1986-02-06

Hon. David Crombie (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion with respect to the imposition of taxes in the Newfoundland Offshore Area and to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Tuesday, February 4, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 5, consideration of Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 11 (Mr. Robinson) (p. 10502).
Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 11 has been moved. Resuming debate?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


David Edward Crombie: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time; by leave now?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


David Edward Crombie: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government to Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Before reporting on the outcome of the hearings on Bill C-65 at committee stage, I would like to take a few moments to remind Members of the House of the essential features of this proposed legislation.
A most important feature of Bill C-65 is the establishment of the RCMP public complaints commission, and procedures for the handling of complaints by the public against RCMP members. The establishment of the public complaints mechanism is a contemporary response to the need for objective and open handling of complaints, which will undoubtedly command public confidence.
A second important feature of the Bill relates to the establishment of procedures to deal with matters internal to the Force, such as grievances of individual members, disciplinary and discharge matters.
The most significant aspect of these proposed procedures relates to the appeal process and, in particular, to the establishment of an external review committee. This review authority will be external to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and independent of it. It will be able to look into certain grievance decisions, formal disciplinary sanctions and discharge or demotion.
In formulating the proposals in these areas, every effort has been made to balance the interests of the members of the public and of the RCMP against the need for continued effectiveness of the Force. There is not a more respected and efficient police force in the world. This legislation will only serve to enhance the operation of the Force.
During the legislative committee hearings on Bill C-65, which lasted for several weeks, the committee had the benefit of hearing from a number of witnesses who represented a


RCMP Act
variety of interests in this legislation. These witnesses are to be complimented for their able presentations which very much assisted the committee. Special attention should be paid to the excellent submissions of the Division staff relations representatives who presented the views and concerns of the majority of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Bill C-65. As a consequence of the witness' submissions, a number of important amendments to the Bill were adopted by the legislative committee. I propose to review these amendments briefly for the House at this time.
The first major change to Bill C-65 relates to representation before the external review committee. The Bill originally provided for representation by counsel only. The appropriate sections have now been amended to allow for representation by either counsel or a representative from within the Force at a hearing before the external review committee. This amendment is significant in that it allows those giving evidence before the committee to save substantial costs by being represented by members as opposed to counsel.
[DOT] (mo)
A second significant amendment to Bill C-65 relates to public complaints with respect to the conduct of a member of the Force. Previously, Bill C-65 provided that the public could complain about any conduct of an RCMP member. The appropriate sections of Bill C-65 have now been amended to restrict the type of conduct which can form the basis of a complaint to a member's conduct in the performance of any duty or function under the Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that public complaints relate only to conduct with respect to a member's statutory duties and is based upon the rationale that a member of the Force, like any other citizen, has a right to privacy.
Another amendment adopted in respect of the public complaints process relates to the authority of the Public Complaints Commission to investigate a complaint. In addition to these substantive amendments to Bill C-65, there were a variety of amendments adopted by the committee which, while of a more technical nature, will undoubtedly serve to enhance the legislation as a whole. I am positive that upon passage of Bill C-65, the new amended RCMP Act will represent comprehensive, progressive legislation which will benefit both members of the RCMP and the citizens of Canada alike for many years to come.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that the passage of this Bill has been subject to several delays in the past such that the proposed amendments to the RCMP Act are now long overdue. Accordingly, I would urge Hon. Members of the House to co-operate in ensuring expeditious passage of this Bill so that the RCMP Act may be amended to bring it into line with modern times and with the current needs of the RCMP and its members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is entitled to questions or comments, or is he rising for debate?


Mr. Robinson:: Debate, but I will defer to others who might have questions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) does have a question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why he did not respond to the representations which were made by the divisional representatives and the association of 17 divisions with respect to the question of ordered statements? As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the provision for ordered statements is one which has been harshly criticized by members of the RCMP and was, as well, criticized by the Marin Commission in 1974.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could respond as to why the Government did not in fact eliminate the provision for this ordered statement?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the Government discussed this matter and decided that it was not in the best interests of either the public or the RCMP to propose that amendment at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Supplementary question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No, I have a question in another area but perhaps I can defer to my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the Bill deals in part with members of the Force. A motion was moved with respect to the issue of collective bargaining for members of the RCMP. The Chair in its wisdom decided that that particular amendment was not in order, that it went beyond the scope and substance of this particular piece of legislation.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, however, whether his Minister is considering the question of giving to members of the RCMP the same rights as any other Canadian with respect to collective bargaining except, of course, the right to strike? Is the Government at least considering that particular issue? The Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his comments that he wanted to modernize the RCMP and bring it into this century. I believe those were his words. If he is truly sincere, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in order to modernize the RCMP and to bring it into this century, collective bargaining is the first step. 1 would like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on that issue.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, much discussion was given to this subject in committee and it was my judgment, perhaps, as Parliamentary Secretary during the hearings, that the majority of members did not necessarily want to have collective bargaining. They were satisfied with the methods now used through their divisional representatives.
Further to that, the point did come out that the differential in payment between other police across Canada and the


RCMP was less than $500 on the average. If the members of the Force become members of a union or a collective bargaining unit, there would be a grave possibility that that $500 would be lost in union dues.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary on the same point. Given the fact that all other police forces, municipal and provincial, as far as 1 can tell, belong to organizations which bargain for them with the employer, whether it be the municipality or the province, and given the fact that the bargaining processes deal not just with the question of wages and hours but with grievances, along with everything else, surely the Government would accept the idea that the RCMP, like all other federal Public Service employees, should be permitted to belong to an organization if they so wish? Surely the question of whether it is worth it for them to belong, and whether that $500 would go towards union dues, is a question they should decide as free Canadians rather than having the Government make that decision for them.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member did not hear my earlier comment in answer to a previous question. In our judgment, the majority of the members of the Force are not requesting that kind of legislation at this time. Therefore, being a democratic and open Government, we are not going to push this onto a group of people, especially the people who form the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That force is not like other police organizations in our country. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is unique. There is not another Force like it in the country. Certainly we are very conscious of its needs and requests and we react accordingly.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the answer I received from the Parliamentary Secretary. How does the Department know that a majority of the RCMP officers do not want to belong to a union? If I understand the labour legislation which applies both federally and provincially, when a union or association wants to represent a group of employees, it has to try to sign up the particular group. It has to demonstrate to the Labour Relations Board or, I suppose in this case, it would be the Public Service Staff Relations Board, that it has signed up a majority of the affected people. If there is then any doubt, a vote is called which is supervised by the proper Government agency, and if the majority indicates it wants to belong, it then gets certification.
If, as the Government says, a majority of the RCMP officers do not want to belong, then they could indicate that in a vote and that would be the end of it. But whenever the Government adopts its usual "we know best" paternalistic attitude, which does not apply to any other group of employees except, perhaps, the employees who work on Parliament Hill- and the Government is even proposing to give them the right to collective bargaining-I find it very strange.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is dead wrong. In the presentation made by the division of staff relations representatives-which represents 14,000 members of the
RCMP Act
RCMP-there was no such request made. I suggest that they represented a majority of the RCMP, and if they wanted any system such as collective bargaining I am sure it would have been in their submission. However, it was not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on Bill C-65. We in the Official Opposition have indicated on a number of occasions that we support the Bill. We supported it in principle at second reading. We took a very active part in committee deliberations. We attempted to improve the legislation. However, for some reason or other the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) and the Government have refused to adopt what we considered to be very good amendments put forward by both Opposition Parties. I have concluded that the Solicitor General is not in charge of the RCMP. In fact, he takes his marching orders from the commissioner. We have found time and time again that he has not exercised independent judgement concerning what would be in the best interests of Canadians. He seems to follow instructions from the commissioner to a "t". For example, yesterday during debate, and I know you were very much interested in the amendments proposed yesterday, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Boudria:: He always is.


John V. Nunziata: You agreed with the Opposition. Well, it appeared that you agreed because you were nodding as I was making my submissions and one can conclude from your nod that you were agreeing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I appreciate very much the Hon. Member and his debate, but I would also appreciate if he would not reflect on whether the Chair agrees or disagrees with anyone in this Chamber. 1 know the Hon. Member will take that under advisement and act accordingly.


John V. Nunziata: As Your Honour knows, we on this side of the House have the utmost respect for your rulings and deliberations. While we may not comment on whether or not you agree with us, I want you to know that we in particular always agree with you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: If I may continue? As you know, the legislation was part of the previous Liberal Government's agenda. It is not new legislation. Two previous Solicitors General have introduced different versions of this Bill. The only difference now is that the Liberal Solicitor General was prepared to listen to Canadians who came forward with suggestions to improve the Bill. He came into the discussions in committee with an open mind.
10508


RCMP Act
However, time and time again we in the Opposition have found that legislation is introduced in the House, referred to committee, and for all intents and purposes committee deliberations are a farce. People take a lot of time to prepare submissions, as did members of the RCMP in this case. They spent a lot of time, money and effort to research this area. However, for the most part their recommendations are dismissed. I suppose this is because the Government is reluctant to improve legislation.
We all know that the present Solicitor General always wants to be the smartest kid in the class. When someone else comes up with a good suggestion to improve legislation he automatically goes into a negative mode because that would imply he did not think of improving it himself. Notwithstanding that, amendments were made and the Parliamentary Secretary urged us to co-operate. There is no need to urge. We indicated right from the start that we would co-operate. We recognize the majority the Government has, as of September 4, 1984. However, we all know that for a number of reasons Members opposite have frittered away that mandate. It appears they have lost touch with reality. This legislation is another example of that. The Government seems to be insensitive to the needs of Canadians.
I want to speak very briefly to some of the amendments we introduced and which were shot down by the Government. They were good amendments. They would improve an otherwise imperfect piece of legislation. You were listening very attentively, Mr. Speaker, and you know how the Opposition viewed some of those amendments.
The first one concerned whether the RCMP should be able to suspend a member of the Force without full pay and benefits. We tried to get the Solicitor General to reconsider his position. We indicated yesterday, and we repeat ourselves today, that his position would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. By suspending an officer without full pay and benefits we are in effect convicting, condemning and hanging him or her before they have an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. It is common practice that when someone is suspended in the Civil Service they receive full pay and benefits until a final determination is made as to their guilt or innocence. The fundamental principle of our justice system is that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yesterday I pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of the Government with respect to that issue.
When the Solicitor General was occupying another portfolio, that of the Minister of National Revenue, he introduced what was entitled a Declaration of Taxpayer Rights. He probably sent one to your office as well. It contained some highfalutin principles. Given his position on this legislation today, you have to question his credibility over what is contained in this Declaration of Taxpayer Rights. He talks about the presumption of honesty. He says taxpayers are entitled to every benefit allowed by the law.


Don Boudria: Unless they are RCMP officers.


John V. Nunziata: opportunity to make a general complaint about policies of the Force.
Commissioner Marin was looking at the issue objectively in terms of the best interests of Canadians to determine what would be the best form of a citizens' complaint bureau. He felt that Canadians should have the opportunity to complain about policies. That recommendation is at page 74 of the report and I will read it again today because it was a good recommendation. It reads:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police should adopt as their definition of a complaint the following: "Any communication received from a member of the public, either orally or in writing, which criticizes the behaviour of a member of the Force or alleges the failure of the Force itself to meet public expectations".
The Marin Commission felt it was important that complaints be defined in such a fashion as to allow Canadians the right to complain if the Force did not meet public expectations. I would submit that the commissioner is not, at times, in a position to objectively determine what the expectations of the public are. We know that the RCMP is a paramilitary organization. I do not want you to misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is the finest police force anywhere in the world and I challenge anyone to name a better police force. We are trying to improve something that is already near perfect. We believe that a system which allows for general complaints would improve the public perception of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Marin made that recommendation and it was refused by the Government.
We have found that a number of recommendations of the RCMP division staff relations representatives were not adopted by the Government. I think they were not adopted because the commissioner was not happy with the recommendations so he spoke to the Solicitor General and was able to persuade him to see it his way. Obviously, there was a bias in the submissions of the commissioner. He did not want to have his authority eroded in any way. Some of the amendments suggested by the officers themselves would, I suppose, in some way, erode that authority and the commissioner was not too happy about it. It is obvious that the Solicitor General was once again taking instructions from the commissioner.
I spoke on the issue of suspension without pay. Yesterday I spoke on the issue of the external review committee. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the external review committee will consist of five individuals, and the concern of the RCMP officers was that they wanted some say in the appointment of these individuals in order to put them above suspicion. As you know, Canadians are very seriously concerned about the patronage practised by the Government over the last 16 months, notwithstanding the promises it made during the last election campaign. One cannot have full faith that the Government will appoint people based on merit rather than partisan views.
In their submission the staff relations representatives say that members of the Force and the public expect a balanced, objective, nonpartisan review of matters presented to this external review committee. They suggested that rather than simply allowing the Governor in Council to make the appoint-
RCMP Act
ments, the Governor in Council should consult with the national executive committee in order to ensure that these individuals are not Party hacks and flacks. That is important, Mr. Speaker.
The legislation that was passed by Parliament in 1984 with regard to the Security Intelligence Service said that the members of the external review board were to be appointed by the Governor in Council in consultation with the Opposition. That was inserted and supported by all members of the Force because it was believed that when dealing with the Security Intelligence Service we could not make partisan appointments of political hacks to review the actions of that service. In order to put it above suspicion it was decided by the previous Liberal administration to consult with the Opposition before appointments were made. Indeed, we were consulted not too many months ago with respect to appointments to the External Review Board for the Security Intelligence Service. The Government sought our opinion, which we gave, and I assume that the New Democratic Party gave their opinion with respect to the proposed candidates for this Board.
Since this is a good system. Why would the Government not follow the example of the Liberal administration with respect to the Security Intelligence Service and say with respect to this legislation dealing with an external review board of RCMP complaints that the Opposition should be consulted about appointments to this External Review Board? That is not to say that the Opposition can veto particular appointments, but at least they are consulted and can ensure that individuals will have a balanced, objective and non-partisan perspective.
In conclusion, we in the Official Opposition support the legislation. It has been a long time in coming. We introduced it when we were in office not so long ago, but for a number of reasons the legislation was not passed. We believe that it is a step in the right direction, and while the RCMP officers themselves do not support every aspect of the legislation, they state in the conclusion of their recommendations that they are speaking for the majority of members of the RCMP and request that Hon. Members fully consider their recommendations and concerns when finalizing the amendments to Bill C-65. They request all-Party support in having this Bill finally passed as it contains benefits to their members and the public.
That sums up the position, but I would conclude by saying that their recommendations were not fully considered by the Government. If the Government adopted their recommendations and the recommendations of the Opposition, this piece of legislation would be better. It is flawed but it is a step in the right direction and we intend to support it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) with respect to the importance of, according members of the RCMP, the right to full collective bargaining. That is not to suggest that current members of the RCMP would vote for collective bargaining at this point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Towers) is quite right.


RCMP Act
that a clear majority of members throughout Canada have opted to support a system of divisional representatives at the present time. I might note that part of the basis for that particular system, however, was a promise made in 1974 that there would be direct representation by members of the RCMP at the bargaining table. That was a promise made under a Liberal Government, a promise that was never kept.
Considering that the Hon. Member has indicated his support for the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining rights for members of the RCMP, why have previous Liberal Governments refused to introduce that fundamental principle of collective bargaining in their legislation? It is all well and good for him to stand up now in Opposition and say that they support collective bargaining rights for members of the RCMP, but the Hon. Member himself indicated that his Party introduced similar legislation on four or five previous occasions, but that each Bill his Government introduced denied members of the RCMP the right to collective bargaining. How can he stand up now and say that his Party supports full and free collective bargaining when, in the next breath, he points out that his Government introduced legislation which denied that fundamental right?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, therein lies the difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is right.


An Hon. Member:: There is none.


John V. Nunziata: They come up with a policy and it becomes Party policy which every last member of the New Democratic Party of Canada must follow, notwithstanding whatever happens. They stick to that policy and do not change according to changing times. The NDP are caught in the past. They get caught up in their own rhetoric and policies. Is it any wonder that the NDP will never be in a position to govern in Canada and, indeed, are destined to third place?
On the other hand, the Liberal Party is a Party of reform. We are not slaves to the past but recognize that in changing times one has to continually review policy. The Liberal Party is a Party of thinkers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Hon. Members opposite laugh. They may joke about it but we in the Liberal Party are constantly reviewing policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: It is important to keep in touch with what Canadians are thinking. The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has no direction or policy.
I understand that the Conservatives will hold another convention in March. They get together for the sake of public relations. If you attend our conventions, Mr. Speaker, you will
see that we work at our conventions because we are concerned about developing policies in the best interest of Canadians.
In response to the question from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I have indicated how I feel about the issue of collective bargaining for members of the Force. I have taken a position and will make every effort to convince my colleagues and other grass roots members of our Party to make it Party policy.
I believe that a principle is at issue. Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of members of the RCMP may not want collective bargaining rights, it is my view that they should be given that right if they decide in the future that they want to bargain as a collective unit. I believe it is a matter of principle and that they should have the right to choose to be represented by a union or association with all the rights accorded to other Canadians. Most other Canadians and other police forces have the right to collective bargaining.
I am not suggesting that the RCMP should have the right to strike, because it is an essential service, but I do not see why its members should not be afforded the right to bargain collectively and to have one organization represent the interests of all members of the Force so they may improve their lot as a unit.
I have indicated my position on the matter, I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate what the Government's position is. If its position vis-a-vis unions generally is any indication, it is obvious that the Government is opposed to affording the RCMP effective bargaining rights. If you left it up to the Government of Canada today, the Government would outlaw and abolish unions. That is the Government's mindset about organized labour.
I hope I have answered the question, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are over. Debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I had a number of other questions for my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), but I will ask them on another occasion.
I am pleased to rise and participate in third reading debate on this important and long overdue legislation. It set out to accomplish two basic objectives. Initially the purpose of the legislation was to establish a system of review external to the RCMP of the complaints made by members of the Force, a grievance procedure of substance as opposed to the rather paternalistic and Neanderthal labour relations policies which are currently governing the RCMP.
The second major area of concern was the question of complaints made by members of the public about activities, either about the Force generally or about individual members. Those are the two basic objectives of the Bill.


The Bill is based very loosely on recommendations of the Marin Commission which was established in 1974. Your Honour will recall that that commission was established following certain allegations made by a number of disgruntled members of the RCMP about the practices and policies of the Force at that time.
Since the commission issued its report in 1976, almost 10 years ago now, there have been a succession of Bills by Liberal Governments and now the Conservative Government on this question.
There is no question that this legislation does represent an improvement over the status quo. We in the New Democratic Party believe it falls far short of legislation which would truly bring into the twentieth century the practices and policies of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, both in the area of Labour relations and in the area of review of public complaints.
1 tabled an amendment, which was ruled out of order. In effect it stated our fundamental concern with respect to the first area on which I have touched, that is, the question of the right to full collective bargaining by members of the RCMP, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Association of 17 Divisions has now been in existence for six years and it includes some 2,800 members of the RCMP. This non-profit organization has been set up to maintain and promote the honour of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and of professional policemen. Its purpose is also to promote, support and defend the status and interests of the Association as well as the well-being and interests of its membership. The Association represents all ranks up to staff sergeant.

1 think it is important at this point in the debate to underline some of the accomplishments of the Association of 17 Divisions. It is certainly accurate to suggest that the association has been more active in the Province of Quebec. Indeed- [Translation]
Recently, Mr. Speaker, at least 90 per cent of RCMP members in the Province of Quebec voted in favour of collective bargaining rights. They do not want the right to strike, nor did they ever want it. However they are adamant in their quest for the same rights as those enjoyed by all other Canadians, including the right of freedom of association.
I hope the Government will grant these basic rights to RCMP members in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I must also underscore the fact that the Association of 17 Divisions has been the subject of RCMP surveillance. In the past the Association asked for a 1,000-odd-page report prepared by the RCMP Commissioner, but to this day he has refused to release roughly 197 pages to RCMP members. In connection with those pages, Mr. Speaker, we are wondering why the Association of 17 Divisions should even
RCMP Act
come under surveillance. Why this surveillance of the Association of 17 Divisions?
Mr. Speaker, I insist that the Government must release that information as well as the file on surveillance of the Association and give them to the Association of 17 Divisions.

The association has sought, as I said, the fundamental right to collective bargaining, a right which is accorded to all other police forces in Canada and which remains denied under the Neanderthal policies of this Government.
Some of the accomplishments of the association have been impressive indeed. It sought the elementary right to counsel for members of the RCMP who were facing disciplinary proceedings. But it had to go to court to obtain that right and the Federal Court said: "Yes, members of the RCMP are entitled to the basic right to counsel".
In 1981 when the former Solicitor General sought to break faith with members of the RCMP on retroactive pay, it was thanks to the commitment and dedication of members of the Association of 17 Divisions that that retroactivity was granted.
I could go on about its accomplishments in pushing for improvements to pensions of widows and widowers of members of the RCMP and other accomplishments, but suffice to say at this point that the association has made a valuable contribution to improving the working conditions within the Force and the recommendations made to the committee should have been heeded.
With respect to the question of external review, it is our position that while this is a step forward, certainly members of the Force should have the right to collective bargaining, a right that was also refused by the previous Government.
We proposed a number of other important amendments as well. We suggested that the provision for ordered statements should be abolished. We suggested that the provisions in the Bill which would allow suspension without pay, sometimes for months on end, were Draconian, unfair and that they should be changed.

In 1974, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government promised that RCMP members would have the right to be directly represented at the bargaining table. I will read that promise. There were 14 all told, and promise No. 9 was as follows: [English]
"One divisional representative shall be directly involved in pay negotiation at the bargaining table". What happened to that promise, Mr. Speaker? Eleven years later-

-eleven years later: nothing at all.

The Government has refused to accept its responsibilities to keep the promises made to members of the RCMP at that time.


RCMP Act
There are other changes as well that we sought with respect to the policies, provisions and legislation in this area. A draft code of conduct was tabled in the committee. Let me commend the Minister for having tabled draft regulations. I know that, as a former chairperson of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments, he recognizes the fundamental importance of the regulatory process. Those regulations would maintain the provision requiring members of the RCMP to notify the commissioner three months before getting involved in a common law relationship or getting married.
There is no other police force in the country, probably no other police force in North America which tells its members, the men and women, that they have to send a note to the commissioner telling him that they are going to get involved in a common law relationship three months beforehand, or telling him three months beforehand that they are going to get married. What kind of Neanderthal and backward labour relations policy is that? It is just one illustration of the kind of policy which is continuing today.
The subcommittee on equality rights heard witnesses from across Canada. It made unanimous and strong recommendations to the Government that the current policy of the RCMP which denies employment to gays and lesbians solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is a policy which is indefensible in this day and age and which certainly should be stricken from the books. Equality in Canada is equality for all, not just equality for those who happen to be heterosexual. The committee heard from a member who, after 18 years of faithful and loyal service to the RCMP, a senior member and officer, was told that because he happened to be gay, he was losing his job, his pension and everything else.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I challenge Hon. Members on the Government side to stand up instead of just muttering in the background. I challenge them to stand up and defend that kind of reactionary policy. That kind of policy has no place in Canada today. If the Government does not move forward because of the dinosaurs in the tory caucus, I hope that the courts will insist that this kind of policy has no place in Canadian society today.
I could discuss as well the serious concerns which have been expressed about the role of women within the RCMP; the fact that the turnover rate of women in the RCMP is at least twice as high as that of men. We heard representations in the subcommittee on equality rights that the conditions of women within the force are certainly less than satisfactory. I hope the Force will come into the 20th Century and recognize that women should be treated as full and equal members of the Force.
We also have concerns about the extent to which the Force does not reflect the Canadian mosaic, and the extent to which
visible minorities and native people remain under-represented in the Force.
The fundamental concern in respect of the external review process remains. It still denies freedom of association to members of the Force. I am confident that that will be struck down by the courts as being in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just as other provisions of the Act are in breach of the Charter. The final point with regard to the whole question of external review of grievances is that at the end of the day, after the external review committee has met and considered the grievance, it is still the commissioner himself or herself, although that will take a while in the RCMP, I suspect, who has the final word. The commissioner can reject completely the recommendations made by the external review committee. What kind of grievance procedure is that? Even within the civilian security service there is provision for a grievance procedure which would in fact ensure that members are not at the mercy of the commissioner on those grievances. Provisions of the Bill on external review remain seriously flawed.
A second major area of the Bill is the provisions in respect of public complaints, complaints about either policies of the RCMP generally or with regard to an individual member of the Force. Unfortunately the Bill, as was noted by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, has not accepted the recommendation of the Marin Commission-and in fact the provisions of previous Bills-which ensured that complaints about general policy matters could in fact be brought before the public complaints commission. It is not good enough to suggest, as the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) suggested yesterday, that individual complaints may give rise to policy questions. If a member of the public has a concern about the resources which are deployed by the RCMP in a particular community, if a member of the public has a concern about a policy matter which perhaps a member of the RCMP individually would not wish to raise, he or she should have the right to raise it directly with the public complaints commission.
I was very pleased that the Government accepted my very important and significant amendment in committee which would give the public complaints commission the right to investigate, independent of the RCMP, complaints which it felt warranted an investigation of an independent nature. My amendment was indeed recommended as well by a number of witnesses who made representations to the committee, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I indicate my support for that decision of the Government and my pleasure that the Government moved forward in this important area of independent investigation of complaints.
The Bill falls far short and indeed makes a mockery of the concept of independent review in one fundamental aspect. After the public complaints commission has conducted its review, has perhaps engaged in independent investigation and has come to the conclusion there has been impropriety or wrongdoing, at the end of the day all it can do is go back to the commissioner and say; "Here you are, Mr. Commissioner, here is our recommendation. You do what you like with it. You can accept it or reject it". It is entirely up to the


commissioner. We have internal review of public complaints which flies directly in the face of a fundamental need for external review and a final decision on the part of the public complaints commission itself.
I quoted Clay Ruby on this point in my comments at report stage when I proposed an amendment which would have ensured that the public complaints commission would have had the final say. It is not good enough for a police force to investigate itself and make decisions about what disciplinary action will follow from its own misdeeds. This kind of accountability falls far short of what we in the New Democratic Party believe to be essential.
I would note that the Manitoba Police Commission, under the enlightened administration of that province, brought forward a system which ensures that the final decision on public complaints is indeed in the hands of the Manitoba Police Commission, not in the hands of members of the police. We believe that it is important that there be greater accountability to the contracting provinces and the territories. I note the commitment of the Solicitor General in response to my question in committe that indeed the territories would have representation on this public complaints commission as well.
In looking at the process now, we have to ask ourselves: Given the track record of this commissioner, are we satisfied that he will have the final say on public complaints? I have to say that our answer to that is an unequivocal no, absolutely not. For example, it was this commissioner who, following the revelations of wrongdoings, of illegalities and of breaches of the Criminal Code and other federal statutes, said: "I have examined this", and not only was there no prosecution whatsoever, but not one member of the RCMP was subjected to any form of discipline as a result of those wrongdoings.


David Orlikow: Some of them were promoted.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Indeed, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Oriikow) points out, some of those who were involved in these illegalities and wrongdoings were promoted. That is the commissioner who is being given the final say on public complaints. It is the same commissioner who has advocated that the RCMP should have the right of access to all Government records. It is the same commissioner, it has been suggested by a very senior and respected member of the RCMP, Superintendent A1 Nowlan, who was well aware in 1977 when he was the commissioner designate that he was misleading the then Solicitor General, the Hon. Francis Fox, in respect of the full scope and nature of wrongdoings. It was not, as Francis Fox told the House in 1977, an isolated incident of wrongdoing. Superintendent A1 Nolan has put his reputation on the line and has said that it is his view as a senior member that indeed the commissioner designate, the current commissioner, was well aware at the time that he was deliberately misleading the Minister. I call upon the Justice Committee to give Superintendent Nowlan an opportunity to appear before that committee and to make these very serious allegations before that forum.
RCMP Act
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling that my time on third reading is coming to an end. I want to reiterate our fundamental concern that while this Bill does represent progress in some respects, it falls short of what should be accorded, both in terms of the basic rights of members of the RCMP, and also in terms of the confidence of Canadians in the public complaints commission.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member for Burnaby stretches things a little too far.


David Orlikow: It takes one to know one.


John V. Nunziata: It is obvious that the Hon. Member for Burnaby is using his protection in this House with respect to Superintendent Nowlan. Allegations were made and I would simply call upon the Member for Burnaby to call them allegations. He often speaks of legal principles, about the presumption of innoncence and how one has to protect the innocent in society, yet he referred to Mr. Nowlan's accusations as being reality.
If he is acting responsibly as a parliamentarian and an individual trained in law he should not refer to allegations as fact. I agree that the allegation should have been investigated, but I would simply caution the Member not to use his immunity in order to attack individuals. The Hon. Member has done it before when he accused senior Petro-Canada executives of being CIA spies. He used his parliamentary immunity at committee to do this. He subsequently apologized and we accepted that apology. I would simply ask him to be cautious regarding the use of parliamentary privilege as it affects everyone in this House. When allegations are made they should be referred to as such and not as if they are substantiated facts.
The question I would like to put to the Hon. Member for Burnaby is with respect to his Party's position on Bill C-65. He used phrases such as "seriously flawed, makes a mockery of fundamental review, flies directly in the face, the Bill falls far short oF', yet the New Democratic Party intends to support Bill C-65. If the Bill is seriously flawed, as they claim it is, why do they speak with such rhetoric in their opposition to the Bill, yet intend to support it? I mean you cannot whistle and blow at the same time. You either support it or you don't support it.
We have indicated, as far as the Official Opposition is concerned, that we have concerns with respect to the Bill, but they are not fundamental concerns, and we intend to support it. Being an individual of principle, how can the Hon. Member for Burnaby justify his rhetoric and reconcile it with the intent of his Party to support the Bill? I would like to ask him when he speaks, does he speak for the New Democratic Party? 1 know he often makes it clear that he is not, and that his Members at times wince when he takes particular positions on various subjects, but is he truly speaking for the New Democratic Party?


RCMP Act


Svend Johannes Robinson: Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to respond fully to that little rant by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. If there is one Member out of the 282 Members in this Parliament, who should not lecture anyone about dragging reputations through the mud it is the Member for York South-Weston.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I remember day after day as that Member stood in the House and dragged the reputation of the Premier of New Brunswick through the mud based on allegations, which to this day he has not had the courage or integrity to stand up and defend. Don't let him talk in that hypocritcal and phoney manner about dragging reputations through the mud.
The Hon. Member asks, how it is we support this Bill when it is flawed, both in terms of the grievance procedure and in terms of the public complaints process. He is right, the Hon. Member has said that this Bill is largely repeating a Liberal Bill and that Bill was a seriously flawed Bill. We did what we could in committee to improve this legislation. We did what we could at report stage to improve this legislation.
I note that the Liberal Party, and the representative for the Liberal Party who was so concerned about this Bill and, had grave reservations about a number of elements, but, when push came to shove, how many amendments did members of that Party suggest to the Bill at report stage? Did they suggest three or two? No, that Party which was so concerned about this legislation, collective bargaining, improving the grievance procedure, did not suggest one amendment-nothing. Don't let them stand up and sanctimoniously prattle to Members of the House and the public about improving the Bill when they did nothing whatsoever to try to improve the Bill themselves.


John V. Nunziata: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston on what I hope to be a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: I am alleging that the self-righteous Member for Burnaby is deliberately misleading the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: I am prepared to substantiate my allegations. He indicated to this House that the Liberal-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I must stop the Member immediately because I believe he may have used- not intentionally-appropriate words in saying "deliberately misleading the House". Maybe the Hon. Member would wish to correct the wording.


John V. Nunziata: It is obvious that either he was misleading the House or was innocently naive in his submission.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John V. Nunziata: I will withdraw my allegation that he deliberately misled the House, but his words will speak for themselves. He said that the Liberal Party did not do anything to improve the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt, but may I remind all Members that there are ten minutes reserved, for questions or comments. Perhaps there will be some time left-who knows-after the Member for Burnaby has replied.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make it very clear that we have attempted to make a number of important amendments, which were successfully defeated by the Government. Our Party certainly feels that, while we recognize the Bill may improve somewhat the status quo, it falls far short of what is acceptable. Indeed, it is like the same old Liberal Bill that was presented, and on that basis we certainly intend to oppose this Bill on division.
I have a copy of the Order Paper in front of me, and I am looking at 11 motions tabled at report stage. I challenge the Member for York South-Weston to point to one of those motions which was set down in the name of the Liberal Party, just one.


David Orlikow: One short question. When he was listing some of the criticism of this Bill which were made by the Equality Now Committee, am I correct in my assumption that a majority of the Members of that committee were Conservative Members and that the committee made unanimous recommendations, which of course Conservatives supported?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to confirm the statement made by the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). The Equality Now Committee recommendations were made by a committee of seven Members of Parliament. Five of those members were Conservative members from all across Canada; one was a Liberal; and I had the honour to represent the New Democratic Party. Let us only hope that those recommendations will be taken seriously by the Government and not ignored, as has been the case with other committee reports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General who appointed the Marin Commission in 1974, I am pleased to see some of his recommendations implemented in Bill C-65. However, I am extremely disappointed that many of his key recommendations have not been accepted.
In particular, I am disappointed that the very strong recommendations made by the RCMP division representatives in their brief and the Association of 17 Divisions, that there be no suspension unless it be with pay and benefits while a charge against the member in question is pending, were not incorporated into the Bill. The division representatives are duly elected by the men of the RCMP throughout the country. They


have a very strong and widely-based support. They recommended that the Bill be amended so that the suspension would be only with pay and benefits. As I said yesterday, it is my firm belief that to suspend any member of the Force pending a charge without pay and benefits is in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Charter is entrenched the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. If one is innocent until proven guilty, then there is no basis for a person who is simply charged with a disciplinary infraction, or whatever, to have his pay and benefits suspended. I do not want to enter into the hot debate which just took place between my colleague and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Mrs. Champagne:: Why not?


Mr. Allmand:: No, I will not. I would rather concentrate on the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby knows, since we were on the legislative committee together, that we presented a good number of amendments to the Bill in committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about in the House?


William Warren Allmand: As the Hon. Member knows, both his amendments and mine were defeated in committee by the overwhelming Conservative majority. One can only bang one's head up against a wall so many times. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Burnaby has a harder head than I.


John V. Nunziata: No question about that!


William Warren Allmand: Rather than continually formulating amendments which will be voted down without any real consideration by this large Conservative majority, I have better ways to spend my time. It is too bad that those amendments were defeated.
On this particular amendment, there was wide-spread and deep support among the members of the Force. They made that clear before the committee. It was something which was also recommended by the Marin Commission, which spent a good deal of time consulting and studying the issue, not only in Canada with other police forces but outside the country as well.
The other matter the Bill does not deal with, and which I think is unfortunate, is leaving the final decision on public complaints with the Commissioner rather than with an independent authority. That is contrary to all the principles of justice and equity. If one is responsible for the administration of a body, in this case the RCMP, then it is not proper that that person should be the final judge on accusations or complaints made by the public against members of the Force while administering the Force at the same time. That person then becomes both judge and administrator. To me that is not proper. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to accept an amendment along these lines.
I am pleased to recall that during my term as Solicitor General certain improvements were made to the personnel policy with respect to the RCMP. At that time we brought in,
RCMP Act
for the first time, overtime pay for members of the Force, changes with respect to the marriage rules and the admittance of women into the Force, and the division representative system was set up. The division representative system was certainly a movement in the right direction. According to some members of the Force it is working well.
However, there is still a difficulty in that the RCMP in many of our large cities must work side-by-side with other police forces on joint efforts. The members of those other police forces have the right to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining has been tried in our police forces in the country for several years. It has not been abused.
At the time of the introduction of the division representative system there was not that much experience with collective bargaining. That was in the mid 1970s. I want to make it clear that I am talking about the right to collective bargaining and not the right to strike. The Association of 17 Divisions has not asked for the right to strike. The other police forces in Canada have the right to collective bargaining and they do not have the right to strike. So we are not debating the right to strike issue. However, after this number of years, having seen what has taken place with other police forces in the country, and in light of the fact that the RCMP must work shoulder-to-shoul-der in many cases on drug and organized crime matters with provincial and municipal police forces which have the right to collective bargaining, I believe the time has come for the RCMP to have the right to collective bargaining.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby is right when he says that the Liberal Party did not always take that position. As 1 have said, we have observed what has happened over the years. By the way, we in the Liberal Party are much more broadly based than those in the NDP. We have a much wider range of opinions. We have people in our Party who always believed in the right to collective bargaining and others who did not.


Ms. Mitchell:: So that cancels it out and makes it neutral, then.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, 1 get a great kick out of members of the New Democratic Party. It was an NDP Government in Saskatchewan which came to Ottawa to knock out the entrenchment of women's rights in the Constitution, among other Governments. It was the Blakeney Government with others which did that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It was the New Democratic Party which got them in.


William Warren Allmand: Their record is far from unblemished when they have been in power. I had to deal with NDP Governments in Manitoba and in British Columbia with respect to Indian rights matters. Their record was far from clean. However, I do not want to get into this matter. I am being provoked by the group over to my left.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Tell us about the neutral Liberals.


RCMP Act


William Warren Allmand: Apart from that, I do not think they are a bad bunch. However, I would like to continue.
Having observed in the country the experience with collective bargaining by other police forces at the municipal and provincial level, I can see no reason whatsoever for continuing to deny this right to members of the RCMP. Even if we are late in coming to the decision, our decision is still valid today. I hope that when we are in Government, in a few years' time, and introduce a Bill on this subject we will have the support of the NDP and even of the Conservatives.
As I have said, there is some improvement in the Bill. However, there is still much to be done. I referred to some of the matters on which work was still required. It is my hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs- and I see that the Chairman of that committee is in the House-will continue to survey the operations of the RCMP in order that we can be made aware of how these changes are being implemented at the administrative level. Perhaps we could be made aware whether or not they are working and how we can continue to make changes so that members of the Force, and members of the public who have complaints against the Force, be justly treated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have just a brief question to ask the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), the former Solicitor General. I believe the Hon. Member was Solicitor General at the time the divisional representative system was established in 1974. He will recall that at that time a vote was taken amongst all the members of the RCMP as to whether or not they wanted to have a division representative system established. At the time the vote was taken, 14 specific promises were made to members with respect to the division representative system. Promise number nine, one of the most important promises, was that: "One divisional representative shall be directly involved in pay negotiation at the bargaining table". Eleven years later, that promise remains unfulfilled.
Would the Hon. Member tell us why he, as Solicitor General, when he had the opportunity to keep that promise, refused to do so? Why is it that members of the RCMP are today still waiting for that promise he made on behalf of his Government in 1974 to be kept?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member.
I am extremely disappointed that that commitment was not kept. The divisional representative system was started around 1974-1975, and that was one of the commitments which was made. I was Solicitor General at the time, not President of the Treasury Board, and perhaps some day the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to know how things work within Cabinet.


An Hon. Member:: Not unless he becomes a Conservative.


William Warren Allmand: There is push-and-pull, bargaining and lobbying. I cannot reveal what happens in Cabinet, but I myself have raised that question over the years following my tenure as Solicitor General, both as a backbencher on the government side and in hearings in committee on this particular Bill. I asked why representatives of the division were not present at the Treasury Board hearings on this issue. I think the Hon. Member is completely right. 1 support that principle and we have to continue to work within our Party, within Parliament and in the Treasury Board to get it accepted.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate, I would like to say that had the RCMP still had the responsibility for the security service, which it had for so many years, this debate would have been much lengthier, and we would have been much more critical because, along with many other Canadians, I have always had very grave reservations about the activities of the RCMP, particularly with respect to the secrecy upon which it insisted. I am still not satisfied with the secrecy insisted upon by the present service, having to do with matters which occurred 50 and 60 years ago, but this is not the time to debate that.
This Bill is based, somewhat loosely, on the recommendations of the Marin Commission. Justice Marin was appointed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) when he was the Solicitor General because of many complaints which were received. The Marin Commission was established in 1976 to study proposals for creating a public complaints bureau in the RCMP and to introduce a formal grievance procedure for members of the Force.
Since the commission issued its report almost 10 years ago, successive Liberal and Conservative Solicitors General have introduced legislation into the House. While the particular version presented by the current Solicitor General does represent an improvement on the status quo, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), there still remains a number of outstanding issues which we have addressed throughout the committee process, and in the House, some of which I would like to put on the record.
These issues focus on two broad areas; First, the degree to which the public complaints commission has any substantive independence and, second, with respect to the grievance procedure. We have questioned its integrity on the basis that the Bill will vest Final decision-making authority on disciplinary action with the commissioner of the RCMP as opposed to giving the final authority to the grievance committee.
In the course of the committee hearings, presentations were made by the Association of 17 Divisions, an organization representing almost 3,000 members of the Force. Its presentation was particularly instructive on the flaws inherent in the Bill's grievance procedure.
Similarly, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and its chief spokesperson, Alan Borovoy, raised key concerns with regard to the problems in the Government's proposal for a public complaints commission as outlined in the present Bill.


The major shortcoming in the Government's proposal for the public complaints commission, with which it has refused to deal, is the final decision-making power with respect to any complaint from the public resides with the commissioner of the RCMP. Section 45.46(2) makes this clear. This overriding authority granted to the commissioner is a departure from the spirit and letter of the Marin report. Justice Marin was unequivocal about this aspect of the process. Fie stated, and I quote:
The principal requirement of any credible reviewing authority is that it enjoy the confidence of both the public on whose behalf it is acting and the Force whose actions it is reviewing. Such confidence is possible, in our opinion, if this authority is visibly independent from the RCMP and responsible directly to Parliament rather than to the Government of the Day ... The need for a visibly independent body is based on perceptions held by many who have difficulty in understanding how the Force can be both supervisor and final abiter for public complaints.
That power given to the RCMP, particularly the commissioner, is, as far as I can tell, not given to any other person or body in this country. Regrettably, Bill C-65 rejects the arguments put forward by Mr. Justice Marin. Witnesses who appeared before the Legislative Committee pointed out that the commissioner's ultimately determinant role in the complainants' process may well deter the general public from reporting abuses or complaints, in the knowledge that there will be no outside investigation with substantive decision-making powers about appropriate follow-up action.
In this context, Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stressed the need for an independent investigative role for the public complaints commission. He argued that only independent investigations would ensure that a thorough and partial investigation of complaints is made and, equally important, that such investigations are perceived as independent and impartial. To this end, the Hon. Member for Burnaby proposed an important amendment which would empower the public complaints commission to conduct investigations of complaints where it deemed appropriate. The commission could then use its own staff to investigate a complaint with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents.
Clearly, this amendment, making explicit the investigative powers of the public complaints commission, would have been an important addition to the Bill. However, the broader problem of the final authority of the RCMP commissioner remains. An amendment to deal with this issue was defeated by the Conservatives in committee.
To improve the complaints process, we have also argued that the Bill should impose a reasonable time limit in dealing with public complaints, or at least ensure that a comprehensive status report is sent to the complainant. Members of the public who have made the effort to file a complaint should be kept informed of the progress of their file.
Another important concern is that the Bill does not permit the public to make complaints with respect to general policy concerns about the RCMP, as well as about specific conduct arising out of isolated incidents. I do not want to repeat the arguments I made yesterday, but I remind Members that 1 gave illustrations of the relationship between the RCMP and
RCMP Act
native people on reserves, the role of the RCMP in entrapment in drug cases, and several others.
As addressed in one of our amendments, the issue here is to facilitate the investigation of complaints, such as the hiring policy of the RCMP, or the nature of police services provided, for example, in remote communities. Let me point out there are virtually no members of visible minorities in Canada who are members of the RCMP. There are few, if any, members of the RCMP who are of native origin. That is amazing given the important policing functions the RCMP has regarding native people. I am happy to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crosbie) agreeing with me.
Both of these very legitimate issues require that the definition of a complaint be broadened in a way which would permit more policy-oriented issues to be raised by the public and investigated by the commission. The Marin Report anticipated such concerns would fall within the mandate of the commission. In sum, our basic concerns about the public complaints commission are threefold: That the final say on complaints reside with the commission, not the RCMP commissioner; that the RCMP be required to issue a status report to the complainant and, in any event, a time limit be imposed on the investigation; that the definition of a complaint be broadened to allow for policy or administrative concerns to be investigated by the commission.
Regarding the grievance procedure, we believe the second major part of the Bill deals with the establishment of a formal grievance procedure for members of the Force. Fundamentally, the main thrust of our criticisms of this section of the Bill echo the concerns of the Association of 17 Divisions. Their spokesperson came before the committee and argued forcefully that it is time, indeed past time, that members of the Force were entitled to collective bargaining with independent, binding arbitration of grievances, including dismissal, suspension or financial penalties. Such arbitration would be handled by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, similar to the provisions for the Civilian Security Intelligence Service. Why should the Government deny to members of the RCMP what it has given to members of the CSIS by way of labour protection?
The Government refuses to listen to these eminently sensible proposals which would bring labour practices in the RCMP in line with all other major police forces in North America. While I am not a lawyer, I am certain that if RCMP officers take this case to court, given the Charter section which guarantees freedom of association, the Government will be ordered to permit RCMP officers to form an association if they so desire. That simply means the Government will have to pay a substantial amount of money to lawyers to defend the indefensible position it is taking. For a Government concerned about the deficit, that seems to me to be a pretty stupid path to follow.
In light of the Government's unwillingness to move in this important area, we proposed a number of less sweeping measures designed to tighten protection for members of the Force.


RCMP Act
We find unacceptable the provisions which allow for suspension of members without pay and benefits. As it stands now, the Bill flies in the face of the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence. That principle has always been part of our system of justice, we believe, and it is certainly part of our Constitution.
A member of the Force could be suspended by the RCMP commissioner for a year or more, and then be found innocent of the alleged offence or wrong-doing. In the meantime, this person, suspended without pay, may have been forced to sell his or her house, find another job, and certainly not be in a position to bear the costs of legal counsel to ensure adequate representation. In fact, the Association of 17 Divisions cited the example of a member of the Force who, for more than two years, was forced to live on unemployment insurance and savings to support his family. As it turned out, all charges were dropped. Yet great hardship was forced upon the member and his family. We fully support the Association's argument that there should be guarantees written into this Bill to ensure that such unfair situations cannot arise again in the future.
Similar to the major flaw in the public complaints process, the grievance procedure grants the final word on grievances and appeals to the RCMP commissioner. The final say on serious grievances should be with the external review committee, assuming that collective bargaining under the Public Service Staff Relations Act is not accepted or ordered by the courts.
In this context, the Association of 17 Divisions has made three basic points which the Solicitor General has unfortunately chosen to ignore. The first is that the commissioner not constitute the final level of appeal in the grievance process. Secondly, that there be provisions enabling a member to appeal the commissioner's decision to an independent arbitrator. Thirdly, that the RCMP Act be brought in line with the Canada Labour Code and the usual labour practices concerning the submission and adjudication of grievances.
In addition to this fundamental point, we argue that there should be a time limit on the rendering of decisions with respect to grievances. This would guard against excessive delays on the part of the commissioner which cause considerable inconvenience and possibly financial hardship to members concerned. With the right to collective bargaining denied, we proposed an amendment, rejected by the Government, which would permit group grievances to be launched by members of the Force. This provision would allow individual members to speak on behalf of a number of fellow officers in situations where a particular policy or administrative regulation has a similar impact on an entire detachment.
In conclusion, we accept that Bill C-65 is an improvement on the status quo. It codifies rules for grievances and public complaints. However, throughout the committee process the NDP argued that significant amendments are necessary to strengthen this legislation to ensure that the grievance and public complaints process command the respect of members of the Force and the general public. It simply is not acceptable for Parliament to send out the message, in the words of one
expert, that it is proper, fair or just for a police force to investigate itself and make decisions about what disciplinary action to follow from its own misdeeds. Clayton Ruby said that in reference to an earlier version of this Bill. Neither is it acceptable to deny, as this Bill does, the right to collective bargaining for members of the Force. We in the NDP take issue with the Government's in-house approach to grievance adjudication and public complaints investigation. We made clear our support for those groups and individual Canadians who believe that there should be substantive independence for the public complaints committee, and that there should be full collective bargaining for members of the RCMP.
As my colleagues indicated, despite the fact this Bill is an improvement over the status quo, we believe it is still fatally flawed in many respects and we do not propose to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg):: Questions or comments?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, after that excellent speech I would like to ask the Hon. Member to elaborate on some concerns he raised in his remarks regarding the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the role of the commissioner in having the final say. As well, the Hon. Member may wish to elaborate on the comments he made with regard to the language question. He raised some concerns yesterday, and anyone who did not pick up on them yesterday may be watching today. I am concerned, in particular, about the element of leaving the final say with the commissioner. Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the final say is left to the commissioner, as it is in this Bill, the RCMP, and particularly the commissioner, becomes the complainant, prosecutor, and judge. It seems to me that no individual should have that kind of power. We have a division of authority for everyone else. I have respect for the RCMP and considerable respect for the present Commissioner in particular, however, I do not think that even he should have that kind of power.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: On division. Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


EXCISE TAX ACT AND RELATED ACTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 31, 1986, consideration of Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 19 (Mr. de Jong) (p. 10322).
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get my notes straight on this. I have in front of me Motion No. 20 which strikes out lines 34 to 43 at page 112. It deals with prescription drugs and health goods. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker? Are we dealing with Motion No. 20? I was under the impression that Motion No. 19 had been dealt with in the previous sitting. I am, however, prepared to proceed to discuss that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We are dealing with Motion No. 19.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am sorry, I thought Motion No. 19 was dealt with previously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. If I understood correctly, Motion No. 19 having been dealt with, I will put the question to the House. Is the House ready for the question?


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am sorry, we are still dealing with Motion No. 19, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We are resuming debate on Motion No. 19. Maybe the Hon. Member has already addressed Motion No. 19.


Simon Leendert de Jong: No, no, I have not. I was, unfortunately, out of the city at that time, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to call the Hon. Member to order, but there is some difficulty due to the fact that the Hon. Member moved the motion. There would, therefore, be a necessity for unanimous consent if the Hon. Member wishes to speak to the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, this is not a major amendment, although it is important to the people affected. The amendment seeks to exempt blind people with seeing-eye dogs from paying the tax on dog food. In terms of revenue gathering, I am sure that it is a very insignificant amount in relation to the several billions of dollars that Bill C-80 will raise for the Government. Exempting blind people from having to pay the tax on dog food is a humane gesture with which, I think, most Members of the House would agree. Government Members who spoke on this in committee generally agreed that blind people should in fact be exempted.
Excise Tax Act
It was pointed out to me after the committee meeting by one of the officials of the Department of Finance that blind people are able to deduct dog food from their income tax. I wonder how many blind people do pay income tax. I suggest that most blind people are poor and that they do not pay much income tax. Therefore, an income tax deduction is not very meaningful to them.
Another area which we would like to have exempted from the tax is feed for horses. Many horses in the country are still used for productive purposes. Horses are still used in the lumbering industry. Religious groups such as the Mennonites and Hutterites still use horses. We are of the opinion that putting a tax on food for horses is wrong.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are hoping that the Government will accept our amendment in the name of humanity as well as common sense to show that, while it is interested in gathering revenues, it will stop taxing food for guide dogs and for horses used for productive processes. I hope the Government Members will find this amendment acceptable.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak briefly on Motion No. 19 moved by the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party which refers to tax on food for guide dogs, and for horses which are used in productive purposes such as farming and logging. 1 certainly support that motion because we still use horses in the logging industry in my province. They are also used for other purposes. In the fishing industry we use horses for raking Irish moss. This is an excellent motion which I hope Government Members will support. It was obviously an oversight in the original legislation. The Government should in no way be taxing food for guide dogs used by blind people because those dogs are a very necessary part of the lives of those people.
I think I could even go a little further and refer to ordinary pets. An awful lot of older people spend a great amount of time with their pets. Many older people do not have families close by and, to some degree, their pet becomes very much a part of their family. I do not think we should put any extra burden on people who are finding it very difficult to get along. I certainly would support this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member may resume his debate this afternoon. It now being one o'clock p.m., we will adjourn until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has long been considered a party of dinosaurs so I am sure that Tory Members will feel a certain kinship with the latest Tory scandal that I have unearthed.
We all know that the Progressive Conservatives have skeletons in their closets going back many, many years. This latest scandal sets a new record for Tory scandals in that it was 200 million years in the making. That is even older than the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
The scandal I am referring to is "fossilgate". Last week an announcement was made of a major find of rare fossils near Parrsboro, Nova Scotia. Following this important find, three tons of fossil specimens were illegally shipped to Harvard University in Boston, contrary to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act.
In all the excitement surrounding the discovery, no permit was applied for or granted. I sincerely hope that no harm will come to Canadian heritage in this case and that these fossils will be returned to Nova Scotia after they have been processed and studied.
I ask the Government be more vigilant about making sure that those who need to be aware of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act are made aware of it. We must do everything possible to encourage scientific discovery in Canada, but we must also ensure that our national heritage is protected.



NATIVE PEOPLES


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the provision of education to the people of Canada should not be a privilege for those who can afford it, or those fortunate enough to reside in an area of Canada where the population is concentrated. It must be considered a right of all Canadians to be able to receive the education we all need in this ever changing world.
At a recent conference of school committee chairmen looking into special education for native communities, the chiefs raised some very alarming concerns. Among the 19 schools in one part of the Nishnawbe-Aski area of northern Ontario, there is only one gymnasium, one home economics space, and one library. There is not a single science or laboratory facility.
The chiefs also pointed out that during this current school year, the communities of Lac Seul, Sachigo, and Kasibonika had to delay their school openings by at least a month due to repairs. In the community of Wapekeka it has been five years
since the school burned down in 1981. No new school has yet been built. The children have missed classes and have been educated in temporary facilities.
Furthermore, it appears that there is no official policy on native language education in Ontario.
The education of native children is both a treaty right and a moral responsibility of this House and the country. The Government must act immediately to upgrade standards to meet these pressing needs.



REFUGEES


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, in mid-January of this year an official of the Indian Consulate-General in Toronto, Mr. Inderjit Singh Bindra, set out to obtain refugee status in Canada. Mr. Bindra decided to give up his diplomatic standing and, in effect, defect to Canada rather than follow the orders of his superiors which were to infiltrate a Sikh temple in Toronto and to organize events which would discredit the Sikh community in Canada.
A spokesman of the India High Commission in Ottawa discredited Mr. Bindra by saying that this was only a ploy by him so that his family could settle in Canada.
The Government of India is highly suspect in this case. One only has to recall the violence of June, 1984, when Indian troops descended upon the Sikh religions holiest shrine, Amritsar's Golden Temple, in a bloody assault upon the Sikh minority, a minority that is struggling for an autonomous homeland.
Mr. Bindra, a Sikh, and his family believe that their lives are in grave danger. That is why they do not wish to return to India. The Bindra family are legitimate refugees in the truest sense and I call upon the Government to do everything in its power to help them remain here, free of the grievous harm that will surely befall them if they are forced to return to India.

[ Translation]



FISHERIES


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: As the member for Gaspe in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the first federal-provincial meeting which was held in Quebec city on Friday, January 24, 1986, between my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), and the Quebec Minister responsible for Fisheries. I would like to emphasize the importance of this meeting for the fishermen in my riding, in view of the fact that 60 per cent of all the fishing in Quebec is done in the Gaspe riding. This first


contact between the two levels of Government was marked by cordiality and a determination to co-operate. In line with our policy of national reconciliation, the purpose of this meeting was to foster positive cooperation between the two Ministers. This approach will be reflected in their respective departments and make it possible for their officials to consult, exchange, and discuss various issues of common interest.
The Ministers have concluded that their officials should strive first and foremost to eliminate the duplication of Government programs and services, while harmonizing their respective policies and planning development agreements.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, both ministers unanimously agreed on the need to ensure the quality of sea products. There exist now various methods and programs to improve the quality of fish, and it is not-


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



EQUALITY RIGHTS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Government must respond by February 25 to the report of the parliamentary committee on equality rights which held hearings from Cape Spear, Newfoundland, to Vancouver, British Columbia. We have heard rumours that the Government is having difficulties in obtaining consensus from its caucus on the 85 recommendations that were unanimously agreed to by the all-party parliamentary committee.
As I have said before, and as others on the committee have said, the recommendations of this committee should not be buffeted about by the prevailing political wind. Issues of personal freedom are simply too sacred and too important to be ignored on a partisan basis.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation must be eliminated. Women should be able, if they wish, to participate alongside men in the Canadian Armed Forces in the interests of their country. Adequate, accessible, and affordable child care services must be available, where desired, by all Canadian parents.
We should not have to fight to achieve equality for all in 1986. It seems from my vantage point, Mr. Speaker, that the enemies of equality will smile and smile, and study you to death. Sometimes we are called upon to speak out for principles, even if they are not politically popular.
Canadians hope to hear the Government say that it is prepared to fight for our Charter of Rights to make it a real bastion of equality, humanity, and decency for all Canadians.



PRICE OF CRUDE OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Montreal has just published a report on the situation of the building industry in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this report shows that there will be more growth in the housing sector in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada in the coming months.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that not so long ago, so-called experts, of which a number are now warming the benches opposite, forecast a decrease in activity in this sector. As usual, they were wrong. We have witnessed just the opposite, a substantial increase, since housing starts have gone up from 42,000 units in 1984 to 48,000 in 1985.
According to this report, the outlook and the recovery in this sector had not been this favourable for many years. For instance, housing starts have more than doubled since 1982.
Mr. Speaker, these figures and many others just as favourable confirm the fact that Quebecers, like all Canadians, have regained their confidence in the future.
Our colleagues opposite would be well advised to recognize the many achievements of the Government in all fields of activity instead of sinking to partisan politics as the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (M. Malepart) enjoys doing.



FOOTWEAR AND CLOTHING IMPORTS FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, despite factory shutdowns in Ontario and in Quebec since most footwear quotas were dropped, the Government has now surrendered more jobs by giving the European Community exemptions from various remaining restrictions. In addition, the Government has given the European countries special import rights for some clothing items as well.
How can the Government explain this surrender? More important, is this surrender in the context of the European Community a sign of how weak we will be when it comes to our negotiations on free trade with the United States? We have already seen an incompetence on the part of the Government in sorting out with the provinces, the Canadian provinces themselves, methods of organizing strategy and developing a mandate. We foresee a future of disaster as the Government carries forward these negotiations with the United States. I have to ask, too, if this give-away to the European community-


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



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the courage shown by Mr. Wilson, our Minister of Finance, in allowing the Bank of Canada to make a significant intervention in support of the Canadian dollar, a move which the Liberals had never done. Indeed, $2.5 billion have been made available to that end.
Private and public sector corporations will benefit with major decrease in the cost of their long-term borrowings of foreign funds.
That intervention was also needed to improve the viability of our bilateral trade talks with the United States.
Let us keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the drop in the value of the dollar was engineered by the Liberals. Because of their socialist programs, they caused a drop in our national productivity and hence a reduction in our exports.
The deficit accumulated by the Liberals has discouraged our business people.
The action taken by the Minister of Finance will put an end to that erosion of the value of the Canadian dollar, and put a stop to the short selling of Canadian dollars by speculators of a rather liberal character.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, I accompanied my leader in a tour of the Saguenay region, and we visited the ridings of Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Lac-Saint-Jean, Roberval, Quebec and Levis.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you and the House that the residents of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region are wondering whether they are represented here in Ottawa. Somebody in the riding of Chicoutimi even asked me whether the Member is a man or a woman. I have no idea, I have never seen that Member in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, we met with the employees of the Desbiens plant and I can say that those people will be here next week
despite the fact that the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard) threatened them in an attempt to prevent them from asking Liberal or NDP Members to defend their rights. I commend these people who had the courage to call me. They will be here next week to meet with the Members from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region and try to find a way to re-open that plant.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, February 10 marks the day that wheelchair athlete Rick Hanson completes the half-way point of his "man-in-motion-''world tour. On that day he will arrive in Melbourne, Australia, having travelled exactly one-half the circumference of the globe. He will finish his monumental journey in the spring of 1987 in Vancouver, the city where it all began in March, 1985. He will have visited 33 countries, and will hopefully have reached his goal of raising $10 million for spinal cord research. The funds raised so far remain in the countries he passes through to benefit the disabled living there.
Perhaps even more important, he will have raised the consciousness of the entire world to the plight of the disabled who are denied access to many of the privileges of everyday life because of their disability. In the process he is providing an example of hope for many, many thousands whose lives he touches.
In the coming months he will visit China, Korea, and Japan, and in the fall of this year he will start the final leg of his journey in Newfoundland. His 4,000-mile trek from coast to coast may well be his greatest challenge as he faces the severe weather of a Canadian winter. In all it is estimated that his wheels will have made a total of six million revolutions when his journey is completed.
I ask all Members of the House, all Hon. Senators and all Canadians to make his odyssey a worth-while experience. 1 call upon all Canadians to acknowledge him as a true hero and to support his cause with all the generosity which can be found in our hearts.



INCOME TAX


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on January I the provision which remitted tax on certain allowances and benefits paid to persons residing in the North and in other isolated communities such as Wabush in Labrador was removed. There is little or no positive economic change in northern communities, and the arguments previously put forward are still valid for retaining the remission order. The


economy in northern Canada is reeling from the downturn in Canada's resource industries. The northern tax allowances should immediately be reinstated to help these mostly single industry communities cope with this economic downturn.
I would urge that the Government reinstate the remission provision and consult with northern communities such as Wabush the manner in which the present system can be improved. The Government promised to consult constantly with Canadians. It should immediately honour this commitment by meeting with representatives of northern communities to sort out this problem.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister has bought massive amounts of Canadian dollars. He has intervened to the extent of $2.4 billion in borrowing in U.S. funds. He knows that he can buy dollars, but he also knows that he cannot buy confidence. A line of credit is no substitute for some coherent fiscal and monetary policy. Would the Minister today tell us the date when he will bring in his Budget, or at least assure us that it will be brought in before the end of February?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the Hon. Member's question is it will be brought in before the end of February. I think the comments that he was making about the coherence of the policy of the Government are totally unfounded. The policy that we have been following to deal with the fiscal problem that we were faced with when we took office a year and a half ago has been regarded as being responsible and absolutely necessary. As I have indicated before in the House, this will continue.
As far as monetary policy is concerned, again we have demonstrated that the monetary policy is designed to lead to non-inflationary growth, and that is exactly what we have had over this past year. Inflation is stable at 4 per cent, and Canada has had the best growth of any of the western industrialized countries, creating 450,000 jobs. That, Mr. Speaker, is sound policy.


INCREASE IN BANK RATE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, indeed inflation has been steadied, thanks to the initiatives of the preceding Government. If everything is as rosy as the Minister pretends perhaps he can tell us why the
Oral Questions
bank rate has again increased. We have had an increase today of two-thirds of a per cent. Would he also confirm to the House that the borrowings that he is engaged in in order to protect the dollar will involve additional costs to Canadian taxpayers in present dollar calculations of close to $1 billion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I don't think the Hon. Member should use that type of alarmist figures without having access to the source of those figures. That will come at the time the Budget is brought down. In response to the increase in the bank rate today, that is a valid question. 1 will be addressing that point in a statement that I propose to make at the end of Question Period today. I would just like to assure him at this point that the combination of our actions in the exchange market, and the interest rate market, are an important combination in dealing with speculative activity which we felt was unnecessary and certainly inappropriate to the economic circumstances that we are in at present.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATES BE ROLLED BACK
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on my last supplementary might I just say that the Minister has had the courtesy of delivering that statement to me, which I appreciate, but does the Minister agree-as he must, in fact-that each 1 per cent increase in the interest rate-we have had a two-third per cent increase today-costs the average Canadian family renewing a mortgage approximately $600 per year. That is $50 per month. In view of that why doesn't he roll back the interest rates which were jacked up to protect the dollar, as part of the very expensive initiatives which he has taken in his exchange transactions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important again to repeat myself. This has to be seen as a package of initiatives designed to meet a specific circumstance. I will be commenting on those initiatives later on today. The initiatives that we have taken over the past couple of days are designed to bring back a degree or normality to the economic situation in this country. That degree of normality had been knocked off track by the speculative pressures in the market-place, which we felt important to meet head-on. That is what we have done.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I wish to give the Minister another chance to withdraw her cruel and insensitive policy to cut unemployment insurance benefits to thousands of Canadians who have taken early retirement.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: She is now being sued in the courts, and a former Conservative Minister of National Defence has publicly criticized her policy. I want to ask her once again whether or not she will suspend this retroactive policy to cut unemployment insurance benefits to thousands of early-retired Canadians and refer the matter to the Forget Commission, which she herself appointed to study the entire unemployment insurance system. Will the Minister do that?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked this question on a number of occasions.


Ms. Copps:: And never got an answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have explained to him on a number of occasions the way in which this regulation is being implemented. I have also explained to him that the whole question of premiums, who pays them and under what conditions, has been referred to the Forget Commission which will make recommendations to me. As I have said to the Hon. Member, I await the recommendations of the Commission.


MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Through her policy, Mr. Speaker, she has stolen from thousands of Canadians the unemployment insurance benefits for which they have been paying for a number of years.
Now then, how can she justify the existence of the Forget Commission after changing the unemployment insurance regulations even before the commission has had time to publish its report? Under such circumstances, how can she justify the commission's existence?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member does not recognize is that these regulation changes were announced long before the Forget Commission was set up.


John R. Rodriguez: That is no excuse.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He could have heard about them 14 months ago. What I would like to explain to the Hon. Member, and to other Hon. Members is that, indeed, we are very concerned about the inequities-


William Warren Allmand: Baloney!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -in the unemployment insurance program. It was for that reason that we felt a full review of the entire operation of the unemployment insurance fund was long over-due. We are very pleased that Claude Forget, and the other commissioners, have taken on this heavy responsibility to see what recommendations can be made to improve the operations of the unemployment insurance fund.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Government claims that the dollar crisis is temporary.
Thirty thousand Canadian families will be renegotiating their mortgage this month.
Why would the Government want to punish those families by raising interest rates again today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as 1 indicated in my response to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, what we are trying to do is re-establish some stability in the market-place. That required the combination of actions which we took in the last couple of days. The purpose of doing this is to provide all Canadians with a much more favourable outlook and with better opportunities to deal with the particular personal needs to which the Hon. Member refers. That is our objective. We are confident that that will be the outcome of the actions which we have taken.


MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: 
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Hon. Member that mortgage rates in Canada are still a good deal below the levels they were at the time we took office in September of 1984. So we have made a good deal of progress in spite of the recent uptake we've seen in rates in the last few days.
The increase in rates is much more so in the very short end of the market-place and not much at all in the five-year end.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that there are 30,000 families renewing their mortgages this month, and considering that the average increase as a result of what happened today is likely to be $12,000 over the


course of the life of a mortgage, is the Minister of Finance saying to these families that they have to pay the burden of the Government's problems with the dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is not this Government's problem with the dollar, it's this country's problem we are dealing with here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Who's in charge?


Mr. de Corneille:: It's the country's fault now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not going to repeat the comments I have made in Question Period in response to the Hon. Member's questions and questions put by the Liberals on the directions of our policies, except to say that what we are doing here is approaching the broad problems the country was facing when we came into office, with a broad range of policy response, including the responses we have seen in recent weeks, and also in areas relating to foreign investment, domestic investment, job creation through programs brought down by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and policies to get the deficit under control to take pressure off the exchange markets and the interest rate markets. This is a broad policy response which, I remind my colleague, has been pretty well received by organizations such as the OECD.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the heartless Minister of Employment and Immigration-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -who is in charge of the unemployment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that such comments are not permitted. Question, please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is not only in charge of the unemployment insurance program but who is also responsible for the unfair changes to the calculation of benefits.
Even last year in reply to a question put by myself, the Minister said she would be sensitive to members of the Armed Forces who are required to retire early in life. Why then has the Government put in place unfair regulations which take severance pay and pensions into consideration as income and which cheat these people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -out of the benefits for which they have contributed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member is an experienced Member of the House and knows the question is far too long.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a question which has been raised on a number of previous occasions in the House. I would tell the Hon. Member, as 1 have told Hon. Members on other occasions, that the regulations apply to Armed Forces personnel, and apply to other sectors of society that pay into the unemployment insurance fund, and have over many years, knowing that they will never be able to draw from the fund-that whole question has been referred to the Forget Commission for examination, for consideration, and for recommendation to the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a supplementary question, given the length of the first one, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the answer?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. She is the Minister responsible for the unemployed of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why is she-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Nice try.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is an experienced Member of the House. I specifically asked him to put just a supplementary question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I specifically asked him to put just a supplementary question. He has chosen not to do that. Therefore I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's the second time in two days he's cut us off.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know how many times I have to make it clear that preambles when they get too long are unfair to the House.


An Hon. Member:: And unfair to the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. They are not unfair to the Chair. They are unfair to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the point of privilege from the Deputy Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the House which has the right to hear questions and answers, period. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Waddell:: It's ironic, isn't it?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DECREASE IN PRICE IN CRUDE OIL
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy said it would take up to 60 days for the dramatically decreasing world oil prices to work their way through the system. In view of the fact that the average posted price for a barrel of oil in Canada on December 6 last was $28.51, and by December 13 it was $26 a barrel-


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My question is this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The price of oil went from $28 a barrel to $26 a barrel after December 6. That is 62 days. I want to know if the Government has some revised figures telling when it is going to show up at the pump?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that gas in my constituency fell some eight cents a litre in the last couple of weeks, so I am not sure what that relates to.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about price wars, we are talking average-I want to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Fair has to be fair always. The Hon. Member knows that. I indicated the Member was long and he should put a question. He began again with a preamble. I have to be fair always. Therefore, the Hon. Member for London- M iddlesex.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. 1 recently conducted a meeting-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: -with 380 businesses in London-Middlesex.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: These people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My goodness, fair is fair. The Hon. Member gets a chance, as do other Members, to put a brief preamble. All Members have been given that chance.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, it was a very brief and exhaustive survey of 380 businesses in my riding and it revealed that 84 per cent favoured a career-related summer experience for students. They want to know when and how they can get involved in Challenge '86 so they can provide a future for Canadian youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the Hon. Member, indeed all Hon. Members, as well as people in the business community across the country, that Challenge '86 is a program which invites their co-operation. The application forms for Challenge '86 are now in Canada Employment Centre across the country. I urge all potential employers to go in, pick them up, fill them out, and hire young people this summer in jobs right across the country.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. She is aware that according to StatsCan the Province of Newfoundland, with only 2 per cent of the country's population, has 15 per cent of its hidden unemployed. Does the Minister agree with Mr. Chris Palmer, Research Director of the Royal Commission on Unemployment in Newfoundland, who has stated that, based on StatsCan's own unpublished figures, real unemployment in Newfoundland is a full 10 per cent higher than the officially published 21 per cent?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the very real problems of unemployment is its unevenness across the country. We all know it is worse in places like Newfoundland than it has been in Ontario. However, as we see the economic turnaround in this country we are moving to assist the turnaround in places


like Atlantic Canada and British Columbia with programs we have in place, such as the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We are also seeing that the hidden unemployed, the people who have been discouraged and dropped out, are now coming back into the labour force because they see more opportunity than they had before.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with that kind of rhetoric is it any wonder that some Newfoundlanders are looking for foreign aid in the U.S?


STATISTICS CANADA'S FIGURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister again whether or not she agrees with the figures and analysis of the Director of Research for the Royal Commission on Unemployment in Newfoundland? He has said that, according to StatsCan's own unpublished figures, real unemployment in Newfoundland is 10 per cent higher than the published 21 per cent. What is she going to do about it? Where are the concrete programs? We do not want rhetoric.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised the question of foreign aid. I am pleased to tell him in that particular community two projects have been approved which have employed 10 people-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -in training programs. This is in one community. Right across Newfoundland there are communities which are hiring and training people for full-time jobs. As a result, we have seen unemployment dropping in Newfoundland, including that particular community.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Last September she publicly declared that she is in charge of new refugee legislation. Therefore, will she confirm to this House that she recently authorized a draft legislative proposal which would deny to most refugee claimants in Canada the right which was guaranteed last year by the Supreme Court of Canada, that is, the right to have full access to the refugee determination process in Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is generally wrong about most things and he is wrong about that.
Oral Questions CONTENT OF ALLEGED DRAFT


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister is being evasive-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -1 will ask whether she will confirm that she recently approved a draft authorizing Immigration officials to expel within 72 hours most refugee claimants who, in fleeing their country, have passed through another country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the Hon. Member, he is wrong in wha the puts forward. I am not sure how I can be called evasive when I say that.
However, I will tell him that the whole question of developing a new process for refugee determination is a very serious one. It has been studied by commissions and has certainly been vetted by people all across the country. The Government is determined to bring this to fruition in a way which is just, humane, and fair.


PUBLIC WORKS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works and about one-third of the Cabinet, my question-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Where is your Leader?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Where is Turner? Where is Ouellet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reaction the Hon. Member got gives evidence of why there should not be any mention of the presence or absence of any Member or Minister. Just a question, please.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the electronic system in the Liberal caucus room. Can the Minister responsible for answering on behalf of the Minister of Public Works inform the House whether or not he or she got a copy of the report concerning tampering with the wiring system in the Liberal caucus room? Will the Minister also undertake to table in this House at the earliest convenience all documents pertaining to the installation of the electronic system in the Liberal caucus room?


Oral Questions


Mr. Benjamin:: The Liberals have their wires crossed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the President of the Privy Council wishes to reply, and I will allow the answer because I allowed the question.


Mr. Prud'homme:: How kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I only remind the Hon. Member that he puts me in some difficulty about questions to Ministers who are responsible today.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as you know-


An Hon. Member:: Check it with Erik.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -this is a rather difficult topic inasmuch as the precincts of Parliament, including caucus rooms, are under your responsibility and jurisdiction-


George Albert Proud: Pass the buck.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -indeed, under the responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy. I will take notice of the Hon. Member's question with respect to any responsibility there may be on the part of a Minister. I simply reiterate the fact that this is basically a question for the Board of Internal Economy.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No it isn't.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Your wires are crossed too.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the system was installed by Public Works under a contract given to EMI Connors Electronics Limited. In view of the fact that it was a Government' installation, can the Minister commit himself here and now to provide all documentation concerning that installation and maintenance, repairs, or alterations to the system, forthwith in the House of Commons?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the fact that, notwithstanding the delivery of the system, it is under the supervision of the Speaker of the day. The matter is now one of public record because it has been raised on the floor of the House of Commons. It is within the jurisdiction of the Speaker. I will take this as a representation.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and is with regard to the Job Development Program under the Canada Jobs Strategy. I have here a copy of the guidelines of the Job Development Program which say, in part, that federal Departments and agencies are not eligible for funds under that program.
Can the Minister explain to the House why, a few days ago, her office approved some 17 different proposals by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in Winnipeg?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of federal Departments which administer this program in co-operation with the Department of Employment and Immigration. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is one and the Department of Forestry is another. I know that many of the Member's colleagues from the Province of British Columbia have welcomed the projects in forestry which have been approved in their ridings. I am glad to report to the Hon. Member that, indeed, we are working in close co-operation in these fields so that people who generally work in forestry and the fishery are able to have jobs this winter.


PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can comment on memos which I have in my hand from Government officials which say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans initiated and proposed these ideas because of cut-backs in their Departments. Is this not a violation of the guidelines of the Minister herself under the Job Development Program, a copy of which I have here?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just what the Hon. Member is trying to say to me. Perhaps he will tell his colleagues who come from ridings along the Pacific coast that these projects should not be approved in their ridings.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why isn't it in the guidelines?


Mr. Deans:: When did Winnipeg get onto the Pacific coast?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Churchill would prefer not to have these projects approved in his riding.
Right from the outset, the program has been a huge success, involving some 18,000 applications across the country-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -these have included projects-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Order!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Forestry.


TIMEFRAME FOR OFFSHORE CRUDE OIL TO REACH SERVICE STATIONS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques attempted to misinform the House by revealing the wrong figures which


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Lise Bourgault: -he obtained from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House exactly how long it takes for offshore crude to reach the gas pumps?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Order!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques was deliberately trying to mislead the House yesterday. I think he had obtained some statistics that he did not look into far enough in order to see exactly how long it does take for the crude to get through the system. I give him the benefit of that doubt.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Horton McDermid: I must say that I think The Toronto Sun treated him very unfairly this morning with the headline: "Grit's Mouth Runs on Empty".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The question came from over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can conclude briefly.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could not even hear myself think with the yapping coming from over there. It takes three to four-


Ian Deans: You don't know what you missed. We could.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One of his colleagues asked the question and he is answering some Liberal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Perhaps the Hon. Member for Regina West would allow a question to be put.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last January the Government once again shortchanged older Canadians by amending the unemployment insurance regulations. A 61-year-old resident of my riding accepted his company's offer to retire early just so a younger employee would not lose his job. Can the Minister explain to the House why the rules of the game were changed in January and why that man has been denied unemployment insurance benefits? Why did you change the rules of the game and penalize older Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that in the Province of Quebec there has been an increase in the number of people employed this year and a very substantial decrease in unemployment. It is for that reason, in the whole job strategy, la planijication d'emploi, we have seen the growth of jobs in the Province of Quebec. Every day we see that trend developing. I am pleased to see that happening, and-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, sit down and answer the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -I wish the Hon. Member would help in spreading word of the new programs which will encourage that trend.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are ripping off the seniors.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately the Minister's answer proves that she is a hypocrite, like the Prime Minister, but she has much-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows full well that he is not allowed to say what he just said.


An Hon. Member:: What did he say?


Mr. Speaker:: That the Minister is a hypocrite, that is what he said.


An Hon. Member:: That is not what he said!


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I heard, period. In fact, would the Hon. Member put his question immediately?


INQUIRY WHY POLICY AFFECTING BENEFITS HAS BEEN CHANGED
Jean-Claude Malépart: I will repeat my question to the Minister. It has nothing to do with employment. Here it is: Like in all other ridings in Canada, a


Oral Questions
61-year-old resident in my riding willingly agreed to retire early just so a younger man would keep his job. Halfway through the game, in January, you changed the rules and cut off his unemployment benefits, yet he had taken early retirement at the request of the company. Why?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that the regulations to which he refers to were announced in November, 1984.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So what?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It may take a while to get things through the Hon. Member's head, but that was 16 months ago, and I would ask him to please keep up with the times.


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth. Is she aware that there has been a storm of protest from young people and community leaders across the country about the Government's senseless and thoughtless cut of Katimavik? Will she, as the advocate of youth in the Cabinet, march into the next scheduled cabinet meeting and demand that the money for Katimavik be reinstated as a minor expenditure compared to the millions given to the oil companies and the millions used to bail out the banks?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to finally see some interest in young people expressed by the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Andrée  Champagne: Let us realize that this is only the second question to be asked about young people this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marchi:: What a soap opera.


Andrée  Champagne: The House may also want to know that the Member for Windsor-Walkerville, as youth critic, was invited to some of our regional forums. He was too busy in July and was not interested in October to hear-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow questions again when members of the Opposition are quiet and allow them to be put.
I know of no other way to make Members on the opposition side, and others-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have a right and a left, Mr. Speaker. That is your right and that is your left.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I said "and others". The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville has a supplementary question.


Andrée  Champagne: I did not even answer.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You don't deserve to answer.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister of the Crown show a little more cool in response to questions. I want to ask her-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members know that I stopped the Minister because of certain remarks. The Hon. Member cannot simply come back and make comments about the Minister. That is not fair. What is the Member's question, please? Immediately.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Will the Minister of State do her job and fight on behalf of youth? That includes staying long enough to make a speech at her own forum, which she saw as too useless to spend more than an hour or so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. For two years now a company in my riding, Ferguson Fumigants, has been attempting to dispose of just under a thousand gallons of hazardous chemical, ethylene di-bromide, since it was banned as a toxic matter by the Department of Agriculture. There is no dump site in Canada that will accept this. The Ontario Government now recognizes that the pressurized containers are rusting and deteriorating.


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


Robert Pennock: Yes, I do. Can the Minister offer any assistance to this constituent before this becomes a major health hazard for the residents of Etobicoke?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. There is no readily available means for disposing of the offensive substance in question. The preferred option in the long term is recycling it in a way that will not threaten either the environment or human health. We are looking at that option, hand in glove with the Ministry of Environment in Ontario.


In the meantime I am happy to inform the Hon. Member that as of 1.30 today all the substance in question has been repackaged in an appropriate container in response to the urging of my Department and that of the corresponding Ministry in the Ontario Government.


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Secretary of State has strongly praised the Katimavik program in times past.
Why has the Government, before a $300,000 evaluation study was completed, without consultation with young people, the Katimavik board, its staff, or with anyone concerned, mysteriously and suddenly smashed Katimavik and broken a contract one year ahead of time, which is abruptly crashing 279 jobs and disappointing thousands of young people across the country who have already applied?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation with young people in Canada throughout International Youth Year. Young people in Canada want to do things by themselves and do not want everything thought out for them. They want help in doing those things that will help the community and let them participate in their own communities, towns, and villages.
There will be programs to help them do just that. Young people in Canada have told us that they want to have a future, and in order to have a future the deficit must go down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Andrée  Champagne: The sum of $10,000 per participant is too much.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, this hasty decision smells of cheap politics.


WORTH OF PROGRAM
Roland de Corneille: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realize that this program not only enables young people to find work that will make them more employable but it helps make them bilingual, self-reliant, better citizens, and prepares them for life at large, at a wage of $1 Canadian a day? Where else can one find a bargain like that?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It's Bugs Bunny.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Did you get it on tape, Erik?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If I am a rabbit, you are Bugs Bunny.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the colleagues of the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence will allow him to hear the answer, since he put the question.


Erik Nielsen: In his question the hon. gentleman did not call attention to the fact that since the election there have been 42,000 jobs created for young people in this country compared to a net loss of 283,000 jobs under the previous administration.
A press release on this subject was issued, and he was told yesterday when he put this question that other programs will be put in place that will employ far more young people directly and much more permanently than this program.
However, he should be directing young people toward Challenge '86, as he was urged to do by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


FOOTWEAR IMPORT EXEMPTIONS FOR EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Shoe Manufacturing Association of Canada says that the new exemptions on shoe quotas for the European Community will render the remaining shoe quotas virtually useless and add to job losses in that industry. Why has the Minister surrendered to the European Community in this fashion, which is so irresponsible to those out of work in this country?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, the Government has acted in a most responsible manner. With the extension of shoe quotas on women's and ladies' shoes for a further three years we were subject to retaliation under the GATT and put $136 million worth of Canadian exports to the European Community at risk. I am pleased that we have reached a settlement with the European Community which will forestall such action.


CLOTHING IMPORTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister include in his pleasure the extra imports of clothing from the European Community which will also cost extra jobs for Canadians throughout this country? Is he as pleased with that?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to advise the Hon. Member and the House that, in arriving at this settlement, not only will there be no loss of jobs to Canadians there will be reduced cost of goods to Canadian consumers, which is very important to this Government.


Petitions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that the Maritime Farmers Council submitted a proposal to him which has subsequently been supported by the Maritime Premiers Council. Some 440 days have passed. Will the Minister explain to the House why there is this inordinate delay when farmers in that region of Canada are well beyond the crisis stage?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the Hon. Member's question. I have received a number of representations from the Maritime Farmers Council. I am not certain to which matter the Hon. Member refers.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, a very short supplementary.


FEED FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary. The Minister knows full well what I am talking about. It concerns federal feed freight assistance. The Council wants to know where the Minister and the national Government stand with regard to its request.
Why are you dragging your feet on this most important request when your own Members of Parliament have been asking you to move on it? Why the delay?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member clarified his question. The Maritime Farmers Council made representations on another subject as well.
Again, the Hon. Member is outdated. Last November at the time of the First Ministers' Conference we made a proposal with respect to the issue and the concern of the Maritime Farmers Council. The commitment made at the conference was that our provincial colleagues would work in concert with the Maritime Farmers Council to develop a program to increase the degree of self-sufficiency in feed grains in Atlantic Canada.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, February 5, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I gather the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) would like to raise a question of order.



POINT OF ORDER


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring a very serious point of order to your attention which affects my rights in the House of Commons as well as others. You said I was an experienced Member of this House, which is true. I am experienced enough to know when 1 am being shortchanged, which I was. I would like to point out clearly that on my supplementary question 1 made one very brief comment and I was into my question when you cut me off. That is an injustice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the Member feels aggrieved. I rose during the preamble before his question had begun. I did so because I had specifically indicated to him that his first question was long and his preamble was long. I asked him specifically when I granted him a supplementary question to put only a question. That is the end of what. There is no point of order.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. There is no point of order. The Hon. Member will please resume his seat.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will resume his seat please. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) claims a point of privilege.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is that Minister's answers are also supposed to be relevant to the questions. We have been hearing long speeches from the front benches of the Government without giving answers to questions. That, too, is a rule of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If you are going to enforce the rule on me, then I want-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the comments of the Hon. Member, it may come as some news to him, as I am sure it will to many Members, that there is no such rule of relevance requirement.
As the Hon. Member knows, if he is unhappy with any answer for any reason, he can file with the Table a request to do a Late Show on the matter. That is the provision in the rule.


An Hon. Member:: What about supplementaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no rule with regard to the granting of supplementary questions. All questions and fecognition of supplementaries are matters within the discretion of the Chair.


John V. Nunziata: You are stifling debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question Period, may I say it over and over, is not debate. It is a time to ask questions and to get whatever answers the Government gives. It is not debate. That is precisely why the Chair is concerned about the length of the preambles, in order to try to get as many questions as possible. That is what it is for.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Government House Leader whether he can give us the business he intends to call in this House for the coming week?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. As the opposition House Leader knows, I was attempting to have a meeting of House Leaders earlier, before Question Period. I thought we would canvass those Members and come to some sort of understanding of what would be convenient to the Opposition.
We are meeting at 4.30 p.m. Possibly, with the leave of the House, I might come back after that meeting and indicate the order of business, once I have had a chance to consult with my colleagues.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if prior to 4.30 p.m. the Government House Leader might consult with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and try to obtain for the House the date upon which the Budget will be presented?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I always consult with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and I will continue to do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-255, 1 have the honour to present our report with amendments.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES POLICY AND PROGRAMS- PRESENTATION OF FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fourth Report of the Senate
Statements by Ministers
and House of Commons Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages Policy and Programs, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STANDING ORDERS-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I have the honour to table copies in both official languages of the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders.


THE ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is performing better than most other industrialized countries' economies. And yet, in face of this, the Canadian dollar has come under sharp downward pressure in recent weeks. The market observers have given a variety of explanations for this weakness. I would like today to put this matter in some perspective and report to the House on the Government's response.
The weakness of commodity prices in general and recent declines in the international price of crude petroleum do have negative implications for our export earnings, but these must be put in perspective.
Canada's net earnings from international trade in petroleum in 1985 were about $2 billion, or less than 2 per cent of our total merchandise exports. The recent fall in oil prices will thus not have a dramatic effect on our trade balance. Even allowing for consequent movements in the prices of our other energy exports does not paint a picture of a sharply deteriorating balance of payments. The existing levels of commodity prices will not have a sufficiently large impact on our resource exports to justify the recent pressure on the exchange rate.
Hon. Members should understand, despite the prevailing caricature, that the strength of Canada's exports extends far beyond the resources sector. Raw materials constituted only 16 per cent of Canada's merchandise exports in 1985. We are now a major exporter of semi-processed and Finished manufactures, and these are an ongoing source of strength for our balance of payments. That strength is assured by Canada's


Statements by Ministers
vastly improved performance in getting our inflation rate down.
Our inflation rate has been about 4 per cent for the past 19 months. Domestic prices and costs have behaved well. Our productivity performance is impressive. This should continue to ensure the competitiveness of Canadian products on world markets. Canada's economy is strong. The growth of our Gross National Product outpaced that of the United States by more than two percentage points last year. That is almost double the rate of growth in the United States. We expect Canada to do better again this year. As a result, the current account of our international balance of payments turned into a small deficit in 1985, and most analysts expect that this small deficit will continue through the course of this year. Apart from the low levels in commodity prices already noted, this is a normal cyclical response to a recovery and reflects the fact that Canada's economy has been growing more quickly than those of most of our major trading partners. A part of that better performance is the stronger growth in business investment expenditures which have a high import content. This shift is contributing to the current account deficit. However, that deficit is quite small by historical standards and should not be a major source of weakness in our currency.
[ Translation]
The flow of long-term capital funds, which are the source of funds to finance most private sector investments, has continued to favour Canada in 1985; acquisitions of shares of Canadian companies by non-residents were particularly strong. Direct foreign investments in Canada were also high even though they were offset by take-overs of foreign companies by Canadian interests.
In all likelihood the flow of long-term capital funds will continue to have a positive impact on the value of our dollar this year.

It is the typically volatile short-term capital flows which have been influencing our dollar adversely in recent weeks. This speculative activity has arisen from misconceptions about the state of our economy and about the Government's commitment to pursue the policies required to sustain the strong recovery we are now experiencing.
I believe that negative speculation about the Canadian dollar has gone too far. Levels of the exchange rate earlier this week have been clearly below what is justified by fundamental developments in our balance of payments and have not reflected the healthy state of our over-all economic performance. A continuation of this negative sentiment would threaten to undermine the progress we have made in sustaining an economic recovery through strong growth, accompanied by continued moderation in inflation.
The fundamental strength of our economy is reflected in an underlying balance of payments structure that is good. I believe that the speculative elements which I cited that are
countering these fundamental forces will wither away as the sources of that strength are more generally recognized.

The downward pressures on the Canadian dollar in recent months have been offset through foreign exchange market interventions financed with the Government's exchange account and through a gradual increase in short-term interest rates. Still the increase was significant and the gap between our short-term interest rates and those of the United States has widened considerably, more than 3 per cent.

In recent days pressures against the Canadian dollar greatly intensified. To counter unwarranted speculative activity, the Bank of Canada has this week operated forcefully in the domestic money market and, as fiscal agent for the Government of Canada, forcefully in the foreign exchange market. The result has been a strengthening of the Canadian dollar and a sharp further upward movement in short-term interest rates. Our dollar has moved from a low of 69.13 U.S. cents on Tuesday to about 71 cents currently. Today's bank rate has risen to 11.7 per cent, up 67 basis points from last week.
The Government is prepared to continue to reinforce its intervention in the foreign exchange market in order to promote orderly conditions. To this end, yesterday I announced actions which have been taken to increase our reserves of U.S. dollars by $2.4 billion. The Government is prepared to use these official reserves to enter the market as aggressively as necessary to counter speculative pressure on the dollar.
The main purpose of these actions in the financial and exchange markets is to reinforce the thrust of our broad economic policy stance which looks to a continuation of noninflationary growth. To that end fiscal policy will ensure a measured, orderly and significant reduction in our deficit.
I have heard and read in the media many commentaries expressing doubt about the future course of our fiscal policy. These doubts are unwarranted. I have reiterated on many occasions our resolve to improve our fiscal position. This is being done in a comprehensive way and primarily through a reduction in the level of Government spending. The unprecedented spending reductions announced in November, 1984 and in May, 1985 are being implemented and will have a growing fiscal impact over time. Our deficit is under control and it will come down. Monetary policy will continue to be directed at keeping inflation under control. The Government has also moved in other areas, such as energy and foreign investment, to improve the efficiency of our markets and increase confidence in Canada. Together these policies will serve to ensure the sustainability of the recovery and, with it, a strong and stable currency and a return to lower levels of interest rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Donald James Johnston: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand why the


Minister came to the House this afternoon to deliver that statement.
Indeed, I listened closely, I read the statement carefully and I can tell you that it is nothing to write home about.

The Minister has described what is almost an Agatha Christie mystery-who killed the Canadian dollar? It does not take Hercule Poirot to solve this mystery. The Minister has recited a number of interesting facts about the Canadian economy. I will come to them in a moment, because we have to eliminate each of them as villains in this piece one by one. However, there is one glaring omission, there is one suspect to which reference has not been made. All he has to do is look around him, especially at his Leader, at his Cabinet and from time to time in the mirror, and he will find the cause of the falling Canadian dollar. He will see the killer face to face. [Translation]
The reason-and I will prove it this afternoon-is that there is an obvious lack of coherence in leadership among the Conservatives. We know full well there is political infighting among Cabinet Ministers themselves and especially among caucus members. In short, Mr. Speaker, Canadians and foreigners alike have lost confidence in this Government. [English]
That is what has killed the Canadian dollar.
Let us look for a moment at what he has told us. I read his speech carefully. He takes on the issue of Canada being perceived as a resource exporter and says that there is no reason for people to be alarmed about falling commodity prices or falling oil prices, that that should not be the reason for the fall of the Canadian dollar. Of course he is absolutely right. Most people know that. Unfortunately the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does not know that. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has had the opportunity of educating the Prime Minister who, in an interview in Fortune magazine on March 4, 1985, said the following:
We do not have a very good track record. Our products have not been of the highest quality. Our deliveries have been lacking in reliability. Our expertise has been in large measure borrowed. Our technology has been purchased. What the hell makes us so special? If somebody wants to buy some oil, somebody wants to buy some wheat, hell, we're in the business. That's what it's all about. Forest products, mining-God, we'd love it if somebody wanted to joint-venture with us in mining development, taking our products at competitive prices. Damn right we would.
That is our Prime Minister, of course, spreading that perception. As I say, fortunately, his ignorance is not widespread amongst intelligent members of the business investment communities, and, in fact, among Canadians in general who realize that Canada has become a strong exporter in other areas.
Notwithstanding the efforts of the Prime Minister to denigrate the strength of our export sector, I suggest to you that that is not the villain, it is not that perception. What on earth can it be? Not our rate of inflation says the Minister of Finance. Again, he is absolutely right. The rate of inflation has
Statements by Ministers
hovered around 4 per cent. I might add, the Minister could have recognized that a legacy he received in that "bare cupboard" he likes to refer to was a rate of inflation below 5 per cent, having been brought down by the Liberal Government from something like 12.5 per cent in 1982 through the six and five program to less than 6 per cent in 1983, and less than 5 per cent in 1984. I would like him to acknowledge that some time. I am sure he will.
In addition to that, I need not refer again to the fact, with which we are all painfully familiar, that he received a dollar which had a U.S. exchange rate in September, 1984 of approximately 77 cents, and of course early this week we saw it as low as 69 cents.
Well, he tells us it's not inflation, it's not Gross National Product. We have had sustained growth, so it is not the resource sector, it is not inflation, it is not our Gross National Product that has driven it down. It certianly is not our current account deficit, which he points out is small by historical standards. No reason to be concerned, so it cannot be that. We gradually go through everyone and we finally get to the butler.
In any case, none of these are villains in this piece. Longterm capital flows, the Minister rules that out. Again, we agree with him. Yes, indeed, there must be something else. We have not yet found the killer of the Canadian dollar in all this information which he offered to us here this afternoon. Well, he tells us that there has been this speculation in recent weeks, or even in recent days. Why is that? Why, if we are so strong in all these areas that the Minister describes is the dollar being killed? Why did the Minister have to borrow $2.4 billion yesterday at a cost, as I raised in Question Period, if those loans went to maturity in present value, as high as close to a billion dollars out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets? Why does he have to watch interest rates escalate two-thirds of a point today? He is shaking his head. I will look forward to having him produce the numbers I have got mine here. You can't borrow $2.4 billion for ten years at 9 per cent U.S. without incurring major interest costs. Why is that? Why is that interest rates again today had to increase to 11.47, an increase of .67 cents from yesterday?
I come back to my point, we have eliminated all of the suspects, except one, and that one is right over there on the Government benches, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and those other Ministers responsible for economic policy in this country. Let me explain why. Let me offer you the proof very quickly, Mr. Speaker, so this will not simply be treated as partisan rhetoric coming from the Official Opposition. Let's play detective for a moment.
Despite the rhetoric there has been incoherence, there has been confusion, and there has been conflict in our economic policy. I will terminate by offering some quick but convincing evidence. First of all, the Minister of Finance on March 1, 1985 said on CTV "Question Period": "We are going to get the deficit down. We are not going to do it through taxes, there is enough room on the expenditure side". And then a scant two months later he brought in the biggest tax increase


Statements by Ministers
in Canadian history. Now, talk about that in terms of conflict and confusion.
Second, at the same time he brought in a capital gains tax exemption which we had to adopt several weeks ago in this House, there was a measure intended to put capital into Canadian industry, especially the small and medium-sized business sectors. But it was completely unfocused. Where has that money been invested? It was an invitation to divest, and probably reinvest outside Canada. Combine that with the most remarkable suggestion of all, this alternative minimum tax which penalizes recipients of Canadian dividend income and, in fact, required Canadians who had capital tied up in holding companies to divest their assets before year end. Where do you think those moneys were invested, with the prospect of a penalizing tax on Canadian dividend income? To the United States, that is where a lot of that money went. Complete incoherence and confusion.
I am coming quickly to the end, Mr. Speaker, if you will just bear with me because, I do not want the Opposition to think that this is empty rhetoric. I want the Government to reflect on these points, because they stand out so clearly.
The great privatizers, Mr. Speaker. They told the world they were going to privatize. The first major act was the acquisition of a lot of service stations through Petro-Canada, which are found in your province. I know it may have been difficult for you to go back to your riding for some weeks, but I gather the dust is settling down. Privatization the purchase of retail gas stations. Then to counter that perception there has been unseemly haste to dismantle the Canadian aerospace sector and dispose of de Havilland. There has been the attempt to reduce the deficit with excessive tax increases, and perhaps to cover the $2 billion to bail out chartered banks. We have seen the Western Accord which gave hundreds of millions of dollars to multinational oil companies. People do not believe this Government, and with good reason.
So I conclude the killer is before you. The evidence stands. It is not the economy, it is the lack of credibility and confidence in the economic management of this country by this Government.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment briefly on today's decision concerning yet another increase in Canadian interest rates. This policy of the Conservative Government is a threat to Canada and all Canadians. This latest increase in interest rates will likely trigger a sharp rise in bank rates, and if the banks do make that decision, within a month we will have higher interest rates, perhaps up by 2 or 2.5 per cent. It is not good for farmers, it is not good for families about to renegotiate mortgages, and it is not good for the unemployed seeking work. This policy to raise interest rates and shore up the dollar did not work for the Liberals in the past and it is not going to work now.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the statement the Minister has made today can be accounted for very largely by, not the ongoing problem of the dollar, but the very large increase in the interest rate that was announced earlier, the two-thirds of a point increase in today's announcement which, when translated by the banks, as it likely will be, will mean that in the past month of this Conservative Government we will have seen an increase in interest rates anywhere from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent. I say to the Minister that that type of policy was disastrous for farmers, disastrous for homeowners and disastrous for the unemployed when the Liberals implemented it a few years ago. It is no better today when coming from the Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: This is what the interest rate policy announcement will mean in concrete terms. According to the present Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), when he sat on this side of the House as opposition critic for DREE, he said that a 1 per cent increase in the interest rate-and we almost had that today, and it will likely be 2.5 per cent by the end of the month-means the loss of 25,000 jobs. According to the Hon. Member's calculation then, that means some 50,000 jobs have been placed in jeopardy by the Government's incompetence just in the past month. This monthly increase in interest rates-and I have spoken to my colleagues about it-in terms of the present level of the debt will probably increase farmers' debt charges by about $500 million in one year. Who will pay that? I will tell Hon. Members who will pay. It will be the farm families who will have to pay that increase in debt charges.
I already mentioned earlier today what this increase will mean in terms of mortgage rate changes. Over the life of a mortgage it will cost the typical Canadian family some $12,000. This reassuring the-land-is-strong type of statement which we heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will not fool Canadians. Canadians will note that the most significant announcement today came not from the Government of Canada but from the Bank of Canada, sanctioned by the Government. I refer to the announcement with respect to the increase in interest rates. The Minister opposed that policy when he sat on this side of the House and he ought not to be supporting it now that he is in Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In our view the Minister has correctly said that some of the recent problems with respect to the dollar are to be attributed to speculators in Chicago and elsewhere. I think there is certainly evidence to support that. I hope that in that context the Government has communicated with the Government of the United States to see if anything can be done through regulatory mechanisms to head off this speculation which puts the whole country in a hostage situation as a result of the operations of a handful of speculators. I doubt


that anything can be done. However, I hope the Canadian Government has made some inquiries to see if anything can be done. The Minister is right, speculators have played a role.
It is also the case that the great fluctuation in energy prices has played a role. I also want to say that it was the Minister's Party, and his Government, which deregulated the oil industry. They said that it has to be left open to the whims of the market-place and, therefore, if we are now having to react to what the Saudi Arabians have decided in a completely unfettered way, once again it is his Government's decision that has placed us in this type of precarious situation.
Quite apart from the short-run questions there are some longer-range problems which the Minister did not discuss and to which he alluded in a rather oblique way. One of these concerns the flow of investment. Yesterday, the Minister and I had an exchange in the House about what has gone on in the 12 months since his Party formed the Government. I wish to make the point again today, and perhaps the Minister on another occasion will deal with it. I would like to look at what happened in Canada between the last quarter of 1984 and the last quarter of 1985. I wish to begin by conceding with regard to what the Minister said yesterday. Yes, there was an 11 per cent increase in investment in Canada. That is true, and we are pleased to see it. As I have also said to the Minister on another occasion, it is true that our job forecasts were inaccurate and that the economy performed in a better way than we had anticipated. More jobs were produced. I have always taken it as a matter of principle that when the Government does something right we should say so. If something turns out to be better than we had estimated, then we should also say so. The Minister is now smiling because I agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I now wish to see what he will say. He pointed out that there was an 11 per cent increase in investment in the Canadian economy last year. What is decisive in terms of its impact on the dollar is not that increase. What is decisive is that there was a 44 per cent increase in money leaving the country for investment. That is what impacts on the dollar. So we had an 11 per cent increase in terms of new investment and in terms of job creation, which is good, but a 44 per cent increase-some $5.2 billion-leaving the country to create jobs elsewhere. I also want to say to the Minister, as he well understands, that this drives the Canadian dollar down. What we need are policies which will keep that investment in Canada. Let the Minister deal with that issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to say to the Minister-who is again smiling-I hope that he will deal with the issue of that 44 per cent increase year-over-year. If we look at what was going on in 1985, after the Minister tabled his Budget last spring, we will see that the flow of investment abroad actually accelerated. Thus, if his Budget had any effect on investment intentions it was to say to Canadians: "Take your money and run with it out of the country". The Minister ought to be reassessing some
Statements by Ministers
of his policies in a serious way in terms of his forthcoming Budget.
The second matter I wish to point out is that we are dealing not only with a current crisis in terms of the dollar but, as the Minister knows, for a number of years the Canadian dollar has been at a pretty low level. There are some serious structural explanations for that. One of them is the high degree of foreign ownership. The Minister will recall the time just about a month ago, around the end of the year, when there were transfers of massive sums of money from Canada largely to the United States. We had another kind of run on the dollar- another dip in the dollar. Why? Because the branch plants were making their dividend payments back home; or we were making payments for service charges. If the Minister were to look at some of the numbers he would be somewhat concerned because they are quite disturbing. The most recent figures we have in this respect are for 1984. We do not yet have the figures for 1985. The figures for 1984 are as follows. We paid out some $3.2 billion in dividend charges. That had a negative effect on the Canadian dollar. We also paid out some $6 billion in service charges in 1984. No doubt this pattern will continue for 1985.
I wish to say to the Minister, and to my Liberal colleagues, that it is this type of strutural problem about which the New Democratic Party has been concerned for years. It is not because American investors are the bad guys, or any other foreigner is a bad guy, a bad woman or a bad company. We say that it is bad for the Canadian economy to have that level of foreign ownership-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. I have given the spokesmen from both opposition Parties an extra few minutes for their remarks. Perhaps the Hon. Member would care to wind up now, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your understanding. I want to conclude by saying that what we need are some serious long-range changes in policy if we are to deal with the question of the dollar. I am glad the Minister is nodding his head on this point. I hope he has been listening to some of the suggestions which I have made.
Finally, I wish to say to him that the bad news for Canadians which was announced today in terms of another increase in the interest rate is a policy, as I said a moment ago, which did not work for the Liberals and which will not work for the Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement this day's sitting will be extended by 30 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.30 p.m.


Petitions


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an Act to change the name of electoral district of Nunatsiaq.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to change the name of my electoral district from Nunatsiaq, meaning beautiful land, to Nunavut, meaning our land. The proposed change of name to Nunavut is more reflective of the aspirations of my constituency. The name "our land" recognizes the spirit of a former remembered independence and acknowledges our aspirations for a future of self-reliance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I missed petitions. Is it agreed that we revert to petitions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it gives me, as well as a number of my colleagues, great pleasure to associate ourselves with a petition for men's rights in relation to families with children.

To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their unchallenged right to present a common grievance, with the assurance that we are against Bills C-47 and C-48 which do not improve the situation of children of separated or divorced couples.

The gist of the petition is to seek a more equal sharing not only in the responsibility but in the joy of child rearing, particularly after painful separations and divorce. The Speaker may also be aware of a hunger strike which is going on at the moment by Mr. Ricardo Di Done, and this petition speaks to that. The petition is presented by myself and my colleagues, because we fight for men and women.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to see that you are permitting the commercial messages and preambles which the Speaker is ruling out in Question Period.
I have the honour to present a large number of petitions which, unfortunately, did not get here in time. They have been gathered at the expense of considerable time and effort by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. These petitions come from all corners of the country and relate to the family allowance which the Government has now deindexed. The petitioners ask this House of Commons to see that the Government rescinds unfair tax increases.


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from constituents in the riding of York North and, more specifically, in the Town of Vaughan. The petitioners are asking for improved postal service. They had been patiently waiting for years and up to this time they still do not have either a mail delivery or the green boxes. They certainly have limited postal service.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the following question will be answered today: No. 499.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Did the Department of the Secretary of State order, in July 1984, a study on school rights of official languages minorities in Canada and, if so (a) what was the cost of the study made by Mr. Pierre Foucher (b) under what programs and departments was the study made (c) during the study, were Mr. Foucher's abilities used for other purposes and, if so, which ones?
2.	Will the Government table a copy of the study and, if so, on what date?
3.	Does the Government intend to table a copy of other studies made by Mr. Foucher while he was employed by the Department of the Secretary of State?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Yes, in June, 1984, following a ministerial decision, the Department of the Secretary of State invited Professor Pierre Foucher to prepare such a study within the framework of a temporary assignment to the Department, (a) $92,691.91; (b) the Public Service Commission's Interchange Canada Program, specifically for the Secretary of State Department's Promotion of Official Languages Branch via Legal Services; (c) yes; Mr. Foucher on occasion advised in respect to constitutional law issues.


2.	A copy of Mr. Foucher's report was given to the members of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages Policy and Programs on December 10, 1985.
3.	Not applicable.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond and thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for answering my question today. Since one of my questions is dated February 6, 1985, and since this is its anniversary, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that question and possibly give me an answer before the end of the year?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. I notice that we have just answered a question dated December 3, 1985. We try to prioritize the questions and give the answers as quickly as we can. We will look into it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 19 (Mr. de Jong) p. 10322.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) had the floor. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I believe every Hon. Member who takes the opportunity to read this amendment must support it. Specifically, it speaks to the ability and the mobility of the handicapped, particularly the blind, to be able to compete in the market-place, to be able to get out there and be financially independent. I am speaking, of course, about the decision of the Government to ignore the pleas of the Canadian Association of Guide-dog Users to exempt them from the tax on pet food.
Excise Tax Act
I know there are many seniors who, for example, have a cat or dog. They keep a pet because it is the only company they might have as shut-ins. We find it is wrong that they should be forced to pay this tax which the Government is then going to use to give a half million dollar capital gains tax exemption to those rich in our society who can most afford to take advantage of it.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in his insensitivity, is bound and determined to tax pet food in a general way, as he seems to be on the basis of this budget measure, at the very least it would make sense to have a specific exemption for guide-dog users and those others who use animals in the normal daily business of living.
People who use guide-dogs do not keep those dogs as pets. They are an integral part of their daily living. That is why it is so important that every person in this Chamber, including Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, recognize that this amendment does not lead to a tax exemption for all pet food, but speaks specifically to those people who use guide-dogs. It also includes horse feed. For those Hon. Members who are interested in the farming community, it provides for an exemption for horse feed or feed for those animals used for productive purposes such as farming and logging.
If there were an exemption for bulls, obviously many of the Members on the Government side of the House would be able to take advantage of it. However, that is not what is being proposed.


Mr. McKnight:: Sexist.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A bull, Mr. Speaker, has no gender in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: However, Mr. Speaker, that is not the question. The question is whether members of the Government and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall)-I am sorry she is not here because in committee I specifically asked her whether we could consider this. I am sorry, I am not supposed to comment on the presence or absence of an Hon. Member.
The Minister of State for Finance did give us the undertaking during the committee stage that there would be a very serious look given to dealing with the specific problems of guide-dog users when it comes to the tax on pet food. As you know Mr. Speaker, many people who have become blinded, through the adult onset of diabetes, for exemple, have many other costs involved in maintenance and in keeping themselves not only independent in their own home but, perhaps, able to get out and be competititve in the market-place. They are being hit with the double whammy of the tax on medication and on literally thousands of products used to assist a person
10540


Excise Tax Act
who is suffering from a chronic illness. On top of that they have to pay the tax on pet food.
This amendment simply asks the Government to make a special provision for farmers and guide-dog users. We are opposed to this tax in general but we believe that at the very least the Government should exempt guide-dog users as well as farmers and those people who are using animals for productive purposes rather than simply as pets. This is a very supportable amendment and I dare say that if we had a recorded vote on this issue, every Government Member would join with me in supporting the demand by the Canadian Association for Guide-Dog Users that they be exempt from this tax. They should not have to pay for the Government deficit through a tax on their guide-dogs. That is a wrong-headed approach which has been adopted by the Minister of Finance so he can bail out the banks and hand out a $500,000 capital gains write-off. Fie is calling on the poor and least able in our society to pay for the deficit. We in the Liberal Party believe that is wrong. We think the country agrees with us. We think pet lovers agree with us. Taxing these dogs is like taxing your eyes. It is like taxing your very right to live. Without guide-dogs these people are defenseless. They must remain in their homes. In fact, they become a greater burden on the system because they need the support services which are not necessary when they are able to get out and be independent. Even the pharmaceutical industry suggests that the tax on medication will cost us money in the long run. People will go to prescription drugs which will be paid for by the Governement rather than going to non-prescription medication. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It will not deal with the problem of the deficit and it will penalize those in our society who are the least able to pay. We urge support for this amendment so that at the very least the blind will not have to pay for the billion-dollar bank bail-out.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with Motion No. 19 and the unfortunate remarks made, among others, by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
I understand the representations made and the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-


An Hon. Member:: -East-


Pierre H. Vincent: Yes, that is what I said, "East".
Mr. Speaker, I can understand his interest in not, to want to tax seeing-eye dog food. However, if we consider the way it is done, I suggest it is all right. The amount in annual tax which this could represent is approximately $20.00 or $25.00, on the one hand. On the other hand, we should consider the amount of paper work which would be required from blind
people to recover these $20.00 or $25.00. I suggest it would not serve the interests of either the taxpayer generally or the blind to ask the latter to fill in additional forms to collect $20.00 or $25.00.
Mr. Speaker, I wish also to remind the House that the Income Tax Act provides already a special allowance for handicapped people, including the blind.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I just could not support the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Regina East.
Mr. Speaker, concerning horse feeds, I should like to remind the Hon. Member that animal feeds for the most part are unconditionally exempt under the relieving provision of the Agricultural Products Act.
Feeds supplements required by farmers should also be eligible for an exemption when they are used by producers of goods, which means that the feeds for horses used in productive purposes are also exempt.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to reject this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) has the floor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed and scandalized to hear the remarks of the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent).
He has just said that he is in favour of exempting farmers from the tax on feeds for their horses, yet he cannot see a way to exempt people who suffer from blindness. Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous indeed, coming from a man-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member to understand that we are dealing with Motion No. 19. It deals with feeds and supplements for guide-dogs used by people requiring their assistance, and feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for horses used in productive purposes.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, that is the point. We know that a blind man's friend, faithful servant and guide is his dog. It is the most important thing to a blind man.
The Parliamentary Secretary has just told us-and the social injustice minister is here, he is listening, but he is not doing anything-that he cannot find a means or a way to refund the tax on feeds for a blind man's dog.
Mr. Speaker, the Government did find a way to exempt the rich from the capital gains tax, they fill in magic forms. But we are now talking about blind people-I hope the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) will


support me in this case-and there are organizations to look after them. Their only income is social welfare, peanuts, Mr. Speaker. They do not live under the threshold of poverty, they live under the threshold of misery! Be they in Quebec, in the Maritimes, in western Canada or elsewhere, all blind people live on social welfare. Those people would rather work despite their handicap and they often submit projects under the Canada Works programs. Things have to be changed somewhat to offer cultural activities to those people and to meet their special needs.
And now, notwithstanding scientific progress and the knowhow of experts and Government officials, the Hon. Member tells us that he simply cannot find a way to refund the outrageous tax imposed by this Government, even on the guide dogs of blind men. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, he tells us, and I wonder whether he has a safe instead of a heart, that he can provide an exemption in the case of horses. He can therefore provide tax exemptions for other things.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am convinced that the Hon. Member for Hochelega-Maisonneuve agrees with me because there is an organization for visually handicapped people called Bon Pilote in his constituency. I am convinced that the great majority of Conservative Members agree with me. And I trust-


An Hon. Member:: No, no.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not surprised. The Hon. Member for La Salle (Mr. Lanthier) disagrees. I know that he does so because this concerns the poor and he defends the rich. In view of his profession, his environment and his friends, he would certainly not defend the handicapped; that is not his vocation. He has every right to defend the rich in this place. That is his right.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to invite the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who met with failure in the case of old age security pensions, in the case of the next amendment which we shall be discussing and which relates to the use of a tax on illness to finance the Government, and in the case of family allowances, to show his humanitarian feelings, to make the diminutive Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) understand that his career will not last long, and to realize that it is possible to agree to the amendment and to find a way to reimburse all visually handicaped people in Canada for the 10 per cent tax they will have paid on the food for their guide-dogs. These animals are not kept for pleasure, Mr. Speaker. I could go further. To prevent solitude among senior citizens and to get them out of their homes, doctors advise that they keep a dog or cat so that they will live longer and be in better shape. That is the medical aspect of the issue, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, a heartless Government has decided to impose a tax without taking the human factor into account.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close by inviting one last time the Minister of National Health and Welfare to try if possible to
Excise Tax Act
make the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres and especially the Prime Minister understand the situation, accept the amendment and find the means to reimburse visually handicaped people for the 10 per cent tax.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind my good friends on the Government side of the House of a little bit of history. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was the Minister of Finance in the Government of 1975 when the excise tax on gasoline was put into place. The then Minister of Finance accepted an amendment from this side of the House, which I will not brag about authoring, which was supported by the then official Opposition, the Conservative Party, to provide for an exemption and rebate of the excise tax on gasoline for the handicapped who had to be driven from place to place or who had specially equipped automobiles. That amendment was accepted and was in place until 1979. I want to remind my friends on the Government side that the Budget brought in by the present Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) cancelled the rebate on excise taxes for those who had to drive specially equipped cars because they were handicapped. They wonder why they got defeated later.
This is not a big deal, Mr. Speaker. The amendment only asks for an exemption. By regulation you can require those who are blind and have guide dogs to apply for a rebate of the excise tax. They can keep their bills for a year and get a cheque back for the tax. It would not be a hardship upon the Government or the administration. It would certainly not be a financial hardship on the Government. To be so small-minded and mean-spirited as to apply that tax in those circumstances is, surely, not worthy of the members of the Government and not worthy of Parliament.
I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who are present, will get up and say that they are prepared to accept this amendment, and they will be applauded on all sides of the House for it.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this motion because after listening to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) one cannot do otherwise. He has just suggested to my colleague from Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) and to other Members on this side of the House that we were a heartless Government. A heartless Government because we were going to tax food for guide dogs, which means approximately $25 a year. To my knowledge, this is much less than the deficit inherited from the Liberals-$200 billion, Mr. Speaker. This is far less than the income tax they did not collect from the most affluent when they formed the Government because, as you know, had they made the most affluent pay tax when they were in Government, had they managed the country in a honest and fair fashion, we might


Excise Tax Act
not be in such a predicament today. Today, our situation might be that we could give more to the handicapped.
Paying tax on dog food means $25 a year, as I said. All farm producers pay that, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, who is in the habit of mistaking carrots for cabbage, should have known that the handicapped indeed get a special allowance which farmers do not get. There are other specific programs especially for the farmers. On the other hand, in our last Budget, we made sure that the handicapped would get that allowance.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has just told us that we are a pitiless Government. Mr. Speaker, in 1981, the previous Liberal Government promised a pension to older people, to widows aged between 60 and 64. They were committed to that. But we were the ones to move on that, thanks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). We assumed responsibility for the lives of the most in need. When we see the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie rise in this House, and anyway he is not here now, when we see his colleagues rise from their seats and lie to the Canadian people, lie to the people of Quebec, attack this Government because we are in the process of reducing the deficit-in the process of developing a system that will allow all needy people and he referred to the aged, but what has he done when he was in Government, when his Government brought indexation down to 5 and 6 per cent while it was running at 11 and 12 per cent? Nothing! He never uttered a word.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Make the blind pay!


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, we have been elected, and the NDP, instead of laughing out loud, should listen and look at what we are doing exactly, rather than supporting the Liberals.
When we hear the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, when we hear his colleagues grumble because this Government has to restore order, to reinstate social justice, I am asking serious questions. As a Government, we have at heart the most needy; we have at heart as a Government to restore a just and fair society, a society where we will be in a position, once everyone pays his or her fair share of income tax, once everyone contributes directly or indirectly to the Canadian economy, at that point, Mr. Speaker, we will be in a position to give to those of our citizens who are most in need the decent income they seek to make ends meet.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)- Energy-Increases in gasoline prices. (b) Consumer protests; The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Insurance-Liability coverage-Difficulties faced by small business. (b) Solvency guidelines for insurance companies; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Energy-Major oil find in Beaufort Sea.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Simon Leendert de Jong: Motion No. 20


That Bill ( -80. be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 34 to 43 on page
112.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my remarks, 1 wonder if I could have unanimous consent of the House to change the motion to read:
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 34 to 38 and lines 42 and 43 at page 112.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Hon. Member has had any discussions with Members opposite. He can probably discuss the amendment until such time as we can get back to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member to go ahead and debate Motion No. 20 before amending the motion. Perhaps we can get some information for him before he concludes his remarks.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The purpose of this motion is to maintain the exemption form for non-prescription drugs and health goods. The Government proposes to impose an 11 per cent tax and a new tax on such things as vitamins, aspirin, cough syrup, cold remedies, medicated shampoos, as well as imposing an 11 per cent tax on surgical gloves, surgical sutures, dental and surgical equipment, needles and syringes. We believe that it is an unjust tax.
According to the Government's proposal in Clause 51, an exemption would apply to people who use insulin infusion pumps and parts especially designed therefor and insulin syringes. In other words, diabetics are exempted from this tax.
Due to the complexity of the Act, our original amendment would have removed that exemption for diabetics. We are asking for the unanimous consent of the House to change our amendment so that the exemption for diabetics is retained in the amendment and that it applies an exempt status for all other non-prescription drugs and health goods.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May 1 interrupt the Hon. Member? If there is unanimous consent in this particular instance, I am sure a motion can be put to amend the motion by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). However, I must have unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion shall read as follows:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 34 to 38 and lines 42 and 43 on page 112.
That is the amended Motion No. 20. We are now speaking on the amendment. Shalll I put the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Excise Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment of Mr. de Jong to Motion No. 20. Is there agreement to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. de Jong) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are now debating the amended motion.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes. I thought you were asking for debate on the amendment to my amendment. Since the amendment to my amendment has been passed by unanimous consent, 1 understand we are back to the original motion as amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is correct, by unanimous consent.


Simon Leendert de Jong: 1 will continue with my remarks, Mr. Speaker. The intent of this motion is to maintain the exempt status for non-prescription drugs and health goods. Today our health system is under severe pressure and some would say it is under attack as a result of cut-backs by the various levels of Government. In particular, pressure has been exerted on our hospitals as a result of cut-backs in funding. I am amazed that the Government is proceeding to impose an 11 per cent tax on such items as surgical gloves, sutures, surgical equipment, needles and syringes. This will increase the operating costs of our hospitals so that, on the one hand, the Government is cutting back on transfer payments, squeezing our health care system and hospitals in particular while, on the other hand, it is extracting more money from them by imposing this new tax. In other words, the Government is really taxing itself.
One must assume that there must be sane people on the Government benches, but it just does not make any sense for them to take such action.
The Conservative Party, whose Leader John Diefenbaker took great pride in helping to establish medicare in this country, is nickel and diming our medicare system to death. Such a move is outrageous and defies logic or any sense of compassion and reasonableness.
Furthermore, there will be a new 11 per cent tax on non-prescription drugs and health care products such as vitamins which are an important supplement to the diet of many people, particularly older people. There will be an 11 per cent tax on aspirin which is used by many Canadians, particularly older people.
Many doctors prescribe aspirin, yet the Government is intent on imposing an 11 per cent tax on that product. Cough syrup, cold remedies and medicated shampoos are examples of other products that will be taxed. While these products may not require a prescription, they are health products which are essential to the health and well-being of some people.
This does not seem to matter to the Government. These products will be taxed by another 11 per cent. In other words, we now have a tax on illness. The Government wants to make a profit on sick people.


Excise Tax Act
It is obvious from the previous motion that the Government wants to tax blind people. Now it will make a profit on illness. It wants to extract nickels and dimes from people who have headaches, colds and other minor illnesses. It wants to extract nickel and dimes from our hospital system.
Many parts of Bill C-80 are flawed. However, a tax on blind people, on the sick and on our hospital system is inexcusable. I urge government Members to support our Party and tell the bureaucrats that enough is enough.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I would like also to contribute a few remarks to this debate by supporting this motion which, I feel, penalizes mostly older people and our most disadvantaged citizens. Older people who are entitled to the Guaranteed Income Supplement have cards which they can use to buy drugs from the drugstores, but only medication prescribed by a physician.
Well, with Bill C-80, all drugs, whether they are aspirin tablets or cold syrup-and God knows that we live in a country where the weather is bad, where winters are long and cold, and where most of us, especially older people, suffer from colds and headaches-will cost more because of this tax.
Mr. Speaker, we could truly say that the Government is taxing our headaches!
Mr. Speaker, I heard a moment ago my colleague the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) who was referring to the deficit. Yes, but if the Government wants to reduce the deficit, it should ask everybody to contribute, and not do so on the backs of older people and the poor.
What about the investors who had over $60,000 in the bank which failed recently? In that case, you were willing to pay .. .
What about the Reichmann brothers who received a , tax give away of nearly $1 billion? Are you going to ask these people to do their share?
Mr. Speaker, the Government has given a $2 billion gift to the oil multinationals. But these people have nothing to do with the deficit! It is only the older people and the poor who have to reimburse the deficit, Mr. Speaker. What can you expect from a Conservative Government which is a "Reverse Robin Hood". They take from the poor to give to the rich!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was incredible to hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) refer as he did to the oil companies. But these companies did their tax planning under the income tax legislation that was passed not by the Conservative Government, but by the previous Liberal Government. He omitted to tell us about the steps we have taken, such as the minimum tax, to ensure that all Canadian taxpayers pay their fair share of the
income tax. Hon. Members opposite did not do anything about the minimum tax. God forbid! They were not concerned about it! And now they say nothing about it! Mr. Speaker, they do not say that the May Budget has stopped donations inter vivos which had made it possible for people to split among their family members their interest income, so that nobody paid any income tax at all. They do not talk about that either, Mr. Speaker.
Now, concerning his Motion No. 20, he raises the issue of aspirins. The real idea here is to remove exemptions on such medical supplies as surgical dentures, suture threads, thermometers, ex-ray material, surgical and dental tools and microscopes, the value of which is less than $50. Mr. Speaker, the idea is merely to remove exemptions for professionals, physicians and dentists who are using this material in their daily work.
Mr. Speaker, if physicians and dentists are to be exempted, and if I follow the argument of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou he will be asking for an exemption on his pencils and erasers, he is a CGA! That is what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker. That is the purpose of the exemption. We will give him an exemption on the pencils, the paper and the erasers he buys for his accounting firm.
Unfortunate though it may be, Mr. Speaker, there are things which the Liberals never did understand. We have a $200 billion deficit because there were things they certainly failed to understand. We have to put the Canadian economy back on its feet, we must ensure that professional people pay their fair share, Mr. Speaker, and they simply cannot be exempted from all expenses related to their profession. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is simple, logical and normal.


Alfonso Gagliano: Is it just like taking aspirins?


Pierre H. Vincent: Aspirins yet! He is talking about aspirins, Mr. Speaker! I am not talking about aspirins, I am talking about medical supplies.
Mr. Speaker, again I must say that I am against this motion.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) is in fine voice this afternoon. It is just a great pity that there was neither knowledge nor compassion in what he had to say.
One of the distressing aspects of the way the Government has dealt with this Bill is the total intrasigence on its part. We had closure imposed at second reading. In committee no amendments were accepted and none of the suggestions put forward by very knowledgeable and concerned witnesses received any attention, far less, of course, the proposals put by Members of this House.


One of the meanest and most unpleasant of the changes involved in the Bill is the imposition of sales tax on health products and, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has just said, on non-prescription drugs.
A very interesting presentation was made by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. It pointed out that limiting the tax exemption is really restrictive and will create a whole lot of other problems.
Let us deal with the increased costs of dental care. It is obvious that as the Government has put sales tax on dental equipment, these costs will be passed on to the consumer. Again, families with young children will be affected.
To get this tax grab, the Government is going to nickel and dime Canadians to death with sales tax being imposed on so many goods, which cannot in any way be considered luxuries, and on essential services, particularly those used by families. The tax on health care products hurts families with young children, the older person and the disabled person who is living on a fixed income. It is a cruel tax.
The amount of money that will accrue to the Treasury as a result is not worth the imposition of it. It is small in terms of the Treasury, but it is a large amount to those poor people who are hurting.
I can only say how much I deplore the fact that the Government has been so intransigent about this Bill. No amendment has been considered. Nothing put forward either by citizens' groups or by opposition Members has even been considered. The Government is steamrolling ahead with this amendment for which there can be no justification.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to consider the argument put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) about the increasing cost of health care. He has spoken on many occasions, both from the government side and from the opposition side of the House about the rising costs of health care. If he does not consider it, it is somewhat illogical to increase the costs of health care further by an 11 per cent tax.
How can the Minister justify it in light of arguments and speeches he has made himself about the rising costs of health care and about how the Government and the health care system will have to devise ways of holding those costs in check? Surely the Minister of National Health and Welfare will want to contemplate for another 30 seconds and then tell us why the Government is increasing the costs of health care. It is a totally illogical move and is more of the mean-spirited, small minded attitude on the part of the Government. It amounts to chiselling. I am sure we are all acquainted with one or more people who suffer from severe diabetes. The Government wants 11 per cent in tax on the needles they have to buy. Really, Mr. Speaker, how hard up can you get when you consider that there are people making $50 or $100 on the stock market today, and there are people speculating in Canadian
Excise Tax Act
dollars? They are not paying a cent of tax on their profits, and we are doing nothing to them. There is nothing in the Budget about those people, but we want 11 per cent out of people who buy pet food for a seeing-eye dog, and 11 per cent out of people who have to buy hypodermic needles in order to administer their insulin shots daily. They want 11 per cent on non-prescription drugs. They want 11 per cent on equipment or non-prescription medicine prescribed by a hospital upon the release of a patient. Surely there are dozens of options available to the national Government and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to increase revenues and reduce the deficit. Many of those options will bring in many times more than the amount of money they can hope to get under this miserly, chiselling measure. Why do they not deal with the kinds of options we have proposed time and time again, not only to this Government but to the previous one as well?
I do not understand why Government Members cannot accept something on second thought. It would certainly make them appear a lot bigger in the minds of Canadians as well as in the minds of all Hon. Members of the House of Commons. I hope the Minister of Finance rises in his place and justifie the actions of the Government in increasing the costs of health care. At the same time as he decries the rising costs of health care and calls upon the whole nation to deal with them, then he proceeds to add to them. I wish he would rise and justify it.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on Motion No. 20 dealing with surgical and dental supplies, needles and syringes. I want to add my voice to those of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the New Democratic Party. Again the Government is attempting to nickel and dime people to death.
The previous speaker referred to diabetics who require insulin, yet the Government is trying to get another 11 per cent from them. It should look seriously at this legislation because it affects those people in society who can least afford it. That is why there are a number of amendments to the legislation which we in the Liberal Party and in the New Democratic Party think would be helpful and would display compassion toward our senior citizens and those who are less fortunate in society.
We all recognize the size of the deficit. We on this side of the House have a great concern about it, as does the Government. However, where we part company is on how to reduce the deficit. Governments sometimes have to show leadership within their own ranks. Under the present Government we see a Cabinet of 40 Ministers, one of whom has resigned. It is one of the largest Cabinets in our history.


Mr. Winegard:: And one of the best.


George Roland Henderson: No. I would not say that.


Ted William Schellenberg: The best.


Excise Tax Act


George Roland Henderson: It is probably one of the worst I have ever seen. From talking with some of my constituents, I think Canadians see it as I see it, because of the way it is going about dealing with the deficit situation. There seems to be no problem in the Government showing compassion when it comes to big banks.


William C. Winegard: And all the little people.


George Roland Henderson: No, not the little people. The previous Government increased the insurance for bank depositors-and the House voted on it-from 330,000 to $60,000. However, when the banks were in trouble, their depositors did not lose. Some of those depositors were large corporations which gambled for higher interest rates that they could not obtain from any ordinary banking institution. They gambled but they did not lose. No, they did not lose because the Government told taxpayers that they had to pick up the tab. That is what burns me up as a Member of Parliament. It bothers me when I see that sort of thing happening and I see what this Bill is trying to do. There is no consistency in the Government's plan.
There are many ways for the Government to show leadership in deficit reduction, many ways which would be far more compassionate and humane to our citizenry. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been persuaded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I know the Minister personally. I am sure he has more compassion than that, but it has been forced upon him. It is the same with my good friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who is present in the Chamber. He has brought in another form of user-fees on the inspection of potatoes; he is attempting to nickel and dime poor farmers to death. I know the Minister of Agriculture has a heart, but obviously he does not have much clout around the cabinet table, or he would not have allowed this to happen. However, that is what is happening in agriculture, in fisheries and in health.
That is why I support the amendment before us. That is why we on this side say that it is a goof amendment, as are all the other motions. The Government should give this matter second thought. It would be better off if it listened to the concerns expressed by the Opposition and voted according to its conscience. Government Members are not hard-hearted people. I see smiles on their faces. I think of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) from my province. I am always very proud of Members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island.


William C. Winegard: And so you should be.


George Roland Henderson: The Minister of the Environment knows the problems of my province. I am sure in his heart he does not want this piece of legislation to pass and that he will show good judgment later and speak. I am sure he will do the right thing and show some guidance or leadership in that group over there which has no compassion or pity whatsoever for those who are less fortunate in society.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 20, as amended, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 52 by striking out lines 5 to 42 at page 114 and lines 1 to 4 at page 115.


Aideen Nicholson: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-80, be amended by deleting Clause 52.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this amendment is to preserve the exempt status for conservation and alternative energy products. First of all, the people who will be hit hardest with this tax will be the people involved in insulation products. In other words, what this Act is doing and what this proposal of the Government is doing is that those people who choose to insulate their homes will now be taxed an extra 11 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head no, but the section deals with home insulation-7 per cent. I am sorry, it was 6 per cent last year, it is 7 per cent this year.


An Hon. Member:: That's quite a difference from 11 per cent.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, there is some difference there, but certainly the difference between 7 per cent and 11 per cent is a lot less than between 0 and 7 per cent. It is the Government's intention, which is so obvious in this piece of legislation, to start taxing now the conservation field.


It is a foolish move on the part of the Government. The present world glut in oil is a temporary situation. Oil is a diminishing resource, a non-renewable resource, and this country will again face a crisis in the field of energy. There is no country in the world that is more dependent upon energy than this country. Our geography and our climate make us, on a per capita basis, one of the highest, if not the highest, consumers of energy. It is foolish not to use this period of time when we have been given a breather between an oil crisis and a future oil crisis to use this opportunity to develop alternative sources of energy and to make certain that our buildings are properly insulated.
I remember well the creation of the energy crisis of the 1970s and early 1980s, the number of homes in this country that were not properly insulated and were built with the assumption that energy will always be plentiful and cheap. People received a rude awakening. All at once the price of oil, and therefore the price of gas, and the price of electricity started to skyrocket. To assume that the present glut in the world oil situation will remain forever is very foolish.
We should continue to have Canadians conserve and insulate their homes properly, knowing full well that a day will soon come again when the price of oil will go up. As well, it is unfortunate that this Government has deemed it necessary to tax a budding new industry, and that is, the industry of alternative energy fuels. We will now be taxed on our heat pumps and our woodburning stoves, on our solar and wind collectors and other insulation and conservation materials and equipment.
As well I find the tax on the insulation equipment to be somewhat arbitrary. For example, there will be those who have signed a contract and made a deal to construct a building the price of which was based on the assumption that the price of insulation materials would be a certain amount. Of course now those people will find that the cost for the insulation material will have jumped by some 7 per cent. They will not be able to recover that because they are very often in a signed, fixed contract. No wonder business people used to complain about the Liberals and their arbitrary measures that prevented business people from making firm and forward-looking decisions, because all at once, out of nowhere, a new tax would appear that would totally throw out their planned projections.
This particular Government is doing even worse as evidenced by an item that it announced in its spring Budget which it brought into effect on January 1, 1986. Those contracts that were signed prior to the spring Budget were based on the assumption of lower costs of insulation materials, so the contractors, of course, are going to be out by the difference.
In terms of alternative energy forms, this country can and has the potential of playing a leadership role in the world in developing alternative forms of energy, wind collectors, heat pumps, woodburning stoves, photovoltaics, et cetera. We were well on the way to beginning to develop a new, good, budding industry. Then, of course, this particular Government came along. First of all, it wiped out that section in the National Research Council that offered some assistance to the develop-
Excise Tax Act
ment of alternative energy. Then the Government proceed to wipe out the home insulation and the off-oil programs. As a final kick-most probably the kick of death-they are now going to slap 11 per cent tax-well, in some cases 11 per cent tax, in other cases 7 per cent tax, on heat pumps, woodburning stoves, wind and solar collectors. This particular Government really hates conservation and alternative energy. It is just kicking them to death.


An Hon. Member:: Not true.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is a pity, because one would tend to think that anybody who calls himself a Progressive Conservative believes in conservation. An old Conservative, a small c conservative, generally is one who espouses a notion of conserving, who believes that conserving is important. Yet this Government has done everything possible to kill the conservation industry in this country. It is shameful. This particular Act, I would predict, is almost a death blow to the conservation industry and the alternative energy industry in this country. In future years when the price of oil starts going up again we will be able to point to those people across the way and say, "Much of the fault should be placed on the Government's shoulders". I do hope that this Government and Government Members will see fit to support us in this particular amendment.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in supporting this motion I would like to remind the House that there are in Canada a substantial number of firms engaged in renewable activities, some 500 or so I am told, which employ in the neighbourhood of 5,000 people. This is a new industry that has emerged in less than 10 years, mostly as a result of the initiatives taken by the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Alistair Gillespie, following the oil price crisis.
I am told also that the potential in the world for the absorption of equipment, material and technology of this kind is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 billion, which is not a minor amount. It has enormous export potential for Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian workers.
In support of this motion as well I would like to say a couple of words which I did not express at second reading in relation to the position of taxes on gasoline. At that time, you may recall, I was very upset by the fact that the application of taxation on gasoline, as it is proposed in Bill C-80, is one that has serious environmental consequences. I am glad to see the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) in the House today because it may have some relevance to his way of thinking. The tax that is being proposed in this Bill on unleaded gasoline is greater than on leaded gasoline. Therefore, once this becomes law, the price at the pump will be affected so that the gap in price at the retail level will be greater than it is now. As Hon. Members must have noticed there is now a three-cent gap, more or less, at gas pumps across the country. Some six months ago it was 2.59 cents. I am afraid that with the imposition of this measure the gap will increase. Of course, this move will cause two negative consequences. The first is with respect to misfueling. Those people who buy leaded gasoline, who really should be buying unlead-


Excise Tax Act
ed gasoline, will be encouraged to misuse gasoline. Second, the greater consumption of leaded gas will lead to undesirable health problems, as Hon. Members well know. In addition, the use of unleaded gasoline is possible in cars which are equipped with catalytic converters. Catalytic converters are gadgets which reduce the emissions of nitrous oxide into the environment. Accordingly, the acidity of the rain is reduced and the environment is protected. Therefore, it is necessary to impress upon the Minister of Finance and the Government the notion that the imposition of a tax on gasoline which is greater on unleaded than on leaded gasoline is environmentally wrong.
I carry the argument further by suggesting that we introduce a tax system on gasoline which is so adjusted that the prices for the two at gasoline pumps are equal. This has been done in some European countries, in particular Austria. It is a desirable and ultimately possible goal.
I realize that in this regard there may be some difficulties encountered by farmers and fishermen. In the past their concerns have been taken into account through the use of programs which have refunded them the difference between the amount they have paid and what they would have paid under an existing regime. Something of this nature could be put into place with respect to unleaded and leaded gasoline as well.
From an environmental point of view, I repeat, it is undesirable to sell leaded gasoline at a price lower than that charged for unleaded gasoline. There is no doubt about that. On the one hand, there is an increase in the demand for automobiles running on leaded gasoline. On the other hand, this move provides an incentive for the misfueling of automobiles designed to run on unleaded gasoline. I know that the Minister of the Environment has been quite articulate on this matter. He has not only expressed his concern, but I am sure that he has also put pressure on his provincial colleagues to find ways of discouraging and possibly eliminating this type of practice which is damaging to the environment.
The matter boils down to this. The price advantage leads to increased lead pollution, when there is a price advantage in terms of leaded gasoline. It also leads to acid rain-causing emissions. That is really the bottom line. It is therefore desirable that we use the federal commodity tax system to eliminate this price advantage. It is important from now on when we approach the taxation of gasoline that we do so with a political concern for the damage caused by acid rain in this very particular daily manner. It is important that our taxation structure reflect this concern. This is a departure from past practices. We have come to this conclusion as a result of the experiences of a number of other countries, particularly in Europe, which suffer acid rain damage because of dense vehicular traffic in highly populated areas.
I submit that it would be to our long-term benefit if we could put into place a gasoline taxation structure whereby unleaded gasoline is made available to the consumer at the same price as leaded gasoline for the reasons I have mentioned
earlier. In so doing we would reduce the lead emissions and the concomitant health dangers accompanying those emissions. This would apply particularly to our urban areas where the emissions of nitrous oxide, which are emissions caused typically by the combustion engine process, find their way into the atmosphere and come back to us in the form of acid rain. It is with this in mind that I make this intervention.
I do so in the hope that in the little time left between report stage and the conclusion of third reading stage and the time which will be required for the examination of the Bill in the Senate that the Government will see fit to introduce a modification to the specific rate of sales tax imposed on this petroleum product. A specific increase on leaded gasoline will be required so as to permit unleaded gasoline to find its way to the dump at price equal to that of leaded gasoline. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, your children and your grandchildren would substantially benefit, as all of us would and will, if this so-called Progressive Conservative Government, which is neither progressive nor really conservative when it comes to matters of this type, will see the light and adopt a conservation measure which in the end will benefit the health of all Canadians. In the end it will also benefit the health, growth and quality of our forests because, as Hon. Members know, acid rain is an issue of health and an issue of the growth and good quality of our basic natural resources.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 22 and 23, which have been grouped together for debate, concern the removal of the sales tax exemption for energy conservation goods and also certain construction materials. First, in terms of construction materials, many witnesses who testified before the committee expressed their concern about the increased sales tax on building materials. The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction and the Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute are particularly opposed to the provisions in this Bill. In their view it will directly affect the ability of their members to compete with builders of like goods erected on the construction site, thereby threatening their viability both at home and abroad. The associations claim that limited tax revenues will be generated by such a scheme, given the relative smallness of the affected industries, but that the altered taxation could be extremely damaging to them. Apart from the concern about the basic sales tax, there is the additional concern that in the construction industry, fixed price contracts are very common.
The Minister was not even prepared to accept an amendment which would have let this change come into place at a later date. The Canadian Construction Association had asked for a grandfather clause which would excuse from the payment of the higher tax rate those who are unable to recover the additional sales tax liability because they did not have an escalator clause in the contract. An amendment of this kind, I might add, was made in 1963 when the then Government changed the sales tax.


OO)
In summary, we are opposed to the imposition of the sales tax on building materials, in the First place, and we are doubly opposed to the fact that the Government has not been willing to make any allowance for the existence of fixed price contracts in this field and has not been willing to consider some kind of grandfather clause which would have protected in particular the small and medium sized construction firms, some of which may very well be put out of business as a result of this change.
The second matter with which these two amendments deal is the tax on energy conservation goods. The Canadian solar industries and the Conservation Renewable Energy Industry Council, among others, opposed the removal of the federal sales tax exemption for energy conservation goods. It is argued on the one hand that the tax would generate little revenue given the industry's gross revenues of roughly $40 million a year. On the other hand, it will increase the sales price of the goods, thereby making them less competitive with other sources of energy. As a result, the well being of the domestic industry could be jeopardized and this, in turn, could adversely affect its ability to compete abroad, given that a strong domestic base is essential to attracting foreign sale.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), pointed out, there is a further disincentive when one looks at the other clause in this Bill which exempts from the excise tax diesel fuel used in the generation of electricity in other than the operation of a vehicle. Because this method of energy production is in direct competition with that of the renewable energy industry, Bill C-80 affords the former an unfair competitive edge.
For these reasons, we would urge the reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for energy conservation goods.

Mir. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on this motion. First of all, it has to do with building materials on which this new tax would be levied beginning July 1, 1985. Mr. Speaker, you know very well that we are talking about construction, and everybody knows that contracts in that industry are awarded on a long-term basis. We have tried many times to convince the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that he should at least exempt those companies, most of them small businesses, from paying that tax, at least on contracts which were signed before the Budget was brought down. They were not aware that the Minister of Finance would include in his budget this tax which would have come into effect on July 1.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has therefore placed in a very vulnerable position thousands of smalll businesses working in the building industry to install heating equipment, insulation and so on.
I can speak from my personal experience as concerns energy conservation products. In my constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, which has a large population of about 130,000, a lot of
Excise Tax Act
work has been done in recent years to change the heating systems to conserve energy because we have to be careful even if prices have gone down since they could go up again eventually and our supplies of non-renewable energy will not last forever. The purpose for my constituents and other Canadians was therefore to conserve energy and also to reduce their heating costs.
I want to say once again that winter is too long in this country and that heating bills can hurt the pocketbook. Any program encouraging Canadians to reduce their heating costs would have represented an economy for Canadian consumers and, since they would have more money to spend, this would have contributed to economic recovery and helped to reduce the deficit.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Bank of Montreal is forecasting an increase in consumer expenditures of only one per cent in 1986 compared with a figure of 5.1 per cent for 1985 because of these sales taxes which took money away from the consumers.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to speak on the amendments before the House which attempt to keep a series of conservation and building materials away from the 7 per cent increase in tax which is being proposed by the Government. Before I begin, however, I want to point out that this particular tax has already been levied. The House has not yet dealt with it but it will be shortly. The tax came into effect on July 1. I think that is one of the problems my constituents had with this particular tax.
I, like most Hon. Members in the House, have a number of contractors, builders, people who manufacture ready-mixed concrete and people who are putting together components which will become buildings, and this tax has caught them somewhat unawares. They operate traditionally, in our part of the country, at least, on the basis of forward contracts where they will contract to make deliveries of a certain amount of concrete or to provide certain components for a building during the summer building season. Those prices are fixed and those contracts are firm. They found on May 23 that they were being charged an additional 7 per cent on their product. This could not be passed on to the consumer or to the buyer. It had to be borne by the small manufacturer.
The amount of money which is built into a contract by a small builder or producer of ready-mixed concrete is not a great deal and the 7 per cent tax forces many of them to go very close to the line. It has caused some to have difficulties in making their payments to the banks and has even forced some close to the verge of going out of business. That seems a bit ironic because this was supposed to have been a Budget, according to its framers, which would create a great upswing in economic activity.
In addition to the manufacturers of ready-mixed concrete, there are manufacturers in my riding who are producing


Excise Tax Act
energy efficient materials such as panels for solar equipment and heat exchangers in a fairly sizeable way. These components, which were going into buildings as well, were caught by the 7 per cent increase which came into effect on July 1. Some of those were forward contracted as well. However, in future the price will have to go up 7 per cent, which will reduce sales somewhat. In those cases where the purchase had been forward contracted, the loss will be borne by the company itself.
In so far as society in general is concerned, it makes no sense to increase taxes on products which are designed to reduce the use of energy. It seems a very strange way to encourage conversion from gas and oil, and the use of better insulated homes, heat exchangers, and that sort of thing.
There is another factor here and I do not know whether the Government has spent any time dealing with it. One example is the extra cost to the City of Regina due to the application of this tax to concrete and asphalt materials. That extra cost amounts to more than $500,000 a year, which will have to be added to the taxes of the residents of Regina. It is not just a single tax of 7 per cent; it comes back again and again in the form of increased taxation in municipalities in my riding and others right across the country. The federal Government is taxing them on the improvements they have to make in their villages, towns and cities. That is unfair. Therefore, we propose to pull those taxes from this Bill and revert to the old level and save this 7 per cent tax from being applied to conservation and building materials.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to those made by my colleague about the following issues: First, the cost of materials, and second, the tax on energy conservation products.
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that a Government which is supposed to be for energy conservation would decide, in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to impose a tax on products especially designed to conserve energy.
If we look at the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), the chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, who knows a lot about finance and who moved that the bill be amended to remove the energy conservation tax proposed by the Minister-

Obviously the amendment by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) deals with the specific issue of encouraging energy conservation. In fact, the Minister's attempt to tax energy conservation products runs absolutely contrary to all the things we fought for as a Liberal Government. The tax on construction materials, which is part and parcel of this grouping of amendments, is another indication of the callousness of a Government which introduces an amendment without any notification. In some cases this has added millions of dollars to
the cost of construction. The estimate we got from the Canadian Association of Municipalities was that it would cost municipalities across Canada $1 billion. At the very least the Minister should delay the tax so that construction companies would be in a position to estimate-


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) on a point of order.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is now discussing has no relevance whatsoever to Motions Nos. 21 and 22. I would therefore appreciate that she deal with Motions Nos. 21 and 22.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary has a point and I know the Hon. Member will come back to the motions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary cannot read, but Motion No. 22 deals with-

The amendment strikes out the clause transferring certain construction materials and energy conservation projects to Schedule V, thereby qualifying for the sales tax. This is exactly what I was discussing. When I was so rudely interrupted-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -I was about to mention the fact that if this Government had any concern for the construction industry it would have at the very least acceded to demands that this tax be delayed for six months to one year. I think of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who represents many small employers in the construction industry. In my own riding I have many small employers who are bidding on projects two, three or six months ahead. A lead time is necessary to incorporate this increased cost into the tender process. If you happen to run a multimillion-dollar company maybe you can carry yourself over the cash flow problems created by the Government and the Minister. However, if you are running a small paving company and you have one or two employees, this tax could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
It is our suggestion, as well as that of the NDP, that we delete this tax for a period which would allow the construction companies, in particular the smaller employers, to phase in the costs so they will not be hit four-square between the eyes as


they have been by the Wilson Budget and those amendments. The people we heard in committee were very forceful on this issue. They put their point succinctly and directly to the Minister. However, their request was refused, and this amendment is our attempt to deal with that inequity.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would simply like to contribute to the debate by suggesting that the amendment we are putting forward is aimed at eliminating specifically the tax transfer to energysaving products.
As I recall, Mr. Speaker, and it is only fair to say so, that program was very important to Canadians and to Canada during the energy crisis. I instructed my office to send me the statistics on the Canadian Oil Substitution Program, for instance, and the Canadian Home Insulation Program. The results are quite eloquent. Under the Canadian Oil Substitution Program there have been 988,486 applications across Canada for a total $716,230,300. That was a program that Canadians truly appreciated, Mr. Speaker, and which was terminated as we know on 31 March, 1985.
And the other program, the Home Insulation Program, is a program under which there were 2,287,844 applications nationally for a total $874,649,300. And, Mr. Speaker, when there is a response from Canadians, an awareness as to the need for energy conservation, the need for heat in a country as cold as ours, a snowed-in counry, we must try and realize that a Government that collects taxes on insulation products, and also taxes on wood stoves, as I said not so long ago in this debate, is an insensitive Government that does not fulfill the needs of the people. And it is our hope that we will prevail upon them to back down, to become aware of the needs of Canadians, to desist from taking out of the pockets of Canadians taxes that will increase their heating and insulating costs.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with the allegations made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He has just mentioned some tremendous figures and programs which brought about the closing of four refineries in Montreal under a Liberal government, thanks to the programs the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has just mentioned. He has blamed the Government for closing one refinery while praising programs which brought about the closing of four refineries. Are we to be blamed for the four refineries that were closed down in 1982-83, Mr. Speaker?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are responsible because you closed these refineries!


Pierre H. Vincent: Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when they introduced these programs in 1970, they said in their Budget that there
Excise Tax Act
would be no permanent exemption on that. In 1978, it was the Liberals who removed the exemptions on storm doors and storm windows. Mr. Speaker, they failed to mention that they did that in 1978. I think it is necessary to put that in the proper perspective. But what I find most funny, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to conclude with this, is that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Mrs. Nicholson), because of the way it is drafted, would actually raise the tax to 11 per cent instead of leaving it at 7 per cent as it is now. Perhaps Hon. Members opposite should learn to read.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11) the recorded divisions on the proposed motions stand deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-80. Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first vote will be on Motion No. 1. Mr. de Jong, seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 44 to 46 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) Subsection (3) shall be deemed to have come into force on July 1,
1985."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was
negatived on the following division:
Excise Tax Act (Division No. 188)


++YEAS
Members
22 will not necessitate a vote on Motion No. 23 but will take care of Motion No. 23 by being negatived at the same time.


An Hon. Member:: Definitely.
Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Caccia Cassidy Copps Deans de Jong Finestone Frith
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Jewett
Keeper
MacLellan
Malepart
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-1 les-de-la-Madeleine) Gurbin Halliday Hamilton Hawkes Hnatyshyn Holtmann Jardine Jourdenais Kindy King
Ladouceur Lanthier Layton Lewis Mailly Malone Marin Martin McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKenzie McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Tobin
Waddell-32.
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 declare the motion lost.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think, if you inquire, you will find a disposition of the House to have this vote applied to the remaining motions before us and recorded as such.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Speaker, I was identified as Mr. Plamon-don. I am Andre Plourde, Member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That will be corrected.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow the proceeding here. I take it that the negative vote on Motion No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the proposition of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) agreeable to the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite satisfactory. It means that all report stage motions will be defeated.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in order that it may be understood, there will be a separate record made of the votes on each motion, with the names recorded the same way as they were on the motion with which we just dealt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is agreed. Must I put the question on Motion No. 23?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is fine. It is all agreed. Motion No. 23 will be negatived on division.
The next vote is on Motion No. 2. Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 40 al page 16 and substituting the following therefor:

The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 189)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gagliano	MarchiAlthouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	NystromBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Ouellet(Brant)	Heap	ParryCaccia	Henderson	PennerCassidy	Hopkins	P6pinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Tobinde Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.Finestone	MacLellan	Frith	Malepart	Members	Belsher	Comeau	FretzBertrand	Corbett	GassBinns	Crouse	GottseligBlackburn	Dantzer	Graham(Jonquiere)	Daubney	GrayBourgault	de Cotret	(BonavenBrightwell	Desjardins	la-Ma(Browes	Desrosiers	GurbinCaldwell	Dick	HallidayCardiff	Epp	HamiltonChampagne	(Provencher)	Hawkes(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Fennell	HnatyshynChampagne	Ferland	Holtmann(Champlain)	Forrestall	JardineCharest	Fraser	Jourdenais
Excise Tax Act
	Members			Members	
Kindy	Moore	Scowen	Nickerson	Schellenberg	TupperKing	Nicholson	Stewart	Nielsen	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	TurnerLadouceur	(Niagara Falls)	Tardif	Oberle	Schellenberger	(Ottawa-Carleton)Lanthier	Nickerson	(Charlesbourg)	Oostrom	(Wetaskiwin)	VankoughnetLayton	Nielsen	Taylor	Pennock	Scowen	VincentLewis	Oberle	Thacker	Pietz	Stewart	WarnerMailly	Oostrom	Towers	Plourde	Tardif	WeinerMalone	Pennock	Tupper	Price	(Charlesbourg)	WilsonMarin	Pietz	Turner	Redway	Taylor	(Etobicoke Centre)Martin	Plourde	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Reid	Thacker	WinegardMcCain	Price	Vankoughnet	St. Germain	Towers	Wise-86.McDermid	Redway	Vincent	McDougall (St. Paul's) McKenzie	Reid St. Germain	Warner	The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):	1 declare the motionSchellenberg	Wilson	lost. The next vote	is on Motion No.	7, the vote on whichMcKnight McMillan	(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger	(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard	disposes of Motion No. 9. Mr. de Jong moves:	Merrithew	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-86.	Motion No. 7	
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 3. Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 43 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"force on January 1, 1987.''
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
(a)	by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 on the sale price of fabricated structural steel and pre-cast concrete for buildings and other structures shall be imposed on only 60 per cent of the sale price thereof."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 37 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 on the sale price of fabricated structural steel and pre-cast concrete for buildings and other structures shall be imposed on only 60 per cent of the sale price thereof."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn	(Division No. 190)
 YEAS Members Gagliano Gauthier Gray (Windsor West)	Marchi Mitchell Nystrom Ouellet	Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn	(Division No. 191)
 YEAS Members Gagliano Gauthier Gray (Windsor West)	Marchi Mitchell Nystrom Ouellet
(Brant)	Heap	Parry	(Brant)	Heap	ParryCaccia	Henderson	Penner	Caccia	Henderson	PennerCassidy	Hopkins	Pepin	Cassidy	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'homme	Copps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Tobin	Deans	Jewett	Tobinde Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.	de Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.Finestone	MacLellan	Finestone	MacLellan	Frith	Malepart	Frith	Malepart	NAYS	NAYS	Members	Members	Belsher	Desrosiers	Jourdenais	Belsher	Desrosiers	JourdenaisBertrand	Dick	Kindy	Bertrand	Dick	KindyBinns	Epp	King	Binns	Epp	KingBlackburn	(Provencher)	Ladouceur	Blackburn	(Provencher)	Ladouceur(Jonquiere)	Fennell	Lanthier	(Jonquiere)	Fennell	LanthierBourgault	Ferland	Layton	Bourgault	Ferland	LaytonBrightwell	Forrestall	Lewis	Brightwell	Forrestall	LewisBrowes	Fraser	Mailly	Browes	Fraser	MaillyCaldwell	Fretz	Malone	Caldwell	Fretz	MaloneCardiff	Gass	Marin	Cardiff	Gass	MarinChampagne	Gottseiig	Martin	Champagne	Gottseiig	Martin(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Graham	McCain	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Graham	McCainChampagne	Gray	McDermid	Champagne	Gray	McDermid(Champlain)	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	McDougall	(Champlain)	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McDougallCharest	la-Madeleine)	(St. Paul's)	Charest	la-Madeleine)	(St. Paul's)Comeau	Gurbin	McKenzie	Comeau	Gurbin	McKenzieCorbett	Halliday	McKnight	Corbett	Halliday	McKnightCrouse	Hamilton	McMillan	Crouse	Hamilton	McMillanDantzer	Hawkes	Merrithew	Dantzer	Hawkes	MerrithewDaubney	Hnatyshyn	Moore	Daubney	Hnatyshyn	Moorede Cotret	Holtmann	Nicholson	de Cotret	Holtmann	N icholsonDesjardins	Jardine	(Niagara Falls)	Desjardins	Jardine	(Niagara Falls)
Excise Tax Act
Members
Nickerson	Schellenberg	TupperNielsen	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	TurnerOberle	Schellenberger	(Ottawa-Carleton)Oostrom	(Wetaskiwin)	VankoughnetPennock	Scowen	VincentPietz	Stewart	WarnerPlourde	Tardif	WeinerPrice	(Charlesbourg)	WilsonRedway	Taylor	(Etobicoke Centre)Reid	Thacker	WinegardSt. Germain	Towers	Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1		declare the motion
lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 8. Mr.		Gagliano moves:
Motion No. 8		
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:		
"(4) The tax imposed by Section 27 of the sale price of Structural Pre-cast		
Units shall be imposed at only 60 per cent of the sale price thereof."		
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Gagliano), which		
was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 192)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Gagliano	MarchiAlthouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	NystromBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Ouellet(Brant)	Heap	ParryCaccia	Henderson	PennerCassidy	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Tobinde Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.Finestone	MacLellan	Frith	Malepart
NAYS Members	Belsher	Graham	NickersonBertrand	Gray	NielsenBinns	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	OberleBlackburn	la-Madeleine)	Oostrom(Jonquiere)	Gurbin	PennockBourgault	Halliday	PietzBrightwell	Hamilton	PlourdeBrowes	Hawkes	PriceCaldwell	Hnatyshyn	RedwayCardiff	Holtmann	ReidChampagne	Jardine	St. Germain(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Jourdenais	SchellenbergChampagne	Kindy	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Champlain)	King	SchellenbergerCharest	Ladouceur	(Wetaskiwin)Comeau	Lanthier	ScowenCorbett	Layton	StewartCrouse	Lewis	TardifDantzer	Mailly	(Charlesbourg)Daubney	Malone	Taylorde Cotret	Marin	ThackerDesjardins	Martin	TowersDesrosiers	McCain	TupperDick	McDermid	TurnerEpp	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetFennell	McKenzie	VincentFerland	McKnight	WarnerForrestall	McMillan	WeinerFraser	Merrithew	WilsonFretz	Moore	(Etobicoke Centre)Gass	Nicholson	WinegardGottselig	(Niagara Falls)	Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 10. Mr. Garneau moves:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by adding immediately after line 30 at page 19 the following:
"(4) The tax imposed by section 27 shall come into force on January 1, 1986."
(b)	by adding immediately after line 37 at page 19 the following:
''(4) The tax imposed by section 27 shall come into force on January 1, 1986."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Garneau), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 193)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Caccia Cassidy Copps Deans de Jong Finestone Frith
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwel!
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Heap Henderson Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett Keeper MacLellan Malepart
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-lles-dela-Madeleine)
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Jourdenais
Kindy
King
Ladouceur Lanthier Layton Lewis Mailly Malone Marin Martin McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKenzie McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Tobin
Waddell-32.
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Albemi)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 11. Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 46 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
Excise Tax Act
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 34 striking out line 8 at page 46 and substituting the following therefor:
"January 1, 1988."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
"applies therefor within three years after he".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 195)
++YEAS
Members
(Division No. 194)
Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Caccia Cassidy Copps Deans de Jong Finestone Frith
Belsher Bertrand Bin ns
++YEAS
Members
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Jewett
Keeper
MacLellan
Malepart
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Tobin
Waddell-32.
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Allmand	Gagliano	MarchiAlthouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	NystromBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Ouellet(Brant)	Heap	ParryCaccia	Henderson	PennerCassidy	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Tobinde Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.Finestone	MacLellan	Frith	Malepart	
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
N ickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain
(Jonquiere)	Gurbin	Pennock	Champagne	Kindy	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Bourgault	Halliday	Pietz	(Champlain)	King	SchellenbergerBrightwell	Hamilton	Plourde	Charest	Ladouceur	(Wetaskiwin)Browes	Hawkes	Price	Comeau	Lanthier	ScowenCaldwell	Hnatyshyn	Redway	Corbett	Layton	StewartCardiff	Holtmann	Reid	Crouse	Lewis	TardifChampagne	Jardine	St. Germain	Dantzer	Mailly	(Charlesbourg)(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Jourdenais	Schellenberg	Daubney	Malone	TaylorChampagne	Kindy	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	de Cotret	Marin	Thacker(Champlain)	King	Schellenberger	Desjardins	Martin	TowersCharest	Ladouceur	(Wetaskiwin)	Desrosiers	McCain	TupperCornea u	Lanthier	Scowen	Dick	McDermid	TurnerCorbett	Layton	Stewart	Epp	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)Crouse	Lewis	Tardif	(Provencher)	(St. Paul's)	VankoughnetDantzer	Mailly	(Charles bourg)	Fennell	McKenzie	VincentDaubney	Malone	Taylor	Ferland	McKnight	Warnerde Cotret	Marin	Thacker	Forrestall	McMillan	WeinerDesjardins	Martin	Towers	Fraser	Merrithew	WilsonDesrosiers	McCain	Tupper	Fretz	Moore	(Etobicoke Centre)Dick	McDermid	Turner	Gass	Nicholson	WinegardEpp	McDougall	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Gottselig	(Niagara Falls)	Wise-86.
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
(St. Paul's) McKenzie McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Vankoughnet Vincent Warner Weiner Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 12. Mr. de Jong moves: Motion No. 12


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 14. Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 37 by striking out line 33 at page 58 and substituting the following therefor:
"three years after the tax, penalty, interest".
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was
negatived on the following division:


Excise Tax Act {Division No. 196)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Caccia Cassidy Copps Deans de Jong Finestone Frith
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Jewett
Keeper
MacLellan
Malepart
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Tobin
Waddell-32.
++NAYS
Members
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cot ret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-1 les-de-la-Madeleine) Gurbin Halliday Hamilton Hawkes Hnatyshyn Holtmann Jardine Jourdenais Kindy King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Layton
Lewis
Mailly
Malone
Marin
Martin
McCain
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKenzie
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Moore
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 16. Mr. de Jong moves: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 15 to 28 at page
111.
Members
de Jong	Hopkins	OuelletFinestone	Hovdebo	ParryFrith	Jewett	PennerGagliano	Keeper	PepinGauthier	MacLellan	Prud'hommeGray	Malepart	Tobin(Windsor West)	Marchi	Waddell-32.Heap	Mitchell	Henderson	Nystrom	
++NAYS
Members
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Jourdenais
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Layton
Lewis
Mailly
Malone
Marin
Martin
McCain
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKenzie
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Moore
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 19. Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by adding immediately after line 42 at page 111 the following:
"2.1 Feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for guide dogs used by people requiring their assistance.
2.2 Feeds and supplements for addition to such feeds for horses used in productive purposes."
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand
Althouse
Benjamin
			{Division No. 198)	
			YEAS	
(Division No. 197)			Members	
Allmand	Deans	HeapYEAS	Althouse	de Jong	HendersonMembers	Benjamin	Finestone	HopkinsBlackburn	Frith	Hovdebo(Brant)	Gagliano	JewettBlackburn	Cassidy	Caccia	Gauthier	Keeper(Brant)	Copps	Cassidy	Gray	MacLellanCaccia	Deans	Copps	(Windsor West)	Malepart
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Belshcr
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cot ret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Members
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray	.
(Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Gurbin Halliday Hamilton Hawkes Hnatyshyn Holtmann Jardine Jourdenais Kindy King
Ladouceur Lanthier Layton Lewis Mailly Malone Marin Martin McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKenzie McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Tobin
Waddell-32.
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 20, as amended. Mr. de Jong moves:
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 51 by striking out lines 34 to 38 and lines 42 and 43 on page 112.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
Alima nd Althouse Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Caccia Cassidy Copps Deans de Jong Finestone Frith
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
(Division No. 199)
++YEAS
Members
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Heap Henderson Hopkins Hovdebo Jewett Keeper MacLellan Malepart
++NAYS
Members
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Tobin
Waddell-32.
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gurbin
Halliday
Excise Tax Act
Members
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Jourdenais
Kindy
King
Ladouceur Lanthier Layton Lewis Mailly Malone Marin Martin McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKenzie McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle
Oostrom
Pcnnock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 22. Mr de Jong moves: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-80, be amended in Clause 52 by striking out lines 5 to 42 at page 114 and lines 1 to 4 at page 115.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Jong), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 200)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand Althouse Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Caccia Cassidy Copps Deans de Jong Finestone Frith
Gagliano
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Heap
Henderson
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Jewett
Keeper
MacLellan
Malepart
Marchi
Mitchell
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Tobin
Waddell-32.
++NAYS
Members
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell


Excise Tax Act
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Gurbin
Halliday
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Jourdenais
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Layton
Lewis
Members
Mailly Malone Marin Martin McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKenzie McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle Oostrom Pennock Pietz Plourde Price Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.
McKnight McMillan Merrithew Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle Oostrom Pennock Pietz Plourde
Members
Price Red way Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) Scowen Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 23. Miss Nicholson (Trinity) moves:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-80, be amended by deleting Clause 52.
The House divided on the motion (Miss Nicholson, Trinity), which was negatived on the following division:


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 think you will find a disposition to have the recorded vote on the report stage motions applied in reverse at this stage, and then third reading would take place at the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Division No. 201)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gagliano	MarchiAlthouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	NystromBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Ouellet(Brant)	Heap	ParryCaccia	Henderson	PennerCassidy	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Tobinde Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.Finestone	MacLellan	Frith	Malepart	NAYS	Members	Belsher	de Cotret	HawkesBertrand	Desjardins	HnatyshynBinns	Desrosiers	HoltmannBlackburn	Dick	Jardine(Jonquiere)	Epp	JourdenaisBourgault	(Provencher)	KindyBrightwell	Fennell	KingBrowes	Ferland	LadouceurCaldwell	Forrestall	LanthierCardiff	Fraser	LaytonChampagne	Fretz	Lewis(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Gass	MaillyChampagne	Gottselig	Malone(Champlain)	Graham	MarinCharest	Gray	MartinComeau	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McCainCorbett	la-Madeleine)	McDermidCrouse	Gurbin	McDougallDantzer	Halliday	(St. Paul's)Daubney	Hamilton	McKenzie
The House divided on the motion (Mrs. McDougall), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 202)
++YEAS
Members
Belsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Bourgault
Brightwell
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Comeau
Corbett
Crouse
Dantzer
Daubney
de Cotret
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Dick
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraser
Fretz
Gass
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bona vent ure- i les-de-la-Madeleine) Gurbin Halliday Hamilton Hawkes Hnatyshyn Holtmann Jardine Jourdenais Kindy King
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Layton
Lewis
Mailly
Malone
Marin
Martin
McCain
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKenzie
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Moore
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Plourde
Price
Redway
Reid
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-86.


++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Gagliano	MarchiAlthouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	NystromBlackburn	(Windsor West)	Ouellet(Brant)	Heap	ParryCaccia	Henderson	PennerCassidy	Hopkins	PepinCopps	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Tobinde Jong	Keeper	Waddell-32.Finestone	MacLellan	Frith	Malepart


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried. When shall the Bill be read the third time, at the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three minutes to six o'clock p.m.-I do not want to take any minutes off Private Members' Business-the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved: that Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Yukon Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to have this opportunity to move second reading of Bill C-259, and to move as well that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration.
This Bill is being put forward at this time with a view to establishing a process for the parliamentary scrutiny of all federal judicial appointments. Now, I wish that that were a simple matter and we could put that forward in one Bill, or in one motion, but it is not quite that easy, I am told. The difficulty lies in the fact that appointments are made to a number of federal courts by the Governor in Council under a number of different federal Acts. Those are the Acts that I referred to in Bill C-259 that is before us today: the Federal Court Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Yukon Act.
In addition to that, there are other appointments made by the Governor in Council, but those, however, are made under Section 96 of the Constitution Act. Because of that fact it is necessary, in order to establish a judicial review procedure or a
Judicial Appointments Act
parliamentary review procedure, for appointments of that sort-and those, by the way, are appointments to Superior, County and District Courts in the provinces-to be made by way of constitutional amendment to set up a similar procedure. That is why my Bill, while it deals with the five different pieces of federal legislation, does not, in fact, deal with an amendment to the Constitution Act. That would require a constitutional amendment, and that is going to be dealt with separately because I have placed on the Order Paper a Notice of Motion No. 252 which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of undertaking negotiations with the provincial governments to establish a process for the parliamentary scrutiny of federal judicial appointments made under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in order to ensure that in making these appointments, the government is guided by the highest standards of conduct.
That motion will come forward at a separate time and it will give us another opportunity to debate this matter.
Of course I hope the Hon. Members will see fit to pass my Bill at second reading stage and move it on to committee today. Both the Bill and the motion provide for the parliamentary scrutiny of all federal judicial appointments. Let me quote the following statement: "That, in my view, is a necessity in order to reinforce public trust that all judicial appointments are of the highest calibre and that in making those appointments the Government is guided by the highest standards of conduct". I am quoting here directly from a comment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on September 9 of last year when he introduced his seven points on public ethics and used those very words to describe the process that he hoped this House would adopt.
Now you will remember that during the 1984 federal election campaign, Government patronage appointments, and particularly judicial appointments, were a major issue. Just before he handed over power to former Prime Minister Turner the then former Prime Minister Trudeau reached an agreement with Mr. Turner that there would be certain patronage appointments made. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), as he now is, agreed that there would be certain patronage appointments made, including a number of judicial appointments. Subsequently those appointments were made, and that touched off a controversy that gripped the country during the last federal election campaign, a controversy which, as we all know, is renewed in this House every time the Government makes an appointment of any sort.
The total issue of course is one that is much wider than merely that of judicial appointments; it covers all Government appointments. You will recall, as I said a few moments ago, that our present Prime Minister addressed the topic of Government appointments as part of his statement concerning standards of conduct required by the Government and the Public Service that he delivered in this House on September 9, 1985. In that statement the Prime Minister dealt with a package of seven major initiatives on public sector ethics. They included an experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments, and that, of course, is part of the package of reforms that is now before the House, is being


Judicial Appointments Act
considered, and hopefully will be approved very shortly by everyone in this House.
In addition to that package of seven initiatives there was also included a review of the judicial appointment process. In his statement the Prime Minister announced that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) had the judicial appointment process under active review. Well, of course it is still under active review and we have not had a report back from the Minister of Justice on that subject as yet. That is what Bill C-259 is all about, it is to bring forward a process for that form of review of judicial appointments.
In introducing this Bill I do not want to leave the impression that I question the competence or the integrity of our judges. The country has been and continues to be well served by its judges. However, I am introducing this Bill because I share a concern that was expressed by the committee of the Canadian Bar Association on the independence of the judiciary, which reported in August of last year and indicated that the existence of political influence in judicial appointments could undermine public confidence in the judicial system. At the same time it reported that Canadians are cynical about the current method of appointing judges and want a totally different method. I agree with those statements, and I also agree with the statement of the Chief Justice of Canada that was made a year earlier, in August of 1984-actually during the election campaign of 1984-when he said that, "the public is entitled to be reassured that our judges are appointed on the basis of merit and legal excellence alone". That is really what I am trying to accomplish in introducing this Bill C-259.
At the moment we have a process of federal judicial appointments that is behind the curtains, if you will. It is something that goes on away from public view. In fact, the Governor in Council can make some 760 federal appointments. There are some 760 federally appointed judges at the present time. The Governor in Council makes those appointments to the Federal Court; the courts of the Northwest Territories, the courts of the Yukon, the Tax Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, and also, as I indicated under Section 96 of the Constitution Act, appoint Superior District and County Court judges in each province, except for the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
In actual practice what goes on is that the Minister of Justice has the responsibility for recommending to the Governor in Council the persons who should be considered for this sort of judicial appointment. The appointment of the Chief Justice actually rests with the Prime Minister, but in all cases except, as I understand it, in cases of Supreme Court of Canada appointments, it is actually the Minister of Justice who performs this duty on behalf of the Prime Minister.
In actual practice, however, it is an official, of course, in the Department of Justice who does this sort of thing. He gathers suggestions from far and wide across the country through a network of persons, including judges, lawyers, law schools, Members of Parliament and provincial officials. Once he has a tentative choice for a candidate, that candidate's name is submitted to the national committee on the judiciary of the
Canadian Bar Association. This committee then evaluates the suggested candidate and reports back to the Department its opinion as to whether this person is well qualified, qualified or not qualified enough.
Although political patronage in judicial appointments has declined over the years, it is obvious that it has not disappeared altogether. Of course, during the past election campaign there were appointments announced. They were announced without the advice of the national committee on the judiciary having been sought. That is what this Bill is aimed at trying to eliminate. We are trying to set up a process of openness so that every appointment will have the opportunity of being publicly vetted. There have been a good many suggestions as to how this should be done.
In our country, from 1956 through until 1979 I believe, there were some four different suggestions put forward as to how we should go about this. All of them involved some aspect of having provincial input into the selection of judges for the Supreme Court of Canada. In the summer of 1985, the Canadian Bar Association proposed a more comprehensive system on the topic of the independence of the judiciary. It proposed that an advisory committee be set up to seek candidates and to assess their qualifications. It also proposed that this committee be composed of judges, lawyers, representatives appointed by the federal and provincial Justice Ministers or Attorneys General, and members of the public. The Government would then be able to choose the best qualified from among those candidates. It is interesting to note that the committee did not advocate a parliamentary review of judicial appointments as my Bill proposes.
The Americans, of course, have adopted a process of having a Congressional or Senate review of judicial appointments. Some American judges are elected and some are appointed by state Governors. However, federal judicial appointments are made by the President with something that is called the advice and consent of the Senate. This means that while the President formally nominates a candidate for a judicial appointment, the matter is investigated by the Attorney General of the United States, by the standing committee on the federal judiciary of the American Bar Association, and then by the Senate judiciary committee, which reviews all nominations to the federal bench in the United States and which makes the ultimate recommendation to the Senate.
What I propose is not exactly an American-type of legislative review. Of course, it is one model which we could look to. There are also other models we could look to. What I am suggesting is a model of parliamentary review which, in fact, is already in use in Canada. While it is not a procedure which may be familiar to most Hon. Members, it is a procedure which is set out in a strange Act of Parliament entitled the Safe Containers Convention Act. It is an Act of Parliament, much to the surprise of most, I suspect which sets out exactly the same method I propose in my Bill.


The Act provides that where there is a recommendation made by the Governor in Council, or an order for a judicial appointment, that recommendation must be tabled in each of the Houses of Parliament within five days of the making of the order. The order is then referred to a committee of the House of Commons or of the Senate. The committee has the opportunity to review the appointment and report back to the House of Commons or the Senate within 30 days of receiving the order. If it is not reported back in 30 days, then the order is confirmed and the appointment is made. If it is reported back negatively, then Members of the House of Commons or the Senate are given the opportunity to place before the House a notice of motion, which is to be signed by either 25 Members of Parliament or 15 Senators, depending on which House deals with the matter, asking for a debate on the particular appointment. The debate has to follow within five days of the tabling of the notice of motion and is limited to five hours. If the motion is defeated, then the appointment goes through. If the motion is passed, then the matter is referred to the other place, be it the Senate or the House of Commons, and within five days of receiving the motion it must be debated by that place. There is also a five-hour time limit placed on debate. If it fails in that House, then the appointment goes through. However, if it passes, then the appointment is rejected. That is the procedure that I suggest in my Bill. It may not be a familiar procedure to most of us, but it is a procedure that is already in place. In that sense it is not something new or foreign. This is why I feel it is appropriate in this instance.
As I have indicated, the Canadian Bar Association does not recommend this method. It suggests the formation of an advisory committee of the bar association itself. The interesting thing I have noted is that in the United States there is an advisory committee of the American Bar Association. If the late President Woodrow Wilson had always accepted the advice of the bar association's judicial committee with respect to who should be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, then Mr. Justice Brandeis, a well known and respected jurist, would never have been selected since he was not recommended by the American Bar Association.
In my view, this reinforces the need for Canada to have an open process of parliamentary review for these judicial appointments. Basically, that is what I am saying in my Bill. I am saying that we should have a public scrutiny process. It is the only way by which we can reassure the public that this major concern which arose in the last election campaign can be dealt with properly. In this way we can reassure Canadians generally that all judicial appointments will be of the highest calibre and that in making appointments the Government will be guided by the highest standards of conduct. That is the basic thrust of my Bill.
It is with that in mind that I commended to the House that this Bill be given second reading and reference to a legislative committee. I hope that Members of the House will agree to my proposal for no other reason than to give us an opportunity to discuss the question of some sort of review or a new process for judicial appointments.
Judicial Appointments Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate and 1 have to say to the House that it is unfortunate that we do not have all the time required to debate the value and substance of this Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Supreme Court Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Yukon Act.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I commend the Hon. Member for this initiative which is excellent and quite timely indeed because it relates to something which is important to me, namely the parliamentary scrutiny of appointments to the various courts of the land.
Mr. Speaker, parliamentary scrutiny and review of such appointments is necessary if only because in most instances nowadays it is based on a system which is not only archaic but which in many cases does not quite reflect true democracy, which means public review and scrutiny of those appointments.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a simple case which I have been mentioning in the House these past few days, as Hon. Members would know, and of course I am talking about the appointment of a bilingual Francophone judge to the Ontario Court of Appeal. It is unfortunate that this incident could not have been settled through the parliamentary process. I am certain that this House, for example, if it had to vote on the appointment of a judge in Ontario today, knowing full well that there are 500,000 Franco-Ontarians in this province, knowing full well that the provincial legislature passed a law in 1984 which was proclaimed in 1985 and which will be in force throughout the province in 1986, it would keep in mind the fact that Franco-Ontarians, like all other Francophones who come here from elsewhere in Canada, might have access to the courts in their own language. That is not what happened, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate bcause we, as Parliamentarians, did not have the right to examine the appointment and to check the qualifications of the appointee, especially as concerns the linguistic criteria, which should always be kept in mind.
Mr. Speaker, I could read the correspondence of Mr. Robert Paris, for instance, the former president of the French-speaking jurists of Ontario, who recommends parliamentary review and examination of the linguistic qualifications of judges appointed to superior and appeals courts.
However, my time is limited and I want to leave my colleague of the New Democratic Party enough time to say a few words. Since we do not have much time and we do not have all the . . . Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that of the 16 judges of the Ontario Appeals Court, only two can speak French.
At the Quebec Appeals Court, there are also 16 judges, but they are all bilingual, and 8 of them, if I recall correctly, it is


Judicial Appointments Act
in fact 18. Yes, 1 am sorry, but it is 18. Of these 18 judges, 8 are bilingual anglophones.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House could agree to something as simple as a review to ensure equity in these appointments to the courts. I do not think that it is too much to ask that these appointments be submitted to the Canadian Parliament to ensure linguistic equity in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I could give you the names of the judges in New Brunswick, where the proportion is fifty-fifty, in Quebec, in Ontario and elsewhere, but that is not the point. I think that the Hon. Member tried to make us aware of the need to implement a new mechanism for appointments which would require a review of judicial appointments by Parliament, meaning both the House of Commons and the Senate.
Before resuming my seat, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member once more and tell the House that what is at issue here is not the legal ability of the judges. I do not know that much about it as I am not a lawyer myself. However, I do know that if I go before the courts in Ontario and I want to speak French, it is essential that the judge be able to speak my language.
When the House adopted Bill C-42 a few years ago, it accepted the principle whereby each Canadian has the right in this country to be heard by a judge speaking his or her own language. I suggest that is a basic right. I just cannot accept the fact that because only two cases were heard last year in Ontario out of 1,400, it is a good enough reason for disregarding the linguistic aspect.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a right cannot be quantified, that it is wrong to do so and that a right must apply to everybody. As a Parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker, I feel, as I am sure a great many of my colleagues do, that it is high time for the Government to submit its appointments to a parliamentary review and that this would be a major step for democracy in the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I regret that we only have five minutes. In order to let other Hon. Members speak, I will be brief. It is unfortunate that we do not have much time because it is a very interesting Bill. It is a good Bill and I support it in principle. I have some questions about the procedure of applying the Safe Container Convention Act to judges. That is a new one, but it is very imaginative. I did not realize that procedure was there. It is a procedure for House scrutiny.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the justice critic of the New Democratic Party, has in the past supported scrutiny of appointments, especially judicial appointments, by the House. I hope that a technically good way can be found to do that.
I regret it only applies to the federal courts and not to the Superior Courts in the provinces where the real judging goes on. If I had my way, I would almost abolish federal courts because I think we could have a much simpler system of justice if we ran them in with the provincial courts on the superior level.
I think this is overdue because of new laws like the Charter of Rights. We are asking a lot more from our judges. We are asking for high calibre and that they be completely unbiased. We expect them to be really quite extraordinary people, and many of our judges are extraordinary people.
I hope that judges come from other parts of society as well. I think we need more women on the bench. I would like to see some community lawyers on the bench, not just corporate lawyers. We need people who have been out in the world. That is what we will need for interpretation of the new Charter of Rights.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: I too would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), for bringing this subject before Parliament. There has been considerable discussion about the appointment of judges and I think it is an important issue for Parliamentarians to look at. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), in his discussion of the appointment of judges, raised a specific example. He referred specifically to the recent appointment of a judge in the province of Ontario and questioned the process by which that appointment was made. It is important to look at the facts of just who the judges are and who have been appointed in the province of Ontario since that issue is now before Parliament.
At the District Court level in the province of Ontario, there are 146 judges, 15 per cent of whom are bilingual. On the Supreme Court level, there are 18 judges at the appeal level, three of whom, not two, are bilingual. The Chief Justice of Ontario himself has said that there is no problem with bilingual trials or appeals.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier says he is talking as a Parliamentarian. Well, I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that as a Parliamentarian, he is doing a disservice to his province and to his country by injecting this matter into Parliament again and again since this appointment.
Bill C-259, the Judicial Appointments Bill, which was introduced by my colleague, raises a number of interesting points. It does not purport to cover all judicial appointments in Canada. In fact, I believe it covers just 50 out of the over 700 appointments which are made by the federal Government. It excludes those who are appointed under Section 96 of the British North America Act. My colleague said perhaps there would be constitutional difficulties. It would be an interesting case to have referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to see whether in fact a Bill such as the type introduced by my colleague could, in fact, be made and not have it ruled unconstitutional. In any case, the Bill deals exclusively with appointments to the so-called Section 101 Courts, which are the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court, the Tax


Court and the Supreme Courts of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. In order to accomplish the purpose of this Bill, the method of appointment to Section 101 Courts would have to be changed. At present there is a considerable variety in the statutory formulae applicable to the appointment of judges to each of those Courts. For instance, while all appointments are made by the Governor in Council, those to the Supreme Court and the Federal Court are by Letters Patent under the Great Seal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Member's 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.
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Therefore this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) to go before me?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 see no problem so long as the Parliamentary Secretary who is going to respond is here.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is he here?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with that. The Parliamentary Secretary is not here right now but I am sure he will be here shortly. I am staying anyway to answer questions.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I presume that what is being suggested is that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) exchange places. Is that correct?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is just that I am involved in something and I wondered if one of the other Members wanted to go first and I would go second. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) can go first. If that is possible I would appreciate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am rising this evening is not because I was dissatisfied with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary on
Adjournment Debate
January 16. It is because I feel that the discovery of what appeared to be very sizeable oil reserves in the Beaufort Sea is something worthy of comment in this House. It is of extreme importance not only to the part of Canada I have the Honour to represent but to all Canadians.
On December 30 a press release was issued by Gulf Canada Resources announcing that they, in co-operation with their partners in the Amauligak 1-65 well, had been successful. They estimated that the well was capable of producing something like 35,000 barrels of oil a day. Estimates as to the size of the oil pool in the Amauligak structure might be something like 1 billion barrels. To put it into perspective, that is something quite larger than Hibernia.
What does this represent for the North? First of all, it indicates some success for an exploration program which has been going on for many years. It entailed the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars. Credit is due to Dome Petroleum, one of the early major operators in that area. That company developed a lot of technology. While they themselves have not been that successful, Gulf has been, as so often happens in the circumstances. Esso have also been operators in that area. They invested a lot of money and are worthy of comment. We are all pleased to see the success. The effort has paid off.
My constituents in the delta were always very concerned that the exploration effort in that area might dry up. It had been successful in a way in that a lot of oil and gas had been found, but it had been in accumulations that were not big enough to justify the expensive transportation systems that would be needed to bring that oil to southern markets.
Regardless of what happens to the price of oil in the near future, the find now is of such magnitude that the owners thereof cannot walk away from it. Therefore, we can be assured of continued activity in exploration and development in that area for some years to come. We can look forward to the construction of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. There is one there now from Norman Wells in the Territories to Zama in Alberta. If this particular find was put into production, that line would need looping and an extension. There may be need for a brand new line all the way from the delta to refineries in the Edmonton area.
I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of the preliminary work has already been done. The socio-environmental studies, the economic studies, and the environmental studies have been largely done already. This could proceed expeditiously without getting into the same kind of mix-up we experienced 10 years ago. Exploration is still ongoing, but in the near future we can look forward to the development and production stage. I am pleased to see that legislation has been introduced in the House which gets rid of the old PIP program. If that system had any usefulness, it has now expired. We are looking at a royalty regime and a system of incentives that is more in keeping with the new stage in the production effort in the Beaufort Sea.


Adjournment Debate
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), in a trip to Inuvik earlier this year, promised to work on a northern accord similar to the Western Accord, a system of revenue sharing to allow the people who live in the Territories to derive immediate benefits from developments as they take place. We need a better system of management than COGLA, which we have at the present time, which reports to two masters. Those are the things which remain to be done.
The last point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it has always been somewhat embarrassing to people like myself from the Territories who recognize that we take more out of Canada than we put in. It is expensive to operate education and health systems and to build roads there. We are very grateful for the amount of money that southern Canadians have put into the North. However, we look forward to self-sufficiency as a result of oil and gas activity. We look forward to being able to pay our own way in Confederation in the very near future. I think I speak for all of my constituents and all the people in the Territories when I say that we are delighted with this extremely important find which has been made in the Beaufort Sea.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one has good and exciting news to talk about. I know that my hon. friend from Western Arctic is very proud of his area. I have visited there with him on occasion. The news of the Amauligak discovery was greeted with some joy by everyone, no matter what their political stripe.
In December, 1985, it was announced that a major discovery had been made at 1-65, the first delienation well drilled into the Amauligak structure in the Beaufort Sea. Drilling was carried out from the giant Molikpaq caisson over a sand berm. I was on the Molikpaq last summer and it is quite an exciting and interesting operation. Based on its first two tests, Gulf has stated that oil flowed at rates in excess of 7,000 barrels a day with calculated capacity on the second test of 35,000 barrels a day. Testing has been completed on 1-65 and they are now doing additional drilling at I-65A, and will continue in the coming months. Based on the test results from 1-65 delineation well, it appears to be one of the most productive wells in Canada's history. Needless to say, we are excited about the fact that it is the first indicated commercial discovery in the Beaufort Sea. The Government of Canada shares the industry's enthusiasm about these results. Nevertheless, we do recognize the requirement to undertake further testing and drilling on this structure to determine more precisely the magnitude of the field.
I might add that in the midst of plummeting world oil prices, it is encouraging to note that independent oil analysts have commented that project development of this field should not be impeded by lower international price levels.
The Amauligak well has produced the highest flow rates in the Beaufort Sea in more than a decade. We are hopeful that further drilling will yield more promising results that will
result in Amauligak being the lead project prompting full-scale development in the Beaufort region. Of course, this will do nothing but good for the citizens of the North, especially in the western Arctic which my hon. friend represents so ably.


ENERGY-INCREASES IN GASOLINE PRICES. (B) CONSUMER PROTESTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend, but the Parliamentary Secretary is here and I would like to finish with him. He has certainly earned his keep today and yesterday. He has been here consistently as well as in the committee. I want to make life a little bit more difficult for him.
I rise tonight concerning a question I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on January 20, 1986. Let me quote from page 9943 of Hansard on January 20, 1986:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On March 28, 1985, on the date we debated the Western Accord, as reported at page 3473 of Hansard the Minister said in the House:
"If the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is right that by creating a market environment prices will continue to decline, obviously that provides the environment for gasoline prices to decline. They certainly are not going to increase in a declining market."
I asked:
-why are gasoline prices increasing in a declining market? What does the Minister intend to do about it in order to protect the Canadian consumer?
The Minister has received much publicity in the press and is supposed to be one of the stars of the Government. That star has begun to fall in the last couple of weeks.
The question that I asked in the House of Commons is one that every ordinary Canadian motorist is asking. When they read in the paper that the price of oil has dropped from $28 American to $20 American and even lower, they ask why prices have not come down at the gas pumps. Why have Canadian consumers not benefited from this? That is the question I put on behalf of all Canadians. After the NDP kept pressure on for about a week, the Minister finally sent a telex, got down on her knees and prayed to the oil companies to reduce the prices.
We told her that she has the ability at her fingertips to do something about this. She has the power under Canadian law, Section 7(2) of the Petro-Canada Act, to instruct Petro-Canada-since it is our oil company-to lower the prices if the other oil companies will not lower theirs. The Minister said that she could not do that. She could not let Petro-Canada be a price setter, but rather a follower of the other oil companies.
Not only is Petro-Canada following the other oil companies, it is restricting competition for a small business couple in Gravenhurst, Ontario. They wanted to lower the price at their gas station by 2 cents a litre, but the Government oil company threatened to lock their pumps. This is taking place at a time of declining oil prices. That is why there is so much concern. People are angry.


I have had calls and letters from all over the country. Tomorrow we will be tabling a petition from the lower mainland of British Columbia with 3,500 signatures on it. The city council of Powell River, I think, has passed a motion complaining about the increase in gasoline prices. There is a group in Montreal, a spontaneous grass roots group, that has formed to fight the Government on higher oil prices. I am getting phone calls from Toronto, the Maritimes, from everywhere, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Automobile Association put an advert in the newspaper. From British Columbia we got 1,500 replies in one week. People are angry.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government expected the decline in prices at the retail level to come sooner than expected. Industry competition in the refined product business will come on like gangbusters, he said. Where is it? It has been 62 days since December 6 when the price of oil started moving from $29 to $27 a barrel. The price of gasoline has not come down. We hear that these things are in the pipeline. But we are still waiting.
The Americans have lower gasoline prices. Our problem is too many Government taxes. The Government keeps adding more taxes. The Liberal Government in Quebec did it the other night. The Liberal Government in Ontario was going to do the same thing until the NDP in Ontario stopped it. As well, we have a non-competitive system.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) says the Government needs the money. I do not want to hear this argument from the Hon. gentleman opposite. We hear that the Government needs the money for social services. Why did the Government give $5.3 billion in tax advantages to the oil companies? The people of Canada have said enough is enough. They see oil prices declining. They want the price of gasoline to come down at the pump and they are asking why it has not.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that was one of the greatest shows I have seen in a long time put on by my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He has been energy critic for the New Democratic Party for five years. I am surprised the Hon. Member does not understand the energy business any better than what he has apparently shown. The Member does not have a clue how the system works, no idea at all. The Member stands there and says when the price of a barrel of oil goes down today, the prices at the pump should go down today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is not what I said. Sixty days you said.


John Horton McDermid: Let us make a deal. I sat quietly and listened to the Member's tirade, which was full of nonsense. I could have interrupted him many times. I have only three minutes. The Member had seven minutes, seven minutes too many, I might add.
Let me tell the Hon. Member that it takes 60 days from the time the oil comes from the wellhead to the time it reaches the
Adjournment Debate
market. The Member knows that. He talks about the price of oil after December 9 dropping from $29 to $27 a barrel. There was movement in the market-place at that time. That is when it started the downward trend. The real drop came January 28. The Member admitted this in the House himself the other day. That was a week ago, which means it will not be until the end of March before we see the dramatic drop hit the pumps.
We saw today that Imperial Oil lowered its rack price by 2 cents a litre in Toronto and Sarnia. That is what the free market is all about. When the Hon. Member stands up and quotes figures to the Canadian people, it is no wonder people are confused. The Member is being a little less than honest with Canadians in the way he throws figures around. He knows that. I thought much more of the gentleman because he was energy critic. The Member wanted to be Energy Minister in British Columbia. He volunteered his services. But they did not want him. They wanted him to stay here in Ottawa.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who told you that?


John Horton McDermid: If he were honest with Canadians, the Member would explain how the system works. He is taking an issue like this and playing cheap politics with people's lives and with gas prices. Canadians see through that. They understand. They know it takes time. They know that it took 60 days for prices to rise once stock was depleted. The same thing happens when the prices are coming down. We are going to see the results of that. In conclusion, he was critical of the Minister and said that her star is falling. I am going to tell you something, her star is on the rise. She is one of the best energy ministers this country has ever seen, and I predict she is going to be around, I predict, a lot longer than the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway.


INSURANCE-LIABILITY COVERAGE (A) DIFFICULTIES FACED BY SMALL BUSINESS. (B) SOLVENCY GUIDELINES FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, to place the liability coverage issue in its proper context, 1 should like to return to the Question Period of November 4, 1985, when we, as Liberals, asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) to look very closely into the liability coverage crisis which was really exacerbating. His reply was to the effect that he was monitoring the situation very closely and that the Cabinet would adopt various measures.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the situation has greatly deteriorated now: institutions and small businesses have been receiving every day letters to the effect that when their insurance policies expire, there will be no renewals. Then, on January 16, as much as two months later, because the Conservative Government had failed to act on the pretext that it was a provincial jurisdiction, ten Liberal members asked for an


Adjournment Debate
investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to shed light on the whole business.
Then, Mr. Speaker, on January 20, I asked the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall)-following our request for an investigation the Government had finally started to move-what she was going to do to help small businesses, financial institutions, arenas, municipalities and others which had no liability coverage. The Minister replied that that very morning, she had met representatives of the insurance industry and that a Bill was forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for it!
But in order to shed light on this problem, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read just a few of the great many letters which I have received so far, including one from a chartered accountants firm.


Pierre H. Vincent: A C.G.A.?


Alfonso Gagliano: No, not a C.G.A., but a C.A. It is not mine, but the Montreal firm of Richler & Tabac which wrote:

I have read with interest and have seen on Canada AM (CTV) concerning the problem of liability insurance.
Our firm recently paid an increase of over 150 per cent when we had to renew our professional legal liability insurance. Not only that, but whereas in the past, there was a choice of insurers, we were obligated to deal with the only firm who was writing this type of policy in the Province of Quebec.
I do not know what is going on but I cannot believe that such increases can be tolerated when inflation has been limited to less than 5 per cent.
I hope that your efforts in requesting a federal investigation to this matter will be successful.
Another letter coming from Ontario reads:
Re: Product Liability Insurance
Our company, a wholly-owned Canadian corporation, is a manufacturer of machine tools and employs three hundred (300) people in Windsor, Ontario.
In the past 26 years no product liability claims have been registered against us, because quality and safety is essential and primary in the manufacture of our products.
On July 1, 1985, our product liability insurance increased in cost by eight (8) times with $100,000.00 deductible.
I could continue, but my time is limited. All industries, all sectors were affected. Canada Public Works has a problem with liability insurance. To conclude my remarks, I would like to quote:
The head of the Insurance Bureau of Canada says now is a good time to shake up the insurance system a little to see if there are any problems.
"I think the mechanisms that sell insurance, the mechanisms that underwrite risks have to be looked at," John Lyndon told CTV'S Question Period in an interview taped for broadcast Sunday.
Those are the words of John Lyndon, the head of the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
The funny part-or perhaps I should say the tragic part-of this whole crisis occurred to me when I read in a booklet
entitled Le Portefeuille d'assurances, at page 15, the following:

This is what has been predicted by Mr. Daniel Demers, an actuary for La Laurentienne Generate, at a luncheon of the Cercle d'Assurance Accidents de Montreal. He first indicated-
And I quote:
Recent social and legal events having created panic among insurers, reserves were increased to the point where a most profitable experience is predicted for 1985-86!
Mr. Speaker, people cannot get liability insurance, but companies are looking forward to a most profitable year. So we have every reason to ask the Government for action, and I know very well the point the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will be making, that this again is a provincial responsibility. I am sorry, but the problems exists from Newfoundland to British Columbia, it is therefore a national problem. This Government should take the lead, get together with all provincial ministers in charge of insurance,and put an end to the crisis once and for all.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). It is unfortunate ... as he said earlier, he asked the first question in November 1985, and since then we have been trying politely, kindly, tactfully, to make him understand the insurance problem in Canada. Unfortunately, I realize once more tonight he has not quite grasped it yet.
Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) tabled in June 1985 a report on financial institutions, part of which dealt with insurance companies. Now, when the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou states that we failed to assume our responsibilities as a federal Government, my answer is that in June 1985, before he raised the matter, we already had a factual report, Mr. Speaker.


Alfonso Gagliano: Where is it?


Pierre H. Vincent: It was tabled.


Alfonso Gagliano: What do we do now?


Pierre H. Vincent: We are now working on a bill. The report has been tabled.
Something else, Mr. Speaker. He referred to the increase in premiums. As you know, Mr. Speaker, insurance premiums are a provincial responsibility.
I had the oppotunity last week to take part in a debate on the program Sur la Colline and a renowned Montreal lawyer, a lady who deals with insurance, held a neutral position between the two of us. What did she say? She said: "I must admit that Mr. Vincent is right. What the Hon. Member for


Saint-Leonard-Anjou is asking for does not come under federal jurisdiction but under provincial jurisdiction".
He suggests the national Government must deal with it because it is a nationwide problem. Mr. Speaker, if every school in this country were to be faced with a problem tomorrow morning, would the federal Government intrude in a field such as education which comes under provincial jurisdiction? We would be . . . That is not our problem. As the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) said, she first met with the various insurance companies, and she said she would introduce a Bill concerning the solvency of insurance
Adjournment Debate
companies. That is what she said. But solvency is not the problem, the problem has to do with premiums and hat falls within provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is almost up. I might add that the Government said it would co-operate with the Province of Ontario, among others, and with all the organizations concerned.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, February 7, 1986