves will help to retard the growth in the deficit. In fact, if we add all these increased revenues up, that is, the increase in the sales tax base and the sales tax itself, the increase with respect to the gasoline tax and the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, there will be something in the order of $2.5 billion in extra revenues in
1986.	That amount should grow to approximately $3 billion in
1987.	That remains just a small part of the $35 billion annual deficit.
No one wants to pay extra taxes and everyone would be very happy not to have to do it. However, Canadians are realistic. They realize that if they earn $70 a week they cannot go out and spend $105 a week, unless they go and borrow the difference. If they go and borrow the money then they will have to pay interest so that next week their expenditures will have to increase. There is no way around the situation, whether the Opposition wants to face the facts or not. If they do not face the facts then they are not facing the facts of life in this country. The people of Canada face those facts. They know and understand those sorts of problems.
Members of the Opposition have referred to three or four concerns which they have. They feel that there are great problems with the Budget and with this Bill. For one thing
they have said that they feel the whole tax system is inequitable and that this Bill adds to that inequity. As I have said, that is only one part of the Budget. There are other parts which help to make the whole tax system a lot more equitable. There is the minimum tax which is about to be introduced shortly. There is to be a surtax on large income earners. People who earn more than $40,000 a year will have to pay a surtax this year and for several years into the future. The same applies to large corporations. There is a surtax on large corporations. There is a surtax on banks. We are eliminating various tax shelters with respect to yachts, recreation vehicles and hotels. We are also eliminating income splitting. All of this will help to make the tax system more fair. Certainly, the Budget deals with those concerns.
There was another concern expressed by the Opposition having to do with the dampening effects on the economy which this Bill would have. That, too, is not correct, and we have heard that from the Opposition before. We heard it after the November 8 economic statement. We heard the Opposition say that these moves would eliminate 50,000 jobs in the country. After the Budget was tabled we heard the Opposition saying it would eliminate thousands and thousands of jobs. What has happened? From September 4 of last year until now there has been a growth in jobs to the tune of 304,000.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: In addition to that, interest rates have fallen by 3 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: The Gross National Product has increased by 4.19 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: All of this in spite of the gloom and doom which is being preached by the Opposition, something which they have preached since the first day this session of Parliament convened last November. These results indicate that the Budget as a total package is on the right track. It will reduce unemployment and help to get the deficit under control.
My friends in the Opposition have also referred to the question of the money being spent to rescue the banks. They have expressed grave concerns about money being spent to rescue these banks. It is certainly true that some of that money will go to corporations and other banks. However, a great deal of it will go to pension funds and credit unions. There are thousands of people in the country who are dependent upon those pension funds for their pensions and there are thousands more who depend upon their savings which they have deposited in credit unions. The credit unions and pension funds do not have the option of sheltering themselves under a $60,000 insurance limit. They have millions of dollars to invest and they have to place it somewhere. Obviously, that amount will be over the $60,000 limit. The people who have their money in those funds do not have any control over where the money is placed. However, they will certainly be affected if they lose
October 24, 1985

their money. That will impact on their pensions and those who have savings in credit unions. All these moves indicate that the Government is doing a good job in trying to help people in the country and in trying to help solve all of the problems.
In conclusion I would like to reiterate that this Bill is not one which will be overwhelmingly popular with people. However, the people of Canada are realistic. Notwithstanding the fact that they understand this Bill will increase the tax load on them, they know that we have to do this if we are to solve the two major problems of the country. First, we must put people back to work. Second, we must get our deficit under control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! It being 5.12 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listened on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION SUGGESTED REBROADCASTING OF HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS
Don Boudria: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of recommending to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the feasibility of rebroadcasting the daily proceedings of the House of Commons in toto during the evening hours.
He said: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for supporting my motion, something for which I am most grateful to him. It is very important for the House to understand the meaning of this motion, to wit, that the Government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should consider the advisability of rebroadcasting during the evenings hours the daily proceedings of the House of Commons. I want to make it clear that the House does not intend, in my view, to issue instructions or orders to the CBC, but is simply asking it to cooperate with the Government of Canada in that feasibility study for the ultimate purpose of rebroadcasting during the evening hours the daily proceedings of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, it was on February 10, 1977, that the House of Commons decided to broadcast its daily proceedings, so that on October 17 of that year, a number of communities started watching these proceedings on their television sets.

The first community to receive the televised proceedings of the House of Commons was the City of Ottawa, and after that the City of Toronto. By the end of one year, there were 80 cable
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
operators throughout this country televising the proceedings of the House of Commons so that the people of Canada could in fact see what was going on in the House of Commons and understand how this country is directed.
There are now 450 different cable operators across the country who are televising the proceedings of the House of Commons. In the constituency which I represent the town of Rockland is now able to see the proceedings in the House of Commons live every day and I am told by my constituents that they are quite pleased that this service is now available to them. I could be partisan and say that they are not pleased in seeing the Government, but they are pleased to see the House of Commons in action. However, this is not a partisan motion and I will skip that portion at this time.
Something of which we should all be aware is that although the proceedings of the House of Commons are watched by approximately 100,000 people every week, there is a much larger number of people who watch the repeat of Question Period at six o'clock p.m. or 6.15 o'clock p.m. every day and an even larger number of people, for instance, who live in the Province of Ontario, watch the rebroadcast of Question Period at 11.15 o'clock p.m. on TV Ontario.
A very interesting statistic has come to my attention. The audience watching Question Period and the proceedings of the House of Commons is largely composed of senior citizens according to a study conducted by the Library of Parliament. This is, of course, very understandable because at the time of day when Parliament is in session, most people are out working in order to earn a living and, of course, cannot be at home to watch the televised proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, we know also that the rating in the afternoon is approximately 10 per cent for adult viewers and that in the evening, depending on the hour, it varies between 30 or 40 per cent, which means that we could, by rebroadcasting the daily proceedings of the House of Commons during the evening hours, make it possible for a much greater number of Canadians to watch Parliament at work.

When the House begins the day at 11 o'clock a.m., it is 12.30 o'clock in Newfoundland and eight o'clock a.m. in Vancouver. Of course, at those times of the day very few people are home to watch the televised proceedings of the House of Commons. If we were to repeat the televised proceedings of the House of Commons in the evening, commencing at a time somewhere around 6.30 o'clock p.m. Ottawa time-which would be eight o'clock p.m. in Newfoundland and 3.30 o'clock p.m. in Vancouver-needless to say the number of people who could view the televised proceedings of the House of Commons would be far greater. Another interesting fact which has been noted in some reports is the fact that if the House proceedings were televised in a retransmission at a later time in the day, the proceedings could be indexed. In other words, it could be known at the beginning what topics were discussed that day because of the fact that it would be a retransmission. The

October 24, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation second time around, the people doing such an index could have put together a list of topics which were discussed in the House on that particular day. This would be most convenient for students and other groups who could then use the information in their activities. It would also, of course, be most beneficial for Canadians who are interested in a specific issue. We all recognize that it is very difficult for us to inform the public as to any particular issue being deliberated in the House of Commons on any particular day. This problem is caused in part by the fact that the House agenda is often changed at the last minute by the Government House Leader-most times, of course, with the agreement of the Opposition House Leaders- but the agenda is not always fixed. Therefore it is very difficult for us to inform our constituents of what issues will be debated in the House on a particular day.
I want to allow a large number of Hon. Members, if possible, to speak on this issue, so I will make my remarks rather brief. I just want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, an article written by Pierre Menard in the Canadian Parliamentary Review, Autumn 1985 edition, entitled "Parliament and Television". I would just like to quote one paragraph in the article, which states as follows:
Many different topics and issues are covered every sitting day, each with its own interested public. The spontaneous nature of the live proceedings makes it difficult to predict when a particular issue is to come up. Few interest groups and individuals can monitor proceedings all day long to determine what is said on a subject of special concern to them.
I indicated that earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
Once the House has adjourned for the day, however, an accurate viewer guide to the replay becomes available. If 20 topics are raised one day, 20 publics can be advised when to tune in for debate on their own areas of concern. Canadians would, first of all, be home to watch and secondly, they would have prior knowledge as to what subjects were coming up and at what specific time. Viewers could record portions of special interest to them.
Teachers who use the Parliamentary Network as a teaching aid could do so much more effectively. More schools might begin to use such a valuable resource. Though Parliament Hill is one of the best known sights in Canada, far less is known of the process that takes place inside.
I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that Members from all political parties represented in the House support the motion which I have moved today, calling on the House to show again in the evening the broadcasting of the daily proceedings of the House of Commons, which already cost a significant amount, something like $3 million a year and, for a pittance more, and some even argue that the costs would be almost the same, to make it available for a greater number of Canadians, who would then have the opportunity to watch Hon. Members defending their interests.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to offer some thoughts on the matter before us today, particularly because the broadcasting of parliamentary business makes such a positive contribution to the Canadian political process, indeed to Canadian identity.
However, while any attempt to improve television coverage of parliamentary proceedings is certainly worth while, 1 have some doubts about the motion before us. The motion proposes that the Government should consider the advisability of recommending to the CBC the feasibility of rebroadcasting the daily proceedings of the House of Commons. It might be helpful to outline how the CBC provides national distribution of its parliamentary service and the role it plays in doing so.
The House of Commons broadcast service, which comes under your direct responsibility, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, provides the video and audio signals to any broadcaster who wishes to distribute them. The CBC is licensed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission to carry on a network operation for the distribution of these proceedings. The CBC's parliamentary television network takes the signals, packages them and uplinks them for satellite distribution to cable companies across Canada in both official languages. Cable operators may then receive and carry the service at their own discretion. The CBC does not have an exclusive licence to distribute these proceedings, but it is the only national distributor at this time. In doing so, it provides a valuable service to Canadians and contributes immeasurably to fulfilling the objectives set out for the CBC in the Broadcasting Act.
The fundamental questions raised by this motion are: Do Canadians want the additional service? Would they watch it if they had it? I believe that before we advise the Government to extend this service it would make sense to ask Canadians if they want it. Broadcasting parliamentary procedures at present costs Canadians $2.5 million to $3 million per year. Most of us would agree that money spent on familiarizing Canadians with their Government is money well spent. Broadcasting Parliament's procedures give Canadians an opportunity to better understand their Government and how it operates. As today's article in The Gazette notes, these broadcasts reach literally thousands if not millions of people across Canada and the continent. For the past eight years this service has served an important function in educating and informing Canadians on their Government. However, before we undertake an extension of the service, I believe we must be absolutely certain that it is wanted. As elected representatives we must ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and with the public interest in mind. This holds true for the CBC as it does for other Crown corporations. Let me point to an example which illustrates the need for proper management of tax dollars consistent with the wishes of Canadians.
As many Members may be aware, the CBC is planning to build a new broadcast centre in Metropolitan Toronto. When plans for the new building were prepared CBC officials selected a site in downtown Toronto and proceeded to estimate construction costs. In March of this year the City of Scarborough made a proposal to the CBC for construction of this centre in Scarborough which could save Canadian taxpayers over $90 million. The CBC resisted this proposal and has continued to insist that the centre must be located in downtown Toronto. Fortunately, the persistent efforts of members
October 24, 1985

of Scarborough Council, Scarborough Development officials and Members of Parliament from Scarborough have focused public attention on this issue and called into question the selection of this downtown site. I raise this question to point out to Members the importance of analysing motions like this which ask the Government to extend services which Canadians may not want and cannot afford.
Before we extend this service perhaps we should better inform Canadians of the existing service which is available. I am sure Members from all sides are continually informing their constituents as to when parliamentary proceedings are broadcast in their area. The simple fact is that many Canadians are not even aware that they can watch these proceedings. Many of those who do want to tune in are forced to purchase a converter to do so. With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), I think the motion itself is not the ideal mechanism for tendering our suggestion for enhancing television coverage of the House of Commons. Still, there is no reason why we as parliamentarians cannot approach the proper forum in the proper manner to present our suggestions for enhancing either the signal provided by the House of Commons broadcasting service, or the CBC's own parliamentary television network which packages and distributes that signal. That opportunity will occur when we discuss the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. Indeed, in its report that committee suggested that the distribution of the House of Commons broadcast service might be improved, and mentioned that one idea might be to repeat the proceedings at a time when the potential audience is larger.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the objective behind the motion, 1 cannot agree with the mechanism it seems to propose for reaching that objective and I cannot, therefore, offer my support for the motion. Furthermore, the appropriate procedure will be available shortly when the Government and Opposition Parties discuss the special committee's recommendations on the broadcast service, and that discussion will generate additional ideas for consideration.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate and to congratulate my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on his motion to re-broadcast the proceedings of the House after the end of the day's sitting and thus make it possible for more Canadians to see and hear the proceedings for themselves and realize how important the parliamentary process is to our daily lives. It is a positive and constructive proposal, because it would allow a greater number of Canadians to see the Parliament of Canada at work and watch their elected representatives discussing important questions in the House.
I also think it is constructive, because the motion is not asking the Government to do all this right away. It is asking
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the Government to consider the feasibility of such a proposal, and I am thinking for instance of the cost of such a project. 1 am told the cost will be minimal. I have been informed that one person would be able to take care of rebroadcasting, because Channel 16, which is used for broadcasting and redistribution of the signal, is the channel that announces in the evening: See you tomorrow, when Parliament sits again and we will have the necessary information for you.
I think it would be positive and constructive to consider the feasibility of this proposal, in order to Find out what the real cost would be and whether more than one person would be needed. I think it is probably positive as far as cost is concerned because I think we may find to our surprise that the proposal would not be all that costly or a drag on the Budget, and I think it could also be constructive in that more Canadians would know what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) spoke to us about the time when we started broadcasting the proceedings of the House. I was there, and when I look around in the House, I feel a little older than the average Member because I was here in February 1977, when the decision was made, and I was also here in October 1977, when we started broadcasting the debates of the House of Commons. I must admit that at the time, the lights and atmosphere and all that made everything a bit strange for many of us and many Members and Ministers at the time felt that the decision had been a bit hasty and that we might have quite a few problems.
I must say today how pleased I am to note that this idea of broadcasting the proceedings of this House has enabled Canadians to be better informed about parliamentary activities, more especially, Government activities, the motions discussed and the general items related to our proceedings. Mr. Speaker, I for one think it is important to extend the broadcast of parliamentary debates if only for the average worker who is not at home in the daytime and cannot watch television. A construction worker or an office employee cannot watch television unless they have a special interest.
I wanted to deal with this because in my constituency of Ottawa-Vanier-I will be a little more parochial-there are many public servants who are highly interested in parliamentary activities, because this is part of their daily life. They work for the Government, they know what is going on and would like very much to watch and hear our parliamentary debates. It is not always easy to do so in the daytime, but in the evening they would appreciate hearing from the Minister concerning a projet in which they are closely involved or the Member of the Opposition making a positive criticism of private Members' initiatives. Therefore, to allow a more extensive understanding and perhaps to inform Canadians, I think that the motion of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has a positive thrust.

October 24, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Before coming in today, 1 figured out that I have made some 120 interventions, speeches, or whatever, since November last. I have spoken about various matters and I am well aware that people in my constituency watch our proceedings. Those who tell us their opinions and their views are generally retired people who say: "I will tell my son or my daughter to watch what goes on in the House of Commons because it is important and I think that he or she will be interested."
It would therefore be very nice for us to be able to tell them: "The proceedings of the House of Commons will be retransmitted this evening at 7 or 7:30 and you will be able to see the Minister, the Prime Minister or the Members of Parliament speak about the bill which is of concern to you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by congratulating the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on his initiative. I think that we could go even further and include the committees. I think that we could talk about broadcasting the committee proceedings. I think that in line with the new Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Reform, we will have to find a system whereby the Canadian public will be able to watch on their TV set these proceedings. I think also that the idea of widening the Canadian audience has some merit.
As to what this initiative could cost, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should try for the time being to assess it in dollars and cents. I think it would be worthwhile, as suggested by the Hon. Member, that we consider the possibility of rebroadcasting our proceedings for the benefit of the people who want to watch them.
I feel that a pilot-project in the area of the national capital could be useful, and I know a great many people in my riding who would like to take part in such an experiment. A pilot-project would not cost much, but might help achieve the Hon. Member's purpose. As I said, we could also consider extending this idea to committees.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate again the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I think his is a positive and constructive initiative.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us this evening is basically to consider the desirability of rebroadcasting House proceedings. The motion, naturally, is framed in a much more wishy-washy, shilly-shallying fashion as is our wont here in the House. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of recommending to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the feasibility of rebroadcasting the daily proceedings of the House of Commons in toto during the evening hours.
Translated, that means that it is a good idea to repeat the broadcasting of House proceedings in the evening. Of course, there are many pros and cons on this issue, but I think, on balance, it is a good idea. We know that roughly 100,000 people watch the proceedings as they are currently broadcast
across the country. I have no doubt that there are many more people who would like to watch them but are simply not available during the daytime hours. For some people perhaps it is the only commercial-free broadcasting available, so there are many incentives for watching apart from an interest in parliamentary affairs.
People are entitled to know what is going on in Parliament. People are politically interested and if they want to be involved, naturally it is extremely helpful for them to see what Parliament is debating. Any measure which will make this more possible is positive. Canada is an enormous country and it is very rare for people to come to Ottawa. We would welcome having more people, more school children and more citizens groups coming to see us and meet with us directly. However, that simply is not feasible for large numbers of people so we have to depend very much on the message of Parliament getting out over the airwaves. In so far as this would increase access to our parliamentary debates, it is a highly desirable idea. Certainly the more that people watch Parliament, the more we might expect Parliamentarians to respond to criticisms which I, and I dare say other Members of Parliament, receive from people who are already watching the proceedings and who are rather disturbed at the air of frivolity which often prevails in the House. If increasing the hours of exposure and the telling of the truth, as it really is, to the people of Canada would result in a more serious atmosphere and a more considered deliberation, that would be a very good thing. If the boys' club atmosphere-I am not being sexist but simply accurate-with the "boys will be boys" attitude that largely contributes to the low atmosphere of the House with the catcalling and so on that often happens could be improved as a result of more people watching, I am very much in favour of it.
There are some legal questions involved because this is not our channel but the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's. It may not want to proceed along these lines. There is also the question of whether the time should be used to show committee hearings which is an issue which will be considered. Perhaps there will be some competition between the House itself and committee hearings. Certainly important matters are discussed at committee and it would be advisable to televise committee hearings as well. Therefore, it will be necessary to provide a balance of what is shown on the channel.
We must also address the issue of how we make use of scarce channel space and ask what use we should make of this available exposure. The CBC wants a second channel for regular programming of a somewhat different nature that it may control entirely. However, until it can include women in programming on an equal basis with men 1 would not want the CBC to have another channel on which it can treat women as second-class citizens.
If anyone is entitled to spare channel space in our broadcasting system it is the women of Canada. While the private networks do not do enough to cover women's issues and events,
October 24, 1985

the CBC, which is funded with our money, is the worst offender. I have already given statistics with respect to the dire under-representation of women. For instance, only 5 per cent of experts appearing on CBC shows are women. I suggest that women should be given more consideration which considering the good use of this second channel. However, this would not be a progressive move because I believe all Members of the House would prefer to see women and men treated equally on CBC's main channel. They should be equal members in broadcasting as they are equal members in Canadian society.
Women have had to lobby a very unsympathetic palaeoand-erthal male management at the CBC. The President of the Corporation recently used the parliamentary channel to put forward his case about what he would like to do with this channel. If he would use this parliamentary channel to tout the CBC, I wonder if he should not be according the women of Canada the same opportunity to put forward their case for the use of what available broadcasting space exists on the airwaves, satellite and cable.
I regret that we are unable to deal with a number of other important broadcasting questions which I am sure are of concern to those dealing with this more immediate question and narrow interest. A number of these very urgent matters include Canadian content which is grossly inadequate in its availability to the private networks and the CBC. A high priority would be to obtain a commitment from private broadcasting to commission and broadcast Canadian programming. In my opinion, a high priority would be to eliminate or phase down commercials on the CBC, particularly with respect to drama programs so that we may have high quality public broadcasting.
Another matter of concern to Members of the House is the treatment of employees within the Corporation and indeed throughout the broadcasting system. With respect to the CBC, I receive many complaints from female employees who are discriminated against as well as male employees who do not have the full opportunity to use their talents. For example, their proposals for cost-cutting efficiency measures are not treated seriously by CBC management. These are issues which we may deal with in a broader broadcasting context.
Let me mention one particular matter which was brought to my attention. It concerns a very serious complaint about private broadcasting which was raised by NABET this summer. There are a number of employees in Newfoundland who are on strike for a first contract. There is a notion that broadcasting is an important and glamorous indsutry which treats its employees well. While it is an important industry, CHUM station in Newfoundland has the lowest media wages in Canada. The average wages for employees there is $11,700 which is below the poverty line for a family in that area. This shameful treatment of people in that industry not only requires attention by the broadcasting industry, but in labour legislation and other areas that are not the subject before us today.
I believe the motion before us today is very sensible and I generally support it. Before we make any proposals to increase services, we should have an idea of the costs. I suspect that the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation additional costs of repeat broadcasts would be very minimal because they are already being borne for the existing videotaping of the proceedings. However, we would have to consider those costs as well.
I think the more important problem involves the available space and how it should be used. Since the motion before us proposes that these matters be considered, 1 would support it and ask for the consideration of these matters in the hope that a wise decision will be made to increase the exposure of the House and provide Canadians with a greater opportunity to see what is happening here as we try to resolve the practical problems before us in a reasonable fashion.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address this motion by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), I want to go on record as favouring the greatest possible exposure of Parliament's daily proceedings by the people who sent us here. This is a very important matter for debate, not only for Your Honour and for those of us who sit in the House of Commons, but for the countless thousands, indeed tens of thousands of Canadians who are watching the proceedings of Parliament at this very moment across six time zones in this country alone. Yes, you and 1 are being watched by approximately 100,000 Canadians right now. Heaven knows how many viewers we have beyond our borders through the miracle of satellite delivery.
One point that 1 want to make is that you are the custodian of the parliamentary TV service as long as the House of Commons is sitting. These cameras belong to us. They are an integral part of our proceedings. Therefore, tiirough you, 1 would like to say to the people of British Columbia and the Yukon: If you are picking us up at this moment, it is the middle of the afternoon. They are waiting for the kids to come home from school or waiting for the next appointment in the office or possibly waiting for the next soap opera.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, where the time is now approaching 7.20 p.m., you probably had dinner and are waiting like everyone else for what will be a very crucial game in the World Series.

If you are struggling through traffic on your way home, here, in central Canada, at this time of night, 5.50 p.m., forget it... You are not listening to us at the moment.
If you are safely home, or unfortunately still at work, or else in hospital or in a retirement home and that you are watching us or listening to us, you are among the tens of thousands of Canadians who are addicted to this television service.
The point I am trying to make and I think other Members have already drawn it to the attention of the House is that there are convenient and highly inconvenient times for addicts of the CBC parliamentary network to watch their elected

October 24, 1985
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
representatives in action. There is also a demonstrable need for the enhancement of coverage of proceedings in this House of Commons, especially when-and I say this to my colleagues- a much larger audience might be able to tune in.
One of my long time friends and one of yours, Mr. Speaker, as you view this debate is Mr. John Warren, the host of the English language parliamentary broadcasts.

I am sorry, I have never met the host of the CBC French service, Mr. Gilles de Lalonde, but on behalf of all French Canadians, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to congratulate him for his commentary and his rapport with the viewers of this service.

Both of these gentlemen directly and indirectly have pointed out to me that more than 100 letters are received each week by the CBC on this parliamentary service. Among those letters are letters from places like Franklin College, Franklin, Indiana; Albany, New York; Portland, Oregon; Sir Thomas Moore Comprehensive School in Hamilton, the University of Saskatchewan and dozens and dozens of others all seeking information to demonstrate the interest and the use that is being made of our parliamentary service for international educational purposes. In other words, we are at this moment a reasonably hot item and one clearly in demand by people across Canada and beyond our borders.
I must say that while I have the utmost admiration for and confidence in the CBC parliamentary television network, I am expressing a certain personal desire to see the House of Commons service extended, but I must caution you, Sir, and those who are looking in that I have no authority as an individual Member of Parliament or a Parliamentary Secretary to initiate any moves or recommendations on my own. What I think is the useful aspect of the debate raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is that we are putting this issue into the open before the Corporation for its consideration and before other members of the Government apparatus to achieve the full potential of this unique broadcast vehicle. That tremendous potential, that increasing public awareness of parliament among viewers across the country makes imperative, in my view, the need to consider ways of making use of the down time of the parliamentary service.
I am a little hesitant about providing full support for the motion we are debating today. The principle of bringing Parliament to the people via television, as I have said and as other Members have said, is sound. We have debated many ways of putting that principle into practice on a number of occasions, both in committees and here in the House. However, the question at the time when the TV and radio broadcasting committee was deliberating the implementation of broadcasting in the House was how do we indeed commit that principle to practice. The motion before us raises a similar question.
Now that we have a service and now that there seems to be widespread agreement in this House that efforts ought to be
made to enhance the service, what is the best way to increase an understanding of parliamentary procedures and traditions through the parliamentary broadcasting service?
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, many suggestions have been put forward over the last few years for enhancing the television coverage of Parliament. Many of these suggestions involve expanding the House of Commons service, that is, the feed provided by the House to the CBC and other broadcasters to provide regular coverage of standing committee meetings. The Government is in favour of a couple of key recommendations made by the special committee on the reform of the House of Commons with respect to televising committee proceedings and will undertake consultations with Opposition Parties to seek an agreement on implementation.
The special committee specifically recommends that:
Fuller use be made of the parliamentary service.
The Government supports this recommendation in principle and the Government House Leader, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has stated here in the House that he will consult with all Parties on its implementation. For its part, the CBC has confirmed its interest in enhancing the coverage provided by its parliamentary television network.
My sources in the Corporation tell me that the CBC is getting so much mail requesting brochures on the parliamentary system that it has run out of them. The word is that the CBC is gently requesting viewers to ease up on letters asking for brochures.
Nothing is final yet on the matter. There are no doubt many more suggestions to be made during the upcoming discussions. This debate is part of those suggestions. That is why 1 commend the Hon. Member's initiative in bringing this matter before the House of Commons for discussion. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that an expansion in the television coverage of Parliament by the House of Commons service, by the CBC or by both is not very far off.
The motion does not recognize your office, Mr. Speaker, as the proper authority for the House of Commons television service. As we are well aware, any modification is the Speaker's responsibility, and the motion does not explicitly refer to your role.
While I realize that the way the CBC uses the feed provided by the House of Commons service is its own decision, I would think it would be your office or the television and radio broadcast committee which ought to offer any suggestions to the CBC about modifying the way the Corporation's parliamentary television network packages or distributes that feed. Perhaps the motion presumes this, but it does not say so explicitly. For that reason, I am reluctant to support it.
I think if we believe in an arms length relationship with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it would not be in this way that we should be laying hands on the CBC and telling the CBC how to use its service. It is within your jurisdiction, Sir, through appropriate consultations that this might be done.
October 24, 1985

As a participating addict and admirer of the CBC parliamentary television network, I want to see something done about a system which sits there unused except when the House of Commons is in session. There are decisions which have to be made in conjunction with the McGrath Committee on Reform of the House of Commons; in conjunction with the Minister of Communications; in conjunction with the Special Task Force on Broadcasting, and in conjunction with you, the viewer, if 1 may say through you, Mr. Speaker. As individual Members of Parliament, we should be hearing from the people who really admire this service and who want to see it expanded, enhanced and extended.
We have ways of making use of this hugely expensive electronic instrument of Parliament. We MPs own and operate all the broadcasting facilities within these buildings. We must, in my view, take advantage of those installations and decide how we wish to put the parliamentary television network- [Translation]
-in both official languages-

-to further use for the public good.
[ Translation]


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to discuss here in the House the motion presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, which says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of recommending to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the feasibility of rebroadcasting the daily proceedings of the House of Commons in toto during the evening hours.
I understand and share in my colleague's desire to make the noble institution we represent better known to the public. In that regard, television is the perfect media to make Canadians familiar with the works of Parliament.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that the motion puzzles me somewhat, because the action it calls for would, in my opinion, create an emabarrassing precedent if it were fully implemented.
Our colleague wants the Government to consider recommending to the CBC that changes be made in the services it provides, a matter which comes under CBC internal management. Under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, the CBC is a proprietary corporation and as such is solely responsible for internal management and day-to-day administration.
It is therefore up to the CBC to decide which programs are to be aired, and were the Government to act as suggested by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) it would run the risk of opening a debate on the autonomy of the corporation. Such a debate would undoubtedly cloud the issue, for our main objective is to make viewers
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation even more interested and convince Canadians that they ought to take a more active role in the political process of their country.
I believe that to really grasp the question at issue, the role played by the CBC in providing this service has to be further explained. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings comes directly under your jurisdiction. CBC has obtained from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission a licence to establish a French and English parliamentary television networks broadcasting every day the House is sitting a direct coverage of its proceedings.
This coverage is supplemented with explanatory comments provided by CBC's own announcers. Those programs are then conveyed by satellite to the affiliated Canadian cable companies.
Statistics show that in early 1985, parliamentary broadcasts were shown by 188 cable companies. These cable operators could reach 66 per cent of Canadian homes and were effectively received by 50 per cent of all households.
Those figures, Mr. Speaker, show the popularity of this service and encourage us to do even better.
The question at issue now, Mr. Speaker, is this: what are the best ways to attain our goal which is, and I will remind you of it, to make Canadian people more aware of parliamentary life?
This question leads me to discuss the mechanism proposed in the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Prescott-Glengarry-Russell, that is rebroadcasting the daily proceedings of the House of Commons in toto during the evening hours.
As you know, the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, chaired by the Hon. Member from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has devoted a chapter, Chapter 9 of the report released last June, to the question of televising the House.
What makes the value of any debate is the relevance and variety of suggestions made. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because the motion before us calls for a definite action, the chosing of a mode of rebroadcasting.
I would not want anyone to believe that I am trying to downgrade that solution. Rebroadcasting during the evening hours would certainly give a larger proportion of the population the opportunity to watch the proceedings. At the present time, Question Period is the most popular part of the broadcast. Given the fact that it is already rebroadcasted at the end of the daily proceedings of the House, I wonder, and reasonably so I believe, if rebroadcasting in toto is the best or only means of improving that service. Would it not be better to increase the variety of parliamentary activities being broadcasted, as suggested by the report?

October 24, 1985
Adjournment Debate
The Committee recommends, for instance, that Committee proceedings be televised as well. This report, Mr. Speaker, contains proposals that would make the committees much more dynamic. Televising committee meetings would give Canadians a chance to familiarize themselves with this other important aspect of parliamentary life.
Also, the Committee mentions that the broadcast network is not as dynamic or imaginative as it could be. Would rebroadcasting of the proceedings change anything in this regard?
Could it be that better explanations of House proceedings, the broadcasting of conferences, some phone-in programs on public affairs, as the Committee suggests, would make Canadians more interested in the political life?
Would it be a good solution for the future future of our network to take for a model the American network C-Span, which televises 24 hours a day the congressmen's proceedings and those of the House and Senate committees? We would then televise the House and the Senate committees meetings and have public affairs programs.
Should we open the network to programs produced outside of Parliament, namely reports on seminars and conferences.
You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that cable distributors play an equally important part in the provision of this service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The time allotted for Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to address this evening relates to copyright. There has been a report of the subcommittee on copyright revision which included a charter of rights for creators. In my opinion, it is an excellent document. It contains 137 recommendations and almost all of them are very good.
Artists have waited a very long time to have greater recognition of their economic and moral rights of copyright. Of course, even a very good set of recommendations is not going to have any impact until legislation is prepared and brought forward. We had an indication from the Government that we could expect legislation in February. I very much hope that it
will be put before us in February because this is a matter of very great importance to artists.
Artists have been patient long enough. Many of them live below the poverty line. I do not wish to exaggerate the impact that new rights of copyright will have on their incomes but certainly it will have a positive impact. It is about time that artists got this additional support.
Some of the changes proposed are housekeeping changes because this Act has not been revised in any significant way in more than 60 years. There is some recognition of new rights and these are important new rights. They include the exhibition right, a new right in choreography, full rights in musical compositions, a right to edition, new recognition of performers' rights, a new category of audio-visual works and the right to computer input, there is also the recommendation regarding a right to rental which will mean new income for people who are losing money through lost royalties to rental. There is the recommendation of payment for public use by other means not through copyright. That is certainly a recommendation we hope will not only be accepted but better funded and put into action promptly.
We proposed a clarification and an extension of moral rights. The work is to a large extent the expression of the personality of its author. The present Act does not protect these rights. Furthermore, in the French text, it is rather a privilege than a right.
Consequently, the Sub-committee recommends that the new Act fully recognize that moral rights are as important as economic rights. All the recourse provided for violations of an economic right should be applicable to violations of a moral right. It can be stressed here that a large increase in available sentences in courts for violations, Fines up to one million dollars, instead of the present fines of approximately $200, has been recommended.

The principle of compulsory licensing was reviewed by the committee, an obnoxious principle and one which we have managed to avoid with some small exceptions. There is one exception with which I am not entirely in agreement. We have almost entirely gotten rid of this notion.
One important part of our work was to close the loopholes with respect to the exceptions, which meant that artists became involuntary donors of their time. It is quite proper for artists to give of their time for charitable purposes, but surely this should be on a voluntary basis and they should receive a tax receipt for it, as do other Canadians. Artists groups persuasively argued against these exemptions. We went along with them with the sole exception of the case of the production of materials for the handicapped. We were certainly in agreement with the principle that access has to be provided. We also agreed that there should be some payment, although it would be a very trivial one. We expect that public agencies which
October 24, 1985

support this work should make up for those payments and that artists should not have to be involuntary donors of their time, We are certainly in favour of handicapped persons having prompt access to materials under copyright.
[ Translation]
1 did not agree with the majority report in three areas. As far as employers' and employees' rights are concerned, 1 am on the side of employees. The majority report favours the employers. With regard to home recordings, I have a different proposal to make, which is better, I think. It is obvious that home recordings deprive their creators of income from copyright. Instead of buying a cassette or a record, people make recordings. A tax on tapes, cassettes and VCRs can be directed to creators, not to collective management companies. This is a way to compensate the artists for lost income caused by this new technology of home recording. Unfortunately, if we proceed through copyright, most revenues, up to 90 per cent, will be exported abroad, mainly to the United States. The problem of export of revenues is the reason why I object to the recognition of the right to broadcast.
A certain form of recognition is fair and necessary. Yet, it would be irresponsible to give new rights resulting in enormous losses of scarce revenues.

Canadians might wonder why a resident of Windsor should have to pay for local rebroadcasting rights for which the Detroit citizen does not have to pay. Because the American corporations ABC, NBC, CBS and the Hollywood majors have asked for it, that is no reason why we should be making Canadians pay for something their neighbours across the border do not have to pay for.
Finally, I would like to point out that we have to look at the costs in copyright. We want to see new rights but when we have had $100 million in reduced budgets for the Arts community, I would be very reluctant to see a new exportation of scarce resources outside the country. One of my questions is can we have a firm guarantee that there will be a restoration of these cuts before we contemplate more exporting of these scarce resources to the United States?
A copyright is a means to an end. We must consider the needs of the whole cultural community. We must consider funding to the CBC, Canada Council and so on, and deal with the copyright question in that broader context.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, it seems like old home week talking about copyright revision with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), to whom I would like to pay public tribute for the very significant contribution she made to the subcommittee on the revision of copyright. Even though she did agree with the majority of the recommendations, she did not agree with every Hon. Member of the Committee on certain points. Both of us worked long and hard on the copyright committee. It was a formidable challenge to, in effect, rewirte the "Bible" on copyright and change a law
Adjournment Debate
which is more than 60 years old. Indeed, it is downright ancient.
The Hon. Member has raised two questions. The first question concerns the time at which the legislation will be introduced. I can assure the Hon. Member that legislation is now being prepared and will be introduced as soon as possible. As the Hon. Member knows, the subcommittee worked for 10 months on copyright revision. We heard 111 witnesses, considered over 300 written submissions and attended many lively meetings over the summer months to discuss the many different issues. After all this work, all members of the subcommittee share the Hon. Member's concern that legislation be introduced quickly. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, I am hopeful that the Bill will be drafted so that it can soon be enacted into law. I am told that some drafting work is already under way and I will continue to urge that it be completed with dispatch.
The Hon. Member's second question associates the cutbacks in arts funding with the subcommittee recommendations aimed at providing new copyright protection for creators. With respect, one has nothing to do with the other. The cut-backs in arts funding was part of a broad Government policy to reduce expenditures. The arts, like other groups, were required to bear a portion of that burden. On the other hand, the subcommittee recommendations to provide new copyright protection would benefit the arts community. In fact, I am informed that the reaction of creators to the report has been most favourable.
The outflow of royalties problem to which the Hon. Member refers, and which was part of her minority report, is not at all what it may appear to be. There are three reasons for this. First, much of the new copyright protection recommended by the subcommittee would be reciprocal. Canadians would have to receive protection abroad before non-Canadians would be protected in Canada. Protection abroad would create an inflow of royalties which would help offset any outflow.
Second, the Hon. Member has shared in the subcommittee's recommendations to provide some new protection which will cause an outflow. Yet others she has not agreed to. I do not see this as being particularly consistent. Although the Hon. Member has reasons for her position, other Hon. Members of the subcommittee did not agree with that reasoning. The majority has consistently recommended that creators be protected when their works are being used without their consent or without payment.
Finally, the subcommittee is convinced that protection for creative work, which is so justly deserved, should not be denied to Canadian creators because it would cause an outflow of royalties. It has been repeatedly pointed out by witnesses that it only takes a few-and I think probably more than a few- Brian Adams and Margaret Atwoods to turn the negative outflow into a positive inflow. Copyright protection is essential to ensure that Canadian creators can continue their work.
I am proud of the subcommittee's hard work and long hours on our new charter of rights for creators. I repeat to my hon. friend that I want to see legislation before this House based on

October 24, 1985
Adjournment Debate
all of our 137 recommendations at the earliest possible moment.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION-UNITED STATES CLEAN-UP PLAN. (B) CONTENTS OF PLAN
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that last October the Niagara River Toxic Committee filed its report with the Canadian and American Governments. The Canadian Government has not yet responded to the findings of that committee which contained some alarming results. For example, some 3,000 pounds of priority pollutants, that is, acids, metals, PCBs, pesticides, et cetera, end up in the Niagara River daily. Over the winter Environment Canada carried out further studies and raised that estimate to some 19,800 pounds. Yet the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) still does not respond to the earlier report or the new data.
The Minister met with the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington in May and returned to Canada saying, as recorded in Hansard on p. 4765:
-that planning for the Niagara River clean-up is being accelerated.
Remember the word "clean-up".
On October 17 a plan was presented by the EPA to the Minister of the Environment here in Ottawa. Canadians have not seen that plan. In fact, the Minister told the press that he did not know if we could get to see it at all. That is rather curious considering that the EPA in Washington considers this plan to be a public working document. Therefore, the question arises, why will the Minister not come clean with Canadians and tell us what is in the plan? Why should we order a copy from the EPA south of the border? Why is the matter shrouded as a big secret?
There are important questions on the minds of everyone concerned with this matter. The health and drinking water of some 6 million people, 4.5 million of them Canadians, is at stake. Does the plan set stiff controls on the polluting industries when they discharge toxic substances? How much money, if any, does the plan provide for the excavation and incineration of the toxic chemicals buried in the sites? Are funds envisaged by the EPA for municipalities on the U.S. side to catch the toxic pollutants as they enter the sewage plants? What is the timetable for implementation so that municipalities will know how long they can rely on present water supplies and whether they will have to turn to alternatives? It is also important to know the agreed upon toxic substances which should be brought under control other than phosphorus.
These are the reasons why we call on the Minister to make this plan known. It is hard to understand why the plan is public south of the border and not north of the border. Canadians have the right to know. It is important that this matter be managed properly and so far the Minister has not done his homework. He has contradicted himself in and outside this House on the matter of the plan. He is urging the Opposition to study the plan before making statements, but
then outside the House he says to the press that he does not know whether he will release the plan. He has mismanaged this very serious issue.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer these questions, and perhaps do the job that the Minister has not done so far by coming clean with Canadians and providing knowledge on these major points. To facilitate his task I will summarize the points for him. They are: a timetable, the money attached to it by the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, and the details as to whether they will proceed with the excavation and incineration at the land-fill sites. There are, as you know, 61 sites on the U.S. side of the river.
Time does not permit me to go over the names of the companies and municipalities that are the most significant contributors of priority pollutants, but among them are the Buffalo Sewer Authority Waterworks Treatment Plant, the Niagara Falls New York Waterworks Treatment Plant, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation in New York, Atlas Steels in Ontario, Olin Corporation in New York, Spaulding Fibre Company in New York State, the Town of Tonawanda Waterworks Treatment Plant in New York, the Town of Amherst Waterworks Treatment Plant in New York, and the Donner-Hanna Coke Joint Venture, also in the State of New York.
We want to have answers because, as I mentioned, this is becoming a very serious health matter in the long term, it can still be managed, but it needs prompt action on the part of the Government. The report I am referring to came out in October, 1984. One year has gone by. Why does the Government not reply to the content of this report? Why is it now taking an open stance to let Canadians, provincial Governments, and municipalities know where the matter stands at the present time?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions posed and the clarification asked for by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), I want to agree entirely with him about the serious nature of this problem and to indicate that the Government is fully aware, as are many Canadians, of the serious threat that this situation poses to millions of Canadians and Americans. In fact, it has been a progressive threat over the last number of years and it is high time that constructive action is undertaken and completed by governments on both sides of the border.
The facts, some of which have been elucidated by the Member for Davenport, are well known, they are established. We know that there are 61 dump sites on the American side and 5 on the Canadian side. Eighty-nine per cent of the contribution to the waste in the river is by the Americans and 11 per cent is by Canadians. Those things are established and we have no argument with that.
The Member has asked several specific questions and I would like to respond to those as well as I can in the time I
October 24, 1985

have available. He asked why the report has not been released. I can tell him that the report on one document, the Niagara River Toxic Commission document, is in fact prepared for release. Our position has always been that we wanted to get the response of the Government of Ontario and the Government of the United States before releasing our report. We have been ready to release that report for some time now and it will be out, probably within the next week or two.


Mr. Caccia:: You are blaming it on the Government of Ontario now, is that what you are saying?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Not at all. I indicated that our position was and has been that we would hold our official response until such time as we receive the official responses of the Government of Ontario and the Government of the United States.
With regard to the second report, the action plan that was presented by Mr. Thomas to the Minister last week, it has been identified by the Minister. I do not think there was any conflict of confusion in his response. In fact, I think it was quite capably handled. We are considering this as a working document. If the Member wants to write to Washington for a report and it is released, that is his prerogative. Our position is that this is a working document. We have organized a meeting for November 8 between the principal parties which are Canada, the United States, the State of New York and the Government of Ontario. At that time all parties will sit down to work on this document and initiate the changes that we feel appropriate.
The Member also asked-


Charles L. Caccia: It is public knowledge south of the border.


Gary Michael Gurbin: If the Hon. Member wants me to answer the question in the time I have available, he will have to listen rather than interrupt.
With respect to money, I can tell the Member that at least $1 billion so far has been spent by the Americans. I presume that he is concerned about the Americans. While Mr. Thomas was in Canada he stated privately and publicly that hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funds will be required and available when necessary. The exact amount is not the issue. The issue is to take real action to clean up the river. The bottom line is to eliminate the pollutants that are causing the problems. We have admitted that this will require a large amount of money. The Americans have admitted that as well and they are prepared to pay those amounts.
The Hon. Member has indicated that he is unhappy about a number of steps taken by the Government and the Minister. The plan we have received is not final. We have an opportunity to make it as complete and precise as possible in regard to the important matters before us. We are encouraged by our progress so far, although we realize more work needs to be done. The Americans will readily admit that as well.
Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member for Davenport might be encouraged by a comment from his leader in Ontario who indicates that although different technical approaches can be taken, he was encouraged by the vigour shown my Mr. Thomas and is confident that progress can be made.


CORPORATIONS-TAKEOVER OF MONTREAL EAST COMPANY- (A) ECONOMIC IMPACT. (B) SITUATION IN MONTREAL EAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the closing down of S.Q.D. Technologie de Ville d'Anjou, in the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, and the fact that on November 23, 250 jobs will be lost, adding to the already long list of jobs lost in Montreal East, which is getting longer every day, Mr. Speaker.
In my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) last Tuesday, 1 mentioned that this operation is rather strange since the only competitor in Quebec manufacturing suspension systems for trucks and automobiles has been taken over with a specific view to closing it down. And 1 asked the Minister how we allow competition to be eliminated in this and all other sectors? This is a very dangerous process indeed, Mr. Speaker, and we are moving towards a monopoly system which, of course, goes against our free enterprise system.
I want to know why the Minister did not take action. Does he intend to do anything and could we act before November 23 to prevent the loss of those 250 jobs which would create a very unfortunate situation in an area where poverty is ever-increasing?
My supplementary was also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and concerned the fact that aside from competition, Mr. Speaker, that company is being taken over by a group of foreign investors. 1 was wondering whether we could have prevented that transaction if the Foreign Investment Review Agency were still in force . . . and now, nothing can be done through Investment Canada. As a matter of fact, I did ask the Minister of Industrial Regional Development to do something about it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he told me that the mandate of Investment Canada was not to allow foreigners to take over plants in order to close them down. But that did happen, so I am asking him if this is government policy. Is the Minister going to do something about this? Could these 200 jobs possibly be saved? I am expecting a positive answer tonight, not for my own sake, but for those 200 jobs in Ville d'Anjou which are so important for the people of that community.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 24, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Speaker, first let me provide some background information. The Marmon group of companies will be puchasing the assets of the Montreal automotive spring plant of SKD Technologies Inc. after it closes in November. Marmon is not purchasing SKD Technologies Inc. I understand that there was no potential purchaser of the spring plant as an operating company. The Marmon group plans to move the plant machinery to its new plant in Cambridge, Ontario, which will create new employment for scores of people. I would also note that the Marmon group already operates two spring plants in Montreal and that there are ten other manufacturers of automotive springs in Canada. In other words, Marmon is not acquiring its only competitor.


Alfonso Gagliano: In Quebec?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Within the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Director of Investigation and Research who administers the Combines Investigation Act has reviewed this acquisition and concluded that it did not give him reason to believe that a violation of the merger section of the Act would
occur. In other words, the Government is not allowing competition to be eliminated in this sector.
Let me talk about jobs for a moment. This Government is actively promoting the creation of jobs. As the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) assured the Hon. Member the other day, the objective of Investment Canada is the creation of new jobs in Canada through foreign investment. It is not to encourage non-Canadians to buy businesses in Canada with a view to closing them and creating unemployment.
I can only stress the statement of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion when he pointed out to the Hon. Member that jobs have been created at a rate of 25,000 a month. With the co-operation of the Hon. Members of the Opposition, we will strive to increase that rate in the days and months that lie ahead.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 25, 1985